Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-26 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda August 26, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email or during the meeting. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. The public may view or comment during this meeting from a computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone: When: Aug 26, 2020 06:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Special/Regular City Council Meetings Please click the link below to join the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89088190899 Or Telephone: Dial: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5257 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 890 8819 0899 Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom meeting, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “raise hand” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020 August 26, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. Remote Public Comments Received1. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 26th. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up. Emails received before the meeting start time will be emailed to the City Council, posted on the City’s website and will become part of the public record for that meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting. If a comment is received after the set time or during the meeting but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting. The Clerk will make every effort to read emails received but cannot guarantee such emails will be read during the meeting, subject to the Mayor’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record. Email: all-cc@ssf.net Public comments can be made on items not on the agenda, or must clearly identify the Agenda Item Number in the SUBJECT Line of the email. The length of an email comment shall commensurate to the three minutes customarily allowed per individual comment, approximately 300 words total. City Council Hotline: (650) 829-4670 Please limit your voicemail to comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Study session regarding proposed amendments to Developer Impact Fees (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 2. Adjournment. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-584 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Remote Public Comments Received City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Study session regarding proposed amendments to Developer Impact Fees (Janet Salisbury,Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council review the proposed updates to the City of South San Francisco Developer Impact Fees and provide feedback. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 28,2019,the City approved resolution number 113-2019 permitting the Finance Department to contract with Matrix Consulting Group (“Matrix”)to prepare a study for the update and adoption of development-related impact fees (“Study”).Fees included as part of this Study were the Childcare Impact Fee, Police Impact Fee and Fire Impact Fee,(together known as the Public Safety Impact Fee),the consideration of a new Library Impact Fee,and a new Parking In-Lieu Fee.Additionally,the City contracted with DKS Associates (“DKS”)to prepare a study analyzing a new City-wide Transportation Impact Fee (“TIF”)to contemplate the possibility of rescinding and replacing the existing East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee in favor of a new City-wide TIF which aims to fund the expansion of citywide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased travel demand from new development throughout the City.The proposed Citywide TIF would expand the geographic area in which the city collects and spends money on transportation-related infrastructure,including vehicle,pedestrian,and bicycle transportation.Lastly,the City contracted with Century Urban,LLC (“Century Urban”)to study the feasibility of adjusting existing fees and assessing new fees based on the current development environment.The analysis provided by Century Urban supports staff recommendations to set impact fees at rates that will not necessarily hinder future development but aim to strike a balance to ensure that new development pays their “fair share”to mitigate impacts of the new development on city infrastructure. The City of South San Francisco,as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000,et seq.), imposes impact fees on new development projects in order to mitigate the impacts caused by new development on public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Currently, the City has the following impact fees in place: 1.Parks and Recreation Impact Fee comprised of: i.Parkland Construction Fee ii.Parkland Acquisition Fee 2.Childcare Impact Fee 3.Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee 4.Public Safety Impact Fee comprised of Fire and Police 5.Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee 6.East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee 7.East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee 8.Sewer Capacity Fee 9.Commercial Linkage Fee City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. This report will review the following: A.Establishment of a new TIF,which would result in suspending the collection of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee B.Establishment of a new Library Impact Fee C.Update to the Childcare Impact Fee D.Update to the Public Safety Impact Fee E.Establishment of a new Parking In-Lieu Fee F.Examination of Current Fee Levels vs. Proposed Fee Levels G.Proposed Fee Exemptions and Other Considerations BACKGROUND Revenue collected by impact fees may be used to cover the cost of capital facilities and equipment required to serve new development and growth in the City.Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover deficiencies in existing City capital equipment and facilities.The portion of capital costs required to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources.Development impact fee funding will need to be augmented by other revenue sources to meet overall funding requirements.Impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus,or connection,between new growth and development and the need for new capital facility or improvements,or equipment and/or replacement.As such,an impact fee must be structured such that revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or equipment for which the fee is imposed. Examples of expenditures of impact fee revenues include the purchase of new library collection materials, purchase of new fire and police vehicles, or expansion of childcare facilities. There are two commonly used methodologies for calculating impact fees -service level standards and specific facility projections.The consultant selected for this Study,Matrix,recommended and staff agreed to use the service level standards approach.The Development Impact Fee Report is attached as Attachment 1.The service level standard calculates the impact of each individual on the City’s infrastructure and applies it to future individuals and growth.This approach assumes that as there is an increase in the population,there is a corresponding impact on City infrastructure.This is the nexus established allowing for the collection of impact fees that offsets the impact of new development. For purposes of calculating the proposed Childcare,Library,Public Safety,Parking In-Lieu,and TIFs,the consultants reviewed a variety of data from state,regional,and county organizations,as well as from City staff. The data analysis included: •Ordinances:The consultant reviewed the City’s existing impact fee ordinances to ensure legal authority to assess and increase the fees. •General Plan,Facilities Assessment,Department Master Plans,and CIP Plans:Data was reviewed from a variety of City-specific documents regarding potential growth in the community,the City and its various Departments’ goals, and future capital projects. •Growth Projection Data:Population,household size,dwelling units,and employment information for current and future years was obtained from the U.S.Census Bureau,the in-progress Shape SSF General Plan 2040,as well as from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).It should be noted that some of the growth projections used in the impact fee analysis reflect current conditions in South San Francisco,and the growth the City anticipated by Economic and Community Development staff just shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic began. City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. •Service Level Standards:Information such as child care spaces,library collection items,and fire and police facilities square footage per capita were collected,reviewed,and used to calculate anticipated future needs. •Revenues and Expenses:Revenue collected from existing impact fees was reviewed to ensure compliance with reporting practices.Expense information was reviewed to estimate the cost of recently- completed infrastructure, as well as to calculate an appropriate percentage for administrative overhead. DISCUSSION The attached Development Impact Fee Study Report by Matrix (Attachment 1)and Transportation Impact Fee -Calculations and Material for Impact Fee Nexus Study by DKS (Attachment 2)provide the framework for recommendations on the establishment of new and/or update of existing impact fees. While both studies include maximum reasonable fees for each of the existing and newly proposed fees,in some cases,staff has recommended fees be set below this maximum legal limit or that a waiver or discount be offered to certain uses.This will be discussed in greater detail in section G:Proposed Fee Exemptions of this report.The reason for this proposed discount is to balance the need to generate revenue for City infrastructure with not setting fees so high that development stalls.Since impact fees are only applied to new development and some changes of use,it is critical to preserve the development pipeline if the intention is to maximize revenue generation. Based on the reports attached,the following section details the proposed recommended changes to various impact fees. RECOMMENDED IMPACT AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEES A.(NEW) TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study was originally conducted in 2001 and adopted by the City Council in 2002.The study identified the need for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements to serve the area located east of US 101 in the City of South San Francisco.The fee enacted policies requiring that new development within the East of 101 area pay toward upgrades to existing transportation infrastructure and construction of new transportation facilities necessitated by new development in the East of 101 area. When first adopted,the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee sought to fund the infrastructure needs of residents, businesses,and employees through build-out under the adopted 1999 General Plan and to determine the amount of fees necessary to generate funds to pay for the transportation improvements.However,it is apparent that the continued growth and development throughout the City has created traffic impacts beyond the East of 101 geographical limits. In 2017,the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian nexus study.The Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program is intended to augment funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects necessitated by development-generated increased demand. In December 2019,the City tasked on-call consultant DKS to determine a proposed Citywide TIF.The TIF establishes a fee structure in order to fund transportation infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. establishes a fee structure in order to fund transportation infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate increased traffic resulting from new development.The proposed Citywide TIF will replace the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee.The proposed Citywide TIF expands the geographic area in which the city collects and spends money on transportation-related infrastructure, including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation. Proposed/New Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) The proposed TIF will replace the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee and will apply to all new development in South San Francisco.The nexus analysis uses standard trip generation rates by land use category to account for variations in travel demand among land uses.Trip generation rates by land use category reflect either the origin or destination of a trip and are a reasonable measure of the desire for mobility by residents and workers to access homes,jobs,shopping,and other activities.This approach establishes a relationship between the type of development and the fees necessary to maintain transportation infrastructure in support of the development. Below is an example of the multitude of mitigation projects the fee could be used to fund.The list of projects should be reviewed regularly by Council to prioritize staff time and resources. The fund balance for the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee was $24,250,000 at the end of Fiscal Year (FY)2019- 2020.Of that,approximately $22,500,000 has been earmarked for projects in the next two years.Staff will bring back qualifying projects for Council direction to spend the remaining $1,750,000.The current fund balance for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee is $63,538. Mobility 2020 currently includes approximately $512,000,000 of unfunded projects.By approving the proposed citywide TIF in place of the East of 101 Traffic and Bicycle and Pedestrian impact fees,the City will be in a better position to fund priority projects to ease traffic congestion and improve multi-modal transportation throughout the entire City.The new TIF will supersede the existing East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee.The action by City Council will include legislation to rescind the existing fees.Money that has already been collected pursuant to the two existing fees will remain in the restricted funds that were created for those fees and eligible for the permissible uses for each fee.The new fee is broader but encompasses projects eligible for funding by the two existing fees.With this new fee,the City will continue to accumulate funds for the types of projects intended to be funded by the existing fees. B.(NEW) LIBRARY IMPACT FEE The Library Fee is newly proposed and had not been previously studied.Matrix worked with City staff to calculate a library impact fee for new development to pay their proportionate share of replacing and City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. calculate a library impact fee for new development to pay their proportionate share of replacing and rehabilitating library materials and facilities.The purpose of the newly proposed fee is to expand existing library branches and acquire additional space and collection items to continue providing the existing level of service to the community. The Library has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the utilization of this proposed fee revenue to ensure there is appropriate expansion of library facilities,including technology within the library,to meet community goals and objectives.The City will need additional library space and collection materials as its population grows. Below is a description of projects the new fee may fund: C.UPDATE TO CHILDCARE IMPACT FEE The Childcare Impact Fee was developed and implemented in 2001 to help mitigate the impact of new development upon the need for future childcare spaces.The City has annually increased these fees per the original resolution in 2001 and the municipal code in 2002 to help account for increased construction costs.The current fund balance for the Childcare Impact Fee is $5,527,397. Revenues raised by the fee are used to establish new childcare spaces.Methods for creating new childcare spaces include:building new facilities;expanding existing facilities;leasing existing commercial space or partnering with the School District;and establishing new family childcare homes and expanding spaces at existing family childcare homes. D.UPDATE TO PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE The Public Safety Impact Fee was adopted by City Council in 2012.At the time,the nexus study identified the City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. The Public Safety Impact Fee was adopted by City Council in 2012.At the time,the nexus study identified the need for new and expanded public safety facilities and equipment to support new development throughout the City.The current Fee includes an annual inflation adjustment and a 2%administrative fee.The fund balance for the Public Safety Impact Fee is $1,404,106.While not fully encumbered,$103,275 of that has been earmarked this fiscal year for routine handgun replacements and another $1,000,000 is earmarked for the completion of the new Police Station. The Police and Fire Departments serve residents,employees,and visitors to South San Francisco.Future development will result in the need for an expanded public safety infrastructure. E.(NEW) PARKING IN-LIEU FEE This package of fees includes both impact fees and in-lieu fees,which the City has not typically used.Adoption of a Parking In-Lieu Fee would be a prudent step for the City to manage the downtown parking needs.Many cities on the Peninsula have such a fee.With this fee in place,when a developer seeks a parking reduction,they may choose to pay a fee per space,subject to City review.The fees collected can pay or be bonded against for myriad parking/traffic-related improvements,including,but not limited to,parking garage construction,traffic improvements,parking management system,etc.Moreover,this fee can be enticing to developers as well,in that they would not be required to construct the required number of parking spaces for their project at a cost that likely exceeds the in-lieu fee.The City could require other conditions in return,such as a reduced parking ratio or require that the developer allow a certain percentage of spaces be available to the general public to use during specific hours.Also,choosing a “soft spot”for this in-lieu fee will be key,in that,the City should not charge the full cost of construction for a space,but a slightly lower fee that would encourage the developer to choose to pay the in-lieu fee instead. The proposed fee would be set at a level to match approximately what it would cost to build parking spaces in a multilevel garage in South San Francisco.The city recently conducted an internal analysis to review the cost of constructing parking spaces and based upon that analysis,the average cost per parking space was calculated at $79,910.Matrix also conducted a surveyed of other cities in the region,which revealed that the average in-lieu fee is approximately $56,216.Accordingly,staff is recommending that the in-lieu fee be set at approximately 60%of the average cost for SSF,i.e.,approximately $50,000 per parking space.This amount is consistent with the jurisdictional average and should promote use of the in-lieu fee by project developers.The fee revenue could be used at the City’s discretion either to help fund the construction of public parking in the Downtown or to fund other projects or services to address parking needs in the Downtown. City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. F.CULTURAL ARTS/LANDSCAPING IN-LIEU FEE The City currently has on its Master Fee Schedule a Cultural Arts/Landscaping In-Lieu Fee that is discussed in greater detail in Attachment 1.Due to various circumstances,the fee has not been assessed in the last 10 years. Zoning regulations,for example,have changed so significantly within the last decade as a result of the robust growth within the local economy,it is extremely rare for a project to even meet the criteria for which the Cultural Arts/Landscaping In-Lieu Fee would be applicable.As a result,staff is recommending that this fee be eliminated given the datedness of its basis.In its place,staff is currently studying the establishment of a new “public art in-lieu fee”,which will be brought to the Council at a future date.The new public art-in lieu fee,if established,would entail a more relevant nexus for establishing fee collections for the purposes of enhancing the City’s public art footprint. G.EXISTING, FULL COST, AND PROPOSED FEES Finally,to establish a recommended rate for each fee,staff examined the existing and maximum justifiable fees in the pie charts included in Attachment 3 and then adjusted the recommended fee levels to balance our City priorities,while either keeping the total fee burden in line with comparable jurisdictions or within a financially feasible range of development.This analysis uses four prototypes and then scaled other types of development to this model.Those four prototypes are a 180-unit multi-family rental building,a 150,000 square foot R&D development, a 120-room, 60,000 square foot hotel, and a 60,000 square foot industrial warehouse. Combined with the feasibility analysis and comparison cities research,this exercise in balancing our new fees to meet City priorities while also ensuring development continues resulted in the staff recommendations outlined above.Staff believe these recommended fees will result in a meaningful increase in funding for critical City infrastructure, while being conservative enough to not substantially impact the development pipeline. H.PROPOSED FEE EXEMPTIONS Based on the results of the Draft Development Impact Fee Report,staff engaged the City’s on-call economic development consultant,Century Urban,to perform a feasibility analysis on two development prototypes - research and development (R&D)and multi-family,rental housing.The purpose of conducting a feasibility analysis is to roughly gauge whether or not the new,increased fees preclude new projects by increasing the cost of development beyond what the market can bear.What this analysis determined is that while higher fees -such as those recommended by staff -can likely be accommodated by a prototypical R&D development,they may make some residential projects more infeasible. R&D Prototype Century Urban studied a 150,000 square foot prototype R&D development,using pre-COVID construction costs and rents.Although we believe economic conditions to be quite different now than they were prior to the pandemic,there is no reasonable way to assess what the current market conditions do to project feasibility.Staff believe it is reasonable to continue with the pre-COVID assumptions,as R&D development activity in South San Francisco has not fallen off since the start of the pandemic. A common metric for determining a project’s feasibility is calculating its stabilized return on cost.Return on cost is calculated by estimating the annual pro-forma net operating income and dividing it by the estimated total project development cost.The return on cost a project targets is dictated by the project’s perceived risks including the uncertainty of project costs,future rents,duration of construction,and economic conditions upon City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. including the uncertainty of project costs,future rents,duration of construction,and economic conditions upon completion.Based on research into typical returns on cost for active R&D projects in South San Francisco, Century Urban determined the prototype R&D development would likely be feasible if its return on cost fell between 6.5% and 7.0%. Assuming the City’s existing fees,the prototype’s return on cost is 7.14%.This is above the feasible range, meaning this development would be very likely to proceed.When the City’s fees are adjusted to the levels recommended by staff,the return on cost decreases to 6.77%,still well within the range of feasibility.What this indicates is that the R&D development pipeline is unlikely to be greatly impacted by the increase in fees. Rental Housing Prototype Century Urban studied a 180-unit prototype multi-family,rental housing development,using pre-COVID construction costs and rents.Like with the R&D prototype,staff felt it was acceptable to use pre-COVID conditions and to use return on cost as a measure of feasibility.The target return on cost for a project like this in South San Francisco is 5% and above. For comparison purposes,Century Urban looked at rental housing feasibility in 2018 -when the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted,imposing an affordable housing requirement on developers - compared to today.In 2018,the rental housing prototype was infeasible,with a return of just 3.93%.Council wrestled with the decision to implement an inclusionary requirement it knew could deter some development. Ultimately,Council decided to ramp up the inclusionary requirement over two years,to allow the market to adjust. With the staff recommended fee levels, the return on cost of the rental housing prototype falls to 3.5%. What this analysis indicates is that the increase in fees may impact the feasibility of some rental housing developments.Site specific characteristics like zoning,prior use,contamination (or lack thereof),size,and proximity to transit will allow for some projects to reach a targeted return on cost and proceed;however, projects that were marginally feasible already may be adversely impacted by higher fees. Finally,Century Urban reduced the impact fees in its prototype development to $0 and found that the development remained just below the feasibility threshold,with a return on cost of roughly 3.75%.What this affirms is that other economic conditions play a larger role in feasibility -namely rent,construction costs,and site-specific characteristics. Discount for Affordable Housing Owing to the results of the feasibility analysis and because encouraging affordable housing construction is a Council priority,staff recommends ensuring the enabling ordinance or resolution for each fee have a provision that allows Council to waive,at its discretion,impact fees for affordable housing (that would be housing targeting to households earning 120%or less of the area median income).If granted by Council,this discount may help marginally feasible projects proceed, producing much-needed affordable housing for the community. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on the fees described herein during this Study Session.The proposed development impact fees,provided in detail in Attachment 3,have also been discussed with the members of the Budget Standing Committee at two previous public meetings -on July 27th and August 3rd. In addition, it has also been reviewed with the full City Council as part of the August 12th Study Session. TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS Once feedback is provided by Council during the August 26,2020 Study Session,staff intends to incorporate City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-578 Agenda Date:8/26/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Once feedback is provided by Council during the August 26,2020 Study Session,staff intends to incorporate the input and bring it back to City Council for adoption on September 9, 2020. Once the Shape SSF General Plan 2040,which is still in-development,is adopted by City Council,the City’s impact fees may be reviewed again to determine that the fee amounts remain reasonably related to the impacts of anticipated development within the City of South San Francisco.The City Council may revise the Developer Impact Fees to incorporate findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the General Plan,as well as increases due to inflation and/or increased construction costs. FISCAL/POLICY IMPACT The Development Impact Fee Report provided in Attachment 1 provides details on the types of infrastructure and services that the City would be able to fund with the proposed impact fees. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Adoption of the updated development impact fees will ensure the costs of capital facilities and infrastructure for new development are covered,supporting the City’s strategic initiative to pursue financial stability to support City operations. CONCLUSION The Impact Fee Report provided by Matrix concludes that the City is currently under-recovering development impact fees.Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback on the proposed changes to the Childcare Impact Fee,the Public Safety Impact fee,and the desire to enact a new Library Impact Fee,a new Parking In-Lieu Fee,as well as the collapse of the Cultural Arts In-Lieu Fee.Staff requests feedback about the proposal to rescind and replace the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee and replace it with a City-Wide TIF.Lastly,staff would like guidance on whether or not an annual inflation mechanism should be attached to the impact fees,such as by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)or other appropriate index. Attachments 1.Development Impact Fee Study Report by Matrix Consulting Group 2.Transportation Impact Fee -Calculations and Material for Impact Fee Nexus Study by DKS Associates 3.FY 2020-21 Proposed Development Impact Fees 4.PowerPoint Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2020Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™ Development Impact Fee Study CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT August 2020 matrix consulting group Attachment 1 Table of Contents 1.Introduction and Executive Summary 1 2.Legal Framework 10 3.Projected Growth and Development 13 4.Childcare Impact Fee 17 5.Library Impact Fee 25 6.Police Impact Fee 32 7.Fire Impact Fee 39 8.In-Lieu Fees 46 9.Transportation Impact Fee 48 Appendix A - Police Infrastructure Costs Appendix B – Fire Infrastructure Costs Appendix C – DKS Associates Technical Memorandum – Transportation Appendix D – Transportation Projects Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 1. Introduction and Executive Summary The report, which follows, presents the results of the Development Impact Fee Study conducted and compiled by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of South San Francisco. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of South San Francisco to evaluate four development impact fees – Childcare, Library, Police, Fire, and In-Lieu Fees (Parking and Cultural Arts / Landscape Resources). Additionally, the City contracted with DKS to calculate a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. Childcare impact fees have not been reevaluated since 2001, and were last increased in 2007. Police and Fire impact fees have not been evaluated since 2012, and the City has not increased the impact fee since initial adoption. The proposed Citywide Transportation Impact Fee incorporates two existing impact fees – East of 101 Traffic and Bike / Pedestrian. The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee has not been evaluated since its adoption in 2007, but has been annually increased. The Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee was implemented in 2017, but has not been increased annually. The Library Impact Fee along with the Parking In-Lieu fee is being newly proposed, and has not been previously studied. The scope of services of this study is to review and validate the growth and development assumptions for the City of South San Francisco, as well as determine the proportionate share of the impact that should be borne by future development. Impact fees within the state of California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.), which requires demonstrating the reasonable relationship that exists between the development activity and the proposed benefit. The results of this study allow the City to ensure that there is still a nexus between future development and its proportionate impact on City infrastructure as well as update the fee amounts to be more reflective of that impact. 2 GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY There are two typical methodologies utilized to calculate impact fees – service level standards and specific facility projections. For the purposes of this analysis the project team has utilized the more commonly accepted and recognized service level standards approach. The service level standard approach is based on the creation and recognition of existing service level standards provided by the jurisdiction to the users of its services (residents, employees, students, etc.). As there is new development and growth in the community, Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 there is the potential for the service level standard to decline if appropriate measures are not taken to retain that service level standard. Therefore, the service level standard calculates the impact of each individual on the city’s infrastructure and applies it to future individuals and growth. If there is an increase in the service population, there would be a corresponding impact on infrastructure, and thereby a nexus for collection of impact fees. However, if there is no increased population or use of those services, impact fees would not be justifiable or applicable. For the purposes of calculating impact fees associated with Childcare, Library, Police, Fire, and Transportation, the project team reviewed a variety of data elements from the state, regional organizations, county, and city staff. The following points highlight the data reviewed through the course of this analysis: • Ordinances: The project team reviewed the City’s ordinances to ensure that there was the legal authority to assess and increase current impact fees. • General Plan, Facilities Assessment, Department Master Plans, and CIP Plans: Data was reviewed from a variety of city specific documents regarding the potential growth in the community, the goals for the city and the departments, as well as future capital projects. • Growth and Projection Data: Population, household, dwelling units, and employment information for current and future years was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Employment Development Department (EDD), and internal City General Plan projection documents. • Service Level Standards: Information such as child care spaces, library collection items, fire and police facilities sq. ft. per capita were collected, reviewed, and applied for calculation regarding future impacts. • Revenues and Expenses: Revenue collected for impact fees was reviewed to ensure compliance with reporting practices as well as to calculate an administrative overhead percentage. Expense information was reviewed for cost estimates for infrastructure as well as overhead allocation to the impact fees. The above elements were utilized to develop and calculate the updated impact fees related to Childcare, Library, Fire, Police, and Transportation that have been presented in this study. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Based upon the results of this analysis, the project team has calculated updated or new impact fees for all six service areas – Childcare, Library, Fire, Parking, Police, and Transportation. As outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, proportional costs associated with future infrastructure impacts, along with administrative overhead, were used to calculate the full cost of the impact fees presented. The following subsections show the results of the updated impact fees calculated for the City for each of these areas. 1 Childcare Impact Fee The Childcare Impact Fee for the City of South San Francisco was developed and implemented in 2001 to help mitigate the impact of new development upon the need for future childcare space needs. The City last increased these fees in 2007. Through the course of this analysis, the impact fees were evaluated based upon the current projected impacts between 2020 and 2040. The following table compares the city’s current fees to the full cost fee calculated through this study, the resulting surplus / (deficit), and the cost recovery: Table 1: Childcare Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density $1,979 $5,748 ($3,769) 34% Medium Density $1,858 $5,034 ($3,176) 37% High Density $1,851 $4,285 ($2,434) 43% Other Residential $1.28 $3.19 ($1.91) 40% Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.68 $0.82 ($0.14) 83% Hotel / Visitor $0.18 $0.32 ($0.14) 57% Office / R&D $0.57 $1.49 ($0.92) 38% Industrial $0.54 $0.50 $0.04 107% The City’s cost recovery for Childcare impact fees ranges from a low of 34% for Low Density residential properties to a high of 107% for industrial properties. The full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge and is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act. 2 Library Impact Fee There is currently no impact fee charged for the expansion, rehabilitation, or replacement of library facilities or materials. Through this study, the project team worked with Library staff to calculate the projected impacts of increased residents and employees within the City over the next 20 years. Similar to other impact fees in the City, the cost per dwelling Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 unit was developed based upon residential density, and the cost per square foot was developed based upon commercial square footage. The following table shows the full cost impact fees calculated for the Library. Table 2: Library Impact Fees – Full Cost Category Full Cost Impact Fee Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density $1,647 Medium Density $1,441 High Density $1,227 Commercial / Non-Residential (per sq. ft.) Commercial / Retail $0.07 Hotel / Visitor $0.03 Office / R&D $0.12 Industrial $0.04 The full cost calculated for the library varies from $1,227 for highly dense multi-family complexes to $1,647 for low density single-family homes, and from $0.03 per square foot for hotels to a high of $0.12 per square foot for office / research and development projects. 