HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-03 e-packet@3:30Monday, August 3, 2020
3:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Budget Standing Committee of the City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
August 3, 2020Budget Standing Committee of the
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.
Councilmember Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego 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.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/15/2020
August 3, 2020Budget Standing Committee of the
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 1:30 p.m. on Monday, August 3rd. State law prevents Committee
Members 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 Committee Members, 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 Subcommittee Chair'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 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.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Report regarding proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year
2020-2021 (Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
2.
Report regarding proposed amendments to Development Impact Fees (Janet Salisbury,
Director of Finance)
3.
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 #:20-537 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
Remote Public Comments Received
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
From:Lisa Niehuser
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:Public comment
Date:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:32:03 AM
To whom it may concern:
Hello, I’m a resident of South San Francisco and I want you to reconsider revisiting the finalized general funds
budget. Our children deserve an education that doesn’t have funds taken out every year and put into other
departments. Education first, always. The police department has way more than enough funds, why is it that the
police are more funded than our kids? Why does that make sense, it doesn’t. Our kids are our future.
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 8/3/2020
Item # 1 Remote Public Comments
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (Heather
Enders, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee provide feedback regarding the adoption of
proposed updates to the City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule.
BACKGROUND
Unlike general city services such as public safety,streets,and other infrastructure that benefit the entire
community,which are primarily supported by tax revenues,discretionary services that benefit a specific user
group (rather than the entire community)are typically funded in whole,or in part,by user fees.Any amount not
covered by user fees are then subsidized typically by General Fund tax dollars or other available sources.Under
State law,public agencies,like the City of South San Francisco,are permitted to recover the costs associated
with providing certain services considered to be a “personal choice”or “user fees.”Such services are provided
to a specific customer for their singular benefit.Some examples of those services are building permits or
recreation classes, which benefit the individual and not the community.
Propositions 218 and 26 amended Article XIII C of the California Constitution to place restrictions on local
government’s ability to levy charges.Among the restrictions is a limitation on most user fees,prohibiting them
from exceeding the reasonable cost of the service for which they are collected.The Constitution imposes other
limits on other kinds of charges for local government services,use of government property,and penalties and
fines,for example.While the Council can set fees by a simple majority vote,any fee that exceeds the
reasonable cost of providing the service or benefit becomes a tax,which requires approval by the electorate.In
order to ensure that it is charging appropriate fees for its services,and to comply with the requirements of
Propositions 218 and 26,local agencies typically perform periodic studies to assess their costs of providing
services prior to increasing existing fees or adopting new fees.
The last time the City of South San Francisco underwent a comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee
Study was in Fiscal Year (“FY”)2016-17.Under best business practices,the fee study should be re-examined
and updated every three to five years,with the fees related to providing these services “right-sized”with current
information.
On August 28,2019,Council adopted a resolution approving a contract with Matrix Consulting Group to
conduct a comprehensive user fee analysis with the goal of identifying the actual cost of providing fee-related
City services and understanding recovery levels for each fee.In order to determine the full cost of each user
fee,extensive data was collected utilizing the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 Budget as well as staff time estimates
and service volume data.
In working with Matrix, staff examined the following as part of the fee study:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
•Ensuring that fee calculations followed federal, state, and local guidelines;
•Understanding the current cost to provide these services; and
•Establishing fees that reasonably recover the City’s cost to provide each service.
The final "Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee)Study"is attached as Attachment 1 ("Study").It provides
data related to current service levels and the cost and demand for those services,and identifies the maximum
fees that can be charged for those services.In addition,the Study provides the framework for assessing legal,
financial, and policy issues associated with establishing those fees for service.
DISCUSSION
The proposed FY 2020-21 Master Fee Schedule (Attachment 2)is based upon the results of the Study and
contains a description by department of each user fee --both current and recommended fee amounts.Based
upon the current schedule,if adopted by Council,the fees would become effective on November 22,2020.An
overview of changes to the fees is provided below:
Total number of proposed fees: 705
·Number of fees to increase: 433
Reasons for increase include:
‒Consolidation of services into a singular permit.
‒Process or time estimate changes due to code changes or service level increases.
·Number of fees to decrease: 159
Reasons for decrease include:
‒Process efficiencies such as reducing time estimates due to technology or requirement changes.
‒Position changes such as utilizing lower level staff to perform work in lieu of higher-level staff.
·Number of fees remaining the same: 111
The fees that are decreasing will result in less revenue, while the fees that are increasing will result in more
revenue. Overall, the city is effectively recovering the costs for providing services to the community and will
continue to do so after the new fees are implemented.
The methodology for calculating fees begins with time spent per unit of fee activity for each position within a
department or program.Once time spent for a fee activity is determined,all applicable City costs are then
considered in the calculation of the “full”cost of providing each service.Direct costs include FY 2019-20
budgeted salaries,benefits,and allowable expenditures.Indirect costs include departmental or division
administration including management and clerical support and a proportionate share of operating expenses,
overhead,and replacement costs for assets involved in the delivery of the service.Together,the cost
components comprise the calculation of the total “full”cost of providing any particular service,regardless of
whether a fee for that service is charged.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FEES BY DEPARTMENT
Below is a summary of the recommended fees by Department:
City Clerk:
It is important to note that the majority of these fees are set by the State.
·Total number of proposed fees: 13
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 9
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 4
City Manager:
·Total number of proposed fees: 1
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 1
Finance:
·Total number of proposed fees: 11
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 11
Library Department:
·Total number of proposed fees: 27
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 11
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 5
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 11
The industry standard for cost recovery for a Library department is on the lower end at 20-40% levels.
Fee No.4.09 -4.11 (Fines for Overdue Materials).Staff requests guidance from the Budget Standing
Committee related to charging of late fines.The City of South San Francisco Library is part of the Peninsula
Library System,which currently has a policy to charge users for overdue materials.The Peninsula Library
System fees are set system-wide.However,each library within the system can elect whether or not to charge
the fees based upon the desire of the community in which it operates.The San Mateo County Library System,
for example, no longer charges late fees for overdue materials.
In FY 2019-20,the department collected an estimated $10,000 in late fees from constituents.While attempting
to quantify staff effort in the collection of late fees is imperfect,it is the department’s position that the cost of
staff time to administer and collect these fines outpace the actual collections.Moreover,studies have shown
that late fines can be a significant barrier to library access and drive borrowers away,particularly among
individuals with low or fixed incomes.
Police Department:
·Total number of proposed fees: 44
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 38
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 4
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 2
Fee No.5.10 (Cab Company Driver Permit).Cab company driver permits were previously discounted in an
effort to discourage cab operators from driving without a valid permit.Because of the popularity of ride-share
companies such as Uber and Lyft,which are overseen by the State,the City is seeing less and less permit
applications for cab driver permits.Technically,if a cab company is picking up in South San Francisco,they
need to hold a permit with the City.Staff recommends 100%cost recovery for this particular fee to right-size a
previous discount aimed at incentivizing compliance.With so few applications to process,the need for a
discount is no longer needed.
Fee No.5.27 (Police Records Fee).The Police Records Fee is charged to cover costs related to the preparation
video footage from an in-car or a body worn camera when requested by the public.The cost of providing the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
video footage from an in-car or a body worn camera when requested by the public.The cost of providing the
media is $247 per hour as often times,the media requires the redaction of footage (such as blurring faces)and
review by Department supervisors prior to release.The California Supreme Court recently held that,in many
cases,charging the public for the full cost recovery of releasing body worn cameras is not allowable under the
law.Because the decision is new and staff and the City Attorney are still assess when charging the fee would be
allowable,staff recommends that Council acknowledge the cost per hour to provide the service as identified by
the Study,but instruct the Police Department not to collect the fee until the City Attorney has completed a
review of the circumstances under which it is legal to do so.This would allow us to comply with the current
legal complications for charging the fee and still allow the collections of fees to happen immediately if/when
the issue is resolved.
Fee No.5.34 -5.35 (Specialized Personnel Services).While it costs the City $192 per hour to provide these
services,staff recommends that the City charge $121 per hour for a police officer,and discounted to $100 per
hour for the South San Francisco Unified School District.The permit is reviewed by a Sergeant and he or she
determines whether or not that there is a need for a police officer or private security to be on site for the
requested event.The permitting process helps to identify events where in the past calls for service have been
high,such as private evening parties where alcohol is being served or evening football games.Rather than
responding to calls for service,staffing the event ensures there is a public safety element present,which tends
to diffuse or prevent the need for additional public safety staff on site.Staff recommends that Council approve
the discounted rate for fee number 5.34 from $192 to $121 per hour and fee number 5.35 from $192 to $100 per
hour as doing so provides a direct community benefit.
Fire Department:
·Total number of proposed fees: 167
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 149
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 5
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 13
Fee No.6.01 -6.05 (Transport Fees).Staff recommends that the City continue to under-recover for
Ambulance Transport.The service is a pillar of the community and responds to over 5,100 calls per year.
Current cost recovery is 66% and staff recommends a modest increase to recover 81%.
Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee recommend to City Council 100%cost recovery for all
other Fire services,which is consistent with the industry standard.It is important to note that even if fees are set
at a higher cost recovery,the City’s revenue received is based upon the payments made by insurance or Medi-
Cal/Medicare fees and reimbursement amounts.
Economic and Community Development - Planning:
·Total number of proposed fees: 59
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 55
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 4
As part of the Study,it was identified that certain services provided by Planning had a greater than 100%cost
recovery while certain services were being under recovered.Staff recommends that all Planning fees be set at a
100% cost recovery levels, with the following exceptions:
‒Fee No. 7.07 (Minor Use Permits for Residential) - 77% cost recovery
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
‒Fee No. 7.10 - 7.11 (Design Review - Signs) - 43% and 93% respective cost recovery
Economic and Community Development - Housing:
·Total number of proposed fees: 20
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 4
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 16
All of the proposed Housing Division Fees are new and designed to recover the cost of processing development
applications including affordable housing.Staff’s recommendation is to start with 50%cost recovery across the
board,with the exception of certain real estate transactions which should be set at 100%cost recovery where
the City facilitates the transaction.
Economic and Community Development - Building:
·Total number of proposed fees: 72
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 66
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 6
The Study has shown that the current fee schedules in place based upon the fee methodology calculation is
resulting in over-cost recovery for certain fees within the Building Division.As a result,the City must right-size
the fees collected for services to ensure the City is recovering the industry standard of somewhere between 80%
and 100%.It is important to note that the lower absolute dollar amount required now for some of the Building
permits is because of operational streamlining that have taken place that necessitates lower staff time to process
those permits than in prior years.Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee recommend 100%
cost recovery for the Building Division to City Council.
Public Works - Engineering:
·Total number of proposed fees: 98
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 88
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 7
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 3
The Engineering Division is recommending 100%cost recovery for the majority of its fees.Exceptions include
fees related to sewer lateral permits and the associated fees for video reviews of sewer laterals.Engineering was
previously under-recovering for many of the services it provides.The methodology for Engineering’s fees has
changed slightly as new staff has come on board and begun to make process improvements.The Engineering
Division previously achieved recovery by accepting deposits from developers and then drawing down from
those accounts as the Engineers worked on the projects.In an effort to make the fees more predictable to the
end user and to move to a simpler-to-administer flat-based fee,the fees appear to have jumped significantly
higher.Much of the optics of this is just right-sizing a history of under-cost recovering from deposit-based
accounts. Staff recommends a move to flat-based fees and most fees at 100% cost recovery.
Public Works - Water Quality Control:
·Total number of proposed fees: 28
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 10
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 3
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 15
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
Fee No.11.11 (Stormwater Inspection Fee).This is a new fee and some anticipated pushback from the
businesses in our service area.This fee will apply to the approximately 200 businesses per year that the
Environmental Compliance Program inspects as part of the City’s requirements under Section C.4 of the
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP).This fee will help to offset the large deficit between
Stormwater Program funding and costs to meet all of the MRP requirements.As it is a new fee,staff is
recommending a phased approach to implementation.
The industry standard cost recovery for a water quality control treatment service is typically between 80-100%.
Parks and Recreation:
·Total number of proposed fees: 165
‒Number of fees with 100% cost recovery: 13
‒Number of fees less than 100% cost recovery: 136
‒Number of fees based on other fee calculation: 16
Parks and Recreation class fees are subject to what the market can bear and the offerings vary by season.
Therefore,the fees are usually included in seasonal activity guides to reflect the specific price and offerings for
each season.A modest 3%increase across the board was applied over last year’s fees in alignment with the 3%
increase made to most fees citywide.The recommendation is widely based on the rise of labor costs and
parallels the average percentage increase in employee compensation.The industry standard cost recovery for a
Parks and Recreation department is between 20-50%.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Budget Standing Committee provide feedback in advance of the City Council
adoption currently anticipated for August 26,2020.The proposed Master Fee Schedule is provided in
Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based upon findings of the Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study,it is expected that despite the
majority of fees being proposed to be set at 100%recovery the total revenue to the City may nominally
decrease.This is because process efficiencies and streamlining,especially within the Building Division and
Fire Prevention,necessitates lower efforts to be at 100%recovery.As a result,given the robust collections in
recent years in building permits and inspection fees,the new recommended fee levels overall may result in
decrease of gross receipts.While the actual volume and types of permits within the City,will determine the
overall revenues,the following table shows our best guess estimates for the fiscal impacts of current versus
proposed fees. Only those departments/divisions with notable impacts on the City’s revenues are shown below.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-533 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:2.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This effort supports the City’s strategic initiative (Priority Area 3) of ensuring fiscal stability.
CONCLUSION
The overall results of the study indicate the City is effectively capturing recoverable revenue. If approved as
proposed, based on the current schedule, the new Master Fee Schedule will go into effect on November 22,
2020.
Attachments
1.User Fee Study Results
2.FY 2020-21 Proposed Master Fee Schedule
3.PowerPoint Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
Report on the Cost of Services
(User Fee) Study
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
July 2020
matrix
consulting group
Attachment 1
Table of Contents
1.Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2.Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 4
3.User Fee Study Methodology 8
4.Results Overview 11
5.Administrative Services 12
6.Housing 16
7.Planning 18
8.Building 22
9.Fire 29
10.Engineering 37
11.Development Services Surcharges 43
12.Water Quality Control 48
13.Police 51
14.Library 54
15.Parks and Recreation 56
16.Comparative Survey 62
17.Cost Recovery Considerations 91
ATTACHMENT A – Consolidated Fee Results
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1.Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of South San Francisco.
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK
The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost of service relationships that exist between
fees for service activities in the following departments: Building, City Clerk, City Manager,
Engineering, Finance, Fire, Housing, Library, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and
Water Quality Control. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current
service levels, the cost and demand for those services, and what fees for service can and
should be charged.
2 GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom
up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for
each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is
determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full”
cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs
applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:
Table 1: Cost Components Overview
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budgeted salaries, benefits and allowable expenditures.
Indirect Division, departmental, and Citywide administration / management and clerical
support.
Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total
“full” cost of providing any particular service, regardless of whether a fee for that service
is charged.
The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed
fees for service involved the following steps:
•Departmental Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed Departmental staff
regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for
addition of new fee items.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
•Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time
estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 19/20
were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
•Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was
established.
•Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has
reviewed and approved these documented results.
A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy
considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.
3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
When comparing Fiscal Year 19/20 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related
revenue generated in Fiscal Year 18/19 the City is over-recovering its costs by
approximately $33,000 and recovering 100% of its fee-related costs. The following table
outlines these results on a departmental basis:
Table 2: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis
Department Revenue at
Current Fee
Total Annual
Cost
Annual Surplus /
(Deficit)
Cost
Recovery %
Planning $370,040 $608,464 ($238,424) 61%
Building $5,843,1121 $5,443,550 $399,563 107%
Fire - Prevention $2,842,269 $2,270,322 $571,947 125%
Engineering $1,779,285 $2,090,706 ($311,421) 85%
Water Quality $59,075 $447,608 ($388,533) 13%
TOTAL $10,893,781 $10,860,650 $33,131 100%
Planning, Engineering, and Water Quality show annual subsidies that range from a low
of $238,000 to a high of $389,000. Building and Fire have surpluses of approximately
$400,000 and $572,000 respectively. While the detailed documentation of the Study will
show an over-collection for few fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most
others, overall, the City is providing an annual subsidy to fee payers for all services
included in the analysis.
The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis
for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not
represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the
1 Building revenue was annualized to reflect work done in a singular fiscal year.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
“rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy
decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.
4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in
this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, and a
mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.
1 Adopt a Formal Cost Recovery Policy
The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized,
individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a
cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services,
a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through
other revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost
recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.
2 Adopt an Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure,
service level estimates and assumptions applied in the previous study, and to account for
any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures. The Matrix Consulting
Group believes it is a best management practice to perform a complete update of a Fee
Assessment every 3 to 5 years.
In between comprehensive updates, the City could utilize published industry economic
factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost
calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Alternatively, the City could also
consider the use of its own anticipated labor cost increases such as step increases,
benefit enhancements, or cost of living raises. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism
would ensure that the City receives appropriate fee and revenue increases that reflect
growth in costs.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations
A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen
or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218,
State Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and the Attorney
General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically
administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically,
California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by
local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
for which the fee is charged”.
1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES
Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities.
While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some
services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more
of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples
of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community
benefit received:
Table 3: Services in Relation to Benefit Received
“Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit
• Police
• Park Maintenance
• Recreation / Community
Services
• Fire Suppression /
Prevention
• Building Permits
• Planning and Zoning Approval
• Site Plan Review
• CUPA
• Facility Rentals
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes,
fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues,
which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become
increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee
activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the
general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily
through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a
mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / group
benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are
typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.
The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private
benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a
land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant,
whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are
essential to the safety of the community at large.
• A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user
fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct
proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge
for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service,
the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to
voter approval.
Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will
recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.
2 GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from
a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions
prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum
of benefit received.
Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group
recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost
recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at
less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will
occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a
fee at all. An example includes time spent copying and retrieving public
documents.
• Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below
full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For
example, if the cost of a permit for charging a water heater in residential home is
higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the
permit.
• Effect on demand for a particular service. Sometimes raising the “price”
charged for services might reduce the number of participants in a program. This is
largely the case in Recreation programs such as camps or enrichment classes,
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
where participants may compare the City’s fees to surrounding jurisdictions or
other options for support activities.
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual.
Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the
community as a whole. Examples include Recreation programs, Planning Design
Review, historical dedications and certain types of special events.
The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize
certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable
basis for determining the costs of providing services, and assure that the City complies
with State law.
3 PARKS AND RECREATION SPECIFIC REGULATIONS
There are specific rules and regulations within the State Law that impact Parks and
Recreation related activities directly. These can be separated into two categories – rental
rates and recreation programs. The following points provide further information regarding
these items:
1. Rental Rates: One of the exceptions to the tax category under proposition 26 is a
charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the
purchase, or rental, or lease of local government property 2 . There is no
requirement that these rates must be limited to the cost of service, as they can be
dependent upon a variety of features of the facility or park being rented.
