HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-12 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, August 12, 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 12, 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 City Council hotline.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020
August 12, 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 12th. 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 #:20-555 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
Remote Public Comments Received
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/6/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
From:Marcus Gilmour
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:Aug. 12 Special Meeting, Item 2 - Study session regarding proposed amendments to Developer Impact Fees –
PUBLIC COMMENT
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 12:30:45 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Garbarino and City Councilmembers,
My name is Marcus Gilmour, Principal with Lane Partners. We are submitting these comments in
connection with the proposed development impact fees increases; we also provided further detailed
written comments to the Councilmembers.
We are currently working with City staff on preparing proposed entitlements and an EIR for the
SOUTHLINE project, a 2.8M square foot office/R&D commercial campus in the Lindenville area. We
have made substantial commitments towards this project, including meeting with the Design Review
Board, and two community outreach meetings. The City has engaged a CEQA consultant for project
and we have completed the EIR scoping process.
We first learned late last week that the City is considering adopting development impact fee
increases that would increase the SOUTHLINE project fees by up to 91 percent, from approximately
$29/SF to $55/SF, and that these fees could be adopted as early as August 26.
We understand that it is appropriate for the City to study an update to its development impact fees
given how long the current structure has been in place. With that said, we’d like to contribute the
following comments to the discussion:
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.
From:Breeze, Elaine
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:August 12, 3030 Study Session Agenda Item 2
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 3:19:37 PM
Attachments:image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Dear Mayor Garbarino and Councilmembers,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the City’s proposed new and
increased development impact fees. As you are aware, SummerHill is currently developing
multifamily residential in South San Francisco and is active in many other cities along the Peninsula.
We have reviewed the study materials and appreciated the opportunity to discuss with City staff as
well. A 21% increase in multifamily impact fees is significant under any circumstance and is
particularly significant in these uncertain times while housing is still in critical need. It also provides a
disincentive to create high density around transportation hubs that are beneficial to reducing traffic
and promoting public transit.
Regarding the nexus study, we would like to highlight that the methodology used places a
disproportionate cost on new high density residential. The calculation is based on census data of all
multifamily housing in the City at an average of 18 units/acre and 2.57 persons/unit. While this is not
atypical of a nexus study, based on our experience with new high density multifamily projects, we
typically average 90-140 units/acre and 1.6 persons/unit. Given South San Francisco’s higher than
average multifamily household size of 2.57/unit, we might expect 1.8 persons/unit in a high density
project within South San Francisco. In other words, high density residential will be paying about 40%
more than its proportionate share based on actual occupancy. Stated another way, the City is
already capturing 100% cost recovery on most impact fees based on actual household size of new
high density housing in South San Francisco. We also note that the study does not analyze increases
to the General Fund when sites are redeveloped and properties reassessed.
We understand that the Century Urban Feasibility Study is not yet available for review; however, the
prototype summary provided in the staff report outlines the detrimental impact of the increased
fees on multifamily feasibility - absent a pandemic. Therefore, we respectfully request the City
Council consider the following recommendation in its deliberations this evening:
1. Exempt projects that submit a formal project application prior to the effective date of
November 22, 2020
2. Phase-in the proposed fees – apply 50% on November 22, 2020 and increase to 100% on
November 22, 2021
This phased-in approach will consider projects that are already in the pipeline and is consistent with
the City’s phased adoption of its Inclusionary Housing Fee.
Thank you for consideration and please let me know if have any questions. I can be reached via
email or directly at
Best Regards,
and help insure those developments come to fruition.
Brendan Hayes
Senior Vice President - Development
EFFECTIVE 8/17/20: NEW PHYSICAL AND MAILING ADDRESS
5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92121
FairfieldResidential.com
View important disclosures and information about our e-mail policies here.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 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 8/7/2020Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 8/7/2020Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
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 Attachment 3,have also been discussed with the
members of the Budget Standing Committee at two previous public meetings - on July 27 th and August 3rd.
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
Once feedback is provided by Council during the August 12,2020 Study Session,staff intends to incorporate
the input and bring it back to City Council for adoption on August 26,2020.If approved at the August 26,2020
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/7/2020Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-559 Agenda Date:8/12/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
the input and bring it back to City Council for adoption on August 26,2020.If approved at the August 26,2020
City Council meeting, the proposed fees will go into effect on November 22, 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 8/7/2020Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Development Impact Fee Study
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT
August 2020
mat rix
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
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, however, the City has updated the fee annually. 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,
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.
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 has annually increased these fees per the original
resolution in 2001 and the municipal code in 2002 to help account for increased
construction costs. 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
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
City over the next 20 years. Similar to other impact fees in the City, the cost per dwelling
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%
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
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
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.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
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%
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 citywide 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%
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 / Non-Residential (per square foot)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. It is
the city’s intention to develop a
citywide parking in-lieu fee and
that would need to be
implemented via resolution.
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.
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.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
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
the Library, Parking In-Lieu, 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.
• Parking In-Lieu Fee: A resolution would need to accompany the in-lieu fee to
specify that the fee is applicable throughout the City as the code only currently
allows for it to be implemented within the Downtown Parking District.
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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).
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 these fees have been annually increased. Over the last 19 years, the City has
increased the fees by approximately 14% (a little less than 1% per year). However, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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 $16328
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.
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.
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 fee 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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
PMTa
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
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.
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 $27,000 per EDU in its existing transportation
infrastructure. This amount represents the maximum justified level of investment from new
development necessary to maintain the existing facility standard. Because the facility standard is
based on citywide multimodal infrastructure, the City may use revenues from the proposed TIF to
fund improvements anywhere on the citywide network for any mode (permitted use of TIF revenue
is further discussed under “Use of Fee Revenue”).
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 15
Figure 1 Citywide Multimodal Transportation Network
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 16
TABLE 86:CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Source: DKS Associates
TABLE 87: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS (2020$)
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% $887,040
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 17
TABLE 88: E XISTING FACILITY STANDARD & LEVEL OF INVESTMENT
Note: All dollars in 2020$
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
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.
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 19
TABLE 89: TRANSPORTATION IMPROV EMENTS 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 $26,840 TBD per square foot
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 20
Table 91: Additional EDU Rates
Sources: See Table 2.
TABLE 92: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ 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
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 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.
•
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”
•
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Study
Results
Presentation to Budget Standing Committee
JANET SALISBURY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
12 AUGUST 2020
AGENDA
1 Overview of Fee Proposals
2 Research and Development
3 Residential
4 Hotels
5 Industrial and Retail
2
Overview of Proposed Fee Changes
1Proposed Changes
Repeal E101 Traffic Impact Fee and Bike and Ped Impact Fee
Replace with a NEW City-Wide Transportation Impact Fee
NEW Library Impact Fee
Update Childcare Impact Fee
Update Public Safety Impact Fees
NEW Parking In-Lieu Fee
Other Impact Fees not studied
Oyster Point Interchange Fee
Sewer Impact Fee
E101 Sewer Impact Fee 3
Research and Development
2
4
High-Density Residential
3
5
Hotels
6
4
Industrial
7
5
Recommended Next Steps
6Recommendations
Adoption by City Council on August 26th
Fees go into effect on November 22nd
8
QUESTIONS?
9