3 Police Impact Fee The Police Impact Fees currently charged by the City have been in place since 2012, and have not been updated based upon a CPI or any other construction cost factor. Currently, the City charges a singular Public Safety Fee, with 40% of the fee attributed to Police and 60% of the fee attributed to Fire. The fees were originally calculated as separate fees and then bundled together after calculation into a singular fee. For purposes of this analysis the fee has also been calculated separately. The following table compares the City’s current fees (proportionate to Police) to the full cost calculated through this study: Table 3: Police Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density $514 $750 ($236) 69% Medium Density $324 $656 ($332) 49% High Density $225 $559 ($333) 40% Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.18 $0.28 ($0.11) 62% Hotel / Visitor $0.17 $0.11 $0.06 155% Office / R&D $0.18 $0.51 ($0.34) 34% Industrial $0.07 $0.17 ($0.10) 41% The full cost fee for Police is significantly higher for most categories compared to the current proportion of fee retained by the Police Department. The cost recovery ranges Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 from a low of 34% for Office / R&D properties to a high of 155% for Hotel / Visitor properties. The full cost represents the maximum amount the City can charge to recover for appropriate impacts. 4 Fire Impact Fee The Fire Impact Fee was implemented at the same time as the Police Impact Fee in 2012. Currently, the Police and Fire Impact Fees are charged together as a singular fee on the fee schedule and then split apart in the City’s accounting system, with 60% of the fee attributed to Fire and 40% of the fee attributed to Police. Similar to the prior nexus analysis the Fire and Police Impact Fees were calculated separately. The following table compares the City’s current fees (proportionate to Fire) to the full cost calculated through this study. Table 4: Fire Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density $771 $1,008 ($237) 76% Medium Density $486 $883 ($397) 55% High Density $338 $751 ($413) 45% Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.26 $0.38 ($0.12) 68% Hotel / Visitor $0.25 $0.15 $0.10 167% Office / R&D $0.26 $0.69 ($0.43) 38% Industrial $0.11 $0.23 ($0.12) 48% The current cost recovery level for Fire Impact fees ranges from a low of 38% for Office / R&D properties to a high of 167% for Hotel / Visitor properties. The full cost represents the maximum amount the City can charge to recover for appropriate fire-related impacts. 5 Public Safety Impact Fee As the Police and Fire Impact Fee sections discussed, the City currently charges a singular fee encompassing Police and Fire, which was calculated at 40% for Police and 60% for Fire. Through this study, the Police and Fire impact fees were calculated separately, with the option for the City to combine the fees together on its fee schedule; similar to its current practice. The following table compares the City’s current fees to the full cost calculated through this study for Police and Fire. Table 5: Public Safety Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density $1,285 $1,758 ($473) 73% Medium Density $810 $1,539 ($729) 53% Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % High Density $563 $1,310 ($747) 43% Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.44 $0.66 ($0.22) 67% Hotel / Visitor $0.42 $0.26 $0.16 162% Office / R&D $0.44 $1.20 ($0.76) 37% Industrial $0.18 $0.40 ($0.22) 45% The average cost recovery for the City as it relates to the Public Safety Impact fees is approximately 68%. Should the City continue its practice of charging a singular (Public Safety) fee, it would need to update the percentage split between Police and Fire from 40% Police and 60% Fire to 43% Police and 57% Fire. 6 Parking In-Lieu Fee The City is interested in establishing a Parking In-Lieu fee. Through this impact fee analysis, the project team calculated the full cost of a parking in-lieu fee to be $79,910. The City has the ability to charge up to, but not more than this amount. It is important to note that unlike other impact fees, the Parking In-Lieu fee is only applicable if an applicant is unable to install requisite parking spaces as required by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Based upon the City’s Downtown Parking Study, the city should consider what portion of the $79,910 should be borne by new development and set the fee based upon an appropriate ratio. 7 Citywide Transportation Impact Fee The City currently charges two different transportation impact fees – East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and a Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee. Through the course of this analysis, it was determined that a singular citywide Transportation Impact Fee should be developed. The actual impact fee calculations were performed by DKS Associates and included in this report with all other impact fees evaluated for the City. The following table compares the city’s current fee (East of 101 and Bike / Pedestrian Fee) to the full cost fee calculated by DKS, the surplus / (deficit) per unit, and the cost recovery percentage: Table 6: Citywide Transportation Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Residential (per dwelling unit) Single-Family $243 $27,377 ($27,134) 1% Multi-Family $170 $15,776 ($15,606) 1% Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Cost Recovery % Commercial / Retail $25.42 $32.93 ($7.51) 77% Hotel / Visitor – per room $1,4071 $23,318 ($21,911) 6% Office / R&D $6.14 $31.47 ($25.33) 20% Industrial $0.12 $16.39 ($16.27) 1% By developing a citywide Transportation Impact Fee, the city will be spreading the cost of citywide transportation needs over the entire city limits. This will ensure that transportation impacts felt throughout the city are accounted for, rather than only accounting for impacts sustained in the East of 101 geographic area. 8 Summary This report details the calculations for each of the impact fees, as well as validates the nexus that exists between the full cost identified and the proportionate impact of new development. 4 IMPLEMENTATION The impact fees calculated through this study are representative of the full cost associated with the proportionate share and impact of new development within the City. City staff, management, and Council can utilize the information in this report to determine if new development should bear the full cost of their proportionate impact, or if this share should be reduced for development incentivization or other policy considerations and factors. The following subsections discuss the key aspects for impact fee implementation and updates, which includes: collection of fees, annual reporting requirements, refunds / credits / appeals, and annual updates. 1 Collection of Impact Fees Section 66007 of the California Government Code outlines when impact fees should be paid for residential, multi-family, and commercial occupancies. Impact fees for Residential projects should be assessed and paid upon the date of final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. For Multi-family and Commercial projects, fees can be paid in phases, at the completion of each phases final inspections. Alternatively, the City has the option to collect impact fees prior to final inspection. This is only applicable if the City already has funds earmarked for specific projects that are in the vicinity of or are directly impacted by the proposed development. Typically, these fees should be collected at the building phase, and based upon the actual build out (dwelling units and square footage). 1 A $0.24 per square foot fee for the Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee is also charged. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 2 Annual Impact Fee Reporting Requirements Section 66006 of the California Government Code dictates that once per year, within 6 months of the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public detailed information regarding impact fees. This detailed information, should at a minimum include: • Impact Fee name / type • Beginning and Ending balance of the account or fund. • Amount of fees collected in the fiscal year being reported on and the total interest earned. • Identification of project(s) on which the funds are being earmarked for. • Identification of the approximate date on which the projects would commence. • Identification of any interfund loans or transfers related to capital projects, and the amount of the transfer. • Amount of any refunds or allocations made on behalf of the impact fee funds. The above reports must be submitted and reviewed by City Council, within 15 days of being posted publicly. 3 Refunds / Credits / Appeals / Waivers Section 66001 requires that every five years, the City must make findings regarding the utilization of the impact fee revenue and / or proposed utilization of it within five years of collection. If such findings are not made within five years of impact fee collection, the City must refund the monies to the developer. As part of the adoption of the impact fee resolution, the City may choose to also identify circumstances or instances in which a developer could obtain credits, exemptions, or appeal fees. Fee credits are typically obtained in the case of redevelopment, for example, if a developer was to redevelop an existing 10 multi-unit complex into a 15 multi-unit complex, the developer retains credit for the 10 existing units and only pays impact fees on the 5 new units being added. This credit is only provided if the existing facility had already paid into impact fees. If the existing development had not paid any impact fees, there would be no credit applicable. Impact fee resolution may also include a discussion regarding fee exemptions. If a development project is determined to have no documented impact on the facilities for which the impact fees are being imposed (through a CEQA or other type of review document), then the project may be exempt from impact fees. The exemptions must not be granted by right and should be reviewed by City staff and Council to ensure that they are warranted and appropriate. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 Any reductions in impact fees, or waivers or appeals regarding impact fees, would have to be determined by city staff and council and would be granted depending upon the nature and proportion of the impact of the future / proposed development on future infrastructure needs. Depending upon the nature of the project and its documented impacts, there might be a more in-depth process necessary to ensure that all impact fees collected are fair, proportionate, and in compliance with AB1600 and the Mitigation Fee Act. 4 Annual Increases The City’s current ordinances governing the impact fees provide the City with the ability to increase impact fees annually based upon either a Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Construction Cost Index (CCI). Typically, it is recommended that impact fees be updated based upon the CCI, as those are more reflective of actual infrastructure costs. Therefore, it is recommended that the City should consider updating all existing ordinances and resolutions for current and future impact fees to be annually increased in-line with CCI increases. This ensures that increases in construction costs are included in the impact fees and proportionate share is passed onto new development. The annual increase is not meant to be an infinite increase in fees. Per the Mitigation Fee Act, the nexus for the impact fees should be reevaluated every five years to ensure that there is still an appropriate correlation between the current fee being charged and proposed development within the City. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 2. Legal Framework Impact Fees are a mechanism for new development to pay for their proportionate share of impact upon City owned facilities and infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the State’s requirements for impact fees and the City’s legal authority for assessing these fees. 1 STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY Development Impact Fees are governed by Government Code Section 66000 et seq., known as the Mitigation Fee Act, which specifies that there needs to be a nexus between the collection of fees and the new residential and non-residential development within a City’s service area. It also states that this revenue can only be used to expand current or purchase new facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. It does not allow for revenue to be used for staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs. The Mitigation Fee Act, or AB1600, requires that there be certain findings that have to be met in order for there to be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the new development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure. The following points highlight each of the key finding requirements: • Purpose of Fee: The specific types of facilities, infrastructure, equipment, and projects for which the impact fee will be utilized. It is important to note it cannot be utilized for operational purposes. • Use of Fee Revenue: The revenue collected from the impact fees can only be used to fund specific facility expansions, infrastructure improvements, or to purchase new equipment. • Benefit Relationship: The benefit relationship requires that the use of the impact fee revenue and the type of development project upon which it is imposed is reasonable. • Impact Relationship: In order to establish an impact relationship there needs to be a clear and reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility or infrastructure and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. • Proportionality: The proportionality requirement states that the impact fee established must be directly related to the proportionate impact of the type of development project. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 For each of the five impact fees evaluated through this study, the individual chapter will discuss how the fee is able to meet the nexus criteria identified. 2 CITY LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR IMPACT FEES The City of South San Francisco has the legal authority to charge for the five impact fees identified as these fees are referenced in the municipal code or were adopted via resolution. The following table summarizes for each impact fee evaluated the relevant municipal code and key factors: Table 7: City Municipal Code Information on Impact Fees Impact Fee Municipal Code Chapter Notes / Key Factors Childcare Impact Fee Section 20.310 Fee amount determined by council resolution. Provisions for automatic annual adjustment based upon Engineering Cost Index (ECI) Library Impact Fee New This is a new impact fee and at a minimum a resolution would be needed to establish authority to impose the fee. Parking In-Lieu Fee Section 20.330.007 Currently the municipal code only allows for the parking in-lieu fee to be established within the Downtown Parking District. Cultural Arts / Landscape Section 20.300.007 The municipal code establishes under landscaping guidelines the establishment of a cultural arts fund, the purpose of which is to promote the provision of public arts. It is only applicable to currently developed lots that are legally non-conforming with respect to the landscaping requirement. Police Impact Fee None / Resolution 97-2012 Chapter 15.38 Provisions for annual increases based upon CPI-W. Fire Impact Fees Citywide Transportation Impact Fee New2 This is a new impact fee that is being proposed to combine East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee. As outlined in the table above, only the Childcare and current Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fees are codified in the municipal code, while the Public Safety and East of 101 Impact Fees were authorized through a resolution. In order for the City to adopt and implement 2 The current impact fees charged by the City for Transportation include East of 101 authorized by Resolution No. 84-2007 and Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee authorized based upon Section 8.68 of the Municipal Code. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 the Library and Citywide Transportation Impact Fees, the following would need to be considered: • Library Impact Fee: A resolution would need to accompany the impact fee to ensure appropriate authority has been established to charge and impose this fee. • Citywide Transportation Impact Fee: The current Bike / Pedestrian ordinance in the Municipal Code would need to be repealed / removed, and a new resolution would need to be adopted to ensure appropriate authority is established to charge and impose this new fee. Furthermore, the resolution would need to clearly state that it supersedes the East of 101 resolution. Along with ensuring that the City has codified its authority to charge these impact fees, it should also consider implementing a consistent annual increase factor. Currently, the Childcare Impact Fee allows for annual increases based upon ECI, whereas the Public Safety Impact Fee allows for increases based upon CPI-W. Adopting a singular increase factor will ensure that fees are appropriately and consistently increased annually. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 3. Projected Growth and Development The primary criteria for determining the projected impact of new development for impact fees is the amount of projected increase to the City’s population (residential and commercial). These projections then form the basis of impact fee calculations. In order to calculate the projected growth and development, as well as density requirements, the project team reviewed the following sources of data: • Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): Data from ABAG was utilized for 2020 and 2040 Estimates regarding total number of residential population within the City. • General Plan, Facilities Plans, Regional Plans, and City Projections: Projection information based upon city and regional documents was utilized for cost calculation and assumptions. General Plan and facilities master plan information was used to estimate future dwelling units, square footage growth, employment information, as well as facility needs. Regional plans were utilized for childcare projection needs within the community. • US Census Bureau: The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) information was used to calculate residential densities. The information from these sources was utilized to calculate the projected increase in population as well as resulting population densities. The following subsections discuss the population projections calculated and the population densities used to calculate the impact fees. 1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS The basis for impact fees is predicated on sufficient population growth that results in a meaningful impact on city infrastructure. The following table shows data published by ABAG for the current residential population, 2040 estimates, and associated increases for the City of South San Francisco: Table 8: ABAG Population Projections through 2040 Category 2020 Estimates 2040 Estimates Total Projected Increase Residential Population 68,105 80,015 11,910 As the table indicates, ABAG is projecting that the residential population in South San Francisco will increase by 11,910 by 2040. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 In reviewing the ABAG 2020 and 2040 estimates for employment within South San Francisco, it was determined that the projections did not accurately reflect the current or future level of employment. Therefore, the project team worked with City staff to utilize projections developed by the Employment Development Department (EDD), internal documents related to entitlement within the General Plan, and two major development projects entitled within the City. The following table shows the different components utilized to calculate the projected employment increase through 2040: Table 9: Employment Projections through 2040 Category Amount 2020 Employment 57,1823 General Plan Projection 16,0514 Genentech Employment 12,5505 Southline Employment 11,2006 Total Projected Employment Increase 39,801 2040 Estimated Employment 96,983 As the table indicates, it is projected that there would be an increase of approximately 40,000 jobs over the next 20 years. The primary source of these employment increases are due to two large projects (Genentech and Southline). The numbers noted in these tables were used as the basis for all of the proportionate impact calculations through this study, with employment information utilized for calculations associated with non- residential projected growth. 2 POPULATION DENSITIES In addition to the population projection information, the other set of data that is consistently utilized in the calculations is the density associated with residential and non- residential categories. The following subsections discuss the population density assumptions utilized in the calculation of all impact fees in this report. 1 Residential Population Density Due to the diverse nature of residential development within the City of South San Francisco, there are three types of densities: low, medium, and high. The low density refers to Single Family homes. Medium density refers to multi-family housing and small 3 The 57,182 reflects the EDD Employment number from 2018 utilized for early general plan projection calculations internally within the City. Based upon discussion with City staff it was determined that this estimate of employment was appropriate to be utilized for 2020. 4 The City’s General Plan Consultants (Fehr and Peers) project an increase of approximately 16,051 jobs based upon the future projects scheduled for entitlement through the general plan buildout calculation. It is important to note that this projection excludes the 100 employees projected for the City’s new civic campus as those reflect a shifting of existing city employees. 5 Table 3-7 of the Genentech Project Description submitted to the city, estimates an additional increase of 12,550 potential employees based upon the scope of the project. 6 Based upon initial projections developed by the Southline Project consultants as part of the Environmental Impact Report and CEQA analysis. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 complexes (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, etc.). Lastly, high density refers to condensed large apartment complexes (5+ more units). The city is proposing to retain these three levels of densities to determine proportional impacts. The definition of each type of density (low, medium, and high) is based upon the city’s internal planning designations. For purposes of this analysis, the project team utilized the densities as included based upon the number of units; however, the City has the flexibility to redefine the densities within the ordinance / resolution for each impact fee. Due to population fluctuations and variation in dwelling unit assumptions from year to year, residential density was recalculated for this impact analysis, incorporating more current information rather than relying upon recent nexus analyses. As such, the project team utilized information from the American Community Survey (ACS)7 regarding the total population per dwelling unit type and the total number of dwelling units to come up with the resulting average population density per unit for South San Francisco. The following table shows this calculation: Table 10: Residential Population Density Category Total Population Total # of Units Population / Unit (Avg. Density) Low Density8 48,933 14,197 3.45 Medium Density8 4,899 1,623 3.02 High Density8 11,705 4,555 2.57 The total population for each density category was divided by the associated number of dwelling units in order to determine the average population per density type. The average density per unit is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation to derive the base impact fee. 2 Non-Residential / Commercial Density Similar to the residential density calculation, a calculation was performed for non- residential development within the City. The City utilizes four main commercial categories – Commercial / Retail9, Hotel / Visitor, Office / R&D, and Industrial. The City is currently working with Fehr and Peers to conduct an update to its General Plan. As part of that analysis, when conducting the employment projections for the City, Fehr and Peers utilized certain assumptions regarding the level of employment per square foot for different types of non-residential land uses. Therefore, for consistency purposes, the project team utilized the densities as provided by Fehr and Peers. The following table shows the density associated with each non-residential category type: 7 ACS 2017 Tables B25033 and B25032 were utilized as those were the most recent calculations. 8 Low Density = Single Family Attached / Detached; Medium Density = 2-4 Units; High Density = 5+ units 9 Commercial / Retail is also meant to be an all-encompassing category that includes all types of non-office, non-hotel, and non- industrial projects and could include grocery stores, retail shops, strip malls, services (i.e. hair, nail, fitness), etc. The City has the ability to more clearly define this in its resolution associated with impact fees. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 Table 11: Employment Density Category Density (Sq. Ft. per employee) Commercial 76810 Hotel / Visitor 2,000 Office / R&D 425 Industrial 1,25011 The density (square footage per employee) is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation to derive the base impact fee. The following chapters utilize the assumptions included in this section to help project the proportionate impact of new development on the City’s existing and proposed infrastructure. 10 The employment density of 768 per square foot was calculated based on weighting the retail density (1 employee per 1,000 square feet) and service density (1 employee per 225 square feet) on the square footage of businesses entitled within the City. Approximately 70% of the square feet of commercial projects entitled in the city fell under the retail category, as such the weighted average was skewed more towards the retail density and closer to the 1,000 square footage. 11 This was calculated by taking the straight average between manufacturing (1 employee per 650 sq. ft.), wholesale trade (1 employee per 1,100 sq. ft.), and agricultural (1 employee per 2,000 sq. ft.) as the City does not have a multitude of these businesses, therefore, a straight average was used. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 4. Childcare Impact Fee The City of South San Francisco provides childcare services through its Parks and Recreation Department. The City is unique in its imposition of a Childcare Impact Fee to help mitigate the impacts of new development as it relates to creating the demand for additional childcare facilities and needs. The City currently operates and owns several childcare facilities and are proposing the addition of new childcare facilities to help meet existing and future needs. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of childcare impact fees. 1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Childcare Impact Fee is based upon the existing and future demand of childcare needs for the City of South San Francisco. The childcare demands for the City are generated from residents and employees working within the city limits. The childcare demand is typically measured based upon the number of childcare spaces needed. These childcare spaces can be in City run and owned facilities, private facilities, or home-care facilities. The projected demand for existing residents was sourced from the 2017 Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment conducted for San Mateo County. To calculate the demand for employees working within the City of South San Francisco, the project team utilized the assumptions from the original Childcare Nexus Analysis and reviewed it with City staff. The original analysis assumed that 5% of the City’s existing workforce (2020 Employees) would require childcare services in the city in which they work. Those childcare services would only be limited to up to 5 years of age, as once children hit the age to attend local schools the need for childcare facilities would shift closer to the child’s home rather than closer to the parent’s workplace. Among the two childcare age categories (infant and preschool) it was determined in the previous nexus analysis that 60% of the demand would be for preschool and 40% would be for infants. Based upon the studies and assumptions noted above, the following table shows the existing childcare spaces needed by residents and employees by childcare age category: Table 12: Estimated Childcare Demand – Number of Spaces Childcare Age Category Residents Employees Total Demand Birth to 2 or Infant 596 686 1,282 3 to 5 or Preschool 2,251 1,029 3,280 6 to 13 or School Age 2,082 2,082 Special Children - All Ages 468 468 TOTAL 5,397 1,715 7,112 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 As the table indicates, the total demand for current childcare spaces is approximately 7,112. The childcare spaces were utilized to calculate the current standard per resident and per employee. The following table shows the calculation of childcare spaces standard per resident and per employee: Table 13: Childcare – Current Standard Calculation Category Total Childcare Space 2020 Estimated Population Standard Per Capita Resident 5,397 68,105 0.079 Employee 1,715 57,182 0.030 Based upon the current childcare space needs and population, the estimated standard per resident is 0.079 spaces or approximately 8 spaces per 100 residents and 0.030 spaces per employee or 3 spaces per existing 100 employees in the City. This standard per capita was applied to the future projected residential and employment increases over the next 20 years to calculate the projected demand for childcare spaces by resident and employee, as well as overall future demand. The following table shows this future projection calculation: Table 14: Childcare – Future Projected Demand Category Standard Per Capita Projected Population Increase Total Childcare Spaces Resident 0.079 11,910 944 Employee 0.030 39,801 1,194 TOTAL 2,138 In order for the City to maintain its current standard of childcare space needs per resident and employee, there would be a need for an additional 2,138 childcare spaces over the next 20 years. However, it is important to note that not all of these childcare spaces are expected to be met through traditional childcare facilities. Some of these needs are met through family members, informal daycare centers, and other non-traditional means of childcare. The Brion & Associates 2001 Childcare Nexus Analysis, and the City’s ordinance related to childcare, state that it is expected that the Childcare Impact Fee assumes that only 50% of these projected spaces should be covered through Impact Fee Revenue. The following table shows the expected amount of childcare spaces to be funded. Table 15: Childcare – Projected Childcare Spaces to be Funded Childcare Spaces Needed % to Be Funded Total Childcare Spaces Funded 2,138 50% 1,069 Based upon the 50% standard, it is assumed that 1,069 additional childcare spaces should be funded through the Childcare Impact Fee. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS The Childcare Impact Fee revenue is primarily used to fund the construction or expansion of existing and future childcare facilities. As the projections are based upon childcare spaces, the cost for the childcare facilities must be calculated on a per space basis. In 2016 Brion & Associates conducted an SMC Early Learning Facilities study that evaluated the estimated cost per childcare space based upon different childcare construction types. The following table shows the cost per childcare space based upon the type of childcare facility: Table 16: Childcare Cost Per Space by Type of Childcare Facility Childcare Facility Type Cost Per Childcare Space New Bldg Construction $43,183 New or Existing Commercial $53,800 Expanding Existing Centers $37,003 Portable Buildings $25,412 Employer-Based Centers $41,033 As the table indicates, the cost per childcare space varies significantly depending on facility type, with a portable building costing $25,412 per childcare space and a brand new or existing commercial building costing $53,800. To determine the average cost per childcare space, the project team reviewed with City staff the proportion of childcare facilities expected to be utilized over the next five years based upon each facility type. As the City does not necessarily keep track of facilities based upon the types noted above, staff chose to default to the proportion of childcare facilities utilized by San Mateo County in the Brion & Associates study. The following table shows by childcare facility type, the cost per space, the proportion of facilities, and the resulting cost per space: Table 17: Proportionate Cost per Childcare Space Childcare Facility Type Cost Per Childcare Space Facility Proportion Proportionate Cost Per Space New Bldg Construction $43,183 40% $17,273 New or Existing Commercial $53,800 20% $10,760 Expanding Existing Centers $37,003 15% $5,550 Portable Buildings $25,412 20% $5,082 Employer-Based Centers $41,033 5% $2,052 TOTAL PROPORTIONATE COST PER CHILDCARE SPACE $40,718 The resulting cost per childcare space is approximately $40,718. The total cost per childcare space is applied to the projected childcare spaces to be funded to arrive at the total estimated cost for childcare facilities: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 Table 18: Estimated Childcare Future Facility Costs Category Amount Estimated Childcare Space Needs 1,069 Estimated Cost per Childcare Space $40,718 TOTAL ESTIMATED FUTURE FACILITY COSTS $43,527,221 In order to meet the city’s estimated demand of funding 1,069 future childcare spaces, the facility costs would be approximately $43.5 million. Beyond estimating the future facility needs, the Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to charge an administrative fee to recover the costs associated with City staff to monitor and report upon the impact fees. The project team calculated the administrative or admin fee based upon the total indirect costs allocated to the Childcare Impact Fee Fund from the FY20 Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the three-year average revenue collected. The following table shows this calculation: Table 19: Childcare Admin Fee Calculation Category Childcare Impact Fee Fund Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $28,539 Impact Fee Revenue – 3 yr. average $853,362 Admin Fee Rate 3.34% As the table indicates, the proposed administrative rate for the Childcare Impact fee is 3.34%, which is lower than the 5% administrative fee established in 2001. 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The $43.5 million in projected future facility costs for Childcare needs is inclusive of residential and employee needs. Therefore, in order to allocate the costs between residential and employees, the proportion of future childcare needs between residents and employees was utilized. The following table shows the calculation for residents and employees: Table 20: Childcare Cost Allocation Between Residents and Employees Category Future Childcare Space Need Proportion Estimated Childcare Facility Cost Total Allocated Cost Resident 944 44% $43,527,221 $19,218,754 Employee 1,194 56% $43,527,221 $24,308,467 Due to approximately 56% of the future childcare space needs being related to employees, approximately $24.3 million of the $43.5 million is associated with employees working within the city. The remaining $19.2 million is associated with residents. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 The total allocated costs to residents and employees is then converted into a cost per capita based upon the projected population increase. The following table shows the cost per capita calculation for residents and employees: Table 21: Childcare Cost Allocation Between Residents and Employees Category Total Allocated Cost Projected Population Increase Cost Per Capita Resident $19,218,754 11,910 $1,614 Employee $24,308,467 39,801 $611 The cost per capita is $1,614 for residents compared to $611 for employees. It is expected that the cost would be significantly higher for residents as they have the larger proportion of childcare demands that need to be met. The cost per capita for residents and employees was converted into an impact fee based upon the density per unit. For residential properties, the density is per dwelling unit (du) and for commercial properties it is per square foot (sq. ft.). The following table shows this calculation: Table 22: Childcare Impact Fee Calculation Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,614 3.45 $5,562 per du Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $1,614 3.02 $4,871 per du High Density (18+ du / acre) $1,614 2.57 $4,147 per du Other Residential 1,80012 $3.09 per sq. ft. Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $611 768 $0.80 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $611 2,000 $0.31 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $611 425 $1.44 per sq. ft. Industrial $611 1,250 $0.49 per sq. ft. The impact fees range from a low of $4,147 per dwelling unit for high density to a high of $5,562 per dwelling unit for low density. Among commercial properties the cost per square foot varies from a low of $0.31 for hotels to a high of $1.44 for office / R&D Projects. The admin fee of 3.34% was applied to the impact fees calculated to determine the full cost impact fee for Childcare by category. The following table shows the full cost calculated. 12 Based upon the City’s current general plan the standard residential property is 1,800 sq. ft., and was used as the basis for the Other Residential category. This calculation was derived by dividing $5,563 (Low Density) by 1,800 (standard square footage). Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 Table 23: Childcare Impact Fee Calculation Including Administrative Fee Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $5,562 $186 $5,748 per du Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $4,871 $163 $5,034 per du High Density (18+ du / acre) $4,147 $138 $4,285 per du Other Residential $3.09 $0.10 $3.19 per sq. ft. Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.80 $0.02 $0.82 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $0.31 $0.01 $0.32 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $1.44 $0.05 $1.49 per sq. ft. Industrial $0.49 $0.01 $0.50 per sq. ft. Incorporating the administrative fee enables the city to recover for the financial support and staff time associated with monitoring and reporting on the use of impact fee funds. The following table compares the City’s current Childcare Impact Fees to the full cost impact fees, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit: Table 24: Current vs. Full Cost Childcare Impact Fees Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,979 $5,748 ($3,769) Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $1,858 $5,034 ($3,176) High Density (18+ du / acre) $1,851 $4,285 ($2,434) Other Residential $1.28 $3.19 ($1.91) Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.68 $0.82 ($0.14) Hotel / Visitor $0.18 $0.32 ($0.14) Office / R&D $0.57 $1.49 ($0.92) Industrial $0.54 $0.50 $0.04 The City is under-recovering for all but one fee category, Industrial, in which there is currently a $0.04 per square foot over-recovery. The under-recoveries are as low as $0.14 per square foot for commercial and hotel / visitor, and as high as $3,769 per residential dwelling unit. The City’s original Childcare Impact Fees were established in 2001 and since then the fee has only been increased in 2007. The original childcare fee calculated in 2001 assumed a cost per childcare space of $9,176; whereas the full cost impact fee assumes a cost per childcare space of $40,718, which is reflective of current construction costs. This difference in the cost per childcare space is the primary reason for the increased full cost fee. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 4 NEXUS CRITERIA As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Childcare Impact Fee meets the AB1600 criteria. Table 25: Childcare Impact Fees Nexus Criteria Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Purpose of Fee The fee would be used to fund the development of new childcare facilities or expand existing childcare facilities. Use of Fee Revenue The Parks and Recreation Department has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for current and future years to help ensure that there is appropriate expansion and development of childcare facilities to meet current and future resident and employee needs. Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to develop new facilities or expand existing facilities, which would be directly proportional to the increased need for childcare spaces. The increase in residential population is related to the number of dwelling units and the impact fee would be applicable to dwelling units. The increase in employment is related to non- residential space and is applicable to square footage. Impact Relationship Based upon the current childcare demand needs in the City, there is a standard level of childcare space needs per resident and employee. In order to maintain that standard, the addition of new residents and employees would require the need for additional childcare spaces. Proportionality The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling unit depending upon the density of the housing units to capture the residential impacts as the primary mechanism for addition of residential population to the City is through increased dwelling units. For employees the fee is based upon non-residential square footage as that is the primary mechanism associated with increases in employment within the City. As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to continue to charge a Childcare Impact Fee. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions. The following table compares the city’s current fee and proposed full cost fee for Childcare to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which charge a childcare impact fee: Table 26: Childcare Impact Fee Comparative Survey Fee Category / Jurisdiction SSF – Current SSF - Full Cost San Francisco San Mateo Residential Low Density – Per DU $1,979 $5,748 $1.14 per sq. ft. Medium Density- Per DU $1,858 $5,034 $2.27 per sq. ft. High Density – Per DU $1,851 $4,285 $2.27 per sq. ft. Other Residential – Per Sq. Ft. $1.28 $3.19 $2.27 Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial – Per Sq. Ft $0.68 $0.82 $1.9513 $1.0814 Office – Per Sq. Ft $0.57 $1.49 $1.9513 $1.0814 Industrial – Per Sq. Ft $0.54 $0.50 $1.9513 $1.0814 Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. $0.18 $0.32 $1.9513 $1.0814 There are only two other jurisdictions that charge a childcare impact fee – San Francisco and San Mateo. San Mateo only charges commercial projects greater than 10,000 square feet and San Francisco charges projects greater than 25,000 square feet. The surveyed fees for commercial projects are higher than South San Francisco’s current fees, but are in line with its full cost fees. San Mateo does not currently charge any new residential projects a Childcare Impact Fee, whereas San Francisco assesses residential projects a per square foot impact fee. As a comparison, a new single family home (2,500 sq. ft.) would be assessed an impact fee of $2,850 in San Francisco, which is higher than the current fee charged by South San Francisco, but about half of the full cost. 13 Only applicable to projects greater than 25,000 sq. ft. 14 Only applicable to projects greater than 10,000 sq. ft. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 5. Library Impact Fee The City of South San Francisco currently has three library branches – Grand Avenue, South San Francisco Public Library, and Community Learning Center. These three library branches primarily serve a residential population. There are currently no impact fees associated with replacement of library materials or facilities. Through this analysis, the project team worked with City staff to calculate a proposed library impact fee to be imposed upon new development to pay for their proportionate impact on replacement and rehabilitation of library materials and facilities. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of library impact fees. 1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS As discussed in the methodology overview, the level of standard has been utilized as the basis for the calculation of Library impact fees. There are two main components of infrastructure associated with the library – library space and collection items. As there is a proportionate increase in population, there will be the need for not only additional library space to accommodate those residents and employees working in the city, but also the need for additional collection materials for those residents and employees. In order to determine the impact of residents and employees on the library, the project team had to calculate the total service population for the library’s services. An employee working within the city does not have the same access or tendency to use the library, as such their impact and weight should be proportionately less. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight and the equivalent residential population: Table 27: Current Weighted Service Population for the Library Category Existing Population Weight Factor Weighted Population Residential 68,105 1.0 68,105 Employees 57,182 0.1115 6,430 TOTAL 74,535 As the table indicates, the weighted service population for the library is 74,535 and should be utilized to calculate the standard per capita. The following table shows the current square footage of library space, the current number of items in circulation, and the standard per capita. 15 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team analyzed the hours that the library was open and available to employees as a proportion to residents, which was calculated at 22%. It was then determined that while employees might not have the tendency to use the library for 100% of that 22% of time that it is available, they would have the ability to use it at least 50% of that time. This assumption was discussed with Library staff and it was determined that 11%, in lieu of more concrete information, was an appropriate factor to weight the service population. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 Table 28: Current Library Standard / Capita Category Amount Service Population Standard / Capita Library Sq. Ft. 45,006 74,535 0.60 Total Collection Items 144,461 74,535 1.94 The current population standard equates to approximately 0.60 sq. ft. of library space and approximately two (2) library materials. Similar to calculating the current weighted service population, the project team calculated the projected weighted increase in population: Table 29: Projected Weighted Increased Population for the Library Category Projected Increase Weight Factor Weighted Population Residential 11,910 1.0 11,910 Employees 39,801 0.11 4,476 TOTAL 16,386 Based upon projected service population increases, the project team calculated the increased need for library square footage and additional collection items: Table 30: Projected Library Needs Based Upon Population Increase Category Population Increase Standard / Capita Projected Total Library Sq. Ft. 16,386 0.60 9,894.01 Total Collection Items 16,386 1.94 31,758 Based upon the proposed population increase, there is the projected need for approximately 9,900 sq. ft. of additional library space, and 32,000 additional materials to be in circulation. The additional square footage and collections could be enough for a new smaller library branch or it could be to expand existing facilities to accommodate the need for new residents and employees within the City. 2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS In order to calculate the costs associated with projected service population and its associated needs, the project team utilized projected square footage, cost per square foot, projected circulation items, and cost per item. The following table shows this calculation: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 Table 31: Projected Library Cost Based Upon Population increase Category Projected Expansion Cost / Unit Total Projected Cost Library Space 9,894.01 $72516 $7,173,156 Circulation Items 31,758 $19.3217 $613,649 TOTAL $7,786,805 The total projected cost associated with future residential and non-residential development through 2040 would be approximately $7.8 million. In addition to the $7.8 million in projected costs associated with future residents and employees, the Mitigation Fee Act also enables the City to charge an administrative fee associated with annual monitoring and reporting of these funds. As there is no current impact fee for the Library, the administrative charge calculated for the proposed fees was calculated based off of an average of the Childcare Impact Fee Administration, and Parks and Recreation Administration Fee. These are the only two current impact fees charged that are part of community services and could be considered relatable to library services. In order to calculate the administrative fee, the project team took the overhead allocated to the impact fee funds for Childcare and Parks and Recreation through the FY20 Cost Allocation Plan and divided it by the total impact fee revenue collected. However, due to the fluctuation in the amount of impact fee revenue, a 3 year average was utilized to allow for normalization in the administrative fee calculated. The following table shows the Admin Fee calculation for the Library: Table 32: Library Admin Fee Calculation Category Childcare Parks and Recreation Average Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $28,539 $30,912 $29,726 Impact Fee Revenue – 3 yr. average $853,362 $1,058,588 $955,975 Admin Fee Rate 3.34% 2.92% 3.11% Based upon the calculation methodology, the administrative fee to be applied to the full cost results of the proposed Library Impact Fees would be 3.11%. This percentage would enable the City to recover the costs associated with tracking revenues in a separate fund and developing annual mitigation fee monitoring reports by Finance staff. 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The proposed increased costs associated with new development would be approximately $7.8 million. In order to determine the proportion of costs that should be borne by 16 Cost per square foot is based upon the Measure W – Community Civic Center Study for the potential cost to build a new library. 17 The $19.32 is based upon an average of the cost associated with the circulation budget and acquiring 10% of the library’s existing collection as new items and / or the number of new books in circulation. It includes all materials types, such as digital and hard copy books. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 residents (including students) and employees, the project team calculated the proportion of the weighted population increase: Table 33: Calculation of Split of Costs Between Categories Category Weighted Population Proportionate Share Residential 11,910 73% Employees 4,476 27% TOTAL 16,386 100% This proportionate share was used to allocate the cost of $7.8 million to the two different categories and calculate the resulting residential and employee costs, as well as the cost per capita. Table 34: Proposed Library Impact Fee Cost Per Capita Calculation Category Total Cost Total Projected Increase Cost Per Capita Residential $5,684,368 11,910 $477.28 Employees $2,102,437 38,901 $52.82 The cost per future resident for projected library needs is $477 and the cost per employee is approximately $53. This seems appropriate as the residential development and growth has a larger proportionate impact upon the library and its needs. The cost per capita from this table was converted into a cost per dwelling unit and cost per sq. ft. based upon the density factors discussed in the projected growth and development chapter. The following table shows this calculation: Table 35: Library Impact Fee Calculation Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee Residential Low Density $477.28 3.45 $1,647 per du Medium Density $477.28 3.02 $1,441 per du High Density $477.28 2.57 $1,227 per du Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $52.82 768 $0.07 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $52.82 2,000 $0.03 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $52.82 425 $0.12 per sq. ft. Industrial $52.82 1,250 $0.04 per sq. ft. The cost per dwelling unit varies from a low of $1,227 for high density residential developments to a high of $1,674 for low density (single-family) homes and from a low of $0.03 for hotels to a high of $0.12 for office / R&D developments. To calculate the full allowable fee, the 3.11% administrative fee is applied to the cost per dwelling unit. The following table shows this calculation: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 Table 36: Library Impact Fee Cost Calculation Including Administrative Fee Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee Residential Low Density $1,647 $51 $1,698 per du Medium Density $1,441 $45 $1,486 per du High Density $1,227 $38 $1,265 per du Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $0.07 $0.00 $0.07 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $0.12 $0.01 $0.13 per sq. ft. Industrial $0.04 $0.01 $0.04 per sq. ft. The full cost for a Library Impact Fee would vary from a low of $1,265 per dwelling unit to a high of $1,698 per dwelling unit depending upon the type of residential development; or it would vary from a low of $0.03 per square foot for a new hotel to a high of $0.13 per square foot for a new office or R&D complex within the City. 4 NEXUS CRITERIA As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Library Impact fee meets the criteria. Table 37: Library Impact Fees Nexus Criteria Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Purpose of Fee The purpose of the fee would be to expand and / or remodel existing library branches, acquire additional space or repurpose current spaces to address emerging community needs, bolster the library collection in diverse electronic and hardcopy formats and replace / upgrade furniture, fixtures and equipment to continue to meet the existing service level standard of the community. Use of Fee Revenue The Library has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for current and future years to help ensure that there is appropriate expansion and / or remodel of library facilities, including technology within the library to meet community goals and objectives. Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing library space to accommodate growing and emerging patron needs for materials, equipment, and program and learning space, which would directly be due to increased service population. The residential service population is applicable to dwelling units and employment service population is applicable to square footage per commercial development. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Impact Relationship Based upon the current library space and library materials in the City, there is a standard level of library space and materials per resident. In order to maintain that standard, the addition of new residents and employees would require the need for expanded library facilities and services. Proportionality The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling unit depending upon the density factor of housing or the square footage of the commercial project. The density factor concept ensures that those units with potentially higher proportion of future residents pay their fair share compared to housing units with lesser amounts of residents and similarly larger businesses pay a higher proportionate of share depending upon the type of the business. As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to impose a Library Impact Fee. 5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions and if they charge a Library Impact Fee. The following table compares the city’s proposed full cost for library impacts to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which charge a Library Impact Fee: Table 38: Library impact Fee Comparative Survey Fee Category / Jurisdiction SSF - Full Cost Burlingame Millbrae Palo Alto Residential Low Density – Per DU $1,698 $2,382 $217 $1,12618 Medium Density- Per DU $1,486 $1,415 $160 $67419 High Density – Per DU $1,265 $1,415 $160 $674 Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial – Per Sq. Ft. $0.07 $0.48 $0.34 $0.28 Office – Per Sq. Ft. $0.12 $0.70 $0.78 $0.28 Industrial Per Sq. Ft. $0.04 $0.23 $0.07 $0.28 Hotel – per sq. ft. $0.03 $0.48 $3020 $0.119 As the table indicates there are only three other surveyed jurisdictions that charge impact fees associated with their Libraries – Burlingame, Millbrae, and Palo Alto. The City’s full cost fees are higher than Palo Alto and Millbrae, but below or in line with Burlingame’s fees. Some jurisdictions may consider Library Impact Fees part of a General 18 For projects greater than 3,000 sq. ft. the fee increases from $1,126 to $1,676. 19 If the high density projects are less than 900 sq. ft. the fee is $370. 20 This fee is charged per room. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 Governmental Facilities Fee or Community Facilities Fee; hence why they don’t have separate fees. Additionally, many jurisdictions do not have their own libraries (it is run through the County) and as such are not able to charge impact fees associated with the library. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 6. Police Impact Fee The South San Francisco Police Department currently has one Police Station – its headquarters, but also has a small space attached to Miller Garage in the east side of the City for officers to use as necessary. The department is currently in the midst of building a new headquarters. Currently, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact fee for Police and Fire called a Public Safety Impact Fee. Similar to the original analysis, a separate Police Impact Fee and Fire Impact Fee was calculated. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions utilized, cost components included, resulting impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative analysis of Police Impact Fees. 1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Police Department services both residential and commercial populations (employees). Future increased development would result in the need for an expanded Police headquarters and / or the need for a substation. The primary goal of the Police Department is to provide safety and security services within the City, that benefit both existing and future development. In order to determine the proportionate share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the future service population for the City. An employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use police services as a resident, as such their impact and weight should be proportionately less. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight and the equivalent residential population: Table 39: Future Weighted Service Population Increase Calculation Category Existing Population Projected Increase Weight Factor Weighted Population Increase Residential 68,105 11,910 1.0 11,910 Employees 57,182 39,801 0.4421 17,512 TOTAL 125,287 29,422 As the table indicates, the projected increase in the service population is approximately 29,422, which reflects approximately a 23% increase compared to the existing population. Therefore, future development should bear approximately 23% of the costs. 2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS Due to the projected increase in residential and non-residential population there will be an impact on the department’s infrastructure. The planning horizon for the impact fee is 21 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team utilized the proportion of calls for service that are commercial. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 20 years (2020 through 2040), and while the department intends to purchase some additional equipment, it will also need to replace existing equipment and vehicles, and upgrade its facilities during that span. A proportionate share of those upgrades should be borne by future development as future development will benefit from that equipment and the facilities. The following table shows by cost category, the average annual cost, the number of planning years, and the resulting cost for 20 years: Table 40: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost for 20 Years Category Average Annual Cost Planning Horizon Total Cost Equipment $739,955 20 $14,799,095 Vehicles $479,610 20 $9,592,200 Facility $1,137,152 20 $22,743,046 TOTAL $2,356,717 20 $47,134,341 A detailed accounting of the average annual cost for equipment, vehicles, and facilities has been included in Appendix A of this report. Overall, in the next 20 years the Police Department will require approximately $47 million to meet the needs of existing and future residents and non-residents. In addition to the $47 million in infrastructure costs, the other cost component to be considered is the administrative fee. In the prior nexus study, the administrative fee utilized was 2%. For purposes of this study, the project team calculated the administrative fee based upon the total indirect costs allocated to the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund from the FY 2020 Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the average revenue collected by the fund over the last two years. The following table shows this calculation: Table 41: Police Admin Fee Calculation Category Public Safety Impact Fee Fund Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $24,185 Impact Fee Revenue – 2 yr. average22 $659,283 Admin Fee Rate 3.67% The proposed administrative fee for the Police Impact fee would be 3.67%, which is higher than the current 2% administrative fee. This 3.67% accounts for support provided by City staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds. 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Police Department are approximately $48 million. However, not all of this cost should be borne 22 Due to the anomalous collection of revenue in FY17 for the Public Safety Impact Fee, it was excluded from the calculation and only a 2 year average (FY18 and FY19) was utilized. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 by the future population. Based upon the growth assumptions analysis, only 15% of these costs should be borne by the future population. The following table shows the calculation for costs to be borne by future residential and non-residential populations: Table 42: Projected Cost Calculation Between Existing and Future Population Category Infrastructure Costs Proportion Total Cost to Be Borne Current Population $47,134,341 77% $36,293,442 Future Population $47,134,341 23% $10,840,898 Of the $48 million, only $10.8 million should be borne by future populations. This $10.8 million is divided by the total projected population increase, to calculate the cost per capita, as shown in the following table: Table 43: Projected Cost for New Development – Per Capita Future Population Cost Projected Population Increase Cost / Capita $10,840,898 51,71123 $209.64 The cost per capita from this table ($209.64) was converted into a cost per dwelling unit and cost per sq. ft. based upon the density factors discussed in the projected growth and development chapter. The following table shows this calculation: Table 44: Police Impact Fee Calculation Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee Residential Low Density $209.64 3.45 $723 per du Medium Density $209.64 3.02 $633 per du High Density $209.64 2.57 $539 per du Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $357.53 768 $0.27 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $357.53 2,000 $0.10 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $357.53 425 $0.49 per sq. ft. Industrial $357.53 1,250 $0.17 per sq. ft. The cost per dwelling varies from a low of $539 for high density residential developments to a high of $723 for low density (single-family) homes. The fees for commercial and non- residential vary from $0.10 per square foot for hotel / visitor properties to a high of $0.49 per square foot for office / R&D properties. To calculate the full allowable fee, the 3.67% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation: 23 While the employees are weighted for service population calculation purposes, on a per capita calculation each employee still counts as singular and as such the 51,711 reflects the total of the 11,910 residents and 39,801 employees projected. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 Table 45: Police Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee Residential Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $723 $27 $750 per du Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $633 $23 $656 per du High Density (18+ du / acre) $539 $20 $559 per du Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $0.27 $0.01 $0.28 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $0.10 $0.01 $0.11 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $0.49 $0.02 $0.51 per sq. ft. Industrial $0.17 $0.00 $0.17 per sq. ft. The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. As discussed, the City currently charges a singular Public Safety Impact Fee. The following table compares the current police portion (40%) of the Public Safety Impact Fee to the police full cost impact fee, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit. Table 46: Police Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $514 $750 ($236) Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $324 $656 ($332) High Density (18+ du / acre) $225 $559 ($333) Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.18 $0.28 ($0.11) Hotel / Visitor $0.17 $0.11 $0.06 Office / R&D $0.18 $0.51 ($0.34) Industrial $0.07 $0.17 ($0.10) As the table indicates, all current impact fees, except for the hotel / visitor category are under-recovering compared to the full cost of impact fees. The singular over-recovery is by approximately $0.06 per square foot. The under-recovery is lower for non-residential properties such as $0.10 per square foot for industrial and higher for residential properties ($236 per dwelling unit). These fees have not been updated in eight years, and as such some of the projected increases in fees would be expected due to cost factor increases. However, the primary difference in costs results from the current fee only accounting for the replacement of equipment, while the full cost includes both equipment and facilities. The inclusion of Police Facility costs is allowable and should be represented as it helps account for any facility upgrades or changes that need to be made to serve the existing and future population. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 As aforementioned, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact fee for Police and Fire called a Public Safety Impact Fee. When this fee was originally developed, separate impact fees for Police and Fire were calculated, and then added together to create the Public Safety Impact Fee. Based upon the calculations it was determined that 40% of the Public Safety Impact fee would reflect Police, and 60% would represent Fire. This nexus analysis, similar to the prior analysis has calculated these impact fees separately. The following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee to the Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fee (Police and Fire) and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit. Table 47: Public Safety Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,285 $1,758 ($473) Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $810 $1,539 ($729) High Density (18+ du / acre) $563 $1,310 ($747) Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.44 $0.66 ($0.22) Hotel / Visitor $0.42 $0.26 $0.16 Office / R&D $0.44 $1.20 ($0.76) Industrial $0.18 $0.40 ($0.22) As the table indicates, the full cost of the overall Public Safety impact fee is significantly higher than the current fees charged by the City. At the culmination of the analysis, the City has the option to continue to bundle these fees on its fee schedule, or represent them separately. If the City were to bundle them together the updated split for the fee would be 43% for Police and 57% for Fire. For all monitoring and tracking purposes, the City collects and stores the funds in separate accounts and should continue to do so even if it collects it as a singular fee. 4 NEXUS CRITERIA As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Police Impact fee meets the AB1600 criteria. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 Table 48: Police Impact Fees Nexus Criteria Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Purpose of Fee The purpose of the fee would be to expand existing or proposed police headquarters, replace equipment and vehicles, and acquire additional equipment necessary to provide public safety services in the community. Use of Fee Revenue The Police Department has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for current and future years to help ensure that there is appropriate expansion of police facilities and equipment to meet public safety goals of the City. Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate police headquarters space to accommodate increased officers and equipment. The increase in officers and need for equipment replacement or facility upgrades is directly relatable to population increases. The service population of residential is applicable to dwelling units and for employees is based on square footage. Impact Relationship Based upon the current police space and police equipment in the City, there is a standard level of replacement associated with those items. In order to ensure that services for future and existing residents are met, the facility and equipment should be replaced in a timely manner throughout the 20 year planning horizon. Only a proportion of the replacement costs (15%) based upon future growth as a component of the overall projected population of the city is used to assign the impact to future population. Proportionality The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling unit depending upon the density of the housing units. The fees for non-residents would be applied based upon square footage and density of the types of non-residential property categories. As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to impose a Police Development Impact Fee. 5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions who charge a Police Impact Fee. The following table compares the city’s current fee and full cost to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which charge a Police Impact Fee: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 Table 49: Police Impact Fee Comparative Survey Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Low Density – Per DU Medium Density – Per DU High Density – Per DU Commercial – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. SSF – Current $514 $324 $225 $0.18 $0.18 $0.07 $0.17 SSF - Full Cost $750 $656 $559 $0.28 $0.51 $0.17 $0.11 Burlingame $437 $259 $259 $0.10 $0.15 $0.05 The only surveyed jurisdiction that charges a stand-alone Police Impact Fee rather than a combined Public Safety Impact Fee is Burlingame. When comparing the current and full cost Police Impact Fee only for South San Francisco, both are higher than the fees charged by Burlingame. However, in order to provide a true comparison between surveyed jurisdictions, the following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee and full cost Public Safety Impact Fee to the Police and Fire Impact Fees collected by other jurisdictions. Table 50: Police and Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Low Density – Per DU Medium Density- Per DU High Density – Per DU Commercial – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. SSF – Current $1,285 $810 $563 $0.44 $0.44 $0.18 $0.42 SSF - Full Cost $1,758 $1,539 $1,310 $0.66 $1.20 $0.40 $0.26 Burlingame $1,079 $640 $640 $0.35 $0.51 $0.17 $0.35 Millbrae $1,159 $854 $854 $0.37 $0.81 $0.08 $16324 Palo Alto $1,081 $865 $865 $0.60 $0.81 $0.20 $0.60 San Bruno $1,145 $1,144 $1,144 $0.58 $0.58 $0.23 $9524 As the table indicates, the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee is in line with most of the jurisdictions surveyed. The City’s full cost fees for commercial projects are in line with Palo Alto and San Bruno; however, its full cost fee for residential projects is higher than the other jurisdictions. 24 These fees are applied per hotel room, not per square foot. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 7. Fire Impact Fee The Fire Department currently has five stations throughout the City to serve the current residential population. The Fire Department provides prevention, hazardous materials, fire life / safety, fire suppression, and emergency medical services to the residents, students, and employees of South San Francisco. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the City of South San Francisco currently charges a singular impact fee for Fire and Police called a Public Safety Impact Fee. Similar to the original analysis, a separate Fire Impact Fee and Police Impact Fee was calculated. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions utilized, cost components included, resulting impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative analysis of Fire Impact Fees. 1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Fire Department serves both residential and commercial populations (employees). Future increased development would result in the need for expanded or relocated Fire stations, additional equipment and vehicles. The primary goal of the Fire Department is to provide fire prevention and suppression services within the City. These services benefit both existing and future development to determine the proportionate share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the future service population for the City. An employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use police services as a resident, as such their impact and weight should be proportionately less. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight and the equivalent residential population: Table 51: Future Weighted Service Population Increase Calculation Category Existing Population Projected Increase Weight Factor Weighted Population Increase Residential 68,105 11,910 1.0 11,910 Employees 57,182 39,801 0.4325 17,114 TOTAL 125,287 29,024 As the table indicates, the projected increase in the service population is approximately 29,024, which reflects approximately a 23% increase compared to the existing population. Therefore, future development should bear approximately 23% of the costs. 25 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team utilized the proportion of fire calls for service that are commercial relative to residential calls for service. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS Due to the projected increase in residential and non-residential population there will be an impact on the department’s infrastructure. The planning horizon for the impact fee is 20 years (2020 through 2040) and while the department intends to purchase some additional equipment and relocate facilities, it will also need to replace existing equipment and upgrade its facilities during that span. A proportionate share of those upgrades should be borne by future development as future development will benefit from that equipment and the facilities. The following table shows by cost category, the average annual cost, the number of planning years, and the resulting cost for 20 years: Table 52: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost for 20 Years Category Average Annual Cost Planning Horizon Total Cost Equipment $477,273 20 $9,545,456 Vehicles $678,746 20 $13,574,923 Facilities $2,013,015 20 $40,260,297 TOTAL $3,169,034 20 $63,380,676 A detailed accounting of the average annual cost for equipment, vehicles, and facilities have been included in Appendix B of this report. Overall, in the next 20 years the Fire Department will require approximately $63 million to meet the needs of existing and future population of the City. In addition to the $63 million in costs, the other cost component to be considered is the administrative fee. Similar to the proposed Police impact fee, an administrative fee for the Fire Impact Fee was calculated. In the prior nexus study, the administrative fee utilized was 2%. As the administrative fee for the Police Impact Fee was calculated based upon the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund, which is comprised of both Police and Fire Impact fees, the same calculation is being utilized for the Fire Impact Fee calculation. For purposes of this study, the project team calculated the administrative fee based upon the total indirect costs allocated to the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund from the FY 2020 Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the average of the revenue collected by the fund over the last two years. The following table shows this calculation: Table 53: Fire Admin Fee Calculation Category Public Safety Impact Fee Fund Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $24,185 Impact Fee Revenue – 2 yr. average26 $659,283 Admin Fee Rate 3.67% 26 Due to the anomalous collection of revenue in FY17 for Public Safety Impact Fee, it was excluded from the calculation and only a 2 year average (FY18 and FY19) was utilized. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 41 The proposed administrative fee for the Fire Impact fee would be 3.67%, which is higher than the current 2% administrative fee. This 3.67% accounts for support provided by City staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds. 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Fire Department are approximately $63 million. However, not all of this cost should be borne by the future population. Based upon the growth assumptions analysis, only 15% of these costs should be borne by the future population. The following table shows the calculation for costs to be borne by future residential and non-residential populations: Table 54: Projected Cost Calculation Between Existing and Future Population Category Infrastructure Costs Proportion Total Cost to Be Borne Current Population $63,380,676 77% $48,803,120 Future Population $63,380,676 23% $14,577,555 Of the $63 million, only $14.6 million should be borne by the future population. This $14.6 million is divided by the total projected population increase, to calculate the cost per capita, as shown in the following table: Table 55: Projected Cost for New Development – Per Capita Future Population Cost Projected Population Increase Cost / Capita $14,577,555 51,71127 $281.90 The cost per capita from this table ($281.90) was converted into a cost per dwelling unit and cost per sq. ft. based upon the density factors discussed in the projected growth and development chapter. The following table shows this calculation: Table 56: Fire Impact Fee Calculation Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee Residential Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $281.90 3.45 $973 per dwelling unit Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $281.90 3.02 $851 per dwelling unit High Density (18+ du / acre) $281.90 2.57 $724 per dwelling unit Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $281.90 768 $0.37 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $281.90 2,000 $0.14 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $281.90 425 $0.66 per sq. ft. Industrial $281.90 1,250 $0.23 per sq. ft. 27 While the employees are weighted for service population calculation purposes, on a per capita calculation each employee still counts as singular and as such the 51,711 reflects the total of the 11,910 residents and 39,801 employees projected. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 As the table above indicates, the cost per dwelling unit varies from a low of $724 for high density residential developments to a high of $973 for low density (single-family) homes. The fees for commercial and non-residential vary from $0.14 per square foot for hotel / visitor properties to a high of $0.66 per square foot for office / R&D properties. To calculate the full allowable fee, the 3.67% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation: Table 57: Fire Impact Fee Calculation Including Administrative Fee Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee Residential Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $973 $35 $1,008 per dwelling unit Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $851 $32 $883 per dwelling unit High Density (18+ du / acre) $724 $27 $751 per dwelling unit Commercial / Non-Residential Commercial / Retail $0.37 $0.01 $0.38 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $0.14 $0.01 $0.15 per sq. ft. Office / R&D $0.66 $0.03 $0.69 per sq. ft. Industrial $0.23 $0.00 $0.23 per sq. ft. The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. As discussed previously, the City currently charges a singular Public Safety Impact Fee. The following table compares the current fire portion (60%) of the Public Safety Impact Fee to the fire full cost impact fee, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit. Table 58: Fire Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $771 $1,008 ($237) Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $486 $883 ($397) High Density (18+ du / acre) $338 $751 ($413) Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.26 $0.38 ($0.12) Hotel / Visitor $0.25 $0.15 $0.10 Office / R&D $0.26 $0.69 ($0.42) Industrial $0.11 $0.23 ($0.13) As the table indicates, all current impact fees, other than hotel / visitor, are under- recovering compared to the full cost. The over-recovery for the hotel / visitor fees is approximately $0.10 per square foot. The under-recovery is lower for non-residential properties such as $0.12 per square foot for commercial / retail and higher for residential properties ($413 per dwelling unit). These fees have not been updated in eight years, and as such some of the projected increases in fees would be expected due to cost factor Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 increases. Furthermore, other projected increases have to do with increased costs associated with facility and equipment rehabilitation, acquisition, and replacement. As aforementioned, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact fee for Fire and Police called a Public Safety Impact Fee. When this fee was originally developed, separate impact fees for Fire and Police were calculated, and then added together to create the Public Safety Impact Fee. Based upon the calculations it was determined that 60% of the current fee would reflect Fire, and 40% of the current fee would represent Police. This nexus analysis, similar to the prior analysis has calculated these impact fees separately. The following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee to the Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fee (Police and Fire) and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit. Table 59: Current vs. Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fees Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential (per dwelling unit) Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,285 $1,758 ($473) Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $810 $1,539 ($729) High Density (18+ du / acre) $563 $1,310 ($747) Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot) Commercial / Retail $0.44 $0.66 ($0.22) Hotel / Visitor $0.42 $0.26 $0.16 Office / R&D $0.44 $1.20 ($0.76) Industrial $0.18 $0.40 ($0.22) As the table indicates, the full cost of the overall Public Safety impact fee is significantly higher than the current fees charged by the City. At the culmination of the analysis, the City has the option to continue to bundle these fees on its fee schedule, or represent them separately. If the City were to bundle them together the updated split for the fee would be 43% for Police and 57% for Fire. For all monitoring and tracking purposes, the City collects and stores the fund in separate accounts and should continue to do so even if it collects it as a singular fee. 4 NEXUS CRITERIA As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Fire Impact fee meets the AB1600 criteria. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 44 Table 60: Fire Impact Fees Nexus Criteria Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Purpose of Fee The purpose of the fee would be to upgrade existing Fire stations, relocate, and reconstruct existing fire stations, as well as replace outdated fire equipment. Use of Fee Revenue The Fire Department has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for current and future years to help ensure that there is appropriate expansion of fire facilities and equipment to meet the public safety goals of the City. Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing fire stations to accommodate the appropriate number of ambulances and engines, as well as ensure that stations are located in appropriate locations to allow for the most efficient response for service. New residents and employees receive benefits from increased equipment and more efficient response times. Impact Relationship The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the fire stations to respond adequately, including in an efficient manner. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for responses would be borne by new residents or employees. Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit for residential properties and on a per sq. ft. basis for commercial properties as the impact is more space based rather than unit based. As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to impose a Fire Development Impact Fee. 5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions who charge a Fire Impact Fee. The following table compares the city’s current fee and full cost for Fire to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which charge a fire impact fee: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 Table 61: Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Low Density – Per DU Medium Density- Per DU High Density – Per DU Commercial – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. SSF – Current $771 $486 $338 $0.26 $0.26 $0.11 $0.25 SSF - Full Cost $1,008 $883 $751 $0.38 $0.69 $0.23 $0.15 Burlingame $642 $381 $381 $0.25 $0.36 $0.12 Napa $656 $589 $589 $0.51 $0.32 $1.17 The only surveyed jurisdictions that charge a stand-alone Fire Impact Fee rather than a combined Public Safety Impact Fee are Burlingame and Napa. South San Francisco’s current and full cost commercial fees are in line with the fees charged by both Burlingame and Napa, however, the full cost calculated for residential fees is much higher. In order to provide a true comparison between surveyed jurisdictions, the following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee and full cost Public Safety Impact Fee to the Police and Fire Impact Fees collected by other jurisdictions. Table 62: Police and Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Low Density – Per DU Medium Density- Per DU High Density – Per DU Commercial – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. SSF – Current $1,285 $810 $563 $0.44 $0.44 $0.18 $0.42 SSF - Full Cost $1,758 $1,539 $1,310 $0.66 $1.20 $0.40 $0.26 Burlingame $1,079 $640 $640 $0.35 $0.51 $0.17 $0.35 Millbrae $1,159 $854 $854 $0.37 $0.81 $0.08 $163 28 Palo Alto $1,081 $865 $865 $0.60 $0.81 $0.20 $0.60 San Bruno $1,145 $1,144 $1,144 $0.58 $0.58 $0.23 $9528 As the table indicates, the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee is in line with most of the jurisdictions surveyed. The City’s full cost fees for commercial projects are in line with Palo Alto and San Bruno; however, its full cost fees for residential projects are higher than the other jurisdictions. 28 These fees are applied per hotel room, not per square foot. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 8. In-Lieu Fees While In-Lieu fees are generally not considered the same as impact fees, they are generally governed under the same principles. Therefore, for simplicity purposes, the in- lieu fees currently charged by the city and being proposed to be charged by the City have been included in this analysis. The following subsections discuss two in-lieu fees for the City: Cultural Arts / Landscaping In-Lieu Fee and Parking In-Lieu Fee. 1 CULTURAL ARTS / LANDSCAPE IN-LIEU The Cultural Arts / Landscape in-lieu fee was established in 1997 through resolution and by amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance. Since the creation of this fee approximately 23 years ago, the fee has been annually increased, but it has not been reevaluated. The City’s zoning section indicates that the fee is only applicable on developed parcels, not on new construction related to vacant sites or demolition of more than 20%, and only if the landscaping criteria are not met. Based upon discussions with the City’s planning staff, it was determined that due to changes in the zoning code as well as landscaping regulations the division has not had to enforce the type of landscaping requirement that would trigger the developer the option to pay the in-lieu fee. The majority of the time, the landscaping requirements are just made as conditions of approval during the entitlement phase. Additionally, the City’s finance staff reviewed the revenues collected over the last 10 years and there have been no funds collected in the Cultural Arts fund. The fee is currently set at $8 per square foot compared to the $5.88 per square foot upon which it was established in 1997. The ordinance simply states that the fee is charged based upon the unit cost included in the Master Fee Schedule. As the fee has not been assessed in the last 10 years, and since zoning regulations have changed so significantly that it is extremely rare for a project to meet the criteria in which such a fee would be applicable, the project team is recommending that this fee be eliminated. The City should consider in its place the creation of a separate public art in-lieu fee. 2 PARKING IN-LIEU The City of South San Francisco conducted a downtown parking study, which included a recommendation for the City to establish a Parking In-Lieu Fee. As the legal section discusses, the City already has a municipal code established, which provides it with the authority to establish a parking in-lieu fee (specific to the downtown area). The concept behind an in-lieu fee is that the developer or the applicant has the option to either install the parking spaces or parking garage themselves or pay the City a cost per parking space required to help mitigate the impact for additional parking needs within the City. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 In order to calculate the Parking In-Lieu fee, the project team reviewed the City’s projected internal construction costs associated with constructing a parking garage within the City. The following table compares the total construction cost for two different types of proposed construction projects – Option 1 (Underground Parking Garage), and Option 2 (Underground and Surface Level parking), their average, the number of stalls and / or parking spaces, and the resulting cost per space: Table 63: Cost Per Space Calculation Category Option 1 Option 2 Average Total Construction Cost $31,413,000 $30,757,000 $31,085,000 # of Stalls / Spaces 378 400 389 Cost Per Stall / Space $83,103 $76,893 $79,910 As the table indicates, the average cost per stall or space in the city is approximately $79,910. This represents the full cost associated with replacing or installing a parking space within the City. As part of this analysis, the project team compared the City’s Parking In-Lieu cost to fees charged by other jurisdictions. The following table shows this comparison: Table 64: Parking In-Lieu Fee Comparative Survey Jurisdiction Fee Amount – Per Space South San Francisco $79,910 Mountain View $52,140 Napa $23,000 Palo Alto $106,171 Burlingame $57,291 Redwood City $25,000 San Mateo $50,000 Jurisdictional Average $56,216 Based upon the results of the comparative survey, South San Francisco’s full cost of $79,910 is less than Palo Alto’s fee of $106,171, but higher than the overall jurisdictional average. It is important to note that all of the jurisdictions surveyed only charge this fee within their downtown or central parking district and this is not a citywide fee. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 9. Transportation Impact Fee The City currently has two different impact fees that are assessed related to transportation – East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and the Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee. As these fees are localized either geographically or based upon the type of impact, through this study it was determined that a consolidated citywide transportation impact fee should be developed. The City contracted with DKS Associates (DKS) to conduct the calculations associated with the Transportation Impact Fee Study. As this impact fee analysis was undertaken concurrently with the other impact fees, it was determined that a singular report could be developed, in which the analysis developed by DKS would be incorporated. The detailed technical memorandum produced by DKS has been attached as Appendix C to this report. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions utilized, cost components included, resulting impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative analysis of Transportation Impact Fees. 1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The purpose of the Transportation Impact Fee is to recover costs associated with traffic measures such as roads, traffic lights, pathways, etc. The primary source of growth projections for transportation are dependent upon existing and future land use. The calculations for the existing and future land use were based upon California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates, the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Job Counts by NAICS, and input by the City’s Community and Economic Development Department. The projection horizon for the analysis was consistent from 2020 through 2040. The following table shows the existing and projected forecast by land use type: Table 65: Existing and Forecasted Land Use Category Existing 2020 Growth 2020-2040 Total 2040 Residential (Dwelling Units)29 Single-Family 16,272 30 16,302 Multi-Family 5,787 3,189 8,976 Non-Residential (Building Square Feet)30 Retail 3,401,000 78,339 3,479,339 Hotel / Motel 8,872,000 364,500 9,236,500 Office 7,250,025 12,673,495 19,923,520 Industrial 22,594,900 4,263 22,599,163 29 Existing 2020 Dwelling units based upon CA Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019. Single family includes detached and attached units. 30 Non-residential land uses - Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Job Counts by NAICS Industry Sector 2017. Nonresidential building square feet based on employment estimates and density factors of 400, 450, 1,000, and 1,500 square feet per employee for commercial, office, industrial, and hotel respectively. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 As the previous table indicates, a projected 3,219 additional dwelling units are expected to be added between 2020 and 2040 and approximately 13.1 million square feet in non- residential uses with the largest projected increase in office / R&D categories. The land use projection information is utilized in conjunction with trip generation rates information to determine the transportation demand. The methodology for South San Francisco incorporates standard trip generation rates, which measures the desire for mobility by residents or workers to access homes, jobs, shopping, and other city services. The trip generation rates are different depending upon the land use category and help justify the nexus between the type of development that would pay the fee and the cost of the transportation infrastructure associated with that development. The standard trip generation rates when multiplied by average trip lengths associated with each category of land use and the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculate an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factor. The EDU factor helps create a common baseline upon which the transportation impact fee can be calculated. The following table shows the calculation of the EDU factor for each land use based upon the trip generation, unit type (dwelling unit – du or 1,000 square feet – KSF), trip length, percent new trips, and vehicle miles traveled: Table 66: EDU Calculation by Land Use Category ITE Land Use Code31 Daily Trip Rate Unit Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT per Unit EDU Residential (Dwelling Units) Single-Family 210 9.44 du 7.90 100 74.58 1.00 Multi-Family 220 5.44 du 7.90 100 42.98 0.58 Non-Residential (Building Square Feet) Retail 820 37.75 KSF 3.60 6632 89.69 1.20 Hotel / Motel33 310 11.94 KSF 7.60 100 90.74 1.22 Office 710 9.74 KSF 8.80 100 85.71 1.15 Industrial 110 4.96 KSF 9.00 100 44.64 0.60 The EDU calculated for single-family homes is 1.00, and 0.58 for Multi-Family homes. Alternatively for non-residential projects, the calculation is based upon multiples of thousand square feet, so the EDU factor is 1.20 per KSF. The EDU factor based upon the traffic generation rates are applied to the existing and projected growth in order to calculate actual projected units (dwelling units or thousands 31 Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th edition; ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Table E.9: Pass-By and Non-Pass-By Trips, Weekday PM Peak Period; SANDAG, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002); Jan de Roos, Planning and Programming a Hotel (The Scholarly Commons: Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, 2011. 32 Accounts for trip ends that are not part of a new travel tour but are made mostly en route to another origin or destination and do not represent significant additional demand on the transportation network. 33 Hotel/Motel trip rate based on ITE rate per room and 700 gross building square feet per room. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 of square feet) associated with future development. The following table shows this calculation: Table 67: Conversion of EDU to Projected Units Category EDU Factor Existing 2020 EDU Existing 2020 Growth 2020-2040 EDU Growth 2020-2040 EDU Total 2040 Residential (Per du) Single-Family 1.00 16,272 16,272 30 30 16,302 Multi-Family 0.58 3,335 1,934 1,838 1,066 3,000 Non-Residential (per KSF) Retail 1.20 4,090 4,908 94 113 5,021 Hotel / Motel 1.22 10,795 13,170 444 542 13,712 Office 1.15 8,333 9,583 14,566 16,751 26,334 Industrial 0.60 13,525 8,115 3 2 8,117 TOTAL 56,350 53,982 16,975 18,503 72,485 As outlined in the table, the existing demand for transportation based upon EDU is approximately 56,350 compared to the projected overall demand of 72,485 in 2040. The existing demand represents 77% of the overall projected needs in 2040, and thereby the remaining 23% is associated with projected future development. 2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS Similar to the other impact fees evaluated in this report, the Citywide Transportation Impact fee was based upon the existing inventory of different transportation related items within the City. The infrastructure inventory was then converted into an existing facility standard (unit per EDU) based upon the 56,350 existing total units within the City. The following table shows the conversion of the total citywide transportation infrastructure by infrastructure type, unit, total quantity and the resulting existing facility standard per unit as calculated by DKS: Table 68: Infrastructure Inventory and Existing Facility Standard Infrastructure Category Unit Total Quantity EDU Existing Facility Standard Roadway Square Feet 17,582,145 56,350 312.0 Sidewalk Square Feet 3,026,716 56,350 53.7 Curb & Gutter Linear Feet 577,840 56,350 10.3 Median Square Feet 1,009,061 56,350 17.9 Bicycle Path Square Feet 180,576 56,350 3.2 Bicycle Lane Linear Feet 666,574 56,350 11.8 Traffic Signal Intersections 113 56,350 0.002 The primary source of traffic related infrastructure in the city is related to square footage or roadways and sidewalks. In order to calculate the current cost standard associated with residential and non-residential units, the cost per unit was calculated for each of the Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 51 infrastructure categories. The cost calculated per unit was based upon the following three factors: 1. Construction Cost: This is reflective of the actual construction costs associated with the capital project for the specific infrastructure but does not include temporary traffic control; and for roadways does not include the cost associated with street lighting, water pollution prevention, street furniture and drainage. 2. Design and Management Cost: This is calculated at 40% and is comprised of 20% for project design, 15% for construction engineering, and 5% for project management. 3. Contingency: A 20% contingency factor is incorporated into the calculation to account for any unexpected expenses or hurdles associated with the inventory construction projects. The design and management and contingency factors are applied to the base construction cost per unit to calculate the total cost per unit. The following table shows the total cost per unit calculated by infrastructure type based upon calculations performed by DKS: Table 69: Infrastructure Cost Per Unit Infrastructure Category Unit Construction Cost Design & Management Contingency Replacement Cost Per Unit Roadway Square Feet $37 40% 20% $63 Sidewalk Square Feet $31 40% 20% $52 Curb & Gutter Linear Feet $86 40% 20% $144 Median Square Feet $28 40% 20% $47 Bicycle Path Square Feet $26 40% 20% $44 Bicycle Lane Linear Feet $10 40% 20% $17 Traffic Signal Intersections $528,000 40% 20% $887,040 The replacement cost per unit varies depending upon the type of infrastructure category and the existing facility standard (units per EDU). The facility standard is multiplied by the replacement cost per unit to calculate the existing level of investment per EDU. The following table shows this calculation: Table 70: Level of Investment by Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Category Existing Facility Standard Replacement Cost Existing Level of Investment per EDU Roadway 312.0 $63 $19,605 Sidewalk 53.7 $52 $2,797 Curb & Gutter 10.3 $144 $1,478 Median 17.9 $47 $842 Bicycle Path 3.2 $44 $140 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 52 Infrastructure Category Existing Facility Standard Replacement Cost Existing Level of Investment per EDU Bicycle Lane 11.8 $17 $199 Traffic Signal 0.002 $887,040 $1,779 TOTAL EXISTING INVESTMENT $26,840 The $26,840 represents the total existing investment per EDU made by the City. If the City were to maintain its existing standards of inventory per resident the $26,840 would be the maximum justified level of investment from new development. While the $26,840 is the current standard, the City has historically funded its transportation projects through a variety of sources – Transportation Impact Fees, General Fund, Gas Tax, Sales Tax, and Grant Programs. The following table shows the forecasted projects to be potentially funded through the Transportation Impact Fee by project source, number of projects, estimated costs, and project types. Table 71: Transportation Improvements Cost Summary Project Source Number of Projects Estimated Costs Project Types Active South City Project Recommendations 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility 2020 Projects 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area (2007) 12 $512,000,000 Arterial Improvements TOTAL 156 $688,476,068 The projected estimated costs for transportation improvements for the City are $688 million and comprised of 156 projects. Appendix D provides a detailed listing of the projects for which the full cost transportation impact fee could be utilized. The City assumes that approximately 100% of these projects will be completed through the 20 year planning horizon (by 2040). Similar to all of the other impact fees, an administrative fee was calculated for the Transportation Impact Fee. DKS assumed the administrative fee at a rate of 2%, which is in line with the overhead costs allocated to the Bike / Pedestrian and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees and revenues collected. It is primarily meant to account for the City’s overhead costs related to tracking and reporting on the use of impact fee revenues. 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION As the previous section calculated, the total existing facility standard results in $26,840 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). This full cost impact fee per EDU is converted into the transportation impact fee based upon the EDU factor calculated in the growth assumptions of this section. The following table shows this calculation: Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 53 Table 72: Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Calculation Category Impact Fee Per EDU EDU Factor Transportation impact Fee Residential Single-Family $26,840 1.00 per du $26,840 per du Multi-Family $26,840 0.58 per du $15,467 per du Non-Residential Retail $26,840 1.20 per KSF $32.28 per sq. ft. Hotel / Motel $26,840 1.22 per KSF $22,861 per room34 Office / R&D $26,840 1.15 per KSF $30.85 per sq. ft. Industrial $26,840 0.60 per KSF $16.07 per sq. ft. Similar to the other impact fees, an administrative fee of 2.00% was added onto this calculation. The following table shows the maximum fee associated with transportation including the administrative fee component: Table 73: Fire Impact Fee Calculation Including Administrative Fee Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee Residential Single Family $26,840 $537 $27,377 per du Multi-Family $15,467 $309 $15,776 per du Commercial / Non-Residential Retail $32.28 $0.65 $32.93 per sq. ft. Hotel / Visitor $22,861 $457 $23,318 per room Office / R&D $30.85 $0.62 $31.47 per sq. ft. Industrial $16.07 $0.32 $16.39 per sq. ft. As the table indicates, the full cost transportation impact fee varies from a low of $16.39 per square feet for industrial properties to a high of $27,377 for single-family properties. As discussed previously in this study, the goal of the City was to combine all existing transportation related impact fees (East of 101 and Bike / Pedestrian) into a singular Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee (East of 101 and Bike / Pedestrian Fee) to the full cost fee calculated through the analysis and the resulting surplus / (deficit) per unit: Table 74: Citywide Transportation Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Residential Single-Family $243 $27,377 ($27,134) Multi-Family $170 $15,776 ($15,606) 34 The criteria of 700 sq. ft. per room was utilized. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 54 Category Current Fee Full Cost Fee Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit Commercial / Non-Residential Retail $25.42 $32.93 ($7.51) Hotel / Visitor – per room $1,40735 $23,318 ($21,911) Office / R&D $6.14 $31.47 ($25.33) Industrial $0.12 $16.39 ($16.27) The City is currently under-recovering for all impact fee categories, with the under- recovery ranging from approximately $27,000 per single-family home to $7.51 per retail square foot. 4 NEXUS CRITERIA As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Citywide Transportation Impact fee meets the AB1600 criteria. Table 75: Transportation Impact Fees Nexus Criteria Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Purpose of Fee The purpose of the fee would be to upgrade existing transportation measures or fund the construction of new transportation measures based upon the projected increase in development within the City. Use of Fee Revenue Appendix D of this report includes a list of detailed projects upon which the projected Transportation Impact Fee could be utilized. The City has the right to modify the project list, adding or replacing projects as long as they are consistent with the nexus analysis and are capital projects, part of the citywide transportation network and are related to enhancement, upgrades, and expansion of existing and future transportation infrastructure. Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to enhance, upgrade, or expand existing and future transportation infrastructure. New residents and employees receive benefit from these transportation project improvements. 35 A fee of $0.24 per sq. ft. is added on for the Bike / Ped Fe e. Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 55 Criteria Meet Don’t Meet Impact Relationship The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the city’s existing transportation system to meet all of their needs. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional transportation infrastructure or improving existing transportation infrastructure would be proportionately borne by new residents or employees. Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of vehicle miles traveled based upon the type of land use category and converted to an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) factor. The fees are calculated per dwelling unit for residential properties and on a per sq. ft. basis for commercial properties as the impact is more space based rather than unit based. As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to implement a Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. 5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions. The following table compares the city’s current fee and full cost for Transportation to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which charge a Transportation Impact Fee: Table 76: Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Comparative Survey Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Single- Family – Per DU Multi- Family – Per DU Retail – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Room SSF – Current $243 $170 $25.42 $6.14 $0.12 $1,40721 SSF - Full Cost $27,377 $15,776 $32.93 $31.47 $16.39 $23,318 Burlingame $1,573 $1,105 $1.81 $7.29 $1.15 $1.81 per sq. ft. Millbrae $1,875 $1,061 $7.22 $2.12 $1.193 $1,136 Mountain View $4,788 $2,681 $5.11 $5.11 $5.11 $2,961 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 56 Residential Commercial / Non-Residential Jurisdiction Single- Family – Per DU Multi- Family – Per DU Retail – Per Sq. Ft Office – Per Sq. Ft Industrial – Per Sq. Ft Hotel – Per Room Napa $4,723 $3,198 $4.38 0- 19,999 sq. ft. = $5.3936 19,999+ sq. ft. = $4.32 $1.92 $2,725 Palo Alto37 $7,886 $7,886 $7,886 $7,886 $7,886 $7,886 Redwood City38 $1,617 $992 $0.39-$32.72 $1.79- $2.38 $1.16- $1.55 $709- $945 San Bruno $3,374 $2,610 $8.95 $6.95 $2.78 $1,527 San Francisco 21-99 units = $9.61 per sq. ft.; 99+ units = $10.86 per sq. ft. 800-99,999 sq. ft. = $22.40 per sq. ft.; 99,999+ sq. ft. = $25.36 800- 99,999 sq. ft. = $22.40 per sq. ft.; 99,999+ sq. ft. = $25.36 800- 99,999 sq. ft. = $22.40 per sq. ft.; 99,999+ sq. ft. = $25.36 800- 99,999 sq. ft. = $22.40 per sq. ft.; 99,999+ sq. ft. = $25.36 San Mateo $4,367 $2,681 $7.50 $4.01 $2.61 $4.01 Due to the large variation in the manner in which impact fees are charged it is hard to compare the impact fees across the board. However, in comparing the City’s current fees they are lower than other jurisdictions and their full cost fees are significantly higher than all other jurisdictions surveyed. 36 The rate of $5.39 is applied for less than 19,999 sq. ft. projects located in downtown and $3.51 for greater than 19,999 sq. ft. projects. 37 The fee for Palo Alto is applied per peak hour trip. 38 The fee for Redwood City varies depending upon the specific type of construction as well as the location. For residential projects that are downtown the single-family fee is $1,212 and multi-family fee is $744. Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 1 Appendix A: Police Costs Components Detailed Calculations The following tables provide information regarding police equipment, vehicle, and facility costs. All quantity, cost per unit calculations, and lifecycle information was provided and confirmed by City of South San Francisco Police Department staff. Table 77: Police Equipment Costs Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Lifecycle Avg Annual Cost Safety Gear & Equipment Body armor, patrol 95 $926 $87,970 5 $17,594 Body armor, SWAT 10 $1,500 $15,000 5 $3,000 Breeching equipment, SWAT 1 $5,000 $5,000 10 $500 Tasers 100 $1,100 $110,000 5 $22,000 Holster, Taser 100 $60 $6,000 5 $1,200 WMD/gas masks 95 $560 $53,200 10 $5,320 Card access system 1 $50,000 $50,000 10 $5,000 Pistol, patrol 110 $425 $46,750 10 $4,675 Holster, pistol 110 $120 $13,200 5 $2,640 Pistol, compact 21 $425 $8,925 10 $893 Pistol, training 8 $550 $4,400 10 $440 Flashlight, patrol 110 $100 $11,000 5 $2,200 Flashlight, pistol 110 $110 $12,100 5 $2,420 Flashlight, SWAT rifles 10 $400 $4,000 5 $800 Less lethal, patrol 4 $1,000 $4,000 10 $400 Less lethal, SWAT (single shot) 1 $1,000 $1,000 10 $100 Less lethal, SWAT (multi-shot) 1 $3,000 $3,000 15 $200 Pepperball guns 2 $800 $1,600 10 $160 Rifle, patrol 40 $1,100 $44,000 10 $4,400 Rifle, SWAT Colt SBR 10 $1,200 $12,000 10 $1,200 Rifle, SWAT sniper 2 $3,500 $7,000 10 $700 Optics, patrol less lethal 4 $800 $3,200 10 $320 Optics, SWAT less lethal 2 $800 $1,600 10 $160 Optics, patrol rifle 40 $800 $32,000 5 $6,400 Optics, SWAT rifle 10 $800 $8,000 5 $1,600 Optics, SWAT sniper 2 $2,000 $4,000 10 $400 Optics, pepperball gun 2 $800 $1,600 10 $160 Shotgun, patrol 30 $650 $19,500 10 $1,950 Suppressor, SWAT rifle 10 $1,200 $12,000 5 $2,400 Suppressor, SWAT sniper 2 $1,200 $2,400 10 $240 Night vision, patrol 4 $4,000 $16,000 5 $3,200 Night vision, SWAT 8 $4,000 $32,000 10 $3,200 Uniform, Patrol (initial issuance) 110 $1,000 $110,000 5 $22,000 Uniform, SWAT 10 $400 $4,000 2 $2,000.00 Helmet, ballistic SWAT 10 $800 $8,000 5 $1,600.00 Helmet, ballistic patrol 110 $500 $55,000 10 $5,500 Communications Annual maintenance cost 1 $42,088 $42,088 1 $42,088 CCTV, station security server 1 $30,000 $30,000 6 $5,000 CCTV, station security cameras 38 $1,000 $38,000 8 $4,750 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 2 Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Lifecycle Avg Annual Cost CCTV, station security license 1 $200 $200 8 $25 CCTV, interview room 1 $30,000 $30,000 10 $3,000 Computer, desktop 102 $1,500 $153,000 6 $25,500 Computer, mobile 28 $9,000 $252,000 6 $42,000 Computer, server 1 $110,000 $110,000 6 $18,333 Computer, server MAV/BWC 1 $95,000 $95,000 6 $15,833 MAV 26 $6,000 $156,000 5 $31,200 BWC 63 $1,000 $63,000 5 $12,600 Telephone, I.P. 75 $350 $26,250 10 $2,625 Radio, mobile 50 $2,500 $125,000 10 $12,500 Radio, portable 110 $1,400 $154,000 10 $15,400 Radio, portable (small) 17 $1,000 $17,000 10 $1,700 Radio, portable SWAT 10 $1,400 $14,000 5 $2,800 Radio, portable SWAT headset 10 $500 $5,000 5 $1,000 Radio, console 1 $325,000 $325,000 12 $27,083 Radio, microwave 1 $125,000 $125,000 12 $10,417 Radio, base station 1 $275,000 $275,000 12 $22,917 Radio, base station antennas 1 $150,000 $150,000 15 $10,000 Radio, comparator 3 $20,000 $60,000 10 $6,000 Video display 3 $4,500 $13,500 7 $1,929 HNT equipment 1 $20,000 $20,000 5 $4,000 iPhones 26 $500 $13,000 3 $4,333 iPads 13 $700 $9,100 3 $3,033 Data plan, iPhones & iPads 48 $480 $23,040 1 $23,040 Data plan, patrol vehicles 40 $480 $19,200 1 $19,200 Other Generator, Sign Hill 1 $175,000 $175,000 15 $11,667 Generator, police station 1 $175,000 $175,000 15 $11,667 Power, UPS 1 $125,000 $125,000 12 $10,417 Canine, initial dog cost 7 $10,000 $70,000 6 $11,667 Canine, medical & food 7 $780 $5,460 1 $5,460 Drone 1 $12,500 $12,500 5 $2,500 Investigative Technology Cell Hawk 1 $2,500 $2,500 5 $500 Forensic Logic 1 $7,400 $7,400 5 $1,480 Celebrate 1 $10,000 $10,000 5 $2,000 Coverttrack 2 $1,200 $2,400 1 $2,400 LP Police 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 FirstTwo 1 $3,600 $3,600 5 $720 Accurint 1 $1,200 $1,200 1 $1,200 Future Planned Purchases EOC Command Center RV 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 10 $100,000 Defensive Tactics Equipment 1 $10,000 $10,000 5 $2,000 Drone 2 25000 $50,000 5 $10,000 City-wide LPR system 50 2000 $100,000 5 $20,000 Radio tower antenna 1 250000 $250,000 20 $12,500 AEDs (1 per car) 25 1500 $37,500 5 $7,500 Bearcat armored vehicle 1 300000 $300,000 10 $30,000 TOTAL $739,955 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 3 Table 78: Police Vehicle Costs Item Count Unit Cost Total Cost Lifespan Average Annual Cost Ford Explorer Interceptor 26 $48,500 $1,261,000 5 $252,200 Ford E350 1 $26,000 $26,000 10 $2,600 Ford F150 2 $26,000 $52,000 5 $10,400 Ford Freestar 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 $2,000 Ford Fusion 7 $27,000 $189,000 5 $37,800 Dodge Charger SXT Plus 1 $32,000 $32,000 5 $6,400 Chevrolet Colorado 3 $48,500 $145,500 5 $29,100 Chevrolet Silverado 1 $54,000 $54,000 5 $10,800 Chevrolet Tahoe 2 $67,500 $135,000 5 $27,000 Harley Davidson FLHTP 7 $33,000 $231,000 5 $46,200 GMC Yukon 1 $40,000 $40,000 5 $8,000 Go-4 Interceptor 4 $34,000 $136,000 5 $27,200 Radar Trailer 2 $19,000 $38,000 10 $3,800 Carson Trailer 1 $2,300 $2,300 10 $230 DUI/Command Trailer 1 $150,000 $150,000 10 $15,000 Bicycles 4 $1,100 $4,400 5 $880 TOTAL $479,610 Table 79: Police Facility Costs Item Count Unit Cost Total Cost Lifespan Average Annual Cost Police Headquarters 1 $56,857,615 $56,857,615 50 $1,137,152 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 4 Appendix B: Fire Costs Components Detailed Calculations The following tables provide information regarding police equipment, vehicle, and facility costs. All quantity, cost per unit calculations, and lifecycle information was provided and confirmed by City of South San Francisco Fire Department staff. Table 80: Fire Equipment Costs Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Lifecycle Avg Annual Cost Fire Equipment 5000 Watt Portable Honda Generators 7 $2,640 $18,480 15 $1,232 ALS Ambulance Equipment 4 $38,920 $155,680 9 $17,298 Battalion Chief, Reserve Battalion Chief, Training Chief and EMS Chief vehicle equipment 1 $59,670 $59,670 10 $5,967 Battalion Chief Vehicle Equipment 2 $59,670 $119,340 14 $8,524 Blowers 8 $1,920 $15,360 15 $1,024 BLS Ambulance Equipment 2 $25,000 $50,000 10 $5,000 Boat Motors 2 $25,000 $50,000 10 $5,000 Dosimeters 12 $1,517 $18,200 10 $1,820 Draeger Fire Extinguisher Demonstrator 1 $14,000 $14,000 15 $933 EMS Portable Radios 12 $4,900 $58,800 8 $7,350 Engine iPads 5 $850 $4,250 17 $250 EOC Audio Visual 1 $100,000 $100,000 8 $12,500 EOC Laptops 18 $2,843 $51,174 5 $10,235 Extrication Equipment 4 $59,208 $236,832 12 $19,736 Fire Chief & Deputy Chief Equipment 2 $20,000 $40,000 10 $4,000 Fire Portable Radios 71 $4,000 $284,000 10 $28,400 Forward Looking Infrared Camera (FLIR) 1 $17,000 $17,000 12 $1,417 Freddie the Fire Truck 1 $10,000 $10,000 20 $500 Fire Station Furniture and Fixtures 5 $20,000 $100,000 15 $6,667 Gas Monitors 16 $3,740 $59,840 10 $5,984 Generic Power Saws 10 $3,039 $30,390 15 $2,026 Gurney (Self Loading) 1 $38,000 $38,000 9 $4,222 HAM Base Station 3 $900 $2,700 10 $270 HAM Portable 8 $70 $560 10 $56 Handheld Chemical Radiation Detector 1 $2,500 $2,500 15 $167 Hose Tester 1 $6,500 $6,500 5 $1,300 Hose, Nozzles, and Fittings 10 $28,550 $285,500 15 $19,033 Inmotion Routers 15 $5,000 $75,000 7 $10,714 Interactive Presentation Board 1 $10,000 $10,000 10 $1,000 Jet Dock Boat Launch 1 $18,500 $18,500 15 $1,233 Kitchen Prop (Tower) 1 $70,000 $70,000 20 $3,500 Kitchen Stove Prop (Tower) 1 $70,000 $70,000 20 $3,500 Lucas Compression Device 5 $15,000 $75,000 7 $10,714 Material Handling Forklift Large 1 $40,000 $40,000 15 $2,667 Material Handling Forklift Small 1 $20,000 $20,000 15 $1,333 Mobile Radios (Command Vehicle) 6 $5,300 $31,800 10 $3,180 Mobile Radios (EMS) 12 $5,300 $63,600 10 $6,360 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 5 Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Lifecycle Avg Annual Cost Navionics 1 $12,000 $12,000 15 $800 Narcotics Safe 15 $1,800 $27,000 15 $1,800 Vehicle Knox Box 20 $1,200 $24,000 15 $1,600 Oil Spill Trailer Equipment 1 $20,000 $20,000 15 $1,333 Phase 5 Lab Fire Simulator 1 $27,000 $27,000 20 $1,350 EOC Plotter 1 $6,727 $6,727 6 $1,121 Portacount N95 / Respiratory Tester 1 $12,000 $12,000 15 $800 Rescue Rope and Hardware 5 $5,000 $25,000 1 $25,000 RIC Equipment 2 $5,000 $10,000 15 $667 Satellite Communications 2 $1,500 $3,000 10 $300 SCBA Filling Station 1 $90,000 $90,000 20 $4,500 SCBA Filling Station 1 $41,834 $41,834 20 $2,092 SCBA Filling Station 1 $50,000 $50,000 20 $2,500 Station Alert System 1 $175,311 $175,311 10 $17,531 Thermal Imagers 14 $8,310 $116,340 10 $11,634 Portable Laptop Computers 12 $2,500 $30,000 4 $7,500 Training AV 1 $9,100 $9,100 15 $607 Turnout Dryer 2 $8,576 $17,152 15 $1,143 Turnout Extractor 2 $11,418 $22,836 15 $1,522 Unstaffed Aerial Vehicles 1 $35,000 $35,000 5 $7,000 Other Fire Equipment Structural PPE (coat and Pants) 160 $2,535 $405,600 5 $81,120 Structural PPE (helmet) 80 $350 $28,000 10 $2,800 Structural PPE (boots) 80 $575 $46,000 10 $4,600 PPE (ballistic vests) 50 $650 $32,500 10 $3,250 PPE (ballistic helmets) 50 $395 $19,750 10 $1,975 Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA, BOTTLE) 50 $6,500 $325,000 15 $21,667 Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (spare BOTTLE) 50 $1,100 $55,000 15 $3,667 SCBA Face Piece with Voice Amplifier 80 $700 $56,000 15 $3,733 Wildland Personal Protective Equipment 80 $1,200 $96,000 5 $19,200 USAR Personal Protective Equipment (BDU, boots and helmet) 80 $525 $42,000 5 $8,400 USAR SCBA (Escape Bottles) set 6 $4,500 $27,000 15 $1,800 Miscellaneous gloves, hoods, goggles, headlamps, etc. 80 $475 $38,000 5 $7,600 Inclement Weather PPE 92 $124 $11,420 5 $2,284 Air light Unit 5 $5,000 $25,000 15 $1,667 Computer Desktop 10 $1,100 $11,000 6 $1,833 Gas Monitors (USR) 6 $3,740 $22,440 10 $2,244 Fuel Tender Trailer 1 $6,700 $6,700 10 $670 Western Shelter (19x35) with HVAC 1 $32,000 $32,000 20 $1,600 Western Shelter (20 foot diameter) with HVAC 1 $25,000 $25,000 20 $1,250 TOTAL $477,273 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 6 Table 81: Fire Vehicle Costs Fire Vehicle Inventory Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Lifecycle Avg Annual Cost 2015 Ford Police Interceptor Explorer 1 $31,036 $31,036 10 $3,104 2018 Ford Police Interceptor Explorer 1 $0 10 $0 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid 1 $29,773 $29,773 10 $2,977 2013 Ford Police Interceptor Explorer 1 $32,103 $32,103 10 $3,210 1998 Chevrolet S-10 1 $17,103 $17,103 10 $1,710 2019 Ford F-150 1 $36,397 $36,397 10 $3,640 2013 Chevrolet Suburban 1 $35,000 $35,000 10 $3,500 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid 1 $29,773 $29,773 10 $2,977 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid 1 $29,773 $29,773 10 $2,977 2016 Ford F350 1 $51,893 $51,893 10 $5,189 2008 Spartan Gladiator 1 $500,000 $500,000 20 $25,000 2008 Spartan Gladiator 1 $500,000 $500,000 15 $33,333 2000 Spartan Gladiator 1 $330,000 $330,000 15 $22,000 2019 Spartan Gladiator 1 $348,291 $348,291 15 $23,219 2008 Spartan Gladiator 1 $500,000 $500,000 15 $33,333 2016 Freightliner M2 1 $327,765 $327,765 9 $36,418 2010 Spartan Gladiator 1 $557,000 $557,000 15 $37,133 2013 Sprinter 2500 Cargo Van 1 $123,591 $123,591 9 $13,732 2013 Sutphen SPH100 HS5229 1 $1,289,158 $1,289,158 12 $107,430 2010 Spartan Gladiator 1 $560,000 $560,000 15 $37,333 2016 Spartan Quint 1 $1,033,219 $1,033,219 12 $86,102 2001 Wells Trailer 1 $6,500 $6,500 25 $260 2002 Spartan Gladiator 1 $330,000 $330,000 15 $22,000 1992 Spartan Gladiator 1 $230,000 $230,000 15 $15,333 2000 Spartan Gladiator 1 $348,291 $348,291 15 $23,219 2017 Ford F150 1 $36,397 $36,397 10 $3,640 2011 International Dura Star 1 $279,665 $279,665 9 $31,074 2011 International Dura Star 1 $279,665 $279,665 9 $31,074 2017 Ford Police Interceptor Explorer 1 $33,046 $33,046 10 $3,305 1991 Wiggins Forklift - W156Y 1 $125,000 $125,000 25 $5,000 2006 Safe Boat (RB62) 1 $300,000 $300,000 25 $12,000 2006 Scotty Trailer 1 $15,000 $15,000 25 $600 2007 Ford F250 1 $70,000 $70,000 10 $7,000 2007 Ford Ranger 1 $70,000 $70,000 10 $7,000 2007 Ford Ranger 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 $2,000 2007 Ford Ranger 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 $2,000 2011 Blaze Trailer 1 $19,500 $19,500 25 $780 2003 Ford E350 1 $8,500 $8,500 9 $944 2006 Kohler 230RE0ZD 1 $90,000 $90,000 10 $9,000 1999 Onan DGCB-3369912 1 $30,000 $30,000 15 $2,000 1992 Kohler 60R0ZJ61 1 $30,000 $30,000 10 $3,000 2014 Dummy Vehicle Fire 1 $30,000 $30,000 10 $3,000 1916 Seagrave Fire Engine 1 $20,000 $20,000 15 $1,333 2013 Ford Police Interceptor Explorer 1 $32,104 $32,104 10 $3,210 2002 Chevrolet Malibu 1 $17,000 $17,000 7 $2,429 Zodiac - Inflatable Rescue Boat & Trailer 1 $7,500 $7,500 20 $375 Port-o-Potty 2 $1,500 $3,000 20 $150 TOTAL $678,746 Attachment 1 Matrix Consulting Group Appendix 7 Table 82: Fire Existing and Proposed Facility Costs Fire Facilities: Total Value39 Lifecycle Annual Cost Existing Facilities Station 61/Fire Administration, 480 North Canal Street $29,587,949 50 $591,759 Station 64, 2350 Galway $12,315,796 50 $246,316 Station 65, 1151 South San Francisco Drive $7,960,210 50 $159,204 EOC, 490 North Canal Street $3,950,066 50 $79,001 Fire Proposed Facilities: Proposed Station 63 Replacement $15,150,000 50 $303,000 Planned New Fire Station East of 101 (Fire Station 62) $13,855,271 50 $277,105 EOC, 490 North Canal Street, proposed 2nd floor $3,321,320 50 $66,426 Traffic Preemption Project $1,241,013 5 $248,203 Upgrades Training Tower for CIP $320,000 10 $32,000 PPE Storage Room 65 $100,000 10 $10,000 TOTAL $2,013,014 39 The Total Value for Fire Facilities is based on projected costs of capital projects or a rate of $1,670 per sq. ft. for new fire facilities. Attachment 1 Appendix C: DKS Associates Transportation Impact Fee Analysis The following includes the technical memorandum produced by DKS Associates in relation to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION DATE: July 15, 2020 TO: Matt Ruble | City of South San Francisco FROM: Erin Vaca | DKS Associates SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee –Calculations and Material for Impact Fee Nexus Study Project #17011-018 Introduction and Background The City of South San Francisco is undertaking a comprehensive update of fees, including user fees and development impact fees. As part of this process, DKS Associates has been asked to develop an updated Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) that will replace the existing East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and an existing citywide bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. This memorandum presents the results of the fee calculation along with supporting documentation for the nexus study being prepared by Matrix Consulting. California local agencies may adopt impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in Sections 66000 to 66025 of the California Government Code. This memorandum presents the key findings required by the act for adopting or increasing an impact fee with respect to the following reasonable relationships40: 1. Impact – There must be a reasonable relationship established between new development and the need for public facilities. For South San Francisco, this finding is based on maintaining the City’s existing level of investment in its citywide multimodal transportation network (see “Facility Standards and Level of Investment”). 2. Benefit – There must be a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenue for public facilities to accommodate that development. For South San Francisco, this finding is based on the planned improvements needed, as documented in long range 40 California Government Code, section 66001(a)(3), 66001(a)(4), and 66001(b). Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 9 plans including the Active South City project, the Mobility 2020 Plan, and the project list from the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (see “Improvements and Costs”). 3. Proportionality – A reasonable relationship should exist between the amount of the fee and the portion of public facilities cost associated with new development. This finding is based on the cost per unit of development (equivalent dwelling unit) and rates of use by land use category (see “Transportation Demand”). In addition to the above findings, the Act also requires findings regarding the purpose of the fee and a description of the public facilities to be funded by the fee. The purpose of the TIF is to expand the City’s transportation network to accommodate increased demand by new development. Examples of the types of projects to be funded by the fee are listed in Appendix A, with additional detail available in the source documents. Existing and Forecast Transportation Infrastructure Demand The TIF amount is partly based on the demand for transportation infrastructure associated with existing and new development. The TIF will fund multimodal improvements to and expansions of the transportation network that will benefit new development. Land Use Estimates of existing land use are required to determine the existing level of investment in the City’s multimodal transportation network relative to existing levels of transportation demand. DKS developed estimates of existing levels of land use using two sources: 1) The California Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State formed the basis for existing residential land uses. 2) Employment by industry sector as developed for the ongoing General Plan update and provided by the Department of Economic and Community Development. The employment by sector was converted to estimates of retail, office, industrial, and hotel use with employment density factors consistent with those being used in the City’s travel demand model and General Plan updates. Forecasts of future land use are required to estimate additional demands on the transportation system from new development and potential fee revenue. Growth projections by land use category were developed from the pipeline projects compiled for the ongoing General Plan analyses. These projections were developed in consultation with the City’s Economic and Community Development Department. While these growth estimates are what can be reasonably foreseen over the planning horizon of 2020 to 2040, the ultimate buildout capacity of the City may be greater or lesser, depending on the outcome of the general plan update. Growth projections are used only to estimate the level of revenue that might be generated from the proposed TIF and do not directly enter the calculation of the maximum justifiable fee. This analysis will be updated based on the Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 10 adopted general plan update should there be any significant change in the capital planning documents mentioned above or the growth forecast. The amount of future year development by land use category was calculated as existing development plus growth development. Table 1 presents the amount of existing, new development, and total future development by category. Transportation Demand This nexus analysis uses person trip generation rates by land use category to account for variations in travel demand among land uses. Trip generation rates by land use category reflect either the origin or destination of a trip and are therefore a reasonable measure of the desire for mobility by residents and workers to access homes, jobs, shopping, and other activities. This approach provides a reasonable relationship between the type of development that would pay the fee, the amount of the fee, and the cost of transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate that development. As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the trip generation rates, combined with average trip lengths associated with each category of land use, are used to develop Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) on the basis of person miles traveled. In this way, different land uses are expressed in terms of their travel demand relative to the single-family dwelling unit. The EDUs represent a common denominator with which to calculate the transportation impact fee. Vehicle trip rates are used as an indicator of person trip rates because vehicle occupancy across all land uses is close to 1.0. Some trips from existing and new development do not place significant additional demand on the transportation network because they are intermediate stops on the way between primary origins and destinations. Stopping at a grocery store or gas station on the way home from work would be an example of such a “pass by” trip. Table 2 includes an adjustment for retail land use trip generation to account for this phenomenon. Table 3 shows the Equivalent Dwelling Units derived from the land use data in Table 1 and the EDU factors from Table 2. Since the EDU factors are based on relative travel demand, the EDUs shown in Table 2 represent the allocation of travel demand from existing and future development in South San Francisco by land use. The new TIF will fund enhancements, improvements, and expansion of citywide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased travel demand from new development. Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 11 TABLE 83: EXISTING AND FORECAST DEVELOPMENT Sources and Notes a) Existing residential units- CA Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019. Single family includes detached and attached units. Existing non-residential land use derived from employment by industry sector from California Employment Development Department, 2018; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018; and Strategic Economics, 2020. Nonresidential building square feet based on employment estimates and density factors (square feet per employee) and recategorization into broad land use categories as follows: retail - 1000, service - 225, (office), other - 800 (office), office/biotech/R&D - 425 (office), hotel - 2000, manufacturing - 650 (industrial), wholesale trade - 1100 (industrial), agricultural - 2000 (industrial). b) Growth projections from Economic and Community Development Department, as compiled from development pipeline projects. LAND USE EXISTING 2020a GROWTH 2020-2040b TOTAL 2040 RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302 MULTI-FAMILY 5,787 3,189 8,976 TOTAL 22,059 3,219 25,278 NONRESIDENTIAL (BUILDING SQUARE FEET) RETAIL 3,401,000 78,339 3,479,339 HOTEL/MOTEL 8,872,000 364,500 9,236,500 OFFICE/R&D 7,250,025 12,673,495 19,923,520 INDUSTRIAL 22,594,900 4,263 22,599,163 TOTAL 42,117,925 13,120,597 55,238,522 Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 12 TABLE 84: EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT RATES Sources: Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th edition; ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Table E.9: Pass-By and Non -Pass-By Trips, Weekday PM Peak Period; SANDAG, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002); Jan de Roos, Planning and Programming a Hotel (The Scholarly Commons: Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, 2011 Notes a) Person-miles traveled b) Thousand square feet c) Accounts for trip ends that are not part of a new travel tour but are made mostly en route to another origin or destination and do not represent significant additional demand on the transportation network. d) Hotel/Motel trip rate based on ITE rate per room and 700 gross building square feet per room. LAND USE ITE LAND USE CODE1 DAILY TRIP RATE UNIT TRIP LENGTH PERCENT NEW TRIPS P MTa PER UNIT EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 210 9.44 Dwelling unit 7.90 100 74.58 1.00 per SFDU MULTI-FAMILY 221 5.44 Dwelling unit 7.90 100 42.98 0.58 per MFDU NONRESIDENTIAL RETAIL 820 37.75 KSFb 3.60 66c 89.69 1.20 per KSF HOTEL/MOTELd 310 11.94 KSF 7.60 100 90.74 1.22 per KSF OFFICE/R&D 710 9.74 KSF 8.80 100 85.71 1.15 per KSF INDUSTRIAL 110 4.96 KSF 9.00 100 44.64 0.60 per KSF Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 13 TABLE 85: EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS LAND USE EXISTING 2020 GROWTH 2020-2040 TOTAL 2040 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302 MULTI-FAMILY 3,335 1,838 5,173 SUBTOTAL 19,607 1,868 21,475 NONRESIDENTIAL RETAIL 4,090 94 4,184 HOTEL/MOTEL 10,795 444 11,239 OFFICE/R&D 8,333 14,566 22,899 INDUSTRIAL 13,525 3 13,528 SUBTOTAL 36,743 15,107 51,850 TOTAL 56,350 16,975 73,325 SHARE 77% 23% 100% Sources: Tables 1 and 2. Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 14 Citywide Transportation Infrastructure This section presents the City’s existing standard for transportation infrastructure based on the existing level of investment in that infrastructure. Inventory of Citywide Transportation Infrastructure Determining the investment that the City has made to date in its transportation network requires identification of the components of the City’s multimodal transportation network that connect residential neighborhoods, retail and employment centers, and other destinations across the city and outside the city. Streets and other transportation infrastructure that serve a specific neighborhood and do not provide connectivity between areas are excluded from this inventory. The citywide multimodal transportation infrastructure was quantified using street centerline Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the map of streets by classification published in the City’s current general plan, and online aerial photographs. The transportation network is defined as arterials and collectors that provide connectivity among different neighborhoods in South San Francisco and to regional destinations. This network includes the entire roadway curb-to -curb (vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and on street parking), as well as adjacent sidewalks, medians, traffic signals, and off-street paths. As mentioned above, the network excludes local streets used primarily for access to individual properties within specific neighborhoods. Figure 1 shows a map of the City’s existing citywide transportation network that will be eligible for improvement or expansion projects funded by the proposed citywide TIF. Quantities for each component of the inventory are summarized in Table 4. Facility Standards and Level of Investment New development will place additional demands on the City’s transportation network. The nexus between new development and the need for citywide transportation infrastructure hinges on maintaining the City’s existing facility standard as it grows. The existing facility standard is derived from the inventory shown in Figure 1 and Table 4 expressed per EDU for existing development. The maximum justified TIF is then based on new development maintaining the level of investment represented by this existing facility standard. The existing transportation network is valued by applying current unit replacement costs to the inventoried quantities. The unit costs used to estimate replacement cost are shown in Table 5. These unit costs are based on recent capital project costs in the San Francisco Bay Area and have been confirmed by City staff (see Appendix B for detailed unit costs). As shown in Table 6, the City has invested almost $27,000 per EDU in its existing transportation infrastructure. This amount represents the maximum justified level of investment from new development necessary to maintain the existing facility standard. Because the facility standard is based on citywide multimodal infrastructure, the City may use revenues from the proposed TIF to fund improvements anywhere on the citywide network for any mode (permitted use of TIF revenue is further discussed under “Use of Fee Revenue”). Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 15 Figure 1 Citywide Multimodal Transportation Network Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 16 TABLE 86:CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE Source: DKS Associates TABLE 87: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS (2020$) Source: DKS Associates 2020 Notes: a) Does not include Temporary Traffic Control. b) Percent of total before contingency; includes 20% for project design, 15% for construction engineering, and 5% for project management, c) Construction Cost*(1+Design Management%) * (1+ Contingency%), d) Cost of street lighting, water pollution prevention, street furniture and drainage not included in unit cost. INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY ROADWAY Square Feet 17,582,145 SIDEWALK Square Feet 3,026,716 CURB & GUTTER Linear Feet 577,840 MEDIAN Square Feet 1,009,061 BICYCLE PATH Square Feet 180,576 BICYCLE LANE Linear Feet 666,574 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersections 113 INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTa DESIGN & MANAGEMENT COSTb CONTINGENCY TOTAL UNIT COSTc ROADWAYd Square Foot $37 40% 20% $63 SIDEWALK Square Foot $31 40% 20% $52 CURB & GUTTER Linear Foot $86 40% 20% $144 MEDIAN Square Foot $28 40% 20% $47.04 BICYCLE PATH Square Foot $26 40% 20% $44 BICYCLE LANE Linear Foot $10 40% 20% $17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersection $528,000 40% 20% $887,040 Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 17 TABLE 88: E XISTING FACILITY STANDARD & LEVEL OF INVESTMENT Note: All dollars in 2020$ Sources: DKS Associates, Tables 3, 4, and 5. INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE INVENTORY AMOUNT UNITS EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS EXISTING FACILITY STANDARD (UNITS PER EDU) REPLACE- MENT COST PER UNIT EXISTING LEVEL OF INVESTMENT PER EDU ROADWAY 17,582,145 Square feet 56,350 312.0 $63 $19,605 SIDEWALK 3,026,716 Square feet 56,350 53.7 52 2,797 CURB & GUTTER 577,840 Linear feet 56,350 10.3 144 1,478 MEDIAN 1,009,061 Square feet 56,350 17.9 47 842 BICYCLE PATH 180,576 Square feet 56,350 3.2 44 140 BICYCLE LANE 666,574 Linear feet 56,350 11.8 17 199 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 113 Intersections 56,350 0.002 887,040 1,779 TOTAL $26,840 Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 18 Planned Transportation Improvements and Costs This section describes the City’s planned transportation improvements along with associated costs to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues to accommodate that development. A list of transportation improvement projects was compiled from project needs identified in several planning studies. These sources include the East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Study, the Mobility 2020 Study, and the Active South City study (currently underway) for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The total estimated project costs from these three sources alone approaches $689 million. All of these projects would improve, enhance, and/or expand the City’s existing transportation system. The list excludes projects designed for facility maintenance or rehabilitation. Table 7 provides a summary of projects and associated costs. A detailed project listing is provided in Appendix A. This project list is meant to exemplify the types of projects that could receive funding from the proposed TIF and is not intended to be an exhaustive or prescriptive list. New project needs may be identified once the TIF is in place. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule This section combines the results of the analyses described in the preceding sections to arrive at a maximum justifiable TIF fee schedule. The City may adopt any fee level below the maximum justified fee, taking into account economic development policy, fee levels charged by comparable jurisdictions, and potentially other policy considerations. The City may adopt fees with varying levels of discount by land use category based on reasonable policy considerations, such as more deeply discounting industrial fees to encourage industrial development as part of an economic development policy. Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit and Fee schedule The maximum justified fee per EDU is $26,840 based on maintaining the existing facility standard and level of investment as presented in Error! Reference source not found.. Any fee level per EDU may be adopted as long as it is less than the maximum justified amount and the percent reduction in the fee per EDU may vary by land use category. Calculated using the EDU rates shown in Table 2, the maximum justified fee rates for each basic land use category are shown in Table 8. If desired, the fees calculated for basic land use categories shown in Table 8 may be refined to better reflect the travel demand characteristics of more narrowly defined land uses. EDU rates may be developed for the specialized land uses, as was done for the more generic land use categories, based on their trip generation and/or trip length characteristics. The EDU factor for each specialized land use would then be its trip rate divided by the trip rate for the standard (1.0) EDU (single- family dwelling unit rate). Table 9 lists the EDU rates for several potential additional land use categories. Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 19 TABLE 89: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS COSTS SUMMARY 1 See Appendix A for project list. 2 Includes only projects that would be eligible for TIF funding. TABLE 90: MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE CATEGORY Notes: "EDU" is equivalent dwelling unit. Fees shown do not include a two percent charge for administration of the Transportation Impact Fee program that may be increased to up to four percent but shall be no greater than the cost incurred by the City to administer the program. Hotel rate based on rate per 1000 square feet and 700 sf per room. a) Applies to development projects that do not clearly conform to one of the defined residential or non- residential categories and is likely to be applicable only in exceptional cases. In such cases the fee would be based on an estimated trip generation rate adjusted for equivalent dwelling units. Sources: Tables 2 and 6. PROJECT SOURCES1 NUMBER OF PROJECTS ESTIMATED COSTS PROJECT TYPES ACTIVE SOUTH CITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle & Pedestrian MOBILITY 2020 PROJECTS2 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE EAST OF 101 AREA (2007) 12 $512,000,000 Arterial Improvements TOTAL 156 $688,476,068 LAND USE EDU RATE COST PER EDU TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 1.00 $26,840 $26,840 per dwelling unit MULTI-FAMILY 0.58 $26,840 15,467 per dwelling unit NONRESIDENTIAL $26,840 RETAIL 1.20 $26,840 $32.28 per square foot HOTEL/MOTEL 1.22 $26,840 22,861 per room OFFICE/R&D 1.15 $26,840 30.85 per square foot INDUSTRIAL 0.60 $26,840 16.07 per square foot OTHERa TBD $26,840 TBD per square foot Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 20 Table 91: Additional EDU Rates Sources: See Table 2. TABLE 92: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ PER UNIT) CITY SFDU MFDU RETAIL (PER SF) OFFICE (PER SF) INDUSTRIAL (PER SF) HOTEL ROOM BURLINGAME $1,573 $1,105 $1.81 $7.285 $1.146 N/A EL CERRITO $3.322 $2,325 $4.48 $3.85 $2.43 $3,650/KSF REDWOOD CITY $1,617 $992 $3.94/ $10.75a $2.38 $1.55 $945 SAN BRUNO $3,374 $2,610 $8.95 $6.95 $2.78 $1,527 SAN MATEO $4,760.95 $2,922.38 $8.18763 $4.37010 $2.84713 N/A CURRENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FEES BICYCLE- PEDESTRIAN $243 $170 $0.36 $0.09 $0.12 $0.24/visitor SF EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT B N/A N/A $25.06 $6.05 N/A $1,407.23 Sources: City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule Effective on July 1, 2019, City of El Cerrito FY 29-20 Master Fee Schedule, Redwood City Development Impact Fees as of September 1, 2016, City of San Bruno Resolution no. 2019-20, City of San Mateo Proposed Comprehensive Fee schedule July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021, City of South San Francisco Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019. aGeneral retail/supermarket, bBefore any adjustments for inflation. LAND USE (ITE CODE) DAILY TRIP RATE UNIT TRIP LENGTH PERCENT NEW TRIPS P MTa PER UNIT EDU RATE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HIGH-RISE (222) 4.45 dwelling unit 7.9 100 35.16 0.47 MULTIFAMILY MID RISE WITH 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL (231) 3.44 dwelling unit 7.9 100 27.18 0.36 NONRESIDENTIAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER (760) 11.26 KSF b 8.8 100 99.09 1.33 HIGH CUBE PARCEL HUB WAREHOUSE (156) 7.75 KSF 9 100 69.75 0.94 HIGH CUBE FULFILLMENT CENTER WAREHOUSE (155) 8.18 KSF 9 100 73.62 0.99 Attachment 1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 21 Comparable Fee Rates When adopting a fee level, one consideration is the level of fees charged by nearby jurisdictions as well as the current transportation impact fees being collected in South San Francisco. Table 10 lists the transportation impact fees charged by several Bay Area jurisdictions as well as the existing fee levels for the existing citywide bicycle and pedestrian fee and the East of 101 traffic impact fee. Note that the existing East of 101 fee is collected only on commercial, office, and hotel uses in the portion of the City east of US-101. Revenue Projections The amount of revenue that can be collected under the new TIF will depend on the fee levels adopted by the City as well as the expected growth over the planning horizon. As neither of these factors has been finalized, it is not possible to predict with any certainty the level of revenue that would be generated by the new TIF. However, as shown in Table 11, a transportation impact fee set at the maximum justifiable level would generate more revenue for transportation improvements over the 20-year planning horizon than would existing fees. This maximum level of revenue generated would be less than the identified project needs. As mentioned in the introduction, the proposed TIF would replace these two existing fees. Use of Fee Revenue The types of projects anticipated that could be eligible to receive fee revenue are listed in Appendix A. The City may modify the project list, adding or replacing projects as long as the modified projects are consistent with the nexus analysis. Projects eligible for funding with the proposed TIF must be capital projects, must be part of the citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Error! Reference source not found., and must consist of an enhancement, upgrade, or expansion of the citywide transportation network. These criteria are explained further below: • Capital projects only – capital project costs may include design, engineering, environmental review, permits, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, project management, and construction of all related infrastructure. • Part of the citywide transportation network. Capital projects must be part of the citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1. Projects on local streets that serve only to provide access to individual properties would not be eligible. • Enhancement, upgrade, or expansion only. Projects that are merely replacing or maintaining existing infrastructure would not be eligible. Projects must add capacity, serve additional modes, or otherwise upgrade existing infrastructure. Attachment 1 • Table 93. Revenue Projections LAND USE EXPECTED GROWTH 2020-2040 (SQ. FT) EO101 GROWTH WEST- SIDE GROWTH EO101 FEE EXISTING BIKE- PED FEE REVENUE (EXISTING) PROPOSED TIF RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) Fee Rate1 Revenue Fee Rate 2 Reven ue Fee Rate1 Revenue SINGLE FAMILY 30 - 30 N/A - $243 7,289 7,289 $26,84 0 805,200 MULTI- FAMILY 3,189 - 3,189 N/A - $170 540,781 540,781 $15,46 7 49,324,2 63 TOTAL RESIDENTI AL 3,219 - 3,219 N/A - 548,070 548,070 50,129,4 63 NONRESIDENTIAL (SQUARE FEET) RETAIL 78,339 20,000 58,339 $25.06 501,200 $0.36 28,552 529,752 $32.28 2,528,783 HOTEL 364,500 190,000 174,500 $1,407.23 381,962 $0.24 87,181 469,143 $22,861.22 11,904,164 OFFICE/R &D 12,673,495 10,641,637 2,031,858 $6.05 64,381,904 $0.09 1,190,042 65,571,946 $30.85 390,977,321 INDUSTRI AL 4,263 - 4,263 N/A - $0.12 512 512 $16.07 68,506 TOTAL 13,120,597 10,851,637 2,268, 960 $65,265,066 $1,306,28 7 $66,571,353 $405,478,774 CITYWIDE TOTALS 13,120 ,597 $65,265,066 $1,854,35 7 $67,119,423 $455,608,237 • Sources: Tables 1, growth projections from City of South San Francisco, published fee rates. • Note: Existing fee rates include administrative portion of fees and adjustments for inflation that may have been applied. • 1 Rates as published in Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019, City of South San Francisco. Fee for hotel is per room (assume 700 GSF per room). • 2 Rates as published by City of South San Francisco, 2018. Assumes any growth mobile homes are counted as multifamily units. Hotel rate is per “visitor SF” • Attachment 1 Appendix D: DKS Associates Transportation Impact Fee Analysis The following includes the detailed list of potential projects for which the Transportation Impact Fee could be utilized. Table 94: Transportation Projects to Be Funded Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) HSIP Cycle 9 Ped safety traffic signal upgrades 12 signals along Spruce, Grand and Linden convert to mast arm and install ped heads $2,853,318 HSIP Cycle 9 Ped safety and ADA improvements Orange/Canal/Nyrtle and Hillside/Franklin RRFB and ADA curb ramps $234,024 Community Identified Hillside Road Diet Hillside/Lincoln intersection improvements and road diet $862,407 HSIP Cycle 9 JS/Hickey/Longford Intersection Improvements Improvements at intersection, ATP application $5,930,852 Community Identified Hillside Sister-Cities Traffic Calming Speed cushion installations, striping improvements and ped crossing improvements in Paradise Valley neighborhood (partial eligibility) $566,650 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Re-stripe US-101 off-ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive left, shared through/left turn and exclusive right turn lane to provide exclusive left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. $55,817 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd Change WB second left turn lane to through lane, through/right to a right turn lane, widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to one additional left turn lane, signal mod $835,141 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Remove median and widen east side Eccles Ave., add additional left turn lane, signal mod $615,998 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Gull Drive & Oyster Point Blvd Widen NB Gull Dr. to provid two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, signal mod $968,537 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Widen SB 101 off-ramp and replace retaining wall, restripe SB through/left to through-only, remove street parking to increase turn lane storage, signal mod $2,894,166 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Restripe SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to through-right and through-left lane to left turn only, signal mod $217,617 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Widen Grand Ave to improve turning radius for trucks, remove pork chop and correct pavement cross slope $5,255,876 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 24 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Grandview Dr (DNA Way) & Grand Ave New signal mod, add one right turn lane on SB Grandview Ave., one through lane on NB Grandview Ave., add left turn and through-left lanes on EB Grand Ave., signal interconnect installation $995,951 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update E101 (2007) Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Add additional left turn lane and restripe through-left to be left turn only on WB Airport Blvd., eliminate weaving section on NB Produce Ave., signal mod $1,507,493 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd Add additional right-turn lane and change through-left to through on EB Airport Blvd., add two through lanes and right- turn lane on MitchellAve., add right-turn lane and change through-right to right only on SB Gateway, new signal installation $5,710,328 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Add one SB left-turn lane and change NB through lane to through-right on Airport Blvd., signal mod $622,894 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Harbor Way Widen Harbor Way to 4 lanes with parking prohibition between Grand Ave. and Mitchell Ave., new signal installation $7,463,682 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Hwy 101 northbound hook ramps/S. Airport Blvd Widen US-101 off-ramp to add one lane at the exit and one right-turn lane at the intersection, relocate US-101 NB hook on-ramp toward north, widen SB S. Airport Blvd. between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add left turn lane. Reconfigure NB S. Airport Blvd between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add one through lane and one left-turn lane, signal mod $4,014,611 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Widen Gull Road to extend left-turn lane $297,316 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave Widen and prohibit street parking on Grand Ave. to one EB through lane and one let-turn lane, realign striping on WB E. Grand Ave. $1,671,977 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave Add one through lane on E. Grand Ave., new signal mod, install dedicated left-turn lane from EB Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave., signal interconnect installation $908,622 E101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Utah Ave & Harbor Way Widen and prohibit street parking on Harbor Way to add SB right-turn and NB through lanes, restripe and prohibit street parking on Utah Ave. to add one EB left- turn and one WB left-turn, new signal mod $1,642,020 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 25 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Mobility 2020 Projects I-380 Connection via Haskins Way Connects I-380/North Access Road directly to the Area via Haskins Way. 1/2 mil bridge includes four lanes of traffic and Bay Trail extensions $128,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue Interchange Extends Utah Avenue for South Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with a new southbound on-ramp and off-ramp. 1/4 mile extension includes four lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and bike lanes. $77,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Grand Avenue Northbound Offramp Flyover Realigns northbound US-101 off-ramp to Grand Avenue above the new Caltrain Station. Two lane off-ramp aligns with Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue intersection $34,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Sierra Point Connection Extends Veterans Boulevard to Shoreline Court via two lane street via existing parking lots and new bridge. Includes reconstruction of Bay Trail bridge $12,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Railroad Avenue Extension Extends Railroad Avenue from Linden Avenue to Littlefield Avenue. One mile street extension includes grade separation of Caltrain, two lanes of traffic, and bicycle/pedestrian trail $261,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Oyster Point Boulevard* Reduce median width to add curbside bus/bike lanes, in-line bus stops, close missing crosswalk gaps, and reconfigure traffic signals $7,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects East Grand Avenue* Address unmet traffic signal needs, reconfigure traffic signals, close sidewalks and bikeway gaps, widen sidewalks, add curb extensions, add raised median east of Littlefied, add on- street bus stops and bus lanes/queue jumps, and remove slip lanes $22,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects South Airport Boulevard* Address gaps in median, widen sidewalks, upgrade traffic signals, upgrade bus stops $14,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue* Add traffic signal at Utah Avenue/Harbor Way intersection; add bike lanes and address sidewalk gaps $3,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Gull Drive* Widen Gull Drive from two lanes to four lanes $6,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Forbes Boulevard* Add traffic signal Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, connect bike trails, address sidewalk gaps, and extend road diet from Allerton Way to Eccles Avenue $4,000,000 Mobility 2020 Projects Caltrain Access Improvements & Rails to Trails Projects Construct approximately three miles of trails within the Area along former railways and excess street right of way $7,000,000 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 26 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Mobility 2020 Projects Centennial Trail-Bay Trail Connector Bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting existing Bay Trail terminus at Costco to Tanforan Avenue, with connection to Centennial Trail and San Bruno BART Station $14,000,000 Development Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis Centennial Connector New Bikeway Project from Mission Rd/Grand Ave to Centennial Trail $68,644 Active South City Arroyo Drive Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Oake Avenue $631,449 Active South City Orange/Canal Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement - Proposed Class IIIB $3,368,040 Active South City Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to Miller Avenue $524,888 Active South City El Camino Real Bicycle project from City Limit to City Limit $8,260,694 Active South City W Orange Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement - Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $1,326,000 Active South City Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from Miller Avenue to Armour Avenue $170,958 Active South City Alta Loma Drive/Buri Buri Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement - Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $4,123,860 Active South City Avalon Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement - Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $2,174,640 Active South City Bike/Ped Bridge Study Bicycle project from Airport Boulevard to Poletti Way $19,500,000 Active South City Centennial Trail Connections Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to El Camino Real $49,375 Active South City Chestnut Avenue Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Sunset Avenue $1,954,485 Active South City Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Bayshore Boulevard to E Grand Avenue $6,864 Active South City Hickey Boulevard Bicycle project from City Limit to El Camino Real $1,712,810 Active South City Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Junipero Serra Boulevard to El Camino Real $3,157,145 Active South City Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Skyline Boulevard to Junipero Serra Boulevard $5,592,834 Active South City Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to S Airport Boulevard $773,308 Active South City Bayshore Boulevard Bicycle project from Sister Cities Boulevard to City Limit $1,903,075 Active South City Centennial Trail Bicycle project from Existing trail to City Limit $401,030 Active South City E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Forbes Boulevard to Haskins Avenue $2,294,336 Active South City E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Poletti Way $390,000 Active South City E Grand Avenue Trail Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard $557,799 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 27 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Evergreen/Holly Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project - Proposed Class IIIB $2,532,660 Active South City Forbes Boulevard Bicycle project from Eccles Avenue to Allerton Avenue $2,052,980 Active South City Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard $1,402,712 Active South City Harbor Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project - Proposed Class IIIB $265,200 Active South City Linden Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project - Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $1,299,480 Active South City McLellan Dr Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Mission Road $86,397 Active South City Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard $472,258 Active South City Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard $440,786 Active South City N Access Rd Bicycle project from Bay Trail to S Airport Boulevard $571,311 Active South City Poletti Way Bicycle project from Caltrain Station Tunnel to Oyster Point Boulevard $1,340,830 Active South City S Spruce Ave Bicycle Project from El Camino Real to N Canal St $2,268,438 Active South City Sneath Ln extension Bicycle Project from Huntington Ave to S Linden Ave $1,022,346 Active South City Bay Trail/Shaw/Tanforan Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to Huntington Ave $1,782,091 Active South City Colma Creek Bay Trail Bicycle Project from Existing Bay Trail to Utah Ave $565,500 Active South City Colma Creek Service Road Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Colma Creek Trail $4,095 Active South City E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to End of street $10,626 Active South City E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Gateway Blvd $20,592 Active South City Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from Westborough Blvd to Shannon Dr $1,635,096 Active South City Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from King Dr to Westborough Blvd $1,669,717 Active South City Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Spruce Ave $405,038 Active South City Greendale Bicycle Boulevard Group $1,763,580 Active South City Harbor Way Bicycle Project from RR tracks/proposed trail to Littlefield Ave $24,115 Active South City Huntington Ave Bicycle Project from Spruce Ave to Noor Ave $811,863 Active South City Junipero Serra Blvd Bicycle Project from Avalon Dr to City limit $6,389,555 Active South City Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Marina Blvd to Parking lot $13,295 Active South City Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Gateway Blvd $45,669 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 28 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Produce Ave/ new road Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd/San Mateo Ave to Utah Ave extension $1,142,622 Active South City Shannon Bicycle Boulevard Group $1,206,660 Active South City Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Sister Cities Blvd $120,728 Active South City Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Chapman Ave $114,258 Active South City Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Gateway Blvd to Belle Aire Rd $1,924,416 Active South City Country Club Dr Bicycle Project from Alida Way to El Camino Real $63,407 Active South City Gateway Trail Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd $1,303,385 Active South City Gellert-Chateau $119,981 Active South City Haskins Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave E Grand Ave to North Access Road $2,099,636 Active South City Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Linden Ave to Spruce Ave $20,703 Active South City Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Ridgeview Court $121,371 Active South City Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Proposed trail $1,365 Active South City near Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd $1,554,126 Active South City Oak Ave Bicycle Project from Mission Rd to Grand Ave $390,897 Active South City Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Centennial Trail to Railroad Ave $132,192 Active South City S Spruce Bicycle Project from N Canal St to Railroad Ave $458,904 Active South City San Mateo Avenue Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to S Sirport Blvd $133,848 Active South City Sister Cities Blvd Bicycle Project from Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd $2,686,082 Active South City Utah Ave Bicycle Project from San Mateo Ave to US-101 $49,764 Active South City W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr $781,794 Active South City Chestnut Ave Bicycle Project from Sunset Ave to Hillside Blvd $831,945 Active South City Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Mission Rd $206,138 Active South City Linden Ave Bicycle Project from Tanforan Ave to Baden Ave $168,847 Active South City Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Utah Ave $1,139,761 Active South City Mitchell Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to AIrport Blvd $53,196 Active South City near Harbor Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Littlefield Ave $1,643,124 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 29 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Utah Ave Bicycle Project from US-101 to Littlefield Ave $1,804,140 Active South City DNA Way Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Existing facility $32,338 Active South City near Cabot Rd Bicycle Project from Allerton Ave to E Grand Ave $1,192,484 Active South City W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Westborough Blvd $21,486 Active South City W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr $11,830 Active South City Mission and Lawndale/McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at all four corners. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct sidewalks on the west side of McLellan south of Mission Road. $1,250,340 Active South City El Camino Real and McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install a high-visibility crosswalk at the western ECR approach. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct curb extensions. $1,352,000 Active South City El Camino Real and BART Straighten the crosswalk across the northern approach. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval. $139,750 Active South City Grand and Airport Boulevard Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings to high-visibility. Consider pedestrian-only phase. Construct a pedestrian refuge island at the Airport Boulevard approach. $334,750 Active South City El Camino Real and Ponderosa Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between County Club Drive and Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct median refuge islands for the ECR crossings. $459,875 Active South City Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high- visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn lane at southeast corner. Install pedestrian refuge island in the E Grand Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions at the northeast, southwest, and southeast corners. Add a leading pedestrian interval for the E Grand Avenue crossing. $919,750 Active South City Mission and Sequoia Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visiblity crosswalks. Construct curb extensions. $1,062,750 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 30 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Orange and Railroad Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad Avenue to high-visibility and construct a curb extension at the southeast corner. $68,250 Active South City Orange and Tennis Drive Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across Tennis Drive. $263,250 Active South City Westborough and Galway Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough crossings. Construct curb ramps at all corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii. Update/add school zone signs. $1,453,400 Active South City Westborough and Junipero Serra Boulevard Construct sidewalks on the southern side of Westborough Boulevard through the interchange area to Junipero Serra. Install/upgrade high visibility crosswalks at all interchange crossing locations. Install with appropriate signs and pavement markings. $191,165 Active South City Spruce and Grand Install yellow transverse markings around the decorative crosswalk. Upgrade three remaining crosswalks to high-visibility. Consider installing curb extensions at all corners. $1,073,150 Active South City Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and south corners. Upgrade two marked crosswalks and realign to be straight. Implement a leading pedestrian interval for both crosswalks. $741,000 Active South City Arroyo and Alta Loma Construct curb extensions on both sides of the crosswalk. Construct a median refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk across Alta Loma Drive. $406,250 Active South City E Grand and Poletti Way Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue and Industrial Way to enhance Caltrain and Grand Avenue access. Tighten corner radii to square-up intersection approaches. Provide the proposed trail with an enhanced crossing. $289,250 Active South City El Camino Real and Kaiser Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from the bus stop to the bend in Del Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR and Del Paso. At the Kaiser driveway, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Redesign the pedestrian refuge island in the western ECR crossing. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing. $215,735 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 31 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City El Camino Real and S Spruce Upgrade all four crosswalks to high- visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands for the two ECR crossings. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four corners. $1,475,500 Active South City Grand and Linden Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. $171,600 Active South City Grand and Maple Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. $171,600 Active South City Hickey and El Camino Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northern ECR crosswalk. Install a high-visibility crosswalk across the sourther ECR approach (push back the northbound stop bar and median to create a straight crossing). Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. $160,875 Active South City Miller and Oakcrest Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners. Install advance stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB. $686,400 Active South City BART/Cymbidium Circle Neighborhood Path Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to improve bicycle access. Remove the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open stair access to both neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility and straighten the crosswalk. Provide a leading pedestrian interval. $136,500 Active South City Spruce and S Canal Way Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street. Upgrade both crosswalks to high- visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb extension at the southeast corner. Add trail wayfinding information. Consider leading pedestrian interval for Spruce Avenue crossing. $242,125 Active South City Westborough and Gellert Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth approach high-visibility crosswalks. Build out the necessary corners to straighten all crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the northern Westborough crosswalk. $2,314,000 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 32 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Westborough/Chestnut and El Camino Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northen crosswalk across Chestnut. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all crossings. Consider installing curb extensions at all corners. Extend all four medians to create pedestrian refuge islands. $2,314,000 Active South City El Camino Real and Arroyo & Arroyo and Del Paso Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo Drive; close gap in median and remove yield paddle. At ECR, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four corners $1,266,525 Active South City Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand Avenue crossings. $12,000 Active South City Grand mid-block crossings between Linden and Maple Install advance yield pavement markings and signs. $16,250 Active South City Hillside and Arden Refresh the two existing high-visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at the two eastern corners. Install advance stop/yield markings. $296,400 Active South City Hillside and Belmont Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to the western approach to improve site lines. Install curb extensions at all three corners with a crosswalk. Install an RRFB for the Hillside crosswalk.Install advance yield markings. $677,300 Active South City LInden and N Canal Widen on or both of the existing paths on the Colma Creek bridge to ADA complaint width. Install appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S Canal street if sidewalks are present on the west side. $108,290 Active South City Miller and Westview Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners. Straighten the crosswalk across Miller. Install advance stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB. $689,650 Active South City S Airport and Utah Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101, install high visibility crosswalks at all four approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian interval. $191,750 Active South City Spruce and Hillside Construct curb extensions at the two northern and southeastern corners. Mark highvisibility crosswalks across Spruce Avenue and School Street. $598,000 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 33 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Spruce and Park Way Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park Way to high-visibility crosswalks. Install high-visbility crosswalks across both Spruce approaches. Install advance stop markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all corners. $93,686 Active South City Utah Ave/San Mateo Ave Install a protected intersection with high visibility crosswalks. $650,000 Active South City Westborough and Callan Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high-visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough and Callan crossings. Update/add school zone signs. $629,525 Active South City Airport and Gateway Upgrade existing crosswalks to high- visibility crosswalks. Construct median refuge islands at the west, east, and south approaches. Remove slip lane from southern approach. $793,000 Active South City Chestnut and Commercial Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visbility. Remove the slip lane from the southeast corner and construct a curb extension; straighten both crosswalks from this corner. $247,000 Active South City Grand and Gateway Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn lanes at northwest and southeast corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands in all crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners. $2,645,500 Active South City Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings and signs. $29,250 Active South City Holly/Crestwood Upgrade all crossings to high-visibility crosswalks. Consider installing a neighborhood traffic circle. $247,000 Active South City Junipero Serra and Arroyo Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side of Junipero Serra Boulevard from the interchange to Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/Arroyo Drive. $546,000 Active South City Junipero Serra and Avalon & Avalon and Valverde Mark high-visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks on the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to Westbrough Boulevard from Avalon Drive. Mark a high-visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach of Avalon Drive/JSB. $256,750 Attachment 1 Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 34 Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020) Active South City Junipero Serra and Hickey Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands. $1,579,500 Active South City Spruce and N. Canal St Build curb extensions at the two northern corners. Straighten and upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. $277,875 Active South City East Grand and Forbes Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions at all four corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands across E Grand Avenue. $1,329,250 Active South City El Camino Real and W Orange Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create pedestrian refuge islands for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing. $429,000 Active South City Grand and Mission Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Extend medians and create pedestrian refuge islands. $279,500 Active South City Grand and Orange Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks. Consider installing curb extensions at all four corners. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the crossings of Grand Avenue. $1,222,000 Attachment 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION DATE: July 15, 2020 TO: Matt Ruble | City of South San Francisco FROM: Erin Vaca | DKS Associates SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee –Calculations and Material for Impact Fee Nexus Study Project #17011-018 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The City of South San Francisco is undertaking a comprehensive update of fees, including user fees and development impact fees. As part of this process, DKS Associates has been asked to develop an updated Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) that will replace the existing East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and an existing citywide bicycle and pedestrian impact fee. This memorandum presents the results of the fee calculation along with supporting documentation for the nexus study being prepared by Matrix Consulting. California local agencies may adopt impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in Sections 66000 to 66025 of the California Government Code. This memorandum presents the key findings required by the act for adopting or increasing an impact fee with respect to the following reasonable relationships 1: 1.Impact – There must be a reasonable relationship established between new development and the need for public facilities. For South San Francisco, this finding is based on maintaining the City’s existing level of investment in its citywide multimodal transportation network (see “Facility Standards and Level of Investment”). 2.Benefit – There must be a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenue for public facilities to accommodate that development. For South San Francisco, this finding is based on the planned improvements needed, as documented in long range 1 California Government Code, section 66001(a)(3), 66001(a)(4), and 66001(b). Attachment 2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 2 plans including the Active South City project, the Mobility 2020 Plan, and the project list from the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (see “Improvements and Costs”). 3. Proportionality – A reasonable relationship should exist between the amount of the fee and the portion of public facilities cost associated with new development. This finding is based on the cost per unit of development (equivalent dwelling unit) and rates of use by land use category (see “Transportation Demand”). In addition to the above findings, the Act also requires findings regarding the purpose of the fee and a description of the public facilities to be funded by the fee. The purpose of the TIF is to expand the City’s transportation network to accommodate increased demand by new development. Examples of the types of projects to be funded by the fee are listed in Appendix A, with additional detail available in the source documents. EXISTING AND FORECAST TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND The TIF amount is partly based on the demand for transportation infrastructure associated with existing and new development. The TIF will fund multimodal improvements to and expansions of the transportation network that will benefit new development. LAND USE Estimates of existing land use are required to determine the existing level of investment in the City’s multimodal transportation network relative to existing levels of transportation demand. DKS developed estimates of existing levels of land use using two sources: 1) The California Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State formed the basis for existing residential land uses. 2) Employment by industry sector as developed for the ongoing General Plan update and provided by the Department of Economic and Community Development. The employment by sector was converted to estimates of retail, office, industrial, and hotel use with employment density factors consistent with those being used in the City’s travel demand model and General Plan updates. Forecasts of future land use are required to estimate additional demands on the transportation system from new development and potential fee revenue. Growth projections by land use category were developed from the pipeline projects compiled for the ongoing General Plan analyses. These projections were developed in consultation with the City’s Economic and Community Development Department. While these growth estimates are what can be reasonably foreseen over the planning horizon of 2020 to 2040, the ultimate buildout capacity of the City may be greater or lesser, depending on the outcome of the general plan update. Growth projections are used only to estimate the level of revenue that might be generated from the proposed TIF and do not directly enter the calculation of the maximum justifiable fee. This analysis will be updated based on the SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 3 adopted general plan update should there be any significant change in the capital planning documents mentioned above or the growth forecast. The amount of future year development by land use category was calculated as existing development plus growth development. Table 1 presents the amount of existing, new development, and total future development by category. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND This nexus analysis uses person trip generation rates by land use category to account for variations in travel demand among land uses. Trip generation rates by land use category reflect either the origin or destination of a trip and are therefore a reasonable measure of the desire for mobility by residents and workers to access homes, jobs, shopping, and other activities. This approach provides a reasonable relationship between the type of development that would pay the fee, the amount of the fee, and the cost of transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate that development. As shown in Table 2, the trip generation rates, combined with average trip lengths associated with each category of land use, are used to develop Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) on the basis of person miles traveled. In this way, different land uses are expressed in terms of their travel demand relative to the single-family dwelling unit. The EDUs represent a common denominator with which to calculate the transportation impact fee. Vehicle trip rates are used as an indicator of person trip rates because vehicle occupancy across all land uses is close to 1.0. Some trips from existing and new development do not place significant additional demand on the transportation network because they are intermediate stops on the way between primary origins and destinations. Stopping at a grocery store or gas station on the way home from work would be an example of such a “pass by” trip. Table 2 includes an adjustment for retail land use trip generation to account for this phenomenon. Table 3 shows the Equivalent Dwelling Units derived from the land use data in Table 1 and the EDU factors from Table 2. Since the EDU factors are based on relative travel demand, the EDUs shown in Table 2 represent the allocation of travel demand from existing and future development in South San Francisco by land use. The new TIF will fund enhancements, improvements, and expansion of citywide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased travel demand from new development. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 4 TABLE 1 : EXISTING AND FORECAST DEVELOPMENT Sources and Notes a) Existing residential units- CA Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019. Single family includes detached and attached units. Existing non-residential land use derived from employment by industry sector from California Employment Development Department, 2018; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018; and Strategic Economics, 2020. Nonresidential building square feet based on employment estimates and density factors (square feet per employee) and recategorization into broad land use categories as follows: retail - 1000, service - 225, (office), other - 800 (office), office/biotech/R&D - 425 (office), hotel - 2000, manufacturing - 650 (industrial), wholesale trade - 1100 (industrial), agricultural - 2000 (industrial). b) Growth projections from Economic and Community Development Department, as compiled from development pipeline projects. LAND USE EXISTING 2020a GROWTH 2020-2040b TOTAL 2040 RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302 MULTI-FAMILY 5,787 3,189 8,976 TOTAL 22,059 3,219 25,278 NONRESIDENTIAL (BUILDING SQUARE FEET) RETAIL 3,401,000 78,339 3,479,339 HOTEL/MOTEL 8,872,000 364,500 9,236,500 OFFICE/R&D 7,250,025 12,673,495 19,923,520 INDUSTRIAL 22,594,900 4,263 22,599,163 TOTAL 42,117,925 13,120,597 55,238,522 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 TABLE 2 : EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT RATES Sources: Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th edition; ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Table E.9: Pass-By and Non-Pass-By Trips, Weekday PM Peak Period; SANDAG, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002); Jan de Roos, Planning and Programming a Hotel (The Scholarly Commons: Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, 2011 Notes a) Person-miles traveled b) Thousand square feet c) Accounts for trip ends that are not part of a new travel tour but are made mostly en route to another origin or destination and do not represent significant additional demand on the transportation network. d) Hotel/Motel trip rate based on ITE rate per room and 700 gross building square feet per room. LAND USE ITE LAND USE CODE1 DAILY TRIP RATE UNIT TRIP LENGTH PERCENT NEW TRIPS P MTa PER UNIT EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 210 9.44 Dwelling unit 7.90 100 74.58 1.00 per SFDU MULTI-FAMILY 221 5.44 Dwelling unit 7.90 100 42.98 0.58 per MFDU NONRESIDENTIAL RETAIL 820 37.75 KSFb 3.60 66c 89.69 1.20 per KSF HOTEL/MOTEL d 310 11.94 KSF 7.60 100 90.74 1.22 per KSF OFFICE/R&D 710 9.74 KSF 8.80 100 85.71 1.15 per KSF INDUSTRIAL 110 4.96 KSF 9.00 100 44.64 0.60 per KSF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 6 TABLE 3 : EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS LAND USE EXISTING 2020 GROWTH 2020-2040 TOTAL 2040 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302 MULTI-FAMILY 3,335 1,838 5,173 SUBTOTAL 19,607 1,868 21,475 NONRESIDENTIAL RETAIL 4,090 94 4,184 HOTEL/MOTEL 10,795 444 11,239 OFFICE/R&D 8,333 14,566 22,899 INDUSTRIAL 13,525 3 13,528 SUBTOTAL 36,743 15,107 51,850 TOTAL 56,350 16,975 73,325 SHARE 77% 23% 100% Sources: Tables 1 and 2. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 7 CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE This section presents the City’s existing standard for transportation infrastructure based on the existing level of investment in that infrastructure. INVENTORY OF CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE Determining the investment that the City has made to date in its transportation network requires identification of the components of the City’s multimodal transportation network that connect residential neighborhoods, retail and employment centers, and other destinations across the city and outside the city. Streets and other transportation infrastructure that serve a specific neighborhood and do not provide connectivity between areas are excluded from this inventory. The citywide multimodal transportation infrastructure was quantified using street centerline Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the map of streets by classification published in the City’s current general plan, and online aerial photographs. The transportation network is defined as arterials and collectors that provide connectivity among different neighborhoods in South San Francisco and to regional destinations. This network includes the entire roadway curb-to-curb (vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and on street parking), as well as adjacent sidewalks, medians, traffic signals, and off-street paths. As mentioned above, the network excludes local streets used primarily for access to individual properties within specific neighborhoods. Figure 1 shows a map of the City’s existing citywide transportation network that will be eligible for improvement or expansion projects funded by the proposed citywide TIF. Quantities for each component of the inventory are summarized in Table 4. FACILITY STANDARDS AND LEVEL OF INVESTMENT New development will place additional demands on the City’s transportation network. The nexus between new development and the need for citywide transportation infrastructure hinges on maintaining the City’s existing facility standard as it grows. The existing facility standard is derived from the inventory shown in Figure 1 and Table 4 expressed per EDU for existing development. The maximum justified TIF is then based on new development maintaining the level of investment represented by this existing facility standard. The existing transportation network is valued by applying current unit replacement costs to the inventoried quantities. The unit costs used to estimate replacement cost are shown in Table 5. These unit costs are based on recent capital project costs in the San Francisco Bay Area and have been confirmed by City staff (see Appendix B for detailed unit costs). As shown in Table 6, the City has invested almost $27,000 per EDU in its existing transportation infrastructure. This amount represents the maximum justified level of investment from new development necessary to maintain the existing facility standard. Because the facility standard is based on citywide multimodal infrastructure, the City may use revenues from the proposed TIF to fund improvements anywhere on the citywide network for any mode (permitted use of TIF revenue is further discussed under “Use of Fee Revenue”). SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 8 FIGURE 1 CITYWIDE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 9 TABLE 4 :CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE Source: DKS Associates TABLE 5 : TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS (2020$) Source: DKS Associates 2020 Notes: a) Does not include Temporary Traffic Control. b) Percent of total before contingency; includes 20% for project design, 15% for construction engineering, and 5% for project management, c) Construction Cost*(1+Design Management%) * (1+ Contingency%), d) Cost of street lighting, water pollution prevention, street furniture and drainage not included in unit cost. INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY ROADWAY Square Feet 17,582,145 SIDEWALK Square Feet 3,026,716 CURB & GUTTER Linear Feet 577,840 MEDIAN Square Feet 1,009,061 BICYCLE PATH Square Feet 180,576 BICYCLE LANE Linear Feet 666,574 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersections 113 INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE UNIT CONSTRUCTION COSTa DESIGN & MANAGEMENT COSTb CONTINGENCY TOTAL UNIT COSTc ROADWAYd Square Foot $37 40% 20% $63 SIDEWALK Square Foot $31 40% 20% $52 CURB & GUTTER Linear Foot $86 40% 20% $144 MEDIAN Square Foot $28 40% 20% $47.04 BICYCLE PATH Square Foot $26 40% 20% $44 BICYCLE LANE Linear Foot $10 40% 20% $17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersection $528,000 40% 20% $887,040 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 10 TABLE 6 : E XISTING FACILITY STANDARD & LEVEL OF INVESTMENT Note: All dollars in 2020$ Sources: DKS Associates, Tables 3, 4, and 5. INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE INVENTORY AMOUNT UNITS EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS EXISTING FACILITY STANDARD (UNITS PER EDU) REPLACE- MENT COST PER UNIT EXISTING LEVEL OF INVESTMENT PER EDU ROADWAY 17,582,145 Square feet 56,350 312.0 $63 $19,605 SIDEWALK 3,026,716 Square feet 56,350 53.7 52 2,797 CURB & GUTTER 577,840 Linear feet 56,350 10.3 144 1,478 MEDIAN 1,009,061 Square feet 56,350 17.9 47 842 BICYCLE PATH 180,576 Square feet 56,350 3.2 44 140 BICYCLE LANE 666,574 Linear feet 56,350 11.8 17 199 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 113 Intersections 56,350 0.002 887,040 1,779 TOTAL $26,840 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 11 PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS This section describes the City’s planned transportation improvements along with associated costs to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues to accommodate that development. A list of transportation improvement projects was compiled from project needs identified in several planning studies. These sources include the East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Study, the Mobility 2020 Study, and the Active South City study (currently underway) for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The total estimated project costs from these three sources alone approaches $689 million. Note that only capital projects that would be eligible for funding through the TIF were included in this total (the Mobility 2020 Study included some transit operations and Transportation Demand Management projects). The list also excludes projects designed for facility maintenance or rehabilitation. The included projects would improve, enhance, and/or expand the City’s existing transportation system. Table 7 provides a summary of projects and associated costs. A detailed project listing is provided in Appendix A. This project list is meant to exemplify the types of projects that could receive funding from the proposed TIF and is not intended to be an exhaustive or prescriptive list. New project needs may be identified once the TIF is in place. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE This section combines the results of the analyses described in the preceding sections to arrive at a maximum justifiable TIF fee schedule. The City may adopt any fee level below the maximum justified fee, taking into account economic development policy, fee levels charged by comparable jurisdictions, and potentially other policy considerations. The City may adopt fees with varying levels of discount by land use category based on reasonable policy considerations, such as more deeply discounting industrial fees to encourage industrial development as part of an economic development policy. COST PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT AND FEE SCHEDULE The maximum justified fee per EDU is $26,840 based on maintaining the existing facility standard and level of investment as presented in Table 6. Any fee level per EDU may be adopted as long as it is less than the maximum justified amount and the percent reduction in the fee per EDU may vary by land use category. Calculated using the EDU rates shown in Table 2, the maximum justified fee rates for each basic land use category are shown in Table 8. If desired, the fees calculated for basic land use categories shown in Table 8 may be refined to better reflect the travel demand characteristics of more narrowly defined land uses. EDU rates may be developed for the specialized land uses, as was done for the more generic land use categories, based on their trip generation and/or trip length characteristics. The EDU factor for each specialized SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 12 TABLE 7 : TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS COSTS SUMMARY 1 See Appendix A for project list. 2 Includes only projects that would be eligible for TIF funding. TABLE 8 : MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE CATEGORY Notes: "EDU" is equivalent dwelling unit. Fees shown do not include a two percent charge for administration of the Transportation Impact Fee program that may be increased to up to four percent but shall be no greater than the cost incurred by the City to administer the program. Hotel rate based on rate per 1000 square feet and 700 sf per room. a) Applies to development projects that do not clearly conform to one of the defined residential or non- residential categories and is likely to be applicable only in exceptional cases. In such cases the fee would be based on an estimated trip generation rate adjusted for equivalent dwelling units. Sources: Tables 2 and 6. PROJECT SOURCES 1 NUMBER OF PROJECTS ESTIMATED COSTS PROJECT TYPES ACTIVE SOUTH CITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle & Pedestrian EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal MOBILITY 2020 PROJECTS2 12 $512,000,000 Arterial Improvements TOTAL 156 $688,476,068 LAND USE EDU RATE COST PER EDU TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 1.00 $26,840 $26,840 per dwelling unit MULTI-FAMILY 0.58 $26,840 15,467 per dwelling unit NONRESIDENTIAL $26,840 RETAIL 1.20 $26,840 $32.28 per square foot HOTEL/MOTEL 1.22 $26,840 22,861 per room OFFICE/R&D 1.15 $26,840 30.85 per square foot INDUSTRIAL 0.60 $26,840 16.07 per square foot OTHERa TBD $26,840 TBD per square foot SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 13 land use would then be its trip rate divided by the trip rate for the standard (1.0) EDU (single- family dwelling unit rate). Table 9 lists the EDU rates for several potential additional land use categories. COMPARABLE FEE RATES When adopting a fee level, one consideration is the level of fees charged by nearby jurisdictions as well as the current transportation impact fees being collected in South San Francisco. Table 10 lists the transportation impact fees charged by several Bay Area jurisdictions as well as the existing fee levels for the existing citywide bicycle and pedestrian fee and the East of 101 traffic impact fee. Note that the existing East of 101 fee is collected only on commercial, office, and hotel uses in the portion of the City east of US-101. REVENUE PROJECTIONS The amount of revenue that can be collected under the new TIF will depend on the fee levels adopted by the City as well as the expected growth over the planning horizon. As neither of these factors has been finalized, it is not possible to predict with any certainty the level of revenue that would be generated by the new TIF. However, as shown in Table 11, a transportation impact fee set at the maximum justifiable level would generate more revenue for transportation improvements over the 20-year planning horizon than would existing fees. This maximum level of revenue generated would be less than the identified project needs. As mentioned in the introduction, the proposed TIF would replace these two existing fees. USE OF FEE REVENUE The types of projects anticipated that could be eligible to receive fee revenue are listed in Appendix A. The City may modify the project list, adding or replacing projects as long as the modified projects are consistent with the nexus analysis. Projects eligible for funding with the proposed TIF must be capital projects, must be part of the citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 4, and must consist of an enhancement, upgrade, or expansion of the citywide transportation network. These criteria are explained further below: • Capital projects only – capital project costs may include design, engineering, environmental review, permits, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, project management, and construction of all related infrastructure. • Part of the citywide transportation network. Capital projects must be part of the citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1. Projects on local streets that serve only to provide access to individual properties would not be eligible. • Enhancement, upgrade, or expansion only. Projects that are merely replacing or maintaining existing infrastructure would not be eligible. Projects must add capacity, serve additional modes, or otherwise upgrade existing infrastructure. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 14 T ABLE 9 : ADDITIONAL EDU RATES Sources: See Table 2. TABLE 10: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ PER UNIT) CITY SFDU MFDU RETAIL (PER SF) OFFICE (PER SF) INDUSTRIAL (PER SF) HOTEL ROOM BURLINGAME $1,573 $1,105 $1.81 $7.285 $1.146 N/A EL CERRITO $3.322 $2,325 $4.48 $3.85 $2.43 $3,650/KSF REDWOOD CITY $1,617 $992 $3.94/ $10.75a $2.38 $1.55 $945 SAN BRUNO $3,374 $2,610 $8.95 $6.95 $2.78 $1,527 SAN MATEO $4,760.95 $2,922.38 $8.18763 $4.37010 $2.84713 N/A CURRENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FEES BICYCLE- PEDESTRIAN $243 $170 $0.36 $0.09 $0.12 $0.24/visitor SF EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT B N/A N/A $25.06 $6.05 N/A $1,407.23 Sources: City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule Effective on July 1, 2019, City of El Cerrito FY 29-20 Master Fee Schedule, Redwood City Development Impact Fees as of September 1, 2016, City of San Bruno Resolution no. 2019-20, City of San Mateo Proposed Comprehensive Fee schedule July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021, City of South San Francisco Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019. aGeneral retail/supermarket, bBefore any adjustments for inflation. LAND USE (ITE CODE) DAILY TRIP RATE UNIT TRIP LENGTH PERCENT NEW TRIPS PMTa PER UNIT EDU RATE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HIGH-RISE (222) 4.45 dwelling unit 7.9 100 35.16 0.47 MULTIFAMILY MID RISE WITH 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL (231) 3.44 dwelling unit 7.9 100 27.18 0.36 NONRESIDENTIAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER (760) 11.26 KSF b 8.8 100 99.09 1.33 HIGH CUBE PARCEL HUB WAREHOUSE (156) 7.75 KSF 9 100 69.75 0.94 HIGH CUBE FULFILLMENT CENTER WAREHOUSE (155) 8.18 KSF 9 100 73.62 0.99 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 15 TABLE 11. REVENUE PROJECTIONS LAND USE EXPECTED GROWTH 2020-2040 (SQ. F T ) EO101 GROWTH WEST- SIDE GROWTH EO101 FEE EXISTING BIKE- PED FEE REVENUE (EXISTING) PROPOSED TIF RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) Fee Rate1 Revenue Fee Rate2 Revenue Fee Rate1 Revenue SINGLE FAMILY 30 - 30 N/A - $243 7,289 7,289 $26,840 805,200 MULTI-FAMILY 3,189 - 3,189 N/A - $170 540,781 540,781 $15,467 49,324,263 TOTAL 3,219 - 3,219 N/A - 548,070 548,070 50,129,463 NONRESIDENTIAL (SQUARE RETAIL 78,339 20,000 58,339 $25.06 501,200 $0.36 28,552 529,752 $32.28 2,528,783 HOTEL 364,500 190,000 174,500 $1,407.23 381,962 $0.24 87,181 469,143 $22,861.22 11,904,164 OFFICE/R&D 12,673,495 10,641,637 2,031,858 $6.05 64,381,904 $0.09 1,190,042 65,571,946 $30.85 390,977,321 INDUSTRIAL 4,263 - 4,263 N/A - $0.12 512 512 $16.07 68,506 TOTAL 13,120,597 10,851,637 2,268,960 $65,265,066 $1,306,28 $66,571,353 $405,478,774 CITYWIDE 13,120,597 $65,265,066 $1,854,35 $67,119,423 $455,608,237 Sources: Tables 1, growth projections from City of South San Francisco, published fee rates. Note: Existing fee rates include administrative portion of fees and adjustments for inflation that may have been applied. 1 Rates as published in Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019, City of South San Francisco. Fee for hotel is per room (assume 700 GSF per room). 2 Rates as published by City of South San Francisco, 2018. Assumes any growth mobile homes are counted as multifamily units. Hotel rate is per “visitor SF” SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS • JULY 2020 APPENDIX A – PROJECT LIST South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List Source Project Location Project Description  Planning Level  Cost Estimate  ($2020)  HSIP Cycle 9Ped safety traffic signal upgrades 12 signals along Spruce, Grand and Linden convert to mast arm and install ped  heads  $             2,853,318  HSIP Cycle 9Ped safety and ADA improvements Orange/Canal/Nyrtle and Hillside/Franklin RRFB and ADA curb ramps  $                234,024  Community Identified Hillside Road Diet Hillside/Lincoln intersection improvements and road diet  $                862,407  HSIP Cycle 9 JS/Hickey/Longford Intersection  Improvements Improvements at intersection, ATP application  $             5,930,852  Community Identified Hillside Sister‐Cities Traffic Calming Speed cushion installations, striping improvements and ped crossing  improvements in Paradise Valley neighborhood (partial eligibility) $                566,650  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study  Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque  Avenue Re‐stripe US‐101 off‐ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive  left, shared through/left turn and exclusive right turn lane to provide exclusive  left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. $                  55,817  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study  Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister  Cities/Oyster Point Blvd Change WB second left turn lane to through lane, through/right to a right turn  lane, widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to one additional left turn lane, signal mod  $                835,141  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Remove median and widen east side Eccles Ave., add additional left turn lane,  signal mod  $                615,998  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Gull Drive & Oyster Point Blvd Widen NB Gull Dr. to provid two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, signal  mod  $                968,537  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study  Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off‐ ramp Widen SB 101 off‐ramp and replace retaining wall, restripe SB through/left to  through‐only, remove street parking to increace turn lane storage, signal mod  $             2,894,166  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Restripe SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to through‐right and through‐left lane  to left turn only, signal mod  $                217,617  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Widen Grand Ave to improve turning radius for trucks, remove pork chop and  correct pavement cross slope  $             5,255,876  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Grandview Dr (DNA Way) & Grand Ave New signal mod, add one right turn lane on SB Grandview Ave., one through  lane on NB Grandview Ave., add left turn and through‐left lanes on EB Grand  Ave., signal interconnect installation  $                995,951  Traffic Impact Fee Study  Update East of 101 Area  (2007) Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Add additional left turn lane and restripe through‐left to be left turn only on  WB Airport Blvd., eliminate weaving section on NB Produce Ave., signal mod  $             1,507,493  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study  South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave &  Gateway Blvd Add additional right‐turn lane and change through‐left to through on EB Airport  Blvd., add two through lanes and right‐turn lane on MitchellAve., add right‐turn  lane and change through‐right to right only on SB Gateway, new signal  installation  $             5,710,328  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Add one SB left‐turn lane and change NB through lane to through‐right on  Airport Blvd., signal mod  $                622,894  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Harbor Way Widen Harbor Way to 4 lanes with parking prohibition between Grand Ave. and  Mitchell Ave., new signal installation  $             7,463,682  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study  Hwy 101 northbound hook ramps/S.  Airport Blvd Widen US‐101 off‐ramp to add one lane at the exit and one right‐turn lane at  the intersection, relocate US‐101 NB hook on‐ramp toward north, widen SB S.  Airport Blvd. between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add left turn lane,.  Reconfigure NB S. Airport Blvd between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add one  through lane and one left‐turn lane, signal mod  $             4,014,611  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Widen Gull Road to extend left‐turn lane  $                297,316  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave Widen and prohibit street parking on Grand Ave. to one EB through lane and  one let‐trun lane, realign striping on WB E. Grand Ave. $             1,671,977  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave Add one through lane on E. Grand Ave., new signal mod, install dedicated left‐ turn lane from EB Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave., signal interconnect installation  $                908,622  East of 101 Area Traffic  Impact Fee Study Utah Ave & Harbor Way Widen and prohibit street parking on Harbor Way to add SB right‐turn and NB  through lanes, restripe and prohibit street parking on Utah Ave. to add one EB  left‐turn and one WB left‐turn, new signal mod  $             1,642,020  Mobility 2020 Projects I‐380 Connection via Haskins Way Connects I‐380/North Access Road directly to the Area via Haskins Way. 1/2 mil  bridge includes four lanes of traffic and Bay Trail extensions  $   128,000,000.00  Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue Interchange Etends Utah Avenue for South Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with a  new southbound on‐ramp and off‐ramp. 1/4 mile extension includes four lanes  of traffic, sidewalks, and bike lanes. $           77,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Grand Avenue Northbound Offramp  Flyover Realigns northbound US‐101 off‐ramp to Grand Avenue above the new Caltrain  Station. Two lane off‐ramp aligns with Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue  intersection  $           34,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Sierra Point Connection Extends Veterans Boulevard to Shoreline Court via two lane street via existing  parking lots and new bridge. Includes reconstruction of Bay Trail bridge  $           12,000,000  A‐1 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List Source Project Location Project Description  Planning Level  Cost Estimate  ($2020)  Mobility 2020 Projects Railroad Avenue Extension Extends Railroad Avenue from Linden Avenue to Littlefield Avenue. One mile  street extension includes grade separation of Caltrain, two lanes of traffic, and  bicycle/pedesrian trail  $         261,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Oyster Point Boulevard* Reduce median width width to add curbside bus/bike lanes, in‐line bus stops,  close missing crosswalk gaps, and reconfigure traffic signals  $             7,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects East Grand Avenue* Address unmet traffic signal needs, reconfigure traffic signals, close sidewalks  and bikeway gaps, widen sidewalks, add curb extensions, add raised median  east of Littlefied, add on‐street bus stops and bus lanes/queue jumps, and  remove slip lanes  $           22,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects South Airport Boulevard* Address gaps in median, widen sidewalks, upgrade traffic signals, upgrade bus  stops  $           14,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue* Add traffic signal at Utah Avenue/Harbor Way intersection; add bike lanes and  address sidewalk gaps  $             3,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Gull Drive*Widen Gull Drive from two lanes to four lanes  $             6,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Forbes Boulevard* Add traffic signal Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, connect bike  trails, address sidewalk gaps, and extend road diet from Allerton Way to Eccles  Avenue  $             4,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Caltrain Access Improvements & Rails  to Trails Projects Construct approximately three miles of trails within the Area along former  railways and excess street right of way  $             7,000,000  Mobility 2020 Projects Centennial Trail‐Bay Trail Connector Bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting existing Bay Trail terminus at Costco to  Tanforan Avenue, with connection to Centennial Trail and San Bruno BART  $           14,000,000  Development Impact  Mitigation Fee Analysis Centennial Connector New Bikeway Project from Mission Rd/Grand Ave to Centennial Trail  $                  68,644  Active South City Projects Arroyo Drive Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Oake Avenue  $                631,449  Active South City Projects Orange/Canal Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB  $             3,368,040  Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to Miller Avenue  $                524,888  Active South City Projects El Camino Real  Bicycle project from City Limit to City Limit  $             8,260,694  Active South City Projects W Orange Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade  $             1,326,000  Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from Miller Avenue to Armour Avenue  $                170,958  Active South City Projects Alta Loma Drive/Buri Buri Bicycle  Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade  $             4,123,860  Active South City Projects Avalon Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade  $             2,174,640  Active South City Projects Bike/Ped Bridge Study Bicycle project from Airport Boulevard to Poletti Way  $           19,500,000  Active South City Projects Centennial Trail Connections Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to El Camino Real  $                  49,375  Active South City Projects Chestnut Avenue Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Sunset Avenue  $             1,954,485  Active South City Projects Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Bayshore Boulevard to E Grand Avenue  $                     6,864  Active South City Projects Hickey Boulevard Bicycle project from City Limit to El Camino Real  $             1,712,810  Active South City Projects Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Junipero Serra Boulevard to El Camino Real  $             3,157,145  Active South City Projects Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Skyline Boulevard to Junipero Serra Boulevard  $             5,592,834  Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to S Airport Boulevard  $                773,308  Active South City Projects Bayshore Boulevard Bicycle project from Sister Cities Boulevard to City Limit  $             1,903,075  Active South City Projects Centennial Trail Bicycle project from Existing trail to City Limit  $                401,030  Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Forbes Boulevard to Haskins Avenue  $             2,294,336  Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Poletti Way  $                390,000  Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Trail Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard  $                557,799  Active South City Projects Evergreen/Holly Bicycle Boulevard  Group Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB  $             2,532,660  Active South City Projects Forbes Boulevard Bicycle project from Eccles Avenue to Allerton Avenue  $             2,052,980  Active South City Projects Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard  $             1,402,712  Active South City Projects Harbor Bicycle Boulevard Group  Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB 265200 Active South City Projects Linden Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade 1,299,480$               Active South City Projects McLellan Dr Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Mission Road 86,397$                    A‐2 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List Source Project Location Project Description  Planning Level  Cost Estimate  ($2020)  Active South City Projects Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard 472,258$                  Active South City Projects Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard 440,786$                  Active South City Projects N Access Rd Bicycle project from Bay Trail to S Airport Boulevard 571,311$                  Active South City Projects Poletti Way Bicycle project from Caltrain Station Tunnel to Oyster Point Boulevard 1,340,830$               Active South City Projects S Spruce Ave Bicycle Project from El Camino Real to N Canal St 2,268,438$               Active South City Projects Sneath Ln extension Bicycle Project from Huntington Ave to S Linden Ave 1,022,346$               Active South City Projects Bay Trail/Shaw/Tanforan Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to Huntington Ave 1,782,091$               Active South City Projects Colma Creek Bay Trail Bicycle Project from Existing  Bay Trail to Utah Ave 565,500$                  Active South City Projects Colma Creek Service Road Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Colma Creek Trail 4,095$                      Active South City Projects E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to End of street 10,626$                    Active South City Projects E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Gateway Blvd 20,592$                    Active South City Projects Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from Westborough Blvd to Shannon Dr 1,635,096$               Active South City Projects Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from King Dr to Westborough Blvd 1,669,717$               Active South City Projects Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Spruce Ave 405,038$                  Active South City Projects Greendale Bicycle Boulevard Group 1,763,580$               Active South City Projects Harbor Way Bicycle Project from RR tracks/proposed trail to Littlefield Ave 24,115$                    Active South City Projects Huntington Ave Bicycle Project from Spruce Ave to Noor Ave 811,863$                  Active South City Projects Junipero Serra Blvd Bicycle Project from Avalon Dr to City limit 6,389,555$               Active South City Projects Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Marina Blvd to Parking lot 13,295$                    Active South City Projects Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Gateway Blvd 45,669$                    Active South City Projects Produce Ave/ new road Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd/San Mateo Ave to Utah Ave extension 1,142,622$               Active South City Projects Shannon Bicycle Boulevard Group 1,206,660$               Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Sister Cities Blvd 120,728$                  Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Chapman Ave 114,258$                  Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Gateway Blvd to Belle Aire Rd 1,924,416$               Active South City Projects Country Club Dr Bicycle Project from Alida Way to El Camino Real 63,407$                    Active South City Projects Gateway Trail Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 1,303,385$               Active South City Projects Gellert‐Chateau 119,981$                  Active South City Projects Haskins Way Bicycle Project from E Grand AveE Grand Ave to North Access Road 2,099,636$               Active South City Projects Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Linden Ave to Spruce Ave 20,703$                    Active South City Projects Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Ridgeview Court 121,371$                  Active South City Projects Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Proposed trail 1,365$                      Active South City Projects near Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 1,554,126$               Active South City Projects Oak Ave Bicycle Project from Mission Rd to Grand Ave 390,897$                  Active South City Projects Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Centennial Trail to Railroad Ave 132,192$                  Active South City Projects S Spruce Bicycle Project from N Canal St to Railroad Ave 458,904$                  Active South City Projects San  Mateo Avenue Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to S Sirport Blvd 133,848$                  Active South City Projects Sister Cities Blvd Bicycle Project from Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd 2,686,082$               Active South City Projects Utah Ave Bicycle Project from San Mateo Ave to US‐101 49,764$                    Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr 781,794$                  Active South City Projects Chestnut Ave Bicycle Project from Sunset Ave to Hillside Blvd 831,945$                  Active South City Projects Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Mission Rd 206,138$                  Active South City Projects Linden Ave Bicycle Project from Tanforan Ave to Baden Ave 168,847$                  Active South City Projects Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Utah Ave 1,139,761$               Active South City Projects Mitchell Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to AIrport Blvd 53,196$                    Active South City Projects near Harbor Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Littlefield Ave 1,643,124$               Active South City Projects Utah Ave Bicycle Project from US‐101 to Littlefield Ave 1,804,140$               Active South City Projects DNA Way Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Existing facility 32,338$                    Active South City Projects near Cabot Rd Bicycle Project from Allerton Ave to E Grand Ave 1,192,484$               Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Westborough Blvd 21,486$                    Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr 11,830$                    Active South City Projects Mission and Lawndale/McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at  all four corners. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct  sidewalks on the west side of McLellan south of Mission Road.1,250,340$               Active South City Projects El Camino Real and McLellan Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Install a high‐visibility  crosswalk at the western ECR approach. Provide a leading pedestrian interval  for the ECR crossings. Construct curb extensions.1,352,000$               Active South City Projects El Camino Real and BART Straighten the crosswalk across the northern approach. Upgrade both  crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.139,750$                  Active South City Projects Grand and Airport Boulevard Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings to high‐visibility.  Consider pedestrian‐only phase. Construct a pedestrian refuge island at the  Airport Boulevard approach.334,750$                  A‐3 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List Source Project Location Project Description  Planning Level  Cost Estimate  ($2020)  Active South City Projects El Camino Real and Ponderosa Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between County Club Drive and  Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks.  Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct median  refuge islands for the ECR crossings.459,875$                  Active South City Projects Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Remove free right  turn lane at southeast corner. Install pedestrian refuge island in the E Grand  Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions at the northeast, southwest, and  southeast corners. Add a leading pedestrian interval for the E Grand Avenue  crossing.919,750$                  Active South City Projects Mission and Sequoia Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐ visiblity crosswalks. Construct curb extensions.1,062,750$               Active South City Projects Orange and Railroad Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad Avenue to high‐visibility and  construct a curb extension at the southeast corner.68,250$                    Active South City Projects Orange and Tennis Drive Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive.  Install a high‐visibility crosswalk across Tennis Drive.263,250$                  Active South City Projects Westborough and Galway Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct  pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough crossings. Construct curb ramps  at all corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii. Update/add school  zone signs.1,453,400$               Active South City Projects Westborough and Junipero Serra  Boulevard Construct sidewalks on the southern side of Westborough Boulevard through  the interchange area to Junipero Serra. Install/upgrade high visibility crosswalks  at all interchange crossing locations. Install with appropriate signs and  pavement markings.191,165$                  Active South City Projects Spruce and Grand Install yellow transverse markings around the decorative crosswalk. Upgrade  three remaining crosswalks to high‐visibility. Consider installing curb extensions  at all corners.1,073,150$               Active South City Projects Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and south corners. Upgrade two  marked crosswalks and realign to be straight. Implement a leading pedestrian  interval for both crosswalks.741,000$                  Active South City Projects Arroyo and Alta Loma Construct curb extensions on both sides of the crosswalk. Construct a median  refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk across Alta Loma  Drive.406,250$                  Active South City Projects E Grand and Poletti Way Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue and Industrial Way to enhance Caltrain  and Grand Avenue access. Tighten corner radii to square‐up intersection  approaches. Provide the proposed trail with an enhanced crossing.289,250$                  Active South City Projects El Camino Real and Kaiser Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from the bus stop to the bend in  Del Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR and Del Paso. At the Kaiser  driveway, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Redesign the  pedestrian refuge island in the western ECR crossing. Provide a leading  pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.215,735$                  Active South City Projects El Camino Real and S Spruce Upgrade all four crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian  refuge islands for the two ECR crossings. Provide a leading pedestrian interval  for the ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four corners.1,475,500$               Active South City Projects Grand and Linden Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian  intervals for all crossings.171,600$                  Active South City Projects Grand and Maple Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian  intervals for all crossings.171,600$                  Active South City Projects Hickey and El Camino Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northern ECR  crosswalk. Install a high‐visibility crosswalk across the sourther ECR approach  (push back the northbound stop bar and median to create a straight crossing).  Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings.160,875$                  Active South City Projects Miller and Oakcrest Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners.  Install advance stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB.686,400$                  Active South City Projects BART/Cymbidium Circle Neighborhood  Path Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to improve bicycle access.  Remove the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open stair access to both  neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility and straighten the  crosswalk. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.136,500$                  Active South City Projects Spruce and S Canal Way Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street. Upgrade both crosswalks to high‐ visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb extension at the southeast corner. Add  trail wayfinding information. Consider leading pedestrian interval for Spruce  Avenue crossing.242,125$                  Active South City Projects Westborough and Gellert Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth approach high‐visibility  crosswalks. Build out the necessary corners to straighten all crosswalks.  Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks. Provide a leading  pedestrian interval for the northern Westborough crosswalk.2,314,000$               A‐4 South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List Source Project Location Project Description  Planning Level  Cost Estimate  ($2020)  Active South City Projects Westborough/Chestnut and El Camino  Real Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northen  crosswalk across Chestnut. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all  crossings. Consider installing curb extensions at all corners. Extend all four  medians to create pedestrian refuge islands.2,314,000$               Active South City Projects El Camino Real and Arroyo & Arroyo  and Del Paso Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo Drive; close gap in  median and remove yield paddle. At ECR, upgrade all crosswalks to high  visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for ECR crossings.  Consider curb extensions at all four corners 1,266,525$               Active South City Projects Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand Avenue crossings.12,000$                    Active South City Projects Grand mid‐block crossings between  Linden and Maple Install advance yield pavement markings and signs. 16,250$                    Active South City Projects Hillside and Arden Refresh the two existing high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at  the two eastern corners. Install advance stop/yield markings.296,400$                  Active South City Projects Hillside and Belmont Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to the western approach to improve site  lines. Install curb extensions at all three corners with a crosswalk. Install an  RRFB for the Hillside crosswalk.Install advance yield markings.677,300$                  Active South City Projects LInden and N Canal Widen on or both of the existing paths on the Colma Creek bridge to ADA  complaint width. Install appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S  Canal street if sidewalks are present on the west side.108,290$                  Active South City Projects Miller and Westview Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners.  Straighten the crosswalk across Miller. Install advance stop/yield pavement  markings. Consider installing an RRFB.689,650$                  Active South City Projects S Airport and Utah Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101, install high visibility  crosswalks at all four approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.191,750$                  Active South City Projects Spruce and Hillside Construct curb extensions at the two northern and southeastern corners. Mark  highvisibility crosswalks across Spruce Avenue and School Street.598,000$                  Active South City Projects Spruce and Park Way Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park Way to high‐visibility  crosswalks. Install high‐visbility crosswalks across both Spruce approaches.  Install advance stop markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all corners.93,686$                    Active South City Projects Utah Ave/San Mateo Ave Install a protected intersection with high visibility crosswalks. 650,000$                  Active South City Projects Westborough and Callan Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct  pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough and Callan crossings.  Update/add school zone signs.629,525$                  Active South City Projects Airport and Gateway Upgrade existing crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct median  refuge islands at the west, east, and south approaches. Remove slip lane from  southern approach.793,000$                  Active South City Projects Chestnut and Commercial Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visbility. Remove the slip lane from the  southeast corner and construct a curb extension; straighten both crosswalks  from this corner.247,000$                  Active South City Projects Grand and Gateway Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn  lanes at northwest and southeast corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands in all  crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners.2,645,500$               Active South City Projects Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.29,250$                    Active South City Projects Holly/Crestwood Upgrade all crossings to high‐visibility crosswalks. Consider installing a  neighborhood traffic circle.247,000$                  Active South City Projects Junipero Serra and Arroyo Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side of Junipero Serra Boulevard  from the interchange to Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/Arroyo 546,000$                  Active South City Projects Junipero Serra and Avalon & Avalon  and Valverde Mark high‐visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks on  the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to Westbrough Boulevard from Avalon  Drive. Mark a high‐visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach of Avalon 256,750$                  Active South City Projects Junipero Serra and Hickey Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast, southwest, and northwest  corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide leading  pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands.1,579,500$               Active South City Projects Spruce and N. Canal St Build curb extensions at the two northern corners. Straighten and upgrade all  three marked crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks.277,875$                  Active South City Projects East Grand and Forbes Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions at all  four corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands across E Grand Avenue.1,329,250$               Active South City Projects El Camino Real and W Orange Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create pedestrian refuge islands  for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.  Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.429,000$                  Active South City Projects Grand and Mission Upgrade both crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Extend medians and  create pedestrian refuge islands.279,500$                  Active South City Projects Grand and Orange Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Consider installing curb  extensions at all four corners. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the  crossings of Grand Avenue.1,222,000$               A‐5 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS • JULY 2020 APPENDIX B – UNIT COST ESTIMATES DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Roadway Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $3.28 3.28$ 2 Remove Existing Pavement (Obliteration)1.00 SF $0.70 0.70$ 3Roadway Excavation (2' depth)0.07 CY $145.00 10.74$ 4 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 0.36$ 5 Class 2 Aggregate Base (18") (Assume 145lb/CF)0.11 Ton $90.00 9.79$ 6 Asphalt Concrete (6")(Type A, assume 150 lbs/CF)0.04 Ton $235.00 8.81$ 7 Mobilization 1 LS 3.40$ 3.40$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 34.00$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 37.00$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Sidewalk Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $0.60 1.00$ 2 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 1.00$ 3 Sidewalk (includes 3" AB)1.00 SF $26.00 26$ 4 Mobilization 1 LS 2.80$ 3$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 28$ Contract Items 31$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Curb and Gutter Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1Type “S1-6" Curb 1 LF $60.00 60$ 2 Sawcut Gutter 1 LF $18.00 18$ 3 Mobilization 1 LS 7.80$ 8$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 78$ Contract Items 86$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Median Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Median (Island) Paving 1.00 SF $25.00 25$ 2 Mobilization 1 LS 2.50$ 3$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 25$ Contract Items 28$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Bicycle Path (Shared Use Path) Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $3.28 4.00$ 2 Remove Existing Pavement (Obliteration)1.00 SF $0.70 1.00$ 3Roadway Excavation (1.5')0.06 CY $145.00 9.00$ 3 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 1.00$ 4 Class 2 Aggregate Base (4") (Assume 145lb/CF)0.03 Ton $90.00 3.00$ 5 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (4")(assume 150 lbs./CF)0.03 Ton $166.09 5.00$ 6 Mobilization 1 LS 2.30$ 3.00$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 23$ Contract Items 26$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Bicycle Lane (Class II) Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Remove existing striping 1.00 LF $3.00 3.00$ 2 Striping 1.00 LF $4.25 5.00$ 3 Signage 0.0008 EA $500.00 1.00$ 4 Mobilization 1 LS 0.90$ 1.00$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 9$ Contract Items 10$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number Infrastructure Type:Traffic Signal for One Intersection Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Furnish & Install Cabinet and Controller on New Foundation 1 EA $45,000.00 45,000$ 2 Furnish and Install Fiber Switch In Controller Cabinet. 1 EA $2,500.00 2,500$ 3 Terminate fiber optic cable in cabinet 1EA $2,500.00 2,500$ 4 Splice 12 Strand SMFO Cable to trunk cable in vault 1 EA $1,000.00 1,000$ 5 Furnish & Install Opticom EVP system in signal cabinet 1 EA $7,500.00 7,500$ 6 Furnish & Install Opticom Card Rack 1 EA $1,000.00 1,000$ 7 Furnish & Install Opticom Detector 4 EA $1,200.00 4,800$ 8 Furnish & Install VIVDS System, incl. cameras, comms manager, and SDLC hub (per intersection)1 EA $25,000.00 25,000$ 9 Furnish & Install CCTV Camera 1EA $5,000.00 5,000$ 10 Furnish & Install Detector Handhole 4 EA $500.00 2,000$ 11 Furnish & Install Detector Loops (6'x6')8EA $2,000.00 16,000$ 12 Furnish & Install LED Countdown Pedestrian Signal Head 8 EA $800.00 6,400$ 13 Furnish & Install Polara Navigator Pedestrian Pushbutton 8EA $1,200.00 9,600$ 14 Furnish & Install Polara CCU in Cabinet 1 EA $4,500.00 4,500$ 15 Furnish & Install SNS on Mast Arm 4 EA $2,000.00 8,000$ 16 Furnish & Install LED Luminaire 4 EA $1,500.00 6,000$ 17 Furnish & Install Photoelectric Control Unit (PEU)1EA $500.00 500$ 18 Furnish & Install Pull Box #5 4 EA $900.00 3,600$ 19 Furnish & Install Pull Box #6 2 EA $1,000.00 2,000$ 20 Furnish & Install Fiber Optic Splice Vault 1 EA $1,250.00 1,250$ 21 Furnish and install 2" conduit with backfill and trenching 100 LF $120.00 12,000$ 22 Furnish and install 3" conduit with backfill and trenching 1000 LF $125.00 125,000$ 23 Furnish and install 4" conduit with backfill and trenching 100 LF $130.00 13,000$ 24 Furnish & Install Type 1-B 4' Pole and Foundation 4EA $3,500.00 14,000$ 25 Furnish & Install Type 1-B 10' Pole and Foundation 4 EA $6,500.00 26,000$ 26 Furnish & Install Type 28-5-100 Pole and Foundation 4 EA $26,000.00 104,000$ 27 Furnish & Install Signal Head Mount Type SV-1-T 4EA $700.00 2,800$ 28 Furnish & Install Pedestrian Signal Head Mount SP- 2-T 4 EA $1,000.00 4,000$ 29 Furnish & Install #14 Conductors 7000 LF $1.50 10,500$ 30 Furnish & Install #10 Conductors 1500 LF $2.00 3,000$ 31 Furnish & Install #8 Conductors 600 LF $2.50 1,500$ 32 Furnish & Install #6 Conductors 50 LF $3.00 150$ 33 Furnish & Install #2 Conductors 1000 LF $4.00 4,000$ 34 Furnish & Install Detector Lead-in Cables 250 LF $3.00 750$ 35 Furnish & Install EVP Cable (Opticom Model 138)500 LF $3.00 1,500$ 36 Furnish & Install CCTV Cable (CAT6)100 LF $3.00 300$ 37 Furnish & Install VIVDS Cable (3-wire)500 LF $3.00 1,500$ 38 Furnish & Install 12-strand Fiber Optic Cable 300 LF $5.00 1,500$ 39 Furnish & Install Trace Cable (#10)300 LF $2.00 600$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls 40 Mobilization 1 LS 48,000.00$ 48,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 480,000$ Contract Items 528,000$ P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Single Family$243 $27,377 Y$6,721.37 ($20,655) 25%Multi-Family$170 $15,776Y$3,873.30($11,903) 25%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$25.42$32.93 Y$25.42 ($7.51) 77%Office / R&D - Per Sq Ft$6.14$31.47 Y$29.15 ($2.32) 93%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.12$16.39 Y$13.15 ($3.24) 80%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$3.05$46.64Y $3.50 ($43.14) 8%Impact Fee Category Current Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit $1,979 $5,748 Y $3,463.48 ($2,284) 60%Medium Density - Per Unit$1,858 $5,034Y $3,033.16($2,000) 60%High Density - Per Unit$1,851 $4,285Y $2,582.20($1,703) 60%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft $0.68 $0.82 Y $0.68 ($0.14) 83%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft $0.57 $1.49 Y $1.26 ($0.23) 85%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.54 $0.50 Y $0.50 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft $0.18 $0.32 Y $0.25 ($0.07) 78%Citywide Transportation Impact Fees (Includes E 101 and Bike/Ped Fees)Childcare Impact FeesAttachment 3Page 1 of 11 Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$0$1,691 Y$693.28 ($998) 41%Medium Density - Per Unit$0$1,480Y$606.87($873) 41%High Density - Per Unit$0$1,260Y$516.44($743) 41%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.07 Y$0.07 $0.00 100%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.12 Y$0.12 ($0.00) 97%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.04 Y$0.04 $0.00 95%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.03 Y$0.03 $0.00 108%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$1,285$1,758 Y$1,387 ($372) 79%Medium Density - Per Unit$810$1,539Y$1,214($325) 79%High Density - Per Unit$563$1,310Y$1,033($277) 79%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$0.44$0.66 Y$0.44 ($0.22) 66%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$0.44$1.20 Y$1.10 ($0.10) 92%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.18$0.40 Y$0.40 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$0.42$0.26 Y$0.26 $0.00 100%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Single-Family Home - Per Unit$29,824 $41,606 N$30,481 ($11,125) 73%2-4 Units$25,857 $35,938N$26,328 ($9,610) 73%5-19 Units$22,058 $30,511N$22,352 ($8,159) 73%20-49 Units$17,921 $24,602N$18,023 ($6,579) 73%50+ Units$15,726 $21,466N$15,726($5,740) 73%Mobile Home$23,071 $31,958N$23,071($8,887) 72%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$3.58$5.03 N$3.58 ($1.45) 71%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$2.77$4.46 N$4.46 ($0.00) 100%Industrial - Per Sq Ft*$1.95$2.11 N$2.00 ($0.11) 95%Hotel - Per Sq Ft*$3.17$4.78 N$3.17 ($1.61) 66%*A $700 administrative fee is also added to the final fee amount.Public Safety Impact FeesParks and Recreation Impact FeesLibrary Impact FeesPage 2 of 11 Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$4,786$4,786 N$4,786 $0 100%Medium Density - Per Unit$3,637$3,637N$3,637$0 100%High Density - Per Unit$3,637$3,637N$3,637 $0 100%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$1.91$1.91 N$1.91 $0.00 100%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Retail - Per Sq Ft$2.50 $227.00 N$2.50 ($225)1%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$15.00 $185.00 N$15.00($170)8%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$5.00 $127.00 N$5.00 ($122)4%Commercial Linkage FeeSewer Capacity Impact FeesPage 3 of 11 Research & Development PrototypeComparison JurisdictionsSq. ft. 150,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities TotalCost / Sq. Ft.Avg Rent / SFPalo Alto $152,400 $5,479,500 $42,600 $792,150 $44,700 $120,900 $1,360,335 $7,992,585 $53.28 $6.05San Bruno $139,500 $1,965,000 $1,294,500 $87,000 $1,042,500 $258,000 $4,786,500 $31.91 $5.25San Mateo $4,048,500 $162,000 $655,500 $37,500 $4,903,500 $32.69 $5.17San Francisco $292,500 $3,804,000 $2,550,524 $6,647,024 $44.31 $7.00Redwood City $3,000,000 $256,500 $3,275,550 $6,532,050 $43.55 $6.67Mountain View $4,237,500 $3,630,000 $1,216,500 $9,084,000 $60.56 $3.96Averages $103,950 $3,746,100 $42,600 $227,250 $792,150 $669,600 $103,950 $1,791,473 $1,467,615 $6,657,610 $44.38 $5.68SSF - Recommended $2,250,000 $18,000 $189,000 $669,000 $165,000 $4,372,500 $496,500 $8,160,000 $54.40 $5.50Page 4 of 11 Research & Development150,000 square foot developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTINGMAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDEDTotal4,324,500$       Total34,148,246$    Total8,250,000$       Per EDU4,324.50$         Per EDU34,148.25$       Per EDU8,250$              Per SF28.83$              Per SF227.65$            Per SF55.00$              Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic6.14$                 31.47$              53% 29.15$              Parks2.77$                 4.46$                 8% 4.46$                 Library‐$ 0.12$                 0% 0.12$                 Child Care0.57$                 1.49$                 2% 1.26$                 Safety0.44$                 1.20$                 2% 1.10$                 CLF15.00$              185.00$            27% 15.00$              Sewer1.29$                 1.29$                 2% 1.29$                 Sewer E1012.02$                 2.02$                 4% 2.02$                 School0.60$                 0.60$                 1% 0.60$                 Total/SF28.83$              227.65$           100% 55.00$              % Increase91%Evaluate Using Max FeasibleTrafficParksChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolPage 5 of 11 Residential PrototypeComparison Jurisdictions# of Units180 Sq. Ft. / Unit1,000 Sq. ft. 180,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction Housing Library Parks Childcare Public SafetyTransport Utilities Total Cost / UnitAvg Rent1-BdrmSan Mateo $3,504,600 $526,028 $450,720 $4,481,348 $24,896 $2,660Redwood City $3,600,000 $2,003,029 $178,560 $429,084 $6,210,673 $34,504 $2,850Dublin $2,948,040 $37,260 $948,690 $3,933,990 $21,856 $2,420Emeryville $5,253,300 $717,120 $309,600 $6,280,020 $34,889 $2,490Sunnyvale $3,600,000 $372,240 $3,972,240 $22,068 $2,560Averages $4,151,100 N/A $2,293,197 N/A $37,260 $506,380 $396,468 $4,975,654 $27,642.52 $2,596SSF - Recommended $92,959 $2,830,680 $464,796 $185,918 $697,194 $654,660$4,926,208 $27,368 $2,470Page 6 of 11 Residential180‐unit prototype rental developmentResidential fees charged on a per‐unit basisEXISTINGMAXIMUM ALLOWEDRECOMMENDED Total4,648,045$       Total9,289,617$       Total5,623,708$       Per Unit25,822$            Per Unit51,609$            Per Unit31,243$            Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic170$                  15,776$            12% 3,873$              Parks15,726$            21,466$            50% 15,726$            Library‐$                   1,260$              2%516$                  Child Care1,851$              4,285$              8% 2,582$              Safety563$                  1,310$              3%1,033$              Sewer3,637$              3,637$              12% 3,637$              School3,875$              3,875$              12% 3,875$              Total/Unit 25,822$           51,609$           100% 31,243$           % Increase21%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersBike & PedParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolPage 7 of 11 Hotel PrototypeComparison Jurisdictions# of Rooms120Sq. Ft. / Room500Sq. ft. $60,000*** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities Total Cost / RoomCost / Sq. Ft.San Bruno $18,240 $786,000 $169,560 $11,400 $183,240 $146,760 $1,315,200 $10,960 $21.92San Mateo $647,400 $64,800 $262,200 $300,480 $1,274,880 $10,624 $21.25Redwood City $300,000 $113,400 $28,800 $442,200 $3,685 $7.37Dublin $179,520 $4,800 $219,330 $403,650 $3,364 $6.73Emeryville $265,800 $66,600 $139,680 $472,080 $3,934 $7.87Sunnyvale $540,000 $349,860 $889,860 $7,416 $14.83Burlingame $38,400 $28,680 $7,080 $21,000 $108,600 $26,520 $230,280 $1,919 $3.84Mountain View $143,700 $258,600 $599,280 $1,001,580 $8,347 $16.69Avg Impact Fee$12,400 $447,150 $28,680 $64,800 $84,400 $169,560 $12,400 $204,364 $220,368 $753,716 $6,281 $12.56SSF - Recommended $300,000 $1,710 $15,000 $190,200 $300,000 $0 $235,800 $1,042,710 $8,689 $17.38Page 8 of 11 Hotel120‐room, 60,000 SF developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTING MAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDED Total2,453,169$       Total27,534,098$    Total2,510,775$       Per Room20,443.08$       Per Room 229,450.82$    Per Room20,923.13$       Per SF16.35$              Per SF183.56$            Per SF16.74$              Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic3.05$                 46.64$              21% 3.50$                 Parks3.17$                 4.78$                 19% 3.17$                 Library‐$                   0.03$                 0% 0.03$                 Child Care0.18$                 0.32$                 1% 0.25$                 Safety0.42$                 0.26$                 2% 0.26$                 CLF5.00$                 127.00$            30% 5.00$                 Sewer1.91$                 1.91$                 11% 1.91$                 Sewer E1012.02$                 2.02$                 12% 2.02$                 School0.60$                 0.60$                 4% 0.60$                 Total/SF16.35$              183.56$           100% 16.74$              % Increase2%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersTrafficParksChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolPage 9 of 11 Industrial PrototypeComparison JurisdictionsSq. ft. 60,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Ft.Palo Alto $15,060 $1,275,600 $17,040 $316,860 $17,880 $12,000 $283,896 $1,938,336 $32.31San Bruno $22,200 $786,000 $205,800 $13,800 $166,800 $64,800 $1,259,400 $20.99San Mateo $1,619,400 $64,800 $170,820 $1,855,020 $30.92Millbrae $900 $4,440 $1,200 $4,860 $71,580 $82,980 $1.38San Francisco $117,000 $1,344,000 $2,550,524 $4,011,524 $66.86Redwood City $300,000 $93,000 $28,800 $421,800 $7.03Fremont $37,860 $240,000 $12,720 $171,000 $461,580 $7.69San Carlos $1,200,000 $133,680 $1,333,680 $22.23Milpitas $180,000 $47,605 $227,605 $3.79Dublin $89,520 $2,340 $219,330 $311,190 $5.19Emeryville $265,800 $87,000 $161,400 $514,200 $8.57Sunnyvale $855,000 $282,780 $1,137,780 $18.96Burlingame $18,300 $13,680 $3,360 $9,960 $68,760 $37,680 $151,740 $2.53Mountain View $1,553,800 $1,452,000 $486,600 $3,492,400 $58.21Avg Impact Fee$9,280 $827,560 $11,720 $90,900 $124,185 $74,960 $9,280 $333,332 $633,681 $1,228,517 $20.48SSF - Recommended $0 $2,400 $30,000 $120,000 $24,000 $789,000 $198,600 $1,164,000 $19.40Page 10 of 11 Industrial60,000 square foot developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTING MAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDEDTotal402,000$          Total1,401,341$       Total1,200,000$       Per EDU402.00$            Per EDU1,401.34$         Per EDU1,200$              Per SF6.70$                 Per SF23.36$              Per SF20.00$              Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic0.12$                 16.39$              66% 13.15$              Parks1.95$                 2.11$                 10% 2.00$                 Library‐$                   0.04$                 0.2% 0.04$                 Child Care0.54$                 0.50$                 3% 0.50$                 Safety0.18$                 0.40$                 2% 0.40$                 CLF‐$                   ‐$                   0%‐$                   Sewer1.29$                 1.29$                 6% 1.29$                 Sewer E1012.02$                 2.02$                 10% 2.02$                 School0.60$                 0.60$                 3% 0.60$                 Total/SF6.70$                23.36$              100% 20.00$              % Increase199%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersTrafficParksChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolPage 11 of 11 Impact Fee StudyResultsPresentation to City CouncilJANET SALISBURY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE26 AUGUST 2020 New Impact FeesCitywide Transportation Impact FeePurpose: To fund transportation infrastructure improvements to mitigate increased traffic from new developments Repeals and replaces: ‒E101 Traffic Impact Fee‒Bike & Pedestrian Impact FeeLibrary Impact FeePurpose: To fund library infrastructure improvements (both materials and facilities) to maintain current service levels even with population growth as a result of future development2Monies already collected remain; will fund projects identified as part of original nexus studyImpact Fee CategoryCurrent FeeFull Cost FeeProposedFeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %ageLow Density - Per Unit $0 $1,691 $693.28 ($998) 41%Medium Density - Per Unit $0 $1,480 $606.87 ($873) 41%High Density - Per Unit $0 $1,260 $516.44 ($743) 41%Comm./Retail - Per Sq Ft $0.00 $0.07 $0.07 $0.00 100%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft $0.00 $0.12 $0.12 ($0.00) 97%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.00 $0.04 $0.04 $0.00 95%Hotel - Per Sq Ft $0.00 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 108%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent FeeFull Cost FeeProposedFeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %ageSingle Family $243 $27,377 $6,721.37 ($20,655) 25%Multi-Family $170 $15,776 $3,873.30 ($11,903) 25%Comm./Retail - Per Sq Ft $25.42 $32.93 $25.42 ($7.51) 77%Office / R&D - Per Sq Ft $6.14 $31.47 $29.15 ($2.32) 93%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.12 $16.39 $13.15 ($3.24) 80%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$3.05 $46.64$3.50 ($43.14) 8% Proposed Changes to Existing Impact FeesChildcare Impact FeePurpose: To fund projects or programs that ensures current childcare availability levels are maintained as SSF workforce and resident population grows as a result of additional developmentCurrent study reestablishes the nexus between new development and future childcare spacesFee has not increased since 2007Public Safety Impact FeesPurpose: To fund expansion of public safety infrastructure to support new developmentCurrent study reestablishes the nexus between new development and the need to maintain Police and Fire facilities and equipmentFee has not increased since 20123Impact Fee CategoryCurrent FeeFull Cost FeeProposedFeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %ageLow Density - Per Unit $1,979 $5,748 $3,463.48 ($2,284) 60%Medium Density - Per Unit $1,858 $5,034 $3,033.16 ($2,000) 60%High Density - Per Unit $1,851 $4,285 $2,582.20 ($1,703) 60%Comm./Retail - Per Sq Ft $0.68 $0.82 $0.68 ($0.14) 83%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft $0.57 $1.49 $1.26 ($0.23) 85%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.54 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft $0.18 $0.32 $0.25 ($0.07) 78%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent FeeFull Cost FeeProposedFeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %ageLow Density - Per Unit $1,285 $1,758 $1,387 ($372) 79%Medium Density - Per Unit $810 $1,539 $1,214 ($325) 79%High Density - Per Unit $563 $1,310 $1,033 ($277) 79%Comm./Retail - Per Sq Ft $0.44 $0.66 $0.44 ($0.22) 66%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft $0.44 $1.20 $1.10 ($0.10) 92%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.18 $0.40 $0.40 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft $0.42 $0.26 $0.26 $0.00 100% In‐Lieu Fees / Other4Parking In-Lieu FeePurpose: To fund new parking structures in downtown area with fees developers would pay if they are unable to meet required parking standards. Eliminate Cultural Arts / Landscape In-LieuStaff to explore NEW public art in-lieu fee Other Impact Fees Not StudiedOyster Point Interchange FeeSewer Impact FeeE101 Sewer Impact FeeDescription AmountCurrent Fee $0SSF Full Cost $79,910Proposed Fee $50,000Average In-Lieu Fee$56,216 QUESTIONS?5 Additional time and public engagement are needed for staff to incorporate feedback received from Council and the public regarding the potential impact of increased fees on future development. The City should consider a gradual/phased structure that sets fee increases over a 3-5 year period to avoid negative impacts to the development pipeline especially in light of current market uncertainties. The City should consider locking in current fees based on project status in the planning approval/entitlement process, particularly for projects that have already undertaken substantial planning efforts and incurred significant costs. The City should make the Century Urban feasibility study available for public review, as this information is necessary to understand how the impacts of proposed fees increases on commercial development were determined. The City should consider the impacts of Covid-19 on future development feasibility when determining appropriate near-term development impact fee increases. Thank you for considering these issues. Regards, Marcus Gilmour MARCUS J. GILMOUR | Principal 644 Menlo Avenue 2nd Floor, Menlo Park, CA 94025 t 650 838 0100 LANE-PARTNERS.COM