2. Recreation Programs: Under Proposition 26, the exception to the tax category is
a charge that is “imposed”. Based upon the League of California Cities
implementation guide for Proposition 26, as well as other legal opinions, recreation
classes, youth sports, adult sports, are not a charge that is “imposed upon
residents”. Rather residents have the option to voluntarily participate in those
programs and utilize a private entity (non-governmental entity) for those activities.
Therefore, these rates are allowed to be set based upon the market options within
the area rather than being restricted to the cost of service being provided.
Utilizing these two principals is key to understanding the results generated through this
analysis. As such, any surpluses reflected in the report do not need to be reduced to the
cost of service, as the fee amount(s) should be based upon the rates that the market can
bear.
2 Proposition 26 Article XIII C(1)(e)(4)
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
4 SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate”
or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount.
The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing
service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the
continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a
“grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee
Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair,
and legal.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
3. User Fee Study Methodology
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and
accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that
several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then
build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following
chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:
The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost
components to a particular fee or service are:
• Calculate fully burdened hourly rates by position, including direct & indirect costs;
• Develop time estimates for each service included in the study;
• Distribute the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or
service based on the staff time allocation basis, or another reasonable basis.
The results of these allocations provide detailed documentation for the reasonable
estimate of the actual cost of providing each service. The following sections highlight
critical points about the use of time estimates and the validity of the analytical model.
1 TIME ESTIMATES ARE A MEASURE OF SERVICE LEVELS REQUIRED TO
PERFORM A PARTICULAR SERVICE
One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use of time
estimates for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time estimates is a
reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who
understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates.
The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the
following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Estimates for
extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored into this analysis.
DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Services, Supplies)
INDIRECT
(Deptment Admin, Services
Supplies, Citywide
Overhead etc.)
Total Cost
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically
perform a service.
• Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the division /
department, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized.
• Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their
experience with other agencies.
• Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for
the scope of services and time frame for this project.
The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it
is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service for which to base a
jurisdiction’s fees for service, and meets the requirements of California law.
The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time
and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and
complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost
effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden
required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and
monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for
permits or participating in programs.
• Applicants may request assignment of less expensive personnel to their project.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using
standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.
Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking
and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has
recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate
and itemized within the current fee schedule.
2 CROSS CHECKS ENSURE THE VALIDITY OF OUR ANALYTICAL MODEL
In addition to the collection of time estimate data for each fee or service included in the
User Fee Study, annual volume of activity data assumptions are also a critical component.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
By collecting data on the estimated volume of activity for each fee or service, a number
of analyses are performed which not only provide useful information regarding allocation
of staff resources, but also provide valuable cross checks that ensure the validity of each
model. This includes assurance that 100% of staff resources are accounted for and
allocated to a fee for service, or “other non-fee” related categories. Since there are no
objectives to make a profit in establishing user fees, it is very important to ensure that
services are not estimated at a level that exceeds budgeted resource capacity. By
accounting for not more than 100% of staff resources, no more than 100% of costs will
be allocated through the Study.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
4. Results Overview
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and
Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for
the community, and also to maintain control over the policy and management of these
services.
It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement.
In general, a cost of service analysis takes a “snapshot in time”, where a fiscal year of
adopted budgeted cost information is compared to the same fiscal year of revenue, and
workload data available. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of
time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue.
Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these
estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.
Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and
voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will
include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the
following:
• Modifications or Issues: discussions regarding any revisions to the current fee
schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service
to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).
• Jurisdictional Comparison: a brief comparison of current permits and services
with other local jurisdictions.
The full analytical results were provided to Department staff under separate cover from
this summary report.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
5. Administrative Services
The Administrative Services section of the fee schedule consists of fees from the City
Clerk, City Manager, and Finance Departments. These departments provide services that
benefit not only internal city departments, but also city residents and visitors. The focus
of this analysis is only on the services provided to city residents and visitors for which
fees are assessed, including: Film Applications, Business Licenses, and Cannabis
Operator Fees. The following subsections discuss any proposed fee schedule
modifications, the detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with Administrative Services staff, the following changes were made to
each Departments’ fee schedules:
• City Clerk: A review of the current fee structure concluded that a fee for Candidate
Processing needed to be added.
• City Manager: The Film Permit fee was renamed to Film Application in order to
better reflect the service being provided.
• Finance: Two additional fees were added to the schedule: Business License Copy
and Business License Certificate Reprint.
The minor modifications noted above will allow for a clearer display of the services being
offered to residents and visitors.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The City Clerk, City Manager, and Finance departments collect fees for a variety of
services such as film applications, business licenses, and cannabis operations. The total
cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The
following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit
associated with each service.
Table 4: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Administrative Services
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
CITY CLERK
Transcripts
Folio Rate Actual Cost Actual Cost
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Additional Copies $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15)
Subpoena Processing Fees
Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to
attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition officer
$16 $15 $1
Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records
available
$26 $24 $2
Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches or
less
$0.20 $0.10 $0.10
Standard reproduction of larger size documents $0.30 Actual Cost
Daily cost for City employee required to remain in
attendance pursuant to a subpoena
$291 $275 $16
Campaign and Candidate Fees
Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC) $0.10 $0.10 $0.00
Candidate Statements $600 Actual Cost
Candidate Processing Fee $25
Other Fees
Preparing Proof of Residence Letter or Notarizing Proof
of Living Documents
$9 $15 ($6)
Postage Actual Cost Actual Cost
All Photocopies $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15)
CITY MANAGER
Film Application Permit $573 $289 $284
FINANCE
Business License:
Master List $9 $11 ($2)
Monthly Update $9 $11 ($2)
Business License Copy $0.25 $0.25 $0
Business License Certificate Reprint $10 $11 ($1)
Overdue Invoices 1% of Bill Monthly
Cannabis Operator Fees
Cannabis Operator Permit Application $7,791 $9,676 ($1,885)
Cannabis Business Inspection $373 $468 ($95)
Cannabis Operator Permit $15,809 $18,343 ($2,534)
Miscellaneous Fee
Returned Checks Due to Insufficient Funds $25 $25 $0
Subsequent Returned Checks $35 $35 $0
The majority of City Clerk fees are set by the State of California with the exception of the
transcripts folio rate, which is charged based on actual costs. The following points
highlight which City Clerk fees are set by outside authorities, and the associated reference
codes:
• Copies and Photocopies: can be charged up to $0.25 per page based on the
Public Records Act.
• Subpoena Processing: is regulated by Evidence Code section 1563. Daily cost
for City employees required to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoena
cannot be charged at more than $275 per Government Code section 68096.1.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
• Campaign Discloser Statements: are set by Government Code 81008 at $0.10
per page. Candidate statements are governed by Election Code section 13307,
which states that actual costs can be recovered. Candidate processing fees are
set by Election Code section 10228, and are set at $25.
• Notary: fees are set by Government Code 12195(e) at $15 per signature.
While the actual cost for some of the processes noted above may exceed the regulations
regarding those services, the City cannot set fees for these services higher than stated
regulations.
The only fee charged by the City Manager’s Department is for Film Application. While this
service currently shows an over-recovery of $284, this is due to a change in application
processing. Previously, this process included time associated with various departments
to review and comment on an application. The current process and cost reflects only time
associated with staff within the City Manager’s office to accept and review the application.
All of the fees charged by Finance show an under-recovery. Business License related
fees have minimal subsidies of about $1 to $2, while Cannabis Operator fees have much
higher subsidies of between $95 and $2,534. Similar to City Clerk fees, Returned Check
fees are governed by the State (Civil Code section 1719), and set at $25 and $35
respectively. Business License copies fall under the Public Records Act, and cannot be
charged more than $0.25 per page.
3 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE
The City of South San Francisco is assessed a fee from credit card companies for any
transactions that require the use of credit cards. The City currently charges a 2.20%
surcharge on all transactions above a $1,000 to recover the costs associated with fees
incurred. Through this study, the project team worked with City staff to determine the
appropriate surcharge amount.
In order to calculate the surcharge, the project team divided the total expenses billed to
the city by the credit card company by the total charges made against those credit card
transactions. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 5: Credit Card Transaction Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Credit Card Fee Charges $23,966
Credit Card Transaction Amount $786,214
Credit Card Fee Rate 3%
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
Based upon a sample of credit card fee charges and total transaction amounts the city’s
updated surcharge should be 3%. The increase to 3% will capture the increased fees
charged to the City based upon the increased utilization of credit cards to pay for services.
The City currently has a policy to only charge this surcharge on transactions above a
$1,000; however, the bank charges the City regardless of the transaction amount. The
City should consider reviewing and updating this policy to lower the threshold amount, as
many permitted activities and fees are below the $1,000 threshold; which limits the City’s
ability to then appropriately recover for the costs incurred.
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
Due to the minimal nature of fees charged by City Clerk, City Manager, and Finance,
along with the lack of specific permit / workload data, annual impacts were not calculated
for these services.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
6. Housing
The Housing Division is responsible for managing the City’s affordable housing program,
which includes creating affordable housing units, regulating the program, and monitoring
compliance with City regulations. The City does not currently have fees associated with
housing program services. The following subsections outline how a fee structure was
determined, and the total cost calculated for each proposed service.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
As noted above, the Housing Division does not currently charge fees for its services.
Through the course of this study a fee structure was developed to reflect the services
provided by the Housing Division that relate to Development Applications, Initial Sale or
Lease Up of BMR Units, BMR Monitoring, Refinancing, and Real Estate Transactions.
This structure will enable the Housing Division to charge for its services associated with
managing the city’s affordable housing program. The proposed fee structure is presented
in the following section.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The proposed fee structure for the Housing Division includes charging fees for items such
as affordable housing application, initial sale of 10-50 BMR units, and refinancing a single-
family home. The total cost calculated for each Housing service includes direct staff costs,
Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name and the
total cost associated with each service.
Table 6: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Housing Services
Fee Name Total Cost Per Unit
Development Application Including Affordable Housing
Application (review BMR Plan) $514
Agreement Preparation $579
Agreement Preparation - with waiver or Modification $966
Initial Sale of For-Sale BMR Units $0
Less than 10 BMR units $282
10-50 BMR units $334
More than 50 BMR units $462
Consultant Costs Actual Cost
Initial Lease Up of Rental BMR Units
Less than 10 BMR units $282
10-50 BMR units $334
More than 50 BMR units $462
Non-profit, fully-affordable project $128
Consultant Costs Actual Cost
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
Fee Name Total Cost Per Unit
BMR Monitoring
Condos (per unit) $51
Rentals (per development) $166
Refinance and or Subordination of Agreement or Loan
Single Family or Condo $322
Multi-Family $733
Payoff Demand $51
Resale Administration - Single Family / Condo $1,628
Real Estate Transactions
Initial Consideration for Purchase Offers $847
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
TEFRA Hearing $1,252
The above table outlines the full cost associated with providing Housing services related
to affordable housing. The City should review these costs, and determine what if any fees
should be charged, and at what level of cost recovery is appropriate.
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
As the City does not currently charge any housing fees, annual workload / volume data
has not been collected; therefore, annual revenue calculations could not be assessed.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
7. Planning
The Planning Division is responsible for reviewing development related projects to ensure
compliance with zoning procedures and development standards. The division is also
responsible for design reviews, general plan, use permits, zoning ordinance, and
historical reviews. Fees examined in this study relate to development review and include
fees such as Conditional Use Permits, Master Licensing Agreements, and Design
Reviews. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit
results, and annual revenue impacts for Planning services.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with Planning staff, only a few minor modifications were made to the
current fee schedule, including:
• Combination of fees: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to the City
Council is currently being charged by type of appellant (i.e. applicant, adjacent
property owner, city resident, homeowners association, or other). This has been
combined into a singular fee that will be charged per appeal.
• Removal of fees: Fees for Economic and Community Development Parking
Exemption and District Annexation are no longer being processed by the division
and therefore were removed from the schedule.
• New fees: Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance Reviews and Short Term Rental
Applications are new services being provided by the Division for which they would
like assess a fee and recover costs. While Building Plan reviews have been
conducted in the past, the addition of these services to the fee schedule will allow
the Division to better account for the services they provide.
The adjustments and additions noted above will provide applicants with a better reflection
of the services being provided by the Division.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for items such as multi-family conditional use permits,
zoning amendments, specific plans, variances, commercial and industrial design reviews,
and tentative parcel maps among others. The total cost calculated for each Planning
service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following
table details the title/name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with
each service.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
Table 7: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning Division
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING
Small Project (Single Family Res. / Comm. Façade) $2,000 $404 $1,596
Medium Project (Non-Residential up to 10 Units) $2,000 $1,213 $787
Large Project (Non-Residential over 10 unites) $2,000 $6,173 ($4,173)
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS
Conditional Use Permit / Site Development Review
Multi-Family Residential or Civic Use $3,461 $14,327 ($10,866)
All Others $4,488 $10,284 ($5,796)
Modification $2,333 $5,231 ($2,898)
Minor Use Permit
Residential $1,900 $2,603 ($703)
All Others $1,725 $2,199 ($474)
Small Cell $1,390
Design Review - Signs
Type A (up to 25 sq.ft.) $173 $580 ($407)
Type B (up to 100 sq.ft.) $862 $969 ($107)
Type C / Master Sign $1,725 $2,199 ($474)
Design Review
Single Family Residential / New or Additions to 2 to 3 Units $1,212 $2,603 ($1,391)
Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4 of More Units /
Modifications / Additions to 4 of More Units $2,161 $3,412 ($1,251)
Commercial and Industrial $2,559 $3,816 ($1,257)
Projects Requiring Planning Commission Approval $1,464 $5,029 ($3,565)
Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design Review Board) $1,509 $2,199 ($690)
Environmental
Categorical Exemption $173 $287 ($114)
Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative
Declaration and other Contract Planning Studies $5,175 $16,348 ($11,173)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $10,349 $20,391 ($10,042)
Environmental Document Prepared by 3rd Party Actual Cost
Subdivisions
Tentative Subdivision Map $862 $2,603 ($1,741)
Tentative Parcel Map $173 $2,199 ($2,026)
Transportation Demand Management Plan:
Initial Filing Fee $1,208 $2,603 ($1,395)
Annual Monitoring (plus survey cost) $1,725 $1,795 ($70)
Tri-annual $1,725 $1,795 ($70)
Other Public Hearing Applications
Variance $4,312 $9,274 ($4,962)
Master Plan $20,898 $17,359 $3,539
Development Agreement $18,422 $13,316 $5,106
Planned Unit Development $9,844 $14,327 ($4,483)
Precise Plan $9,844 $8,263 $1,581
Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only) $6,391 $6,242 $149
Temporary Use Permit $1,647 $1,209 $438
Zoning Amendment (Text) $8,625 $15,337 ($6,712)
Rezoning Map $8,625 $11,295 ($2,670)
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Specific Plan $21,074 $18,369 $2,705
General Plan Amendments $9,841 $18,774 ($8,933)
Modifications & Waivers
Minor (Staff Review) $259 $855 ($596)
Major (Planning Commission Review) $1,725 $3,007 ($1,282)
Time Extensions
Non-Conforming Use $862 $2,963 ($2,101)
Time Extension for all Other Permits and Maps $862 $2,154 ($1,292)
Appeals:
Appeal of the Chief Planner’s decision to the Planning
Commission $862 $4,220 ($3,358)
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to City Council $1,725 $5,231 ($3,506)
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Minor Changes to Approved Permit $173 $1,795 ($1,622)
Inspection Fees: Additional visits $345 $383 ($38)
Certificate of Alteration $1,725 $3,007 ($1,282)
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi) $173 $1,390 ($1,217)
Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual) $518 $540 ($22)
Site Clearance / Zoning Verification Letter $173 $179 ($6)
Zoning Verification Review $833 $899 ($66)
Legal Notices $518 $383 $135
Zoning Administrator Decision $862 $1,592 ($730)
Short Term Rental Application $0 $784 ($784)
PLANNING SUPPORT TO BUILDING
Single Family Residential (New or Remodel) $606
Multi-Family / Commercial / Industrial (New or Tenant
Improvement) 5% of Building Permit
Fee
MASTER LICENSING AGREEMENTS (CELL TOWERS)
City Owned Poles
Master Agreement $4,347 $4,000 deposit
Privately Owned Poles
Administrative $983 $1,000 deposit
Attachment Fee / Annual Rent $1,553 $1,553 $0
The majority of Planning fees show an under-recovery, with subsidies ranging from a low
of $6 for Site Clearance / Zoning Verification Letters to a high of $11,173 for
Environmental Documents including Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and other Contracted Planning Studies.
There are a handful of services which show a surplus, which range from a low of $135 for
Legal Notices to a high of $5,106 for Development Agreements. The majority of these
surpluses are due to streamlined processes which result in less time on task and lower
per unit costs, however, the surplus for Development Agreements is due to converting
the fee from a deposit to a flat fee.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous section could
impact Planning’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was
collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to
projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that
the Planning Division has an annual subsidy of approximately $238,000. The following
table shows the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee,
projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit.
Table 8: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis – Planning Division
Fee Name
Recoverable
Volume
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost
Annual
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Pre-Application Meeting 12 $24,000 $14,554 $9,446
Conditional Use Permit 20 $85,652 $221,854 ($136,202)
Minor Use Permit 6 $10,350 $13,193 ($2,843)
Design Review – Signs 41 $18,813 $33,381 ($14,568)
Design Review 47 $87,700 $149,837 ($62,137)
Subdivisions 2 $1,724 $5,206 ($3,482)
Transportation Demand Management Plan 5 $6,040 $13,016 ($6,976)
Other Public Hearing Modifications 10
117,058
129,927
(12,869)
Modifications & Waivers 1 $259 $855 ($596)
Appeals 2 $3,450 $10,462 ($7,012)
Miscellaneous Fees 18 $14,994 $16,180 ($1,186)
TOTAL $370,040 $608,464 ($238,424)
Overall, the Planning Division is recovering approximately 61% of its fee related costs.
The largest source of the Division’s deficit relates to Conditional Use Permits, which
compromise approximately $136,000 of the $238,000 deficit. While there are only about
20 applications that relate to Conditional Use Permits, the per unit subsidies range
between $5,800 and $11,000.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
8. Building
The City of South San Francisco provides plan check and inspection services in-house,
supplemented with contract plan checkers. The purpose of the Building Division, part of
the Economic and Community Development Department, is to review all construction
projects (residential and commercial) to ensure compliance with the California Building
Code and its rules and regulations. The following subsections discuss modifications made
to the Building fee structure, the detailed per unit analysis results, and potential annual
revenue impacts.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
The Building fee schedule consists of both flat fees and valuation based fees, both of
which were studied. The project team worked with the Building Division to streamline the
current fee structure by modifying structures and adding new flat fees. The following
points highlight some of these changes:
• For all new construction projects (residential and commercial) the plan check and
inspection (permit) fee is inclusive of structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
and green energy reviews and inspections.
• Plan Check Fees were converted from valuation tables to percentage of the
building permit fee to help streamline the fee schedule and simplify the plan check
fee calculation process. For commercial plan check fees, a tiered percentage
structure was developed depending upon the scope of the project and valuation.
• Incorporation of Title 24 Energy Plan Check Surcharge into the proposed plan
check fees to minimize the number of surcharges added to fees.
• Flat Fees were added for common residential permits such as kitchen and bath
remodels, water heaters, furnace replacement, reroofs, etc.
• Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing fees were converted from valuation-based to
be based on a percentage of the building permit fee. This allows the division to not
have to collect trade specific valuation, but rather evaluate these trades in the
context of the larger building permit for any commercial tenant improvements.
• Creation of new over-the-counter (OTC) or standalone mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing (MEP) permits to capture any miscellaneous or standalone permits.
Identifying and implementing these changes to the Building fee structure have helped to
clarify the fee schedule, increase consistency of application of fees, and reduced the
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
complexity in relation to both internal staff and developers determining the full fees
associated with their development projects.
2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES
The Building Division currently assesses a variety of permits for over the counter or
simplified permits, such as reroofs, photovoltaic, residential remodels, etc. The following
table details the current fees associated with Flat Fees Permits, the full cost associated
with Building to provide these services, and the surplus / deficit.
Table 9: Building Flat Fees – Per Unit
Fee Name Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
Inspections Or Re-Inspections Outside Normal Business
Hours $112 $212 ($100)
Re-Inspections During Normal Hours $112 $189 ($77)
Permit Process - Initial Project Input, Fee Collection (New
/ Existing Residential, Commercial, and MF) $224 $260 ($36)
Additional Plan Review Required by Changes, Additions
or Revisions to Approved Plans $56 Actual Cost
OTC or Standalone MEP Permit
$276
Photovoltaic:
Commercial Photovoltaic $391 $608 ($217)
Residential Photovoltaic $224 $276 ($52)
Residential Miscellaneous Fees:
Residential Water Heater $125 $137 ($12)
Residential Reroof $350 $512 ($162)
Residential Garage Door $125 $324 ($199)
Residential Kitchen Update $350 $654 ($304)
Residential Bath Update $250 $467 ($217)
Residential Furnace Replacement $125 $184 ($59)
Residential Service Upgrade $150 $231 ($81)
Residential Lateral Replacement $150 $184 ($34)
Residential EV Charger $130 $279 ($149)
Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO) Review:
Small (500 - 2,500 square feet) $493
Large (2,500+ square feet) $1,213
The Division is under-recovering for all of its current flat fees for building permits. The
under-recovery ranges from a low of $12 for a water heater to a high of $304 associated
with residential kitchen updates.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
3 DETAILED RESULTS – VALUATION-BASED FEES
The City of South San Francisco currently uses a valuation table to establish plan check
and permit fees for all Construction Projects that is based on the value of construction
costs. There are currently five different valuation tables utilized by the City:
1. Building Inspection
2. Plan Check – Existing Residential
3. Plan Check – New Residential and All Commercial (New and Existing)
4. Plan Check – Mechanical and Plumbing
5. Plan Check – Electrical
As discussed in the modifications section, the project team worked with City staff to modify
the current structure to simplify the fee calculation and administration process. The project
team reduced the five valuation tables into two valuation tables – Residential Permit (New
and Remodels) and Commercial / Multi-Family (New and Tenant Improvements). For
Plan Check fees, they were established as a percentage of the building permit fee, and
similarly mechanical, electrical, and plumbing fees were established as a percentage. The
following subsections discuss the residential and commercial valuation-based tables
calculated for the City.
1 Detailed Results – Residential Valuation
While the City currently has two separate plan check valuation-based tables for
residential, it only has a singular table for building permit fees. Through this study as many
simplified residential permits were identified as flat fees, it was determined that a singular
valuation-based table was still appropriate for all new and existing residential projects.
The following table outlines the valuation range, current fee, total cost per unit, and the
associated surplus / (deficit):
Table 10: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Residential Building Permit Fees
Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current
Permit Fee
Total Cost
Permit Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1 to $500 $84.00 $189.47 ($105.47)
Project Valuation: $501 to $2,000
First $500 $84.00 $189.47 ($105.47)
Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $2.00 $9.47 ($7.47)
Project Valuation: $2,001 to $25,000
First $2,001 $112.00 $331.57 ($219.57)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $24.00 $18.53 $5.47
Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,001 $672.00 $757.87 ($85.87)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $32.84 ($5.84)
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current
Permit Fee
Total Cost
Permit Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,001 $1,342.00 $1,578.89 ($236.89)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $13.42 $13.58 ($0.16)
Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,001 $2,014.00 $2,257.81 ($243.81)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.39 $7.70 $0.69
Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,001 $5,371.00 $5,336.65 $34.35
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.11 $5.75 $10.36
Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000
First $1,000,001 $9,398.00 $8,210.22 $1,187.78
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.68 $2.84 ($1.16)
Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000
First $3,000,001 $16,781.00 $13,894.22 $2,886.78
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.07 $3.16 ($1.09)
Project Valuation: $5,000,001 and above
First $5,000,001 $20,138.00 $20,209.78 ($71.78)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $1.58 ($0.69)
As the table indicates, the City is generally under-recovering for its costs up until about
the $500,000 project range, at which point, the city is currently slightly over-recovering.
This is primarily due to the fact that currently the City has a singular permit table that is
applicable to both residential and commercial projects. While many commercial projects
can get extremely complex the higher the valuation, many times residential projects
simply are larger rather than more complex.
Additionally, as discussed, the City previously had two different types of plan check fees
associated with residential projects. The project team worked with City staff to simplify
the two tables into a singular percentage. The full cost associated with Residential Plan
Check will be 65% of the Residential Building Permit fee. To provide comparison, for
a new residential project the current fee for a project valued at $500,001 would be $3,357;
whereas now it would be $3,469, so representing about a $100 difference.
Overall, the changes to the residential fee schedule more accurately and simplistically
represent the level of effort incurred by City staff as it relates to conducting plan check
and inspections.
2 Detailed Results – Commercial / Multi-Family Valuation
The City currently only has a singular table for commercial plan check and for commercial
inspection. Through this study the project team worked with staff to review the
assumptions behind those tables and where appropriate updated those assumptions.
The following table outlines the valuation range, current fee, total cost per unit, and the
associated surplus / (deficit):
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
Table 11: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Commercial / Multi-Family Permit Fees
Project Valuation Sliding Scale Category Current
Permit Fee
Total Cost
Permit Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1 to $500 $84.00 $94.73 ($10.73)
Project Valuation: $501 to $2,000
First $500 $84.00 $94.73 ($10.73)
Each Additional $100 or fraction thereof $2.00 $8.42 ($6.42)
Project Valuation: $2,001 to $25,000
First $2,001 $112.00 $221.04 ($109.04)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $24.00 $12.01 $11.99
Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,001 $672.00 $497.35 $174.65
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $11.05 $15.95
Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,001 $1,342.00 $773.66 $568.34
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $13.42 $25.58 ($12.16)
Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,001 $2,014.00 $2,052.56 ($38.56)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.39 $6.12 $2.27
Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,001 $5,371.00 $4,499.83 $871.17
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $16.11 $9.88 ($1.83)
Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000
First $1,000,001 $9,398.00 $9,441.76 ($43.76)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.68 $1.44 $0.24
Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000
First $3,000,001 $16,781.00 $12,315.34 $4,465.66
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.07 $6.22 ($4.15)
Project Valuation: $5,000,001 to $10,000,000
First $5,000,001 $20,138.00 $24,756.98 ($4,618.98)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $3.49 ($2.60)
Project Valuation: $10,000,001 to $25,000,000
First $10,000,001 $24,613.00 $42,187.92 ($17,574.92)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.89 $3.79 ($2.90)
Project Valuation: $25,000,001 to $50,000,000
First $25,000,001 $38,038.00 $98,996.35 ($60,958.35)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.45 $3.13 ($2.68)
Project Valuation: $50,000,001 and above
First $50,000,001 $49,226.00 $177,151.36 ($127,925,.36
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.98 $1.56 ($0.58)
Similar to the residential permit fees, the Building Division is generally under-recovering
its costs as it relates to commercial and multi-family projects. There are a couple of
valuation-based ranges for which the City is currently over-recovering such as the
$25,000 and $50,000 category. While those projects might be complex for residential
projects, they are not necessarily as complex for commercial projects and as such the
separation of the permit tables into two separate categories more accurately allows the
City to capture the support.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
It was determined that similar to the residential projects, a streamlined approach of plan
check as a percentage of the building permit fee would be utilized. However, instead of a
singular plan check percentage, during discussion with staff it was determined that a
tiered approach should be developed. The following table shows the proposed plan check
percentage calculation:
Table 12: Commercial / Multi-Family – Plan Check Calculation
Project Valuation Total Cost Per Unit
$1 - $50,000 60% of Building Permit Fee
$50,000 - $1,000,000 65% of Building Permit Fee
$1,000,000+ 75% of Building Permit Fee
The concept behind utilizing the tiered system is to capture the different level of
complexities. For projects at a lower valuation typically the plan check is not generally
very complex and there is minimal back and forth between the city and the applicant.
However, as projects gain in value, the plan check becomes slightly more complex.
Additionally, while the city previously added a surcharge for Green Energy Title 24 Plan
Check Fees, the proposed fee structure has incorporated that surcharge into the
calculation for plan check fees. This will ensure that there is a simplified process for plan
check fees.
Lastly, the current Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing fees are all valuation-based upon
the work of the trades and it was determined that these valuation-based fees should be
removed as a separate valuation-table and calculated as a percentage of the building
permit fee. Based upon discussion with staff and time estimate information it was
calculated that for commercial / multi-family projects, the Mechanical, Electrical, and
Plumbing fees would be 15% of the Commercial / Multi-Family Building Permit – per
trade. The simplified process not only better captures the support provided by these types
of fees but it also eliminates the need for permit technicians to ask developers the value
of their individual trade work. This reduces the time spent at the counter associated with
calculating fees and creates a more efficient process.
4 ANNUAL RESULTS
The Building Division charges a variety of fees associated with residential and commercial
projects. Additionally, the fees charged by the Building Division are collected in one year
and may be applicable for work performed in later years. Therefore, to determine the true
annual revenue impact associated with Building projects, the project team reviewed the
City’s current Building Permit revenue data and annualized it. The annualized process
included the following steps:
• Recognizing all plan check revenue as single-year revenue
• Recognizing all residential-based projects as single-year revenue
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
• Eliminating any outlier projects (i.e. $240 million and $74 million) as those projects
would not repeat on an annual basis.
• Spreading commercial inspection / permit fees over a two-year span.
The revenue analysis conducted results in an annual calculation that more accurately
reflects the revenue associated with the activities conducted in a single fiscal year, rather
that the full amount of revenue collected in a fiscal year. The following table shows the
Division’s calculated annual revenue at current fees, the total annual cost calculated
through this study, and the resulting annual surplus / (deficit).
Table 13: Annual Revenue Analysis – Building
Category Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit)
Building Division $5,843,112 $5,443,550 $399,563
As the table indicates, the Division is currently over-recovering for its fees by
approximately $400,000 annually. This over-recovery equates to a cost recovery level of
107%. The modifications being proposed to the Building Division’s fee schedule will more
accurately enable it to capture the costs associated with its services.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
9. Fire
The Fire Department is responsible for protecting South San Francisco residents from
fires, medical emergencies, natural disasters, and hazardous materials. The Fire
Department has three divisions: Administration, Fire Prevention, and Emergency Medical
Services / Operations. Fees studied for the Fire Department relate to transport fees,
training, fire prevention, fire and life safety, and fire protection systems. The following
subsections discuss proposed fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and
annual revenue impacts related to fee-related fire services.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In reviewing the current fee structure for Fire services, it was determined that
modifications could be made that would enhance applicant’s understanding of the
services offered, and how fees are applied. The following points highlight the
modifications being proposed:
• Removal of fees: Some fees were removed from the schedule as they reflect
services that are no longer provided, including: Contracted BLS Inter Facility, Lead
EKG Class, Pre-Inspection of Residential Care Facilities, Tire Storage, etc.
Positional hourly rates were removed from the schedule, as specific services that
are performed on an hourly basis utilize blended rates.
• Renaming or reclassifying fees: Construction Without a Permit was renamed to
Installation or Modification of a Fire Protection System Without a Permit.
Institutions and Day Care Operational Permits were renamed to Child Care Center.
Group R, Division 1 Occupancies and Group R, Division 2 with 3 or More Dwelling
Units Per Building Inspection ranges were expanded to account for larger
buildings. Operation Permits were split out into a flat fee plus a base fee.
• New fees: First Responder, Facility Use, Emergency Responder Communication,
and Outdoor Assembly Event permits were added to the fee schedule.
The modifications made to the Fire department’s fee schedule better reflect the services
that are being provided, and enable the department to more accurately collect fees for
those services.
2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES
The Fire Department collects flat fees for items such as ALS transports, training classes,
prevention inspections, and operational permits among others. The total cost calculated
for each Fire Department service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
overhead. The following table details the title/name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or
deficit associated with each service.
Table 14: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Flat Fees
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
TRANSPORT FEES
ALS I $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057)
ALS II $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057)
BLS (Emergency) $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057)
BLS (Non-Emergency) $704 $1,076 ($372)
First Responder Fee $461
Mileage (All levels) $53 $23 $30
Oxygen $127 $137 ($10)
FIRE SERVICE TRAINING
First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of textbook
and certification card) $31 $37 ($6)
First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-Residents $106 $37 $69
First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF Businesses $58 $21 $37
Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital Professionals (For residents
and non-residents) $127 $115 $12
American Heart Association "Professional Level" courses for
the public and other outside agencies
ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review Workshop $185 $949 ($764)
Initial Recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) $248 $1,067 ($819)
Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) $248 $949 ($701)
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS HCP) $80 $206 ($126)
Re-recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) $201 $534 ($333)
Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) $201 $474 ($273)
Basic Life Support-Health Care Provider (BLS HCP) $53 $103 ($50)
Other Training Service
Other EMS Continuing Education Classes $8 $18 ($10)
Emergency Response Team Class (Incl. Fire extinguisher
training) $29 $139 ($110)
Permit Required Confined Space Class $29 Actual Cost
Hazardous Materials Responder Class $29 Actual Cost
Technical Rescue Class $29 Actual Cost
Vehicle Extrication Class $29 Actual Cost
Other Fire Training Continuing Education Classes $29 $139 ($110)
Student Materials, Supplies Required to Participate Actual Cost + 10% Admin
Certification Fees required by Certifying Authority Actual Cost + 10% Admin
Facility Use Fee (Classroom, Tower, or Grounds) Actual Cost + 10% Admin
FIRE OPERATIONAL PERMITS (Base + Permit Fee)
Base Operational Permit Fee
0-5,000 sq. ft. $145
5,001-10,000 sq. ft. $193
10,001-25,000 sq. ft. $241
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
25,001-50,000 sq. ft. $290
50,001-100,000 sq. ft. $386
100,001-500,000 sq. ft. $483
500,001-1,000,000 sq. ft. $579
No to Low Hazard Operational Permits
Cellulose Nitrate Film $351 $80 $271
Child-care Center $351 $80 $271
ERRC System $351 $80 $271
Fire Alarm System $527 $80 $447
Large Family Day Care $351 $80 $271
Mobile Food Prep Vehicle $351 $80 $271
Permit Required Confined Space $351 $80 $271
Place of Assembly $351 $80 $271
Residential Care Facility $351 $80 $271
Medium Hazard
Covered and Open Mall Building $351 $113 $238
Combustible Fibers $351 $113 $238
Dry Cleaning $527 $113 $414
Industrial Oven $351 $113 $238
Hospitals & Psychiatric Hospital $351 $113 $238
Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly
Buildings $351 $113 $238
Lumber Yard $703 $113 $590
Plant Extraction $351 $113 $238
Pyroxylin Plastics $351 $113 $238
Open Flame & Candles $176 $113 $63
Radioactive Materials $351 $113 $238
Refrigeration Equipment $176 $113 $63
Rooftop Heliports $351 $113 $238
Stationary Fuel Cell Power Systems $351 $113 $238
Storage of Scrap Tire $527 $113 $414
Waste Handling Facility $351 $113 $238
Wood Products $351 $113 $238
High Hazard
Aerosol Products $351 $193 $158
Aviation Facility $351 $193 $158
Dust Producing $527 $193 $334
Compressed Gas $176 $193 ($17)
Cryogenic Gas $527 $193 $334
Cutting and Welding $351 $193 $158
Explosives $351 $193 $158
Flammable / Combustible Liquids $527 $193 $334
Hazardous Materials $703 $193 $510
High Piled Storage $703 $193 $510
Liquefied Petroleum Gas $351 $193 $158
Magnesium $351 $193 $158
Miscellaneous Combustible Storage $351 $193 $158
Mobile of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles $351 $193 $158
Motor Fuel Dispensing $351 $193 $158
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Repair Garages $351 $193 $158
Spraying or Dipping $351 $193 $158
Tire Rebuilding Plant $351 $193 $158
GROUP R - DIVISION 1 AND 2 OCCUPANCIES WITH 3 OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS PER BUILDING
3-10 Units $264 $193 $71
11-100 Units $351 $386 ($35)
101-200 Units $1,406 $579 $827
201-300 Units $2,109 $772 $1,337
301-350 Units $2,812 $869 $1,943
> 351 Units, per 100 units $1,406 $290 $1,116
SPECIAL ACTIVITY PERMITS
Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas $351 $366 ($15)
Carnivals and Fairs $703 $366 $337
Christmas Tree Lots $703 $366 $337
Explosives or Blasting Agents $703 $366 $337
Fire Hydrants and Water-Control Valves $351 $366 ($15)
Fireworks Displays by a Licensed Professional $703 $366 $337
Fumigation/Thermal Insecticide $176 $366 ($190)
Outdoor Assembly Event $366
Parade Floats $351 $366 ($15)
Temporary Membrane Structures (tents) $351 $366 ($15)
Failure to Obtain a Permit 2x Permit Cost
FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY – PLAN CHECK
Additional Fire Plan Check Review – 4th submittal – 2 hour min $176 $209 ($33)
OTHER FIRE PREVENTION INSPECTIONS
Annual Fire Inspection (Basic) $264 $313 ($49)
Annual High-rise Building (2 hour Minimum) $352 $417 ($65)
New Occupancy / Business $351 $313 $38
Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler Certification $351 $399 ($48)
Re-Inspection $176 $209 ($33)
Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically Indicated $176 $209 ($33)
Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours (2 hour minimum) $176 $253 ($77)
Inspection Cancellation Fee $209
MISCELLANEOUS FIRE PREVENTION FEES
Application for Use of Alternate Methods of Protection $264 $145 $119
Key Box Service $88 $114 ($26)
Emergency Response DUI Cost Recovery Actual Cost
Emergency Response Hazmat Cost Recovery Actual Cost
Investigations $176 $209 ($33)
Fire Watch Actual Cost
Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident types) Actual Cost
Current subsidies identified range from a low of $6 for First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes
for Residents (excluding reproduction of reports) to a high of $1,057 for ALS and BLS
Transportation. Over-recoveries identified range from a low of $12 for Pediatric Education
for Pre-hospital Professionals (For residents and non-residents) to a high of $1,943 for
Group R, Division 1 Occupancies and Group R, Division 2 with 3 or More Dwelling Units
per Building for inspections of buildings with 301-350 units.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
The over-recoveries identified in the above table are largely due to the restructuring of
categories. This is true for the majority of the fees that show an over recovery relating to
operational permits. In the current schedule, these are flat fees, whereas the proposed
structure is converting these to a base fee calculated on the square footage of the site to
be inspected plus a flat fee for each operational permit type.
3 DETAILED RESULTS - VALUATION
The Fire Department charges fees for Fire and Life Safety Plan Check, Fire Protection
Systems Plan Check, and Fire Protection Systems Inspections based on the valuation of
the project. The following subsections provide the detailed results for each of these fee
categories.
1 Fire and Life Safety Plan Check
Fire Prevention staff are responsible for reviewing building plans to ensure that fire and
life safety standards are met. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs,
Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following tables details the title / name, current
fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each valuation range.
Table 15: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire and Life Safety Plan Check
Project Value Current Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $88.00 $203.00 ($115.00)
Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000
First $6,000 $88.00 $202.66 ($114.66)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $11.56 ($2.32)
Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,000 $176.00 $422.21 ($246.21)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $14.06 $21.62 ($7.56)
Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,000 $351.00 $962.64 ($611.64)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $42.16 $27.36 $14.80
Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,000 $2,810.00 $2,330.59 $479.41
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $10.54 $7.98 $2.56
Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,000 $7,027.00 $5,522.49 $1,504.51
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $8.44 $5.78 $2.66
Project Valuation: $1,000,001 to $3,000,000
First $1,000,000 $11,242.00 $8,410.40 $2,831.60
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.74 $2.46 $1.28
Project Valuation: $3,000,001 to $5,000,000
First $3,000,000 $18,737.00 $13,324.91 $5,412.09
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.62 $3.12 $2.50
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
Project Value Current Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $5,000,001 to $10,000,000
First $5,000,000 $29,979.00 $19,556.71 $10,422.29
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $2.25 $1.32 $0.93
Project Valuation: $10,000,001 to $25,000,000
First $10,000,000 $41,221.00 $26,143.16 $15,077.84
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.00 $0.76 $0.24
Project Valuation: $25,000,001 to $50,000,000
First $25,000,000 $56,211.00 $37,492.13 $18,718.87
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.30 $0.26 $0.04
Project Valuation: $50,000,001 +
First $50,000,000 $63,705.00 $44,078.59 $19,626.41
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.27 $0.13 $1.14
Projects valued under $100,000 show an under-recovery, while projects greater than
$100,000 are showing an over recovery. The total cost per unit reflects changes in
processes and efficiencies implemented over time by the department, resulting in a
reduction of costs associated with providing these services.
2 Fire Protection Systems Plan Check
Fire Prevention staff are responsible for reviewing fire protection system plans to ensure
that they are in compliance with the fire code, and meet or exceed the requirements for
building occupancy. The total cost calculated includes direct staff costs, Departmental
and Citywide overhead. The following tables details the title / name, current fee, total cost,
and surplus or deficit associated with each valuation range.
Table 16: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire Protection Systems Plan Check
Project Value
Current Fee Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $176.00 $321.00 ($145.00)
Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000
First $6,000 $176.00 $320.88 ($144.88)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $8.00 $1.24
Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,000 $351.00 $471.48 ($120.48)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.51 $13.47 ($9.96)
Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,000 $439.00 $810.64 ($371.64)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.76 $5.07 ($3.31)
Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,000 $527.00 $1,063.97 ($536.97)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $1.31 $1.39 ($0.08)
Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,000 $1,054.00 $1,621.28 ($567.28)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.51 $3.45 $0.06
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
Project Value
Current Fee Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1,000,001 +
First $1,000,000 $2,810.00 $3,343.89 ($533.89)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.93 $0.76 $0.17
Fire Protection Systems Plan Check shows an under recovery for all ranges of project
valuations.
3 Fire Protection Systems Inspection
Fire Prevention staff are responsible for inspecting fire protection systems to ensure they
match submitted plans, are properly installed, and functioning. The total cost calculated
includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following tables
details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each
valuation range.
Table 17: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire Department – Fire Protection Systems Inspection
Project Value
Current Fee Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Project Valuation: $1 to $6,000 $527.00 $439.10 $87.90
Project Valuation: $6,001 to $25,000
First $6,000 $527.00 $439.10 $87.90
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $9.24 $11.56 ($2.32)
Project Valuation: $25,001 to $50,000
First $25,000 $703.00 $658.65 $44.35
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $14.06 $24.99 ($10.93)
Project Valuation: $50,001 to $100,000
First $50,000 $1,054.00 $1,283.51 ($229.51)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $7.03 $6.76 $0.27
Project Valuation: $100,001 to $500,000
First $100,000 $1,406.00 $1,621.28 ($215.28)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $4.39 $5.40 ($1.01)
Project Valuation: $500,001 to $1,000,000
First $500,000 $3,162.00 $3,782.99 ($620.99)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $7.73 $3.92 $3.81
Project Valuation: $1,000,001 +
First $1,000,000 $7,027.00 $5,742.04 $1,284.96
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $0.88 $1.72 ($0.84)
The first two valuation ranges and the last valuation range show an over-recovery, while
the middle three ranges show subsidies. The total cost per unit incorporates the use of
different staff and process efficiencies, which has resulted in some ranges showing an
over-recovery.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
4 ANNUAL RESULTS
In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could
impact Fire’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was collected.
The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to projected
revenue based on the full cost of providing services. The following table shows the title /
name, annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected
annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit.
Table 18: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis - Fire
Fee Name
Recoverable
Volume
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost
Annual
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Flat Fees 1,331 $368,906 $282,102 $86,804
Fire Life Safety 212 $2,044,625 $1,464,122 $580,503
Fire Protection Plan Check 413 $140,541 $229,503 ($88,962)
Fire Protection Inspection 346 $288,197 $294,596 ($6,399)
TOTAL $2,842,269 $2,270,322 $571,946
The Fire Department shows a surplus of approximately $572,000. While the largest
source of over-recovery relates to Fire Life Safety ($581,000), this is due to the
incorporation of streamlined processes implemented over the past few years. The full cost
amounts identified in the previous sections will align services being provided with the
costs associated with those services.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
10. Engineering
The Engineering Division is responsible for supporting its customers by providing
technical, timely, and cost-effective solutions that promote environmentally sustainable
infrastructures. Fees for service involve the regulation and facilitation of private
development relating to: Encroachment Permits, Mapping Permits, Transportation
Permits, and Grading Permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule
modifications, detailed per unit results, security deposits, and annual revenue impacts
associated with Engineering services.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
Based upon discussions with Engineering staff, significant modifications were made to
the current fee structure. These modifications include:
• Expansion of fees: Fees categories were created or broken out in order to provide
greater clarity regarding services provided. For example, in the current fee
schedule encroachment permits are combined into a handful of categories, without
providing much detail as to what types of encroachments are covered. In the
proposed schedule, Encroachments are broken out by type of permit, such as
sewer improvements, small cell towers, utility improvements, etc.
• Reclassified fees: The Improvement Inspection fee has been rephrased to Public
Improvement Permit and Inspection to better reflect the services being provided.
• Conversion from deposit-based to flat fee: Engineering’s reviews of planning
applications and projects is currently recovered through applicant deposits. Rather
than continuing to collect deposits and bill hourly against them, these services are
being converted to flat fees.
• Removal of fees: Certain fees have been removed from the schedule as they are
either no longer provided, or have been incorporated within other fees. Examples
of removed fees include: Mapping Inspection Deposits, Per Lot fees for Tentative
Maps, After Hours Site Inspections, Subdivision and Parcel Map Plan Checks,
Copies of CD / DVD’s, and Grading Inspections.
The modifications outlined above will ensure that the Engineering fee schedule accurately
reflects the services being provided by staff, and help ensure that costs are captured
appropriately.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
2 DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES
The Engineering Division collects fees for items such as public improvement plan check,
public improvement inspection, minor and major subdivision tentative map, and
transportation permits among others. The total cost calculated for each Engineering
service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following
table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with
each service.
Table 19: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Engineering – Flat Fees
Fee Name Current Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
ENCROACHMENT
Sewer Improvements
Sewer Lateral Video Review $75 $96 ($21)
Sewer Lateral Certificate $78 $63 $15
Sewer Lateral Plan Review and Permit $325 $382 ($57)
Minor Frontage Improvements
MFI Plan Review $325 $315 $10
Small Cell Towers
Cell Phone Tower Review (City owned pole) $325 $2,045 ($1,720)
Cell Phone Tower Review (non-City pole) $325 $503 ($178)
Utility Improvements
Utility / Outside Service Connection Review $325 $283 $42
Utility Access and TCP Only Review $325 $220 $105
Dig Once
Dig Once Advertisement $325 $503 ($178)
Potholing
Potholing Permit $325 $670 ($345)
Revocable Encroachment Permits
Revocable Encroachment Plan Review $325 $283 $42
Revocable Encroachment & Maintenance Agreement $325 $709 ($384)
Revocable Encroachment Annual Renewal Fee $325 $189 $136
Miscellaneous
No Parking Signs $3 $5 ($2)
Sidewalk Closure for Maintenance or Construction -
per day of sidewalk closure $152 $96 $56
Public Improvement Plan Check (Cost of ROW Improvements)
Up to $49,999 $609.00 $1,726.92 ($1,117.92)
$50,000 $912.00 $1,726.92 ($814.92)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $31.05 $726.71 ($695.66)
$100,000 $1,216.00 $5,360.49 ($4,144.49)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $138.00 $321.86 ($183.86)
$250,000 $4,561.00 $10,188.40 ($5,627.40)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $62.10 $279.18 ($217.08)
$500,000 $6,082.00 $17,167.89 ($11,085.89)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $120.00 $130.78 ($10.78)
$1,000,000+ $12,163.00 $23,706.94 ($11,543.94)
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
Fee Name Current Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof $12.00 $364.22 ($352.22)
4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $152 $1,084 ($932.22)
Public Improvement Permit & Inspection (Cost of ROW Improvements)
Up to $49,999 $456.00 $575.69 ($119.69)
$50,000 $456.00 $575.69 ($119.69)
each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $20.70 $326.22 ($305.52)
$100,000 $684.00 $3,837.90 ($3,153.90)
each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $5.20 $127.93 ($122.73)
$250,000 $912.00 $7,675.81 ($6,763.81)
each additional $5,000 or fraction thereof $10.35 $76.76 ($66.41)
$500,000+ $1,520.00 $11,513.71 ($9,993.71)
each additional $25,000 or fraction thereof $3.11 $191.90 ($188.79)
Additional Inspections $152 $192 ($40)
Other Fees
Work without a permit (after the fact permit) - Fee +
Plan Check Fee
2x Permit
Fee
Engineering Staff Construction Coordination
Committee $152 $173 ($21)
MAPPING
Map Extensions $325 $912 ($587)
Final / Parcel Map Review and Processing $325 $5,270 ($4,945)
Property Merger / Notice $325 $2,398 ($2,073)
Lot Line Adjustment / Certificate of Compliance $325 $2,289 ($1,964)
Lot Conformance / Certificate of Compliance $325 $1,819 ($1,494)
Grant of Easement / Easement Abandonment
Request $3,802 $2,982 $820
Subsequent Engineering Mapping Reviews $456 $661 ($205)
Engineering Agreements $1,085 $3,297 ($2,212)
Outside Sewer Service Agreement $1,085 $5,472 ($4,387)
Benchmark Maintenance Fee $325 $912 ($587)
Subdivision Tentative Map
Minor Tentative Map $152 $2,706 ($2,554)
Major Tentative Map $325 $3,948 ($3,623)
Each Additional Lot Over 5 $26 $55 ($29)
TRANSPORTATION3
Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of an
original permit $16 $31 ($15)
Transportation - Annual or repetitive permit $90 $94 ($4)
GRADING
Hauling Permit
Hauling Permit Fee $190 $223 ($33)
Grading Plan Check and Permit
51 to 9,999 Cubic Yards $1,216.00 $3,598.91 ($2,382.91)
10,000 $1,520.00 $3,598.91 ($2,078.91)
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $178.28 $495.49 ($317.21)
50,000 $2,689.12 $5,580.86 ($2,891.74)
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $178.28 $220.22 ($41.94)
100,000 $2,205.00 $6,681.94 ($4,476.94)
3 Transportation fees are set by the state and cannot be charged above the current fee of $16 and $90 respectively.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
Fee Name Current Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof $114.00 $330.32 ($216.32)
4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $304 $881 ($577)
Erosion Control Compliance
Base $150 $192 ($42)
Per 250 cubic yards (round to the nearest 250) $15 $16 ($1)
MISCELLANEOUS
Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours $228 $227 $1
Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section
305(h) $152 $192 ($40)
Inspections for which a fee is not specifically
indicated $152 $192 ($40)
Permit reinstatement fee $76 $63 $13
Research for Non-Permit Application Inquires $0 $63 ($63)
Engineering Staff Time for Services not Specifically
Indicated $0 $220 ($220)
PLANNING SUPPORT
Engineering Staffing TAGs $152 $173 N/A
Engineering Design and Conditions Review
Single Family Res / new or additions (1-3 units) $5,000 $661 N/A
Multi-Family Res / new or modifications (4 or more
units) $5,000 $1,762 N/A
Commercial / Industrial $5,000 $2,202 N/A
Projects requiring City Council Approval $5,000 $2,863 N/A
3rd and subsequent resubmittals $5,000 $551 N/A
BUILDING SUPPORT
Engineering Site Review (Cost of Site Improvements)
Up to $49,999 $304.00 $786.52 ($482.52)
$50,000 $912.00 $786.52 $125.48
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $182.00 $528.52 ($346.52)
$100,000 $1,824.00 $3,429.12 ($1,605.12)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $111.00 $176.17 ($65.17)
$250,000 $3,496.00 $6,071.72 ($2,575.72)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $109.00 $167.36 ($58.36)
$500,000 $6,232.00 $10,255.84 ($4,023.84)
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof $55.00 $105.70 ($50.70)
$1,000,000+ $8,968.00 $15,541.04 ($6,573.04)
each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof $27.00 $330.32 ($303.32)
4th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisions $1,100 $881 $219
Most of Engineering fees show an under-recovery. The current subsidies range from a
low of $4 for a Transportation permit to a high of $11,544 for a Public Improvement Plan
Check valued above $1,000,000. Over-recoveries range from a low of $1 for Inspections
Outside of Normal Business Hours to a high of $820 for Grant of Easement / Easement
Abandonment Requests. Over-recoveries are due to the revision of time estimates and
the reclassifying of fees and services.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
The fees regarding transportation are showing an under-recovery; however, these fees
are set by the state and cannot be charged above the current fee amounts of $16 for a
single trip and $90 for an annual trip.
3 SECURITY DEPOSITS
The Engineering Division collects security deposits on specific processes to mitigate the
impact on City infrastructure, relating to items such as sewer lateral, utility trenching, and
pothole projects. The following table details the title / name and the current security
deposit.
Table 20: Total Security Deposits per Unit – Engineering – Security Deposits
Fee Name Current Security Deposit
ENCROACHMENT
Dig Once
Dig Once Policy Administration $10,000
Permit Work Deposit
Sewer Lateral Deposit $1,000
Minor Frontage Improvements $2,000
Utility Trenching $40 per ft (minimum $2,000)
Pothole Projects $2,000 + $1,000 for each add pothole
All other ROW improvement projects $5,000
GRADING
Hauling Permit
Hauling Permit Deposit $2,000 (refundable)
Grading Permit
Grading Permit Deposit $50,000
The security deposits noted in the table above are collected by the Engineering division
to ensure that applicants work in the right-of-way does not seriously degrade current
roads, sidewalks, gutters, etc. These amounts are returned to the applicant upon
confirmation from Engineering that work in the right-of-way meets city standards.
4 ANNUAL RESULTS
In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could
impact Engineering’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19 was
collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to
projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that
Engineering has an annual subsidy of approximately $311,000. The following table shows
the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee, projected
annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
Table 21: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis - Engineering
Fee Name
Recoverable
Volume
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost
Annual Surplus
/ (Deficit)
Encroachment Permits 3,055 $430,945 $808,051 ($377,106)
Mapping Fees 83 $43,670 $161,564 ($117,894)
Transportation Fees 461 $7,968 $15,010 ($7,042)
Grading Fees 197 $41,616 $108,385 ($66,769)
Miscellaneous Fees 40 $380 $5,663 ($5,283)
Planning Support 211 $948,344 $334,242 $614,102
Building Support 792 $306,362 $657,791 ($351,429)
TOTAL $1,779,285 $2,090,706 ($311,421)
The Engineering division shows annual subsidies in all of the major categories, with the
exception of Planning Support. The largest subsidies relate to Encroachment Permits and
Building Support.
The Engineering division processed roughly 3,000 Encroachment Permits in FY18/19,
which combined with an average subsidy of $1,500 across all subcategories results in the
$377,000 deficit. Comparatively, the Division only reviewed around 800 building permits,
however, the average deficit was $2,500, leading to a subsidy of $351,000.
The large surplus shown for planning support is a result of the transition from deposit
based fees to flat fees. The revenue at current fee is based on the full deposit amount,
while the annual cost is based on the actual time spent to complete the reviews.
Overall, the Engineering Division is recovering approximately 85% of its fee related costs.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
11. Development Services Surcharges
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process –
General Plan Maintenance and Technology (Database Maintenance) fee. The City of
South San Francisco currently charges both of these fees as part of the building phase
for General Plan, and for all development-related fees as it relates to the Technology fee.
The following subsections discuss the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology
Fee calculated through this study.
1 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
The City of South San Francisco currently assesses a General Plan Maintenance Fee as
part of its building permit process. The fee is meant to account for updates to the general
plan, zoning ordinance, specific plans, transit action plans, housing elements, and other
long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan. This is a fairly
typical fee charged by many jurisdictions and it is generally calculated as either a
percentage of the building permit fee or percentage of the building / project valuation at
the time of permit submittal and calculation. The City of South San Francisco currently
charges this fee as a percentage of the building project valuation at the time of the building
permit submittal. The concept behind charging it during the building permit phase, is that
any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact in the
jurisdiction to require the potential for the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the
General Plan.
The project team worked with staff in the Planning Division to estimate the annual
percentage of time spent by staff as it relates to long-range planning efforts. In addition
to internal staff cost there are contracted costs associated with updates to the General
Plan and Zoning Code. The following table shows by cost component the total cost
associated with each type of cost factor, the life of the cost factor, and the resulting annual
cost:
Table 22: General Plan Maintenance Fee Cost Components
Cost Category % of Time Cost Life (Yrs) Total Annual Cost
Chief Planner 40% $146,289 1 $146,289
Principal Planner 60% $201,059 1 $201,059
ECD Director 10% $43,997 1 $43,997
ECD Deputy Director 20% $34,285 1 $34,285
Subtotal Staffing Costs $425,631
General Plan Update $2,660,299 10 $266,030
TOTAL GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE ANNUAL COST $691,661
The total annual costs associated with updating the General Plan are approximately
$692,000; of which staff costs represents $426,000. It is important to note that the staff
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
costs in the table are representative of fully burdened hourly rates and billable time. The
General Plan Update cost is based upon the City’s most recent contract to update its
General Plan (2019) and these comprehensive updates are typically completed on a 10
year lifecycle.
In order to assess this fee as a percentage of the building permit valuation, the project
team took the annual cost associated with general plan upkeep and divided it by the total
building permit valuation for FY18-19. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 23: General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Total General Plan Annual Maintenance Cost $691,661
FY18-19 Building Project Valuation4 $604,456,027
General Plan Maintenance Fee - % of Permit Valuation 0.11%
As the table indicates, the calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is 0.11% of the
Building Permit Valuation. The City’s current fee is 0.16% of the Building Permit Valuation.
Therefore, the full cost fee would result in reducing the city’s current fee from 0.16% to
0.11%.
As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local
jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. The following
table shows the results of this comparative analysis:
Table 24: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Comparative Survey
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Daly City 0.005% of Valuation
Millbrae 0.39% of Valuation
Mountain View 0.26% of Valuation
Palo Alto 0.109% of Valuation
Redwood City 0.20% of Valuation
San Bruno 10% of Building Permit Fee
San Mateo 0.40% of Valuation
The majority of the jurisdictions charge the General Plan Fee as a percentage of the
Building Permit Valuation similar to the City of South San Francisco. The City’s full cost
calculated at 0.11% of Permit Valuation is in line with Palo Alto and higher than Daly City.
It is lower than some of the other surrounding larger jurisdictions such as Mountain View,
San Mateo, and Redwood City.
4 The project valuation utilized for building permits was adjusted to only reflect valuation associated with new and remodel projects,
as standalone permits would not be charged this fee, and additionally, any outliers were taken out as they were not reflective of typical
valuation trends for the jurisdiction.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
The City already follows best management practices by collecting and accounting for
these funds separate from the General Fund. However, currently, these funds are stored
in a fund that includes developer deposits, the technology fee, and the General Plan
maintenance fee. The City should separate out the three categories of revenues within
the fund and create separate expense divisions associated with each of those areas to
mitigate any potential issues with comingling of funds. Therefore, as revenue is generated
in this fund and subaccount for General Plan, that is where any staff costs and contracted
costs should be incurred.
2 TECHNOLOGY (DATABASE MAINTENANCE) SURCHARGE FEE
The City currently collects a database maintenance fee, which is a flat rate of $27 per
permit. In discussions with staff and based upon comparison of other jurisdictions it was
determined that this fee should be renamed as the Technology Surcharge Fee. The
nomenclature of technology fee allows the City to more accurately convey the intent
behind the fee, which is to support the costs associated with the City’s permitting system
(TRAKiT), and the staff time for managing those permit systems; as well as to bring the
fee name in line with standardized practices. The following table shows by cost category,
the total cost, the life for the cost, and the resulting annual cost:
Table 25: Technology Surcharge Fee Cost Components
Cost Category % of Time Cost Life (Yrs) Total Annual Cost
IT Director 15% $63,613 1 $63,613
IT Technician 5% $14,432 1 $14,432
Subtotal Staffing Costs $78,045
TRAKiT Maintenance $60,000 1 $60,000
TRAKiT Upgrade $149,000 5 $29,800
TRAKiT Replacement $2,000,000 10 $200,000
Subtotal TRAKiT Costs $289,800
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY ANNUAL COST $367,845
While the City currently charges a flat rate for each permit, it was determined that this
was not proportional, as larger projects can generate more of a burden on the system
(more storage space for plans, more data input in the office and in the field, etc.).
Therefore, through this study, the project team worked with staff to reevaluate the
Technology Surcharge as a percentage of the permit fee paid. In this revised nexus, the
larger the permit fee, the greater the impact on TRAKiT. Therefore, the project team took
the total Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the permitting revenue associated with
Building, Fire, Planning, and Engineering services. The following table shows this
calculation:
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
Table 26: Technology Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Total Technology Annual Cost $367,845
FY18-19 Permit Revenue5 $12,405,830
Technology Fee - % of Permit 3%
Based upon this revised calculation, the City’s technology fee would be 3% of the permit
fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the technology fee collected would be $3;
whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the technology fee collected would be $30. This type
of structure, enables the technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based
upon the projects and their impact upon the system.
As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local
jurisdictions and their assessment of the Technology Fee. The following table shows the
results of this comparative analysis:
Table 27: Technology Fee – Comparative Survey
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Daly City 2% of Permit Fee
Millbrae 7% of Permit Fee
Mountain View 4% of Permit Fee
Redwood City 5% of Permit Fee
San Bruno 9% of Permit Fee
San Mateo 0.10% of Project Valuation
The majority of the jurisdictions charge the Technology Fee as a percentage of the permit
fee, as has been proposed for the City of South San Francisco. The calculated full cost
for the City at 3% of the permit fee is higher than Daly City and only slightly lower than
Mountain View (4%).
The City already collects the Technology Fee in a separate fund; however, this fund is
also the same fund in which developer deposits and the General Plan Maintenance fee
is also collected. While there are separate revenue codes in the fund, there are not
separate expense codes, and a separate expense division should be created to ensure
that the revenue collected for TRAKiT is only utilized to fund the permitting related needs
for the City (staffing and contracted).
3 BUILDING TRAINING SURCHARGE
The State of California requires that Building Inspectors receive mandatory training and
certification to ensure that they are able to accurately implement the California Building
5 The permit revenue includes Fire Prevention, Planning, Engineering, and Building Permit and Plan Check. Building revenue
associated with Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Permits has been discounted in order to account for inflated revenues.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
Code. The cost of this certification and annual updates on training can vary from year to
year depending upon the cycle of training and costs. Therefore, in order to calculate the
annual training costs associated with Building staff training, the project team collected
information regarding training costs for the past three years. The following table shows
the annual training expenses for the past three fiscal years for the Building Division and
the resulting three year average annual cost:
Table 28: Annual Building Training Costs
FY Training Expenses
FY17-18 $25,247
FY18-19 $7,788
FY19-20 $7,670
3 year average $13,568
As the table indicates on average the annual training costs associated with Building staff
are approximately $13,568. The costs associated with this building training surcharge are
stored in a separate fund, similar to the General Plan and Technology Surcharge, which
allows to ensure that the funds collected can only be used for inspector certification and
training.
The current fee for building training is set up as a per permit fee, meaning that for every
building permit fee issued, this fee is collected. The project team utilized the three-year
average and divided it by the total number of building permits issued in FY18-19 to
calculate the total training surcharge per permit:
Table 29: Building Training Surcharge Fee
Category Amount
3 year average $13,568
FY18-19 # of Building Permits 1,830
Training Surcharge Per Permit $7
As the table indicates the training surcharge per building permit is calculated at
approximately $7 per permit. The City currently charges a fee of $8 per permit, based
upon the updated calculation, as the number of permits issued have increased, this fee
can be reduced from $8 to $7 per permit.
The City should continue to collect this fee in a separate fund so that it can be utilized for
the purpose of ensuring that all building inspectors employed by the City are appropriately
trained and certified by the state.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
12. Water Quality Control
The Water Quality Control Division is responsible for administering environmental
compliance programs mandated by the State of California, including: Pretreatment,
Pollution Prevention, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Fees examined in this study
relate to Discharge Permits and Renewals, Wastewater Analysis, and Stormwater
Inspections. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per
unit results, and annual revenue impacts.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
When reviewing the Water Quality Control fee structure, only a few minor modifications
were proposed to the current fee schedule, which include:
• Rephrased Fees: Fees were renamed to clarify the service provided and when
the permit was applicable. For example, Waste Management Plan Review has
been reworded to Water Quality Control Plan Review.
• Addition of Fees: The addition of fees is to account for services that are currently
provided by the City but not previously charged. A Stormwater Facility Inspection
Fee was added to the fee schedule.
• Expansion of fees: Fees are broken out in order to provide clarity and depth of
services provided within the fee schedule. For example, previously Permit and
Renewals only had two generic categories: Significant Industrial Users and All
Other Required Businesses. These were broken out into the following categories:
Food Facility Discharge Permit, SIU Waste Water Discharge Permit, General /
Groundwater Discharge Permit, and Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge Permit.
The above modifications better express the services provided by the Water Quality
Control Division, and when each permit is applicable.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The Water Quality Control Division collects fees for items such as food facility discharge
permits, waste discharge permits, water quality control plan reviews, and stormwater
facility inspections. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs,
Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current
fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
Table 30: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Water Quality Control Division
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
per Unit
Permits and Renewals: (valid for 3-year time intervals)
Food Facility Discharge Permit $152 $1,976 ($1,824)
SIU Wastewater Discharge Permit $609 $2,440 ($1,831)
General / Groundwater Discharge Permit $152 $515 ($363)
Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge Permit $152 $605 ($453)
Inspections and Reviews
Water Quality Compliance Review $152 $181 ($29)
Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment Activities $152 $193 ($41)
Inspections - Outside of Normal Business Hours $152 $193 ($41)
Special Monitoring Activities for Enforcement and
Surveillance $152 $193 ($41)
Special Sampling / Equipment Use $152 $193 ($41)
Water Quality Control Plan Review $163 $181 ($18)
Stormwater Facility Inspection $580
Water Quality Review $152 $189 ($37)
Wastewater Lab Testing / Analysis
BOD Actual Cost
COD Actual Cost
TSS Actual Cost
Oil & Grease Actual Cost
Metals (except Hg) Actual Cost
Hg Actual Cost
pH Actual Cost
Bioassay Actual Cost
CN Actual Cost
PAH Actual Cost
Phenol Actual Cost
Ammonia Actual Cost
Conductivity Actual Cost
Oxygen Uptake Rate Actual Cost
Others Actual Cost
Administrative Code Enforcement
Failure to Comply with Violation Notice $351 $351 $0
All of the flat fees reviewed for Water Quality Control show an under-recovery. The current
subsidies range from a low of $18 for Water Quality Control Plan Review to a high of
$1,831 for SIU Waste Water Discharge Permit. The under-recoveries in the permits and
renewals section are due to the expansion of fee categories, resulting in more accurate
time estimates associated with providing permit services.
The Failure to Comply with Violation Notice is a penalty and is set by the City to encourage
residents to comply with Code Enforcement. As this is not a time based activity, it was
not reviewed through this study.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
In order to understand how the per unit results presented in the previous sections could
impact Water Quality Control’s revenue on an annual basis, workload volume for FY18/19
was collected. The project team then compared annual revenue based on current fees to
projected revenue based on the full cost of providing services. This analysis shows that
Water Quality Control has an annual subsidy of approximately $389,000. The following
table shows the annual workload volume for FY18/19, projected revenue at current fee,
projected annual cost, and the associated annual surplus / deficit.
Table 31: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis – Water Quality Control
Fee Name
Recoverable
Volume
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost
Annual
Surplus /
(Deficit)
Permits and Renewals 157 $26,149 $295,091 ($268,942)
Inspections and Reviews 402 $32,926 $152,517 ($119,591)
TOTAL $59,075 $447,608 ($388,533)
Nearly two-thirds of the identified subsidy relates to Permits and Renewals. The primary
source of this deficit relates to Food Facility Discharge Permits, of which the Division
processed approximately 140, and show a per unit subsidy of $1,800 each. As noted in
the previous section, Food Facility Discharge Permits are an expanded category, and will
allow the City to better recover costs.
The primary source of the Inspections and Reviews deficit is related to Stormwater Facility
Inspections, which is a new fee being proposed by the Division. There were approximately
200 of these inspections conducted in FY18/19, for which no fee was charged.
Overall, the Water Quality Control Division is recovering approximately 13% of its fee
related costs.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
13. Police
The Police Department is responsible for managing safety within the City, which includes
monitoring and reducing crime, enforcing laws, and providing community education. The
fees included in this analysis are in relation to fingerprinting services, vehicle abatement,
reports, personnel services, vehicle release, firearm storage, and clearance letters
provided by the Police Department. The following subsections outline the modifications,
detailed results, and annual results related to Police fee-related services.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
Based upon a review of the current fee structure with Police staff, minor modifications
were made to the current fee schedule, including:
• Removal of fees: Fees were removed from the current fee schedule to provide a
more accurate list of services provided by the Police Department. For example,
Plan Check and Site Inspection fees were removed from the current fee schedule
as these services are provided as part of the building permit process, and have
been accounted for through those processes.
• Rephrased fees: Fees were renamed to provide clarity to residents regarding the
services associated with each permit or fee. Previously the fingerprints fee was
labeled All Individuals (City Employees excluded) and is now labeled as Fingerprint
Cards (All Individuals, City Employees excluded).
• Condensing fees: Fees were condensed from multiple subsections into singular
categories, making the modified fee schedule more concise. For example,
previously Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette Tape, and CD – Audio were broken
out into separate fees, however they are now grouped together into one fee -
Media.
The modifications outlined above more accurately represent the services being provided
by the Police Department.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The Police Department charges fees for service including items such as fingerprint cards,
single firearm storage, and driver permits for cab companies. The total cost calculated for
each Police service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The
following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit
associated with each service.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
Table 32: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Police Services
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
per Unit
FINGERPRINTING
Fingerprint Cards (All individuals, City Employees
excluded) – DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable $58 $42 $16
Live Scan Fingerprinting – DOJ or FBI fees may be
applicable $75 $79 ($4)
PERMITS
Alarm Registration (Commercial)
New/Renewal $27 $34 ($7)
Bingo
Initial Permit (Refundable if denied) $58 $205 ($147)
Annual Renewal $539 $205 $334
Card room I.D. Card:
Initial Operator Permit $1,803 $615 $1,188
Initial Employee Permit $359 $205 $154
Annual Renewal (for operator & employee permit) $90 $205 ($115)
Replacement $90 $102 ($12)
Cab Company:
Driver Permit $58 $243 ($185)
Vehicle for Hire:
Initial Certificate of Convenience and Necessity $7,223 $2,050 $5,173
Certificate of Renewal $180 $205 ($25)
Special Event Permit
For Profit $264 $270 ($6)
Non-Profit Group / Charity Event $185 $270 ($85)
Junk Collector
Junk Collector $90 $63 $27
Massage Establishment or Bath House:
Initial Permit $1,803 $410 $1,393
Annual Renewal $180 $205 ($25)
Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background Investigation:
Dealer $1,803 $615 $1,188
Employee $359 $205 $154
Fortune Telling
Fortune Telling $1,803 $615 $1,188
Tow Vehicle Companies:
Company Permit $180 $138 $42
Driver Permit $180 $107 $73
Renewal:
Tow Service Franchise Fee $53 $142 ($89)
Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated Permits $42 $142 ($100)
Reissued Permits $42 $142 ($100)
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Police Records
Media - Non-Redacted (Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette
Tape, CD - Audio) $53 $67 ($14)
Media - Redacted (In Car / Bodycam Video - DVD) $106 $247 ($141)
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit)
per Unit
Police Reports $0.25 $0.25 $0.00
Photographs - Digital Photographs on Disks $58 $42 $16
Transcripts $0.25 $0.25 $0.00
Firearm / Ammunition Storage
Single Firearm Administration $359 $364 ($5)
Each Additional Weapon Administration $359 $364 ($5)
Ammunition Storage Administration $143 $130 $13
Special Personnel Services
Staff Police Officer $116 $192 ($76)
Discounted Rate for SSFUSD $95 $192 ($97)
Other Miscellaneous Fees
Clearance Letter $10 $31 ($21)
Vehicle Abatement $359 $254 $105
Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent Operator $180 $126 $54
Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) Accidents Actual Cost
Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or
other incident) Actual Cost
False Alarm Fines
False Alarm Fine Appeal $58 $68 ($10)
Identified under-recoveries range from a low of $5 for Single Firearm Administration
storage to a high of $185 for a Driver Permit for a Cab Company. Over-recoveries range
from a low of $12 for Live Scan Fingerprinting to a high of $5,173 for a Vehicle for Hire
Permit. The over-recovery shown for the Vehicle for Hire Permit is due to process
changes and efficiencies that were implemented over the last few years.
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
The Police Department does not collect workload data on a per unit basis, and therefore
annual volume was not available in order to conduct a revenue analysis.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
14. Library
The Library is responsible for managing and directing services such as book rentals,
online learning resources, streaming services, audio book services, and printing services.
Fees included in this analysis are in relation to damaged and missing materials,
reservation fees, and miscellaneous fees such as computer printouts and postcards. The
following subsections outline the modifications, detailed results, and annual results of for
Library fees.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
Based upon discussions with staff the current fee schedule needed only minimal
modifications, which included consolidating and adding fees. The following points outline
the changes made:
• Combination of fees: Both the Books and Equipment fee were charged based on
actual cost. In order to simplify the schedule, these were combined into a singular
fee category.
• New fees: Fees were added to the proposed schedule to capture services that
were being offered but not currently charged for. Fees were added for USB and
Micro SD Cards.
These minor modifications help streamline the Library’s fee schedule, and better reflect
the services provided, and the associated fees for service.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
The fees charged by the Library Department include items such as black and white
computer printouts, damaged DVD cases, and overdue books among others. The total
cost calculated for each Library service includes direct staff costs, Departmental and
Citywide overhead. The following table details the title / name, current fee, total cost, and
surplus or deficit associated with each service.
Table 33: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Library Services
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
DAMAGED AND MISSING MATERIALS
AV Materials (contents or item damage) Actual Cost
Missing Book, DVD, etc. from Set Actual Cost
Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer
Replacement Prorated Cost of Set
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
Books & Equipment Actual Cost
Lost, Replacement Charges – Material Charges
CD/DVD Cases $2 $6 ($4)
Magazines Actual Cost
Lost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee (Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy)
Applies to all Materials:
Catalogued Materials $5 $7 ($2)
Generic Materials $2 $3 ($1)
Fines for Overdue Materials
Adult Materials, Books, Audio, Video, Magazines,
DVDs etc. (Only affects adult borrowers) $0.25 $0.25 $0
Children's Materials - Books, Audio, Video,
Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only affects adult borrowers) $0.15 $0.15 $0
Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection
Agency $10 $13 ($3)
RESERVE: OUT OF COUNTY RESERVE / INTER-LIBRARY LOAN
SSF residents $3 $39 ($36)
Non-residents $5 $39 ($34)
MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
PayPal Convenience Fee $0.50 $0.50 $0
USB Drives Actual Cost
Micro SD Cards Actual Cost
Field Trip Fee Actual Cost
Computer Printouts
Black & White $0.15 $0.15 $0
Color $0.50 $0.50 $0
History Book - SSF $5 $5 $0
History Room Photographs - Digital Copies
Copy of CD/DVD/USB $3
History Room Photographs Print Copies Actual Cost
Postcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"
Black & White $0.50 $0.50 $0
Color $1 $1 $0
Postcard, ID Set by USPS
Other Copies
Microfilm Copies $0.25 $0.25 $0
Photocopy $0.20 $0.25 ($0.05)
All Library fees are currently breaking even or showing an under-recovery. The largest
deficit is $36, and relates to the resident’s Inter-Library Loan. The Inter-Library Loan is
set by Peninsula Libraries, and cannot be adjusted.
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
The Library does not track workload metrics for each line item within their fee schedule,
as most are minimal dollar amounts. Therefore, an annual revenue analysis was not
conducted.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
15. Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department provides opportunities to residents and visitors for
physical, cultural and social wellbeing; protects and enhances the physical environment;
and ensures the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open spaces. The
Department is comprised of three divisions:
• Administration: Provides leadership, resource development, and administrative
support to Parks and Recreation.
• Recreation: Oversees recreation opportunities relating to Aquatics, Sports &
Athletics, Rentals / Picnics, Classes / Events, Childcare, and Senior Centers.
• Parks: Maintains and rehabilitates the city’s many parks and open spaces,
community centers, neighborhood park buildings, playgrounds, and athletic fields.
The majority of the programs and services offered by the City are dependent upon the
preferences of the community, and can change from season to season. Due to the
number and variety of programs and classes offered, as well as the use of contract service
providers, this study primarily looked at determining programmatic cost recovery, and only
conducted a fee analysis for services associated with rentals, special events, and tree
permits.
1 FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
The Parks and Recreation department issues seasonal activity guides which outline the
programs, classes, and services being offered for each season. As noted above, the
project team did not review the programs and classes being offered, and therefore, no
discussions relating to modifications were had.
The fees associated with picnic rentals, facility rentals, special events, and tree permits
are already streamlined, and as such, no recommendations were made for modifications.
2 DETAILED RESULTS
As aforementioned, this study only evaluated detailed results for picnic rentals, facility
rentals, special events, and tree permits. The total cost calculated for each service
includes direct staff costs, direct material costs (where applicable), Departmental and
Citywide overhead. The following subsections look at the detailed results for picnic and
facility rentals, special events, and miscellaneous services.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
1 Picnic Rentals
The City currently has picnic areas available for rentals at Orange Park, Alta Loma,
Avalon Park, Buri Buri Park, Sellick Park, and Westborough Park. All picnic rentals must
pay an application fee. The following table looks at the current application fee being
charged, the full cost, and surplus / deficit associated with application processing.
Table 34: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Picnic Rental Application
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
Application Processing $36 $52 ($16)
The Parks and Recreation department currently charges $36 to process a picnic rental
application. Through this study the full cost associated with staff time was calculated to
be $52.
Picnic areas can be rented either hourly or per day, depending on the park and space
location. Fees charged vary depending on if the renter is a resident or non-resident. The
following table outlines the full cost calculated for picnic rentals.
Table 35: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Picnic Rentals
Fee Title Unit Total Cost
Picnic Areas
Application Processing Per Application $52
Picnic Areas - Orange Park
Extended Hours Per hour $43
Eucalyptus Shelter (15 Tables- 10am-6pm) Per Day $164
Area #2 (2 tables) - Residential Per Day $55
Area #3 (3 tables) Per Day $81
Area #4 (4 tables) Per Day $141
Area #5 (5 tables) Per Day $176
Picnic Areas - Alta Loma
Area #1 (6 tables) Per Day $210
Area #2 (2 tables) Per Day $55
Area #3 (2 tables) Per Day $55
Picnic Areas - Avalon Park
5 small tables Per Day $176
Picnic Areas - Buri Buri Park
I (6 tables) Per Day $210
II (2 tables) Per Day $55
III (3 tables) Per Day $81
IV (3 tables) Per Day $81
Picnic Areas - Sellick Park
7 tables, includes Campfire area Per Day $244
Picnic Areas - Westborough Park
Extended Hours Per Hour $43
Additional Gas Grill Each $70
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
Fee Title Unit Total Cost
Sheltered Area (18 tables) Per Day $623
Area 2 (5 tables) Per Day $176
Combined Sheltered Area & Area 2 (23 tables) Per Day $794
The above amounts include costs associated with picnic facility oversite, site clean-up,
and onsite supervision, but do not account for market rental rates of space. As noted
earlier in this report, the City can choose to set their resident and non-resident fees in
accordance with City policy and recovery guidelines.
2 Facility Rentals
The City currently has five buildings which include space that can be rented by the public
for meetings, parties, or events: Magnolia Center, Municipal Services Building,
Westborough Park Building, Joseph A. Fernekes Building, and the Terrabay Recreation
Center. Similar to picnic rentals, all facility rentals must pay an application fee. The
following table looks at the current application fee being charged, the full cost, and surplus
/ deficit associated with application processing.
Table 36: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Facility Rental Application
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus /
(Deficit) per Unit
Application Processing $83 $106 ($23)
The Parks and Recreation department currently charges $83 to process a facility rental
application, including review of insurance requirements and property rules. Through this
study the full cost associated with staff time was calculated to be $106.
Along with application processing, all facility rentals require a refundable security deposit
to ensure proper use of the space. Each facility rental is rented hourly, with different
location and room types, which stipulate varying minimum rental hours. Hourly rental fees
depend on the renter’s status as either a resident, non-resident, or non-profit group.
The project team worked with Recreation staff to determine the approximate time
associated with facilitating room rentals, including room set-up, room clean-up, and any
onsite staff required during rentals. The following table outlines the full cost calculated for
facility rentals.
Table 37: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Facility Rentals
Fee Title Unit Total Cost
Facility Rentals - Magnolia Center
Full Center Per Hour $57
Meeting Room Rental Per Hour $29
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
Fee Title Unit Total Cost
Facility Rentals - Municipal Services Building
Social Hall w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $78
Atrium Kitchen (As add-on to Social Hall only - Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $60
Social Hall (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $78
Atrium/Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $52
Atrium w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $52
Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $9
Marie Peterson Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $9
Betty Weber Room & Butterfly Room (Min. 1 hour rental) Per Hour $29
Community Room w/o Kitchen, No Food (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $29
William M. Belloni Family Room (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $29
Rental Extras:
Portable Bar Each $22
Coffee Pot Each $4
Sound System Each $22
Flip Chart with Paper/Markers Each $4
LCD Projector Each $22
Event Day Room Setup Adjustment Each $43
LCD Displays Each $22
Portable Stage Each $86
Projection Screens Each $22
Facility Rentals - Westborough Park Building
Multi-Use / Activity Rooms w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Multi-Use Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Facility Rentals - Joseph A. Fernekes Building
Multi Use Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Rental Extras:
Outside Gas Grill Each $70
Facility Rentals - Terrabay Recreation Center
Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen, Gym and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Gym (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 & 2 w/Kitchen (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Gymnasium (Min. 3 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 and 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Poppy Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 1 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 2 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
Iris Room 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental) Per Hour $57
The above amounts include costs associated with facility oversite, site clean-up, and
onsite supervision, but do not account for market rental rates of space. As noted earlier
in this report, the City can choose to set their resident and non-resident fees in
accordance with City policy and recovery guidelines.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
3 Miscellaneous Services
The Parks and Recreation Department offers rentals associated with Community Garden
plots and Artist Studio space. The project team worked with Recreation staff to determine
the approximate time associated with facilitating these rentals, and specific costs
associated with these services such as water and equipment for the garden plots, and
access to the artist studio. The following table outlines the full cost calculated for garden
plot and artist studio rentals.
Table 38: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Garden Plot and Artist Studio Rentals
Fee Title Unit Total Cost
Community Garden Plot Per Plot $469
Artist Studio Fee Per Sq. Ft. $0.78
As these are market based fees, the City can choose to set their fees in accordance with
City policy and recovery guidelines.
Parks and Recreation staff facilitate the sale of tickets to special events, as well as provide
support to those events via support staff. Parks staff are also responsible for reviewing
and issuing tree permits. The total cost calculated for each of these services includes
direct staff costs, Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the
title / name, current fee, total cost, and surplus or deficit associated with each service.
Table 39: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Miscellaneous Parks and Recreation
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit (Deficit) per Unit
Other Services
Special Event & Recital Tickets Each $13 $26 ($14)
Special Event Support Staff Per Hour $31 $39 ($8)
Tree Fees
Protected Tree Permit Each $105 $432 ($327)
Wholesale Tree Purchase Per Tree $500 Actual Cost
The City is currently under-recovering for both of its special event related services, with
ticket support showing a $14 subsidy, and support staff hourly rates showing a subsidy
of $8 per hour.
The Protected Tree Permit shows a subsidy of $327 per unit. The City’s current flat fee
of $500 for purchase of a wholesale tree is being proposed to be converted to actual cost.
This conversion will better allow the City recover costs associated with purchases of
wholesale trees, as costs could vary depending on the size and type of tree purchased.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
3 ANNUAL RESULTS
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the primary focus of the analysis of Parks and
Recreation cost of services was at the programmatic level, rather than a line item or fee
level. In order to review cost recovery, the project team looked at total revenue and
compared it to the direct costs associated with each program, as well as citywide and
divisional support. The City only charges fees and collects revenues for services provided
by Recreation division programs. The following table outlines the by fee program the FY
18-19 revenue collected, the full cost calculated (direct and indirect) annual surplus /
deficit, and cost recovery associated with each Recreation program.
Table 40: Annual Results – Recreation Programs
Fee Program FY18-19 Revenue Full Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit)
Aquatics Program $387,759 $1,125,009 ($737,250)
Sports & Athletics $61,758 $678,030 ($616,272)
Rentals/Picnics $593,071 $708,192 ($115,121)
Classes/Events $529,529 $949,334 ($419,805)
Childcare $2,544,503 $5,440,547 ($2,896,044)
Senior Centers $25,259 $950,218 ($924,959)
TOTAL $4,141,879 $9,851,330 ($5,709,450)
Overall, Parks and Recreation has an annual subsidy of approximately $5,700,000, which
reflects 42% cost recovery. The largest source of the Department’s subsidy relates to
Childcare, which comprises about half of the overall deficit.
If Department and Citywide overhead were excluded from the calculation, Parks and
Recreation would have a deficit of $2,700,000, and cost recovery would increase to
approximately 60%.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
16. Comparative Survey
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of South San Francisco, the
Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified
ten jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey: Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly
City, Millbrae, Mountain View, Napa, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Bruno, and San
Mateo.
While this report will provide the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of
the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to consider the local
“market rates” for services as a means for assessing what types of changes in fee levels
their community can bear. However, a comparative survey does not provide adequate
information regarding the relationship of a jurisdiction’s cost to its fees.
The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative
survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs
for various permits issued or services provided by the City.
1 ECONOMIC FACTORS
In order to provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project
team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic
factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population,
budget, and workforce size. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to
largest for each of these economic factors:
Table 41: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Population
Jurisdiction 2019 Population
Brisbane 4,693
Millbrae 22,800
Burlingame 30,294
San Bruno 45,000
South San Francisco 67,078
Palo Alto 67,082
Napa 80,277
Mountain View 81,992
Redwood City 85,300
San Mateo 104,000
Daly City 107,864
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
Table 42: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Budget
Jurisdiction FY 19 / 20 Budget
Brisbane $29,275,017
Millbrae $85,058,105
Burlingame $85,287,568
San Bruno $88,756,413
San Mateo $191,179,012
Daly City $194,245,024
South San Francisco $219,193,431
Napa $251,507,000
Redwood City $290,314,935
Mountain View $523,993,855
Palo Alto $723,837,000
Table 43: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Workforce Size
Jurisdiction FY 19 / 20 FTE
Brisbane 91.24
Millbrae 94.00
Burlingame 214.27
San Bruno 265.00
Daly City 458.00
Napa 498.00
Redwood City 564.36
South San Francisco 578.29
San Mateo 612.61
Mountain View 629.75
Palo Alto 1,034.85
Based on the data shown in the above tables, the City of South San Francisco is just
below the middle in terms of population, and just above the middle when looking at budget
and size of workforce when compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
2 RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling
South San Francisco’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are
when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive
analysis was undertaken. The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last
conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
Table 44: Last Fee Study Update
Jurisdiction Response
Brisbane 20026
Burlingame 2016
Daly City Not within the last 10 years
Millbrae 2019
Mountain View 2019
Napa 20117
Palo Alto 2016
Redwood City 2017
San Bruno Not within the last 10 years
San Mateo 20188
Table 45: Last Fee Schedule Update
Jurisdiction Response
Brisbane 2019
Burlingame 2019
Daly City 2013
Millbrae 2019
Mountain View 2019
Napa 2018
Palo Alto 2019
Redwood City 2019
San Bruno 2019
San Mateo 2019
Seven of the ten jurisdictions surveyed have completed fee studies in the last ten years,
the majority of which were conducted within the last four years. All surveyed jurisdictions
have updated their fees within the last two years, with the exception of Daly City, which
has not increased its fees since 2013.
It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted fee studies, fees
are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the
adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdictions not necessarily the full cost associated with the
comparable service.
6 Brisbane conducts internal updates annually for the fee study (one dept a year).
7 Napa conducted a fee study update in 2015 of the Parks & Rec Department only.
8 The last fee study update for San Mateo included development services only. Public Works and other fees have not yet been
updated.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
3 ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following
issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for
service:
• Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual
cost of providing services.
• The same “fee” with the same name may include more or less steps or sub-
activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have
varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels,
salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc.
In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a
confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each
jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information
contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool,
rather than a tool for establishing an acceptable price point for services.
4 COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user
fees and calculated full cost compare to other similarly sized and regionally located
jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related
services provided by the City.
1 Film Application
The City Manager’s Office currently charges a fee of $573 to review an application to film
within the City. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service
to be $289. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost
compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
Of the jurisdictions surveyed, only San Bruno, Napa, Redwood City, and Burlingame
charge application fees for filming. As the graph indicates, South San Francisco’s current
fee is higher than the surveyed fees, however, its full cost calculated falls in line with the
average fee of $221.
2 Zoning Amendment
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $8,625 for processing a Zoning
Amendment request. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this
service to be $15,337. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full
cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As the graph indicates, while the City’s current fee is below the average of the surveyed
jurisdictions, its full cost is above the average. It is important to note that some of the
surveyed jurisdictions 9 charge for this service on a time and materials basis and the
9 The cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, Daly City, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charge on a time and material basis.
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost San Bruno Napa Redwood City BurlingameFee AmountFilm Application
Fee Average
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountZoning Amendment
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 67
information reflected above is only the initial deposit. Of the surveyed jurisdictions that
charge a flat fee, Millbrae charges the most ($20,000) and Brisbane charges the least
($1,725).
3 Zoning Verification Review
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $833 for conducting a Zoning Verification
Review. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to
be $899. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare
to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are above the average charged by the
surveyed jurisdictions ($561). South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost fall in line
with the fee charged by San Mateo. Palo Alto charges the most at $931. Several
jurisdictions10 surveyed charge based upon the fully burdened hourly rate.
4 Variance
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $4,312 for processing Variances. As part
of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $9,274. The
following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed
jurisdictions.
10 Palo Alto, San Mateo, Napa, and Brisbane charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Zoning Letters. In order to calculate a comparable
fee, the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions.
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa BrisbraneFee AmountZoning Verification Review
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 68
South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee of $4,360 charged by the
surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s current fee falls in line with Millbrae, Daly
City, and Burlingame’s fees, but the full cost calculated is over double the average fee.
The fee charged by Palo Alto is significantly more than other surveyed jurisdictions due
to the inclusion of hearing fees.
5 Appeal to City Council
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $1,725 for processing Appeals of
decisions made by the Zoning Administrator to the City Council. As part of this study, the
project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $5,231. The following graph
shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountVariance
Fee Average
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood
CityFee AmountAppeal to City Council
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee
charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($1,518). Most jurisdictions surveyed charge a
minimal fee for this service. It should be noted, appeals to City Council is a commonly
subsidized fee by many jurisdictions.
6 Design Review – Commercial / Industrial
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $2,559 for processing a Design Review
application for a commercial or industrial structure. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for this service to be $3,816. The following graph shows how the
division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are below
the average fee of $5,308. Due to the wide variation in the type of application review,
several surveyed jurisdictions charge this fee as a deposit11. While Palo Alto has the
highest fee, they charge the fee as a deposit to recover the full cost of providing the
services.
7 Single Family Residential Design Review
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $1,212 for processing a Design Review
application for a Single-Family Residential property. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for this service to be $2,603. The following graph shows how the
division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
11 The cities of Palo Alto, San Bruno, San Mateo, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charge based on time and
materials.
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountDesign Review -Commercial / Industrial
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 70
South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average and on the lower end of fees
charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. However, its full cost calculated falls in line with
the jurisdictional average of $2,620. It is important to note that some of the surveyed
jurisdictions12 charge for this service on a time and materials basis and the information
reflected above is only the initial deposit.
8 Multi-Family Residential Conditional Use Permit
The Planning Division currently charges a fee of $3,461 for processing a Conditional Use
Permit application for a multi-family residential property. As part of this study, the project
team calculated the full cost for this service to be $14,324. The following graph shows
how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
12 The cities of San Bruno, San Mateo, and Napa collect a deposit and charge on a time and material basis.
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountNew Single Family Residential Design Review
Fee Average
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Redwood City Mountain ViewFee AmountMulti-Family Residential Conditional Use Permit
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost fall below the jurisdictional average of
$17,423. Similar to other planning applications, several of the surveyed jurisdictions13
choose to charge a deposit for this service.
9 Residential ADU, 900 Sq. Ft., $141,462 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges $4,090 for plan review and inspection of a 900
sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) valued at $141,462. As part of this study, the project
team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $4,252. The following
graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As shown in the graph above, South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher
than the average ($3,309). Daly City, Napa, and Brisbane have the lowest fees surveyed,
which are well below the average. Daly City has not increased its fees in over seven years
and Napa and Brisbane calculate its fees based off of the project square footage rather
than project valuation resulting in lower fees.
10 New Single-Family Residence, 3,350 Sq. Ft., $406,000 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $7,344 for plan review and inspection of
a New 3,350 sq. ft. Single Family Residence valued at $406,000. As part of this study,
the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $7,612. The
following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed
jurisdictions.
13 The cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, Millbrae, Napa, and Redwood City collect a deposit and charges on a time and material basis.
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeAdditional Dwelling Unit
900 sqft, $141,462 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 72
South San Francisco’s current fee is just below the average fee charged by the surveyed
jurisdictions ($7,481), while the full cost is just above the average. San Mateo has the
highest fee, while Brisbane has the lowest fee.
11 New Lab, 280,765 Sq. Ft., $74,000,000 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $129,264 for plan review and inspection
of a New 280,765 sq. ft. Lab valued at $74,000,000. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $375,665. The following graph
shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest fee charged among the surveyed
jurisdictions and below the average plan check and inspection fee of $466,016. The full
cost calculated through this study is also below the average, just above San Mateo.
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeSingle-Family Residence
3,350 sqft, $406,000 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeNew Lab
280,765 sqft, $74,000,000 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
12 New Office, 15,000 Sq. Ft., $2,041,200 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $20,193 for plan review and inspection
of a New 15,000 sq. ft. Office valued at $2,041,200. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be $19,141. The following graph
shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest among surveyed jurisdictions. The full
cost calculated is below the average fee of $26,439, and just above the fees charged by
San Mateo and Redwood City.
13 New Multi-Family, 157,364 Sq. Ft., $41,164,326 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $81,785 for plan review and inspection
of a 157,364 square foot new Multi-Family building valued at $41,164,326. As part of this
study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be
$280,375. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare
to surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeNew Lab
280,765 sqft, $74,000,000 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest charged compared to all surveyed
jurisdictions. The full cost calculated is just below the average fee of $288,205. Millbrae
and Napa have the lowest fees surveyed, and San Bruno, Brisbane, and Burlingame have
the highest fees.
14 Commercial Tenant Improvement, 9,073 Sq. Ft., $968,333 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $15,627 for plan review and inspection
of a 9,073 sq. ft. Commercial Tenant Improvement valued at $968,333. As part of this
study, the project team calculated the full cost for plan review and inspection to be
$15,062. The following graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare
to surveyed jurisdictions.
Both South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost are in line with the
jurisdictional average of $15,258. Palo Alto and San Mateo have the highest fees
surveyed, while Daly City and Napa have the lowest fees.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeMulti-Family Housing (172 units)
157,364 sqft, $41,164,326 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeCommercial Tenant Improvement
9,073 sqft, $968,333 valuation
Plan Check Permit Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 75
15 Residential Re-roof, $12,000 Valuation
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $350 for plan check and inspection of
Residential Reroofs. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost of
providing this service to be $512. The following graph shows how the division’s current
fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is just below the average
of $384, while the full cost calculated through this study in on par with Millbrae, and lower
than Brisbane. Several jurisdictions14 charge for reroofs based on the valuation of the
project, while Brisbane charges per 1,000 square feet15.
16 Water Heater
The Building Division currently charges a fee of $125 for permit issuance and inspection
of a Water Heater. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for
providing this service to be $137. The following graph shows how the division’s current
fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
14 San Bruno, Daly City, and Burlingame’s fees were calculated using an average valuation of $12,000.
15 Brisbane charges per 1,000 sq. ft., therefore the fee is based on an average of 2,000 sq. ft. reroof.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeResidential Reroof
Permit Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 76
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher than the surveyed jurisdictional
average of $83. However, the current fee falls in line with fees charged by Millbrae and
Redwood City. Brisbane is the only jurisdiction that does not have a flat fee and charges
based on valuation; an average valuation of $1,800 was used to calculated the fee. It
should be noted that Water Heater permits are often subsidized by many jurisdictions to
encourage the community to obtain the permit before performing work.
17 Fire Service Ambulance ALS Transports
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $2,018 for providing Advanced Life
Support (ALS) transport services. As part of this study, the project team calculated the
full cost for this service to be $3,075. The following graph shows how the department’s
current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee falls in line with fees charged by Palo Alto and Napa.
However, its full cost is higher than the average fee charged by all surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewPermit FeeWater Heater
Permit Fee Average
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo County
(AMR)
Napa Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Service Ambulance Transportation ALS
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 77
San Bruno, San Mateo, Millbrae, Daly City, Brisbane, Redwood City, and Burlingame are
all under the San Mateo County AMR contract for Ambulance Transportation.
18 Fire Service Ambulance Transportation BLS Emergency
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $2,018 for providing Basic Life Support
(BLS) transport services. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for
this service to be $3,075. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee
and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average fee charged by the surveyed
jurisdictions ($1,984) and is higher than all other fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions.
San Bruno, San Mateo, Millbrae, Daly City, Brisbane, Redwood City, and Burlingame are
all under the San Mateo County AMR contract for Ambulance Transportation.
19 Annual Fire Operational Permit – Large Family Daycare
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for the Large Family Daycare Annual
Operational Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this
service to be $22416. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and
full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
16 The full cost includes a base square footage fee of up to 5,000 sq. ft. as well as the operation permit fee.
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
SSF - Current SSF - Full Cost Palo Alto San Mateo County
(AMR)
Napa Mountain ViewFee AmountFire Service Ambulance Transportation BLS
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
South San Francisco’s current fee is well above the average charged by the surveyed
jurisdictions ($199) and is only comparable to Palo Alto. It’s full cost falls in line with fee
charged by Brisbane and Redwood City and is just above the overall average fee.
20 Annual Fire Operational Permit – Repair Garage
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for a Repair Garage Annual
Operational Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this
service to be $337 17. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and
full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
The City’s current fee and full cost are above the average fee ($221) charged by the
surveyed jurisdictions. Both the current fee and full cost are among the highest for fees
charged by surveyed jurisdictions. The only jurisdiction that charges a higher fee for this
service is Palo Alto at $393.
17 The full cost includes a base square footage fee of up to 5,000 sq. ft. as well as the operation permit fee.
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountFire Operational Permit -Large Family Daycare
Fee Average
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountFire Operational Permit -Large Family Daycare
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 79
21 Annual Multi-Family Housing Inspection 3-10 Units
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $264 for Multi-Family Housing Inspections
for locations with 3-10 units. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost
for this service to be $192. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee
and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As the graph indicates, the City’s current fee is above the average fee ($214); while its
full cost is below the average fee. The full cost falls in line with fees charged by San Mateo
and Daly City.
22 Fire Prevention – Temporary Membrane (Tent)
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $351 for review and inspection of a
Temporary Membrane (Tent). As part of this study, the project team calculated the full
cost for this service to be $365. The following graph shows how the department’s current
fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood City Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountFire Multi-Family Housing Inspection 3-10 units
Fee Average
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountFire Prevention -Temporary Membrane (Tent)
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are in line with the surveyed jurisdictional
average fee of $369. Palo Alto’s fee is almost double the average fee.
23 Residential Fire Sprinkler up to $6,000
The Fire Department currently charges a fee of $703 for plan review and inspection of
Residential Fire Sprinklers valued at up to $6,000. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for this service to be $758. The following graph shows how the
department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are higher than the jurisdictional average
fee of $565. The City’s full cost falls in line with fees charged by San Mateo and Daly City.
24 Encroachment Permit - $50,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation
The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,368 for plan review and inspection
of an Encroachment Permit whose project cost is valued at $50,000. As part of this study,
the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $2,290. The following graph
shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Daly City Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
BurlingameFee AmountResidential Fire Sprinkler up to $6,000
Fee Average
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Brisbane Burlingame Millbrae Mountain
View
Palo Alto Redwood City San Bruno San MateoFee AmountEnroachment Permit -$50,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost
are below the average fee of $2,939. The City’s full cost falls in line with fees charged by
Millbrae and San Bruno. There is an extreme variation in how encroachment plan review
and inspection fees are charged by surveyed jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions18 charge
an initial deposit and then bill for additional time and materials spent on the review; while
other jurisdictions19 surveyed charge based upon the fully burdened hourly rate. Only
Millbrae, Mountain View, and Palo Alto charge a flat fee for this service.
25 Encroachment Permit - $100,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation
The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,900 for plan review and inspection
of an Encroachment Permit whose project cost is valued at $100,000. As part of this
study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $9,176. The following
graph shows how the division’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s full cost is above the average charged by the surveyed
jurisdictions ($7,169) but falls in line with fees charged by Millbrae and San Bruno. Some
jurisdictions20 charge an initial deposit and then bill for additional time and materials spent
on the review; whereas, other jurisdictions 21 surveyed charge based upon the fully
burdened hourly rate. Only three jurisdictions22 charge a flat fee for this service.
26 Grading Permit of 10,000 Cubic Yards
The Engineering Division currently charges a fee of $1,520 for plan review and inspection
of Grading Permit of 10,000 cubic yards. As part of this study, the project team calculated
18 Burlingame, Redwood City, and San Mateo collect a deposit and charge based on time and materials.
19 Brisbane and San Bruno charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Encroachment services. In order to calculate a comparable fee,
the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions.
20 Burlingame, Redwood City, and San Mateo collect a deposit and charge based on time and materials.
21 Brisbane and San Bruno charge a fully burdened hourly rate for Encroachment services. In order to calculate a comparable fee,
the hours utilized to derive South San Francisco’s full cost fee were utilized to calculate the fees for these jurisdictions.
22 Millbrae, Mountain View, and Palo Alto charge a flat fee for this service.
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Brisbane Burlingame Millbrae Mountain
View
Palo Alto Redwood
City
San Bruno San MateoFee AmountEncroachment Permit -$100,000 Engineering Cost Construction Valuation
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 82
the full cost for this service to be $3,595. The following graph shows how the division’s
current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s full cost is below the average charged by the surveyed jurisdictions
($7,360) but falls in line with fees charged by Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Bruno.
San Bruno23 calculates current fees based upon fully burdened hourly rates, and the time
it takes to plan review and inspect these systems. San Mateo’s fee is charged as a
deposit.
27 Food Facility Discharge Permit
The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $152 for inspection of a
Food Facility Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full
cost for this service to be $1,999. The following graph shows how the division’s current
fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
23 Fees for San Bruno were calculated using the same number of hours as the basis for South San Francisco’s full cost fee.
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Brisbane Burlingame Daly City Mountain
View
Palo Alto San Bruno San MateoFee Amount10,000 Cubic Yards Grading Permit
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average
fee of $1,148. South San Francisco’s full cost falls in line with fee charged by Burlingame
and is lower than the fee charged by Palo Alto. It is important to note that fees above are
not consistent across the jurisdictions because they are accounting for different types24
of discharge permits.
28 SIU Wastewater Discharge Permit
The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $609 for inspection of a SIU
Wastewater Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full
cost for this service to be $2,469. The following graph shows how the division’s current
fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
While South San Francisco’s current fee is below the average, its full cost is higher than
the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($1,893). Similar to the Food
24 Palo Alto charges for an Industrial Waste Discharge permit, San Mateo charges for a Class B Waste Discharge permit, Millbrae
charges for Septic Discharges, Redwood City’s fee is an initial deposit, and Burlingame is charging for a Moderate Discharge permit.
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood
City
BurlingameFee AmountFood Facility Discharge Permit
Fee Average
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood
City
BurlingameFee AmountSIU Wastewater Discharge Permit
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
Facility Discharge permit, the surveyed jurisdictions charge these fees in a variety of
ways25.
29 General/Groundwater Discharge Permit
The Water Quality Control Division currently charges a fee of $152 for inspection of a
General/Groundwater Discharge Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated
the full cost for this service to be $521. The following graph shows how the division’s
current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
While South San Francisco’s current fee is well below the surveyed jurisdiction’s fees, the
full cost is just below the average fee charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($684). The
types of fees being charged vary26 but are all under this General/Groundwater Discharge
Permit category.
30 Fingerprinting Cards
The Police Department currently charges a fee of $58 for a Fingerprinting Card. As part
of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $42. The
following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to
surveyed jurisdictions.
25 Palo Alto is charging for an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, San Mateo is charging for a Class A Waste Discharge permit,
Redwood City’s fee is an initial deposit, and Burlingame is charging for a Heavy Discharge permit. Millbrae is charged at a base of
$500 plus $50 per employee; we assumed 20 employees in our calculations.
26 Palo Alto charges for an Industrial Waste Discharge permit, San Mateo charges a Class B Waste Discharge permit, Millbrae
charges for Groundwater that is more than 1,000 gallons annually, and Redwood City just charges an initial deposit.
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Redwood
City
BurlingameFee AmountGeneral/Groundwater Discharge Permit
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 85
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s current fee is the highest compared
to the fees charged by surveyed jurisdictions. South San Francisco’s full cost calculated
is still above the average fee ($29) and many of the surveyed jurisdictions, with the
exception of the City of Palo Alto.
31 Cab Company Driver Permit
The Police Department currently charges $58 for review and issuance of a Cab Company
Driver Permit. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service
to be $243. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost
compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
As shown above, South San Francisco’s current fee is the lowest compared to the fees
charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. In contrast, South San Francisco’s full cost
calculated is the highest fee even above the average fee of $147. The full cost fee for the
City is slightly higher than the fee charged by Millbrae.
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountFingerprinting Cards
Fee Average
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountCab Company Driver Permit -New
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 86
32 Massage Establishment
The Police Department currently charges $1,803 for review and issuance of a Massage
Establishment – New with CAMTC / Practitioner Owner permit. As part of this study, the
project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $408. The following graph shows
how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee is the highest compared to the fees charged by the
surveyed jurisdictions. The city’s full cost is in line with the average ($329) of the surveyed
jurisdictions27. Note that Redwood City does not charge a fee for a massage permit as
long as the establishment has a sole owner with a CAMTC Certificate.
33 Vehicle Release
The Police Department currently charges $180 for processing a Vehicle Release. As part
of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $125. The
following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to
surveyed jurisdictions.
27 Redwood City charges $0 for this permit as long as there is a sole owner with a California Massager Therapy Council (CAMTC)
certificate.
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountMassage Establishment -New with CAMTC/Practioner Owner
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
As the graph above indicates, South San Francisco’s full cost is in line with the average
fee ($125) charged by the surveyed jurisdictions.
34 Clearance Letter
The Police Department currently charges $10 for processing a Clearance Letter request.
As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $31.
The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to
surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee is one of the lowest fees charged by surveyed
jurisdictions. It’s full cost while above the average ($20) fee charged by the surveyed
jurisdictions, is in line with Palo Alto, San Bruno, Napa, and Burlingame.
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountVehicle Release
Vehicle Release Fee Vehicle Release Average
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Palo Alto San Bruno San Mateo Millbrae Napa Brisbrane Redwood
City
Burlingame Mountain
ViewFee AmountClearance Letter
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
35 Affordable Housing Development Agreement
The Housing Division does not currently charge a fee for Affordable Housing
Development Applications or Agreements. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for the review of an application and processing of an agreement
to be $1,138. The following graph shows how the division’s full cost compares to surveyed
jurisdictions who charge for these services. None of the surveyed jurisdictions provide
affordable housing services; therefore, the project team compiled information from
surveyed jurisdictions who do provide these services.
As the graph above indicates, the full cost for South San Francisco is less than the fees28
charged by all the surveyed jurisdictions that provide the same services.
36 Single Family Refinance or Subordination of Agreement or Loan
The Housing Division does not currently charge a fee for Refinancing or a Subordination
of Agreement or Loan for a Single-Family Home. As part of this study, the project team
calculated the full cost for this service to be $335. The following graph shows how the
division’s full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions who charge for these services.
28 South San Francisco’s full cost includes an additional $541 for an application fee. Santa Clara’s fee also includes an additional
$50 for an application fee.
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
SSF - Full Cost Santa Clara Sunnyale San JoseFee AmountAffordable Housing Development Agreement
Agreement Average
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
SSF - Full Cost Santa Clara San Mateo Sunnyale San JoseFee AmountRefinance or Subordination of Agreement or Loan -Single Family
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
Santa Clara charges the highest fee for this service at $1,060; whereas San Mateo and
San Jose charge a similar fee ($250 and $268). Sunnyvale’s fee of $400 is only slightly
above South San Francisco’s full cost of $335.
37 Picnic Area
The Parks and Recreations Department currently charges a fee of $71 per rental for a
small picnic area that holds 20 people or less for up to four hours on a weekend. As part
of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this service to be $54. The
following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to
surveyed jurisdictions.
South San Francisco’s current fee and calculated full cost are both below the average fee
charged by the surveyed jurisdictions ($95). Brisbane and San Bruno charge their fees
on a per hour basis while the remaining surveyed jurisdictions charge on a per use or per
day basis.
38 Meeting Room Rental
The Parks and Recreations Department currently charges a fee of $88 per rental for
renting a small meeting room to a non-resident on a weekday for up to two hours without
access to a kitchen. As part of this study, the project team calculated the full cost for this
service to be $57. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full
cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
SSF -
Current
SSF - Full
Cost
Brisbane Burlingame Daly City Millbrae Napa Palo Alto Redwood
City
San Bruno San MateoFee AmountResident Picnic Area Rental for 4 hrs on weekend for <20 people
Picnic Fee Picnic Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
South San Francisco’s current fee and full cost are generally lower than the fees charged
by surveyed jurisdictions.
5 SUMMARY
Based upon the comparative survey, the City’s full cost is generally higher than current
fees charged by the surveyed jurisdictions. However, as aforementioned, it is important
to remember to utilize this survey as a secondary decision-making tool; as many
jurisdictions might have different cost recovery goals and policies for different types of
user fees.
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
SSF - Current SSF - Full
Cost
Brisbane Daly City Millbrae Mountain
View
Napa Palo Alto Redwood City San BrunoFee AmountNon-Residential Small Meeting Room Rental -
Weekday 2 hrs
Fee Average
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
17. Cost Recovery Considerations
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees,
determining annual update factors, and developing cost recovery policies and
procedures.
1 FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under
and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now
need to review the results of the study and adjust fees in accordance with Departmental
and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the
City has in adjusting its fees.
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting
for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line
with the full cost of providing the service.
• Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services
provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately.
• Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low cost recovery levels, or which
would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to
increase fees gradually over a set period of time.
The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery
levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that
currently show an over-recovery are fairly straight forward, the following subsections,
provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full
Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.
1 Full Cost Recovery
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full
cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an
increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant
increase associated with full cost recovery.
Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost
recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often,
these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which
are unable to be increased.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely
engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can
involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting
these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested,
the City is recovering the full cost of its services.
2 Phased Increases
Depending on current cost recovery levels some current fees may need to be increased
significantly in order to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due
to the type of permit or review, or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it
may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching their cost recovery goals.
As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing
20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need
to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, in order to be in compliance. Assuming this
particular service is something the City provides quite often, and affects various members
of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City
could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period
until cost recovery is achieved.
Raising fees over a set period of time not only allows the City to monitor and control the
impact to applicants, but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant
increases. Continuing with the example laid out above, the City could increase the fee by
$150 for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall
increase, and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years
by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the
City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum
window for which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.
2 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would
be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee
analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they
account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well
as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements.
Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of
cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit
services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
(CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further
detail on each of these mechanisms.
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual
salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases
are not tied to merit or seniority, but rather meant to offset rising costs associated
with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary
depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally speaking
these factors are around two or three percent annually.
• CPI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost
indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are
specific to states and regions.
The City should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI) to
determine which option better reflects the goals of departments and the City. If choosing
a CPI factor, the City should outline which particular CPI should be used, including
specific region, and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, again, the City should
be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist.
3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study has identified the permit areas where the City is under-collecting the cost
associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized
by other City revenue sources. Based on the information provided in this report, at a global
or per unit level, the City may not have any issues with using non-fee related revenue to
account for the current deficit.
Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will serve to ensure that current
and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as
well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following
subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits associated with
developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost
recovery.
1 Typical Cost Recovery
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government
operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery levels. The
table on the following page outlines these cost recovery levels by major department.
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 94
Table 46: Typical Cost Recovery Levels by Department
Department Typical Cost Recovery
Building 80 – 100%
Planning 50 – 80%
Fire 80 – 100%
Finance 40% - 70%
Police 20 – 40%
Recreation 20 – 50%
Engineering 80 – 100%
Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s
experience in analyzing local government’s operations across the United States and in
California and reflects typical cost recovery levels observed by local adopting authorities.
The following graph depicts how South San Francisco compares to industry cost recovery
standards.
With the exception of Building and Fire, all departments have cost recovery levels that fall
within typical industry standards.
2 Development of Cost Recovery Policies and Procedures
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy
regarding cost recovery. This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to
the City as a whole, or to each department and division specifically. A department specific
cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated
with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received.
107%
61%
125%
85%85%
42%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%BuildingPlanningFireEngineeringWater QualityParks and RecreationCurrent Cost Recovery vs. Typical Cost Recovery
Typical Cost Recovery
Current Cost Recovery
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %1. CITY CLERKTranscripts1.01 CC4Folio RateEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost1.02 CC4Additional CopiesPer Page $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) 40% Public Records$0.25100%Subpoena Processing Fees1.03 CC5Complying with each subpoena and delivering records to attorney, attorney's representative, or deposition officerEach$16 $15 $1 107% Evidence Code$15100%1.04 CC6Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records availablePer Hour$26 $24 $2 108% Evidence Code$24100%1.05 CC7Standard reproduction of documents 8 1/2 x 14 inches or lessPer Page$0.20 $0.10 $0.10 200% Evidence Code$0.10100%1.06 CC8Standard reproduction of larger size documentsPer Page$0.30 Actual CostEvidence CodeActual Cost1.07 CC9Daily cost for City employee required to remain in attendance pursuant to a subpoenaPer Day$291 $275 $16.00 106% Govt Code Sec$275100%Campaign and Candidate Fees1.08 CC13Campaign Disclosure Statements (FPPC)Per Page$0.10 $0.10 $0.00 100% Govt Code 810$0.10100%1.09 CC14Candidate StatementsPer Statement$600 Actual CostElection Code Actual Cost1.10Candidate Processing FeePer Application$25Election Code $25100%Other Fees1.11 CC17Preparing Proof of Residence Letters or Notarizing Proof of Living DocumentsPer Signature$9 $15 ($6) 60% Govt Code 121$15100%1.12 CC18PostageEachActual Cost Actual CostSet by USPS Actual Cost1.13All PhotocopiesPer Page $0.10 $0.25 ($0.15) 40% Public Records$0.25100%2. CITY MANAGER2.01 CM1Film Application PermitEach$573 $289 $284 198% User Fee$289100%3. FINANCEBusiness License:3.01 F1Master ListEach$9 $11 ($2) 82% User Fee$11100%3.02 F1Monthly UpdateEach$9 $11 ($2) 82% User Fee$11100%3.03Business License CopyPer Copy$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% Public Records$0.25100%3.04Business License Certificate ReprintEach$10 $11 ($1) 91% User Fee$11100%3.05 F2Overdue Invoices (10% minimum)Penalty1% of Bill Monthly1% of Bill MonthlyPenalty1% of Bill MonthlyCannabis Operator Fees3.06 F3Cannabis Operator Permit ApplicationPer Application$7,791 $9,676 ($1,885) 81% User Fee$9,676100%3.07 F3Cannabis Business InspectionPer Inspection$373 $468 ($95) 80% User Fee$468100%3.08 F3Cannabis Operator PermitPer Business$15,809 $18,343 ($2,534) 86% User Fee$18,343100%Miscellaneous FeesReturned Check Fees3.09 F4First CheckEach$25 $25 $0 100% Civil Code Sec$25100%3.10 F4Subsequent Returned ChecksEach$35 $35 $0 100% Civil Code Sec$35100%Credit Card Fees3.11 F5Transaction FeePercentage of Fee Charged2.20% 3.00%Surcharge3.00%100%4. LIBRARYDamaged and Missing Materials4.01AV Materials (contents or item damage)Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Penalty Actual Cost4.02Missing Book, DVD, etc. from SetEachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual Cost4.03Missing CD - from Audio Book Vendors that offer ReplacementEachated Cost of Seted Cost of SetPenalty Prorated Cost of Set4.04Books & EquipmentEachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual CostLost, Replacement Charges - Material Charges4.05CD/DVD CasesEach$2$6 ($4) 33% Penalty$583%4.06Magazines EachActual Cost Actual CostPenalty Actual CostLost, Replacement Charges - Processing Fee (Peninsula Library Automated Network Policy) Applies to all Materials:4.07Catalogued MaterialsEach$5$7 ($2) 71% Set by Peninsu$571%4.08Generic MaterialsEach$2$3 ($1) 67% Set by Peninsu$267%Fines for Overdue Materials4.09Adult Materials, Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs etc. (Only affects adult borrowers)Per Day$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% Penalty$0.25100%4.10Children's Materials - Books, Audio, Video, Magazines, DVDs, etc. (Only affects adult borrowers)Per Day$0.15 $0.15 $0.00 100% Penalty$0.15100%4.11 L19Past Due Patron Accounts Referred to a Collection AgencyPer Referral$10.00 $13.00 ($3.00) 77% User Fee$10.00Reserve: Out of County Reserve / Inter-Library Loan4.12 L29SSF residentsEach$3 $39 ($36) 8% User Fee$38%4.13 L29Non-residentsEach$5 $39 ($34) 13% User Fee$1026%Miscellaneous Charges4.14PayPal Convenience FeePer Transaction$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% Surcharge$0.50100%4.15 L33USB DrivesEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost4.16Micro SD CardsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost4.17 L34Field Trip FeeEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostComputer Printouts4.18 L21Black & WhitePer Page$0.15 $0.15 $0.00 100% Market Rate$0.15100%4.19 L21ColorPer Page$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% Market Rate$0.50100%4.20 L22History Book - SSFEach$5$5 $0 100% User Fee$5100%History Room Photographs - Digital Copies4.21 L23Copy of CD/DVD/USBEachActual Cost$3User Fee$3100%4.22 L24History Room Photographs Print CopiesEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostPostcards - SSF, 3.5" x 5"4.23 L25Black & WhiteEach$0.50 $0.50 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.50100%4.24 L25ColorEach$1$1 $0 100% User Fee$1100%4.25 L28Postcard, IDEachActual Cost Actual CostSet By USPS Actual CostOther Copies4.26 L26Microfilm CopiesEach$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%4.27 L27PhotocopyPer Page $0.20 $0.25 ($0.05) 80% User Fee$0.25100%1 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %5. POLICEFingerprinting5.01 P1Fingerprint Cards (All individuals, City Employees excluded) - DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable Per Person$58 $42 $16 138% User Fee$42100%5.02 P1Live Scan Fingerprinting - DOJ or FBI fees may be applicable Per Person$75 $79 ($4) 94% User Fee$79100%PermitsAlarm Registration (Commercial)5.03 P2New/RenewalEach$27 $34 ($7) 79% User Fee$34100%Bingo5.04 P5Initial Permit (Refundable if denied)Each$58 $205 ($147) 28% User Fee$205100%5.05 P5Annual RenewalEach$539 $205 $334 263% User Fee$205100%Card room I.D. Card:5.06 P6Initial Operator PermitEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%5.07 P6Initial Employee PermitEach$359 $205 $154 175% User Fee$205100%5.08 P6Annual Renewal (for operator & employee permit)Each$90 $205 ($115) 44% User Fee$205100%5.09 P6ReplacementEach$90 $102 ($12) 88% User Fee$102100%Cab Company:5.10 P7Driver PermitEach$58 $243 ($185) 24% User Fee$243100%Vehicle for Hire:5.11 P8Initial Certificate of Convenience and NecessityEach $7,223 $2,050 $5,173 352% User Fee $2,050 100%5.12 P8Certificate of RenewalEach$180 $205 ($25) 88% User Fee$205100%Special Event Permit5.13For ProfitEach$264 $270 ($6) 98% User Fee$270100%5.14 P9Non-Profit Group / Charity EventEach$185 $270 ($85) 69% User Fee$18569%Junk Collector5.15 P10Junk CollectorEach$90 $63 $27 143% User Fee$63100%Massage Establishment or Bath House:5.16 P11Initial PermitEach$1,803 $410 $1,393 440% User Fee$410100%5.17 P11Annual RenewalEach$180 $205 ($25) 88% User Fee$205100%Pawnbroker/Secondhand Goods Background Investigation:5.18 P13DealerEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%5.19 P13EmployeeEach$359 $205 $154 175% User Fee$205100%Fortune Telling5.20 P14Fortune TellingEach$1,803 $615 $1,188 293% User Fee$615100%Tow Vehicle Companies:5.21 P15Company PermitEach$180 $138 $42 130% User Fee$138100%5.22 P15Driver PermitEach$180 $107 $73 168% User Fee$107100%Renewal:5.23 P16Tow Service Franchise FeeEach$53 $142 ($89) 37% User Fee$2014%5.24 P16Replacement of Lost, Stolen, or Mutilated PermitsEach$42 $142 ($100) 30% User Fee$142100%5.25 P16Reissued PermitsEach$42 $142 ($100) 30% User Fee$142100%Miscellaneous FeesPolice Records5.26P19/P20/P22/P23Media - Non-Redacted (Video Tape, DVD Video, Cassette Tape, CD - Audio)Each$53 $67 ($14) 79% User Fee$67100%5.27 P21Media - Redacted (In Car / Bodycam Video - DVD)Per Hour of Staff Time$106 $247 ($141) 43% User Fee$247100%5.28 P24Police ReportsPer Page$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%5.29 P17Photographs - Digital Photographs on DisksEach$58 $42 $16 138% User Fee$42100%5.30 P26TranscriptsPer Page$0.25 $0.25 $0.00 100% User Fee$0.25100%Firearm / Ammunition Storage 5.31 P31Single Firearm Storage Administration Each$359 $364 ($5) 99% User Fee$364100%5.32 P31Each Additional Weapon Storage AdministrationEach$359 $364 ($5) 99% User Fee$364100%5.33 P32Ammunition Storage AdministrationEach $143 $130 $13 110% User Fee $130 100%Special Personnel Services5.34 P25Staff Police OfficerEach$116 $192 ($76) 60% User Fee$12163%5.35 P25Discounted Rate for SSFUSDEach$95 $192 ($97) 49% User Fee$10052%Other Miscellaneous Fees5.36 P33Clearance LetterEach$10 $31 ($21) 32% User Fee$31100%5.37 P18Vehicle AbatementEach$359 $254 $105 141% User Fee$254100%5.38 P28Towed Vehicle Release, Negligent OperatorEach$180 $126 $54 143% User Fee$126100%5.39 P27Emergency Response to Driving Under the Influence (DUI) AccidentsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost5.40 P27Incident Response (includes Accident, Hazmat, DUI or other incident)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostFalse Alarm5.41 P32nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$106 $106 $0 100% Penalty$106100%5.42 P33rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$211 $211 $0 100% Penalty$211100%5.43 P34th and other additional alarms within 12 months of the 1st preventable alarmPer Incident$529 $529 $0 100% Penalty$529100%5.44 P4False Alarm Fine AppealPer Appeal$58 $68 ($10) 85% Penalty$68100%2 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %6. FIRETransport Fees6.01 F1ALS IPer Trip $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee $2,500 81%6.02 F2ALS IIPer Trip $2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee $2,500 81%6.03 F3BLS (Emergency) Per Trip$2,018 $3,075 ($1,057) 66% User Fee$2,50081%6.04 F4BLS (Non-Emergency)Per Trip$704 $1,076 ($372) 65% User Fee$87281%6.05First Responder FeePer Response$461User Fee$37581%6.06 F7Mileage (All levels)Per Mile$53 $23 $30 230% User Fee$23100%6.07 F8OxygenPer Use$127 $137 ($10) 93% User Fee$137100%Fire Service Training6.08 F9First-Aid / Adult CPR / AED Classes for Residents (cost of textbook and certification card)Per Person$31 $37 ($6) 84% User Fee$37100%6.09 F10First-Aid / CPR / AED Classes for Non-ResidentsPer Person$106 $37 $69 286% User Fee$37100%6.10 F11First-Aid / CPR Classes for SSF BusinessesPer Person$58 $21 $37 276% User Fee$21100%6.11 F13Pediatric Education for Prehospital Professionals (For residents and non-residents)Per Person$127 $115 $12 110% User Fee$115100%American Heart Association "Professional Level" courses for the public and other outside agencies6.12 F14ACLS Knowledge and Skills Review WorkshopPer Person$185 $949 ($764) 19% User Fee$949100%Initial Recognition6.13 F15Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per Person$248 $1,067 ($819) 23% User Fee$1,067100%6.14 F15Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per Person $248 $949 ($701) 26% User Fee $949 100%6.15 F15HCP)Per Person$80 $206 ($126) 39% User Fee$206100%Re-recognition6.16 F16Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS)Per Person$201 $534 ($333) 38% User Fee$534100%6.17 F16Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS)Per Person $201 $474 ($273) 42% User Fee $474 100%6.18 F16HCP)Per Person $53 $103 ($50) 51% User Fee $103 100%Other Training Service6.19 F20Other EMS Continuing Education ClassesEach$8 $18 ($10) 44% User Fee$18100%6.20 F23Emergency Response Team Class (Incl. Fire extinguisher training)Per Person$29 $139 ($110) 21% User Fee$139100%6.21 F24Permit Required Confined Space ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.22 F25Hazardous Materials Responder ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.23 F26Technical Rescue ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.24 F27Vehicle Extrication ClassPer Person$29 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.25 F28Other Fire Training Continuing Education ClassesPer Person$29 $139 ($110) 21% User Fee$139100%6.26 F29,pp qParticipatePer Person User Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.27 F30Certification Fees required by Certifying AuthorityPer Person User Fee Actual Cost + 10% Admin6.28Facility Use Fee (Classroom, Tower, or Grounds)Per Day Market Rate Actual Cost + 10% AdminFIRE OPERATIONAL PERMITS (Base + Permit Fee) Base Operational Permit Fee6.290-5,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$145User Fee$145100%6.305,001-10,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$193User Fee$193100%6.3110,001-25,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$241User Fee$241100%6.3225,001-50,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$290User Fee$290100%6.3350,001-100,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$386User Fee$386100%6.34100,001-500,000 sq. ft. Base Fee$483User Fee$483100%6.35500,001-1,000,000 sq. ft.Base Fee$579User Fee$579100%No to Low Hazard Operational Permits 6.36Cellulose Nitrate FilmEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.37Child-care CenterEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.38ERRC SystemEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.39 F61Fire Alarm SystemEach$527 $80 $447 659% User Fee$80100%6.40 F67Large Family Day CareEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.41Mobile Food Prep VehicleEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.42 F74Permit Required Confined SpaceEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.43Place of AssemblyEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%6.44 F78Residential Care FacilityEach$351 $80 $271 439% User Fee$80100%Medium Hazard6.45Covered and Open Mall BuildingEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.46 F54Combustible FibersEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.47 F59Dry CleaningEach$527 $113 $414 466% User Fee$113100%6.48Industrial OvenEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.49Hospitals & Psychiatric HospitalEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.50Liquid or Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly BuildingsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.51 F68Lumber YardEach$703 $113 $590 622% User Fee$113100%6.52Plant ExtractionEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.53Pyroxylin PlasticsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.54Open Flame & CandlesEach$176 $113 $63 156% User Fee$113100%6.55 F76Radioactive MaterialsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.56 F77Refrigeration EquipmentEach$176 $113 $63 156% User Fee$113100%6.57Rooftop HeliportsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.58Stationary Fuel Cell Power SystemsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.59 F81Storage of Scrap TireEach$527 $113 $414 466% User Fee$113100%6.60Waste Handling FacilityEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%6.61 F82Wood ProductsEach$351 $113 $238 311% User Fee$113100%Actual Cost + 10% AdminActual Cost + 10% AdminActual Cost + 10% Admin3 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %High Hazard6.62 F49Aerosol ProductsEach $351 $193 $158 182% User Fee $193 100%6.63Aviation FacilityEach $351 $193 $158 182% User Fee $193 100%6.64 F60Dust ProducingEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.65 F57Compressed GasEach$176 $193 ($17) 91% User Fee$193100%6.66 F58Cryogenic GasEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.67Cutting and WeldingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.68ExplosivesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.69 F62Flammable / Combustible LiquidsEach$527 $193 $334 273% User Fee$193100%6.70 F63Hazardous MaterialsEach$703 $193 $510 364% User Fee$193100%6.71 F65High Piled StorageEach$703 $193 $510 364% User Fee$193100%6.72 F69Liquefied Petroleum GasEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.73 F70MagnesiumEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.74 F55Miscellaneous Combustible StorageEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.75Mobile of Hydrogen Fueled VehiclesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.76 F71Motor Fuel DispensingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.77 F79Repair GaragesEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.78 F80Spraying or DippingEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%6.79Tire Rebuilding PlantEach$351 $193 $158 182% User Fee$193100%Group R - Division 1 and 2 Occupancies with 3 or more Dwelling Units per Building6.80 F433-10 UnitsEach$264 $193 $71 137% User Fee$193100%6.81 F4311-100 UnitsEach$351 $386 ($35) 91% User Fee$386100%6.82 F43101-200 UnitsEach$1,406 $579 $827 243% User Fee$579100%6.83 F43201-300 UnitsEach$2,109 $772 $1,337 273% User Fee$772100%6.84 F43301-350 UnitsEach$2,812 $869 $1,943 324% User Fee$869100%6.85 F43350+ UnitsPer 100 units$1,406 $290 $1,116 485% User Fee$290100%Special Activity Permits6.86 F89Candles or Open Flames in Assembly AreasPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.87 F90Carnivals and FairsPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.88 F91Christmas Tree LotsPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.89 F92Explosives or Blasting AgentsEach$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.90 F93Fire Hydrants and Water-Control ValvesPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.91 F95Fireworks Displays by a Licensed ProfessionalPer Event$703 $366 $337 192% User Fee$366100%6.92 F96Fumigation/Thermal InsecticidePer Occurrence$176 $366 ($190) 48% User Fee$366100%6.93Outdoor Assembly EventPer Event$366User Fee$366100%6.94 F98Parade FloatsPer Event$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.95 F99Temporary Membrane Structures (tents)Per Structure$351 $366 ($15) 96% User Fee$366100%6.96 F101Failure to Obtain a PermitPenalty2x Permit Cost2x Permit CostPenalty 2x Permit CostFire and Life Safety - Plan Check (includes 2 checks and 1 re-check)6.97 F108$1 - $6,000Base$88.00 $203.00 ($115.00) 43% User Fee$203.00100%6.98 F108$6,001 - $25,000Base$88.00 $202.66 ($114.66) 43% User Fee$202.66100%0%6.100 F108$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) 80% User Fee$11.56100%0%6.101 F108$25,001 - $50,000Base$176.00 $422.21 ($246.21) 42% User Fee$422.21100%0%6.102 F108$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$14.06 $21.62 ($7.56) 65% User Fee$21.62100%0%6.103 F108$50,001 - $100,000Base$351.00 $962.64 ($611.64) 36% User Fee$962.64100%0%6.104 F108$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$42.16 $27.36 $14.80 154% User Fee$27.36100%0%6.105 F108$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,810.00 $2,330.59 $479.41 121% User Fee$2,330.59100%0%6.106 F108$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$10.54 $7.98 $2.56 132% User Fee$7.98100%0%6.107 F108$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$7,027.00 $5,522.49 $1,504.51 127% User Fee$5,522.49100%0%6.108 F108$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$8.44 $5.78 $2.66 146% User Fee$5.78100%0%6.109 F108$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$11,242.00 $8,410.40 $2,831.60 134% User Fee$8,410.40100%0%6.110 F108$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$3.74 $2.46 $1.28 152% User Fee$2.46100%0%6.111 F108$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$18,737.00 $13,324.91 $5,412.09 141% User Fee$13,324.91100%0%6.112 F108$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$5.62 $3.12 $2.50 180% User Fee$3.12100%0%6.113 F108$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Base$29,979.00 $19,556.71 $10,422.29 153% User Fee$19,556.71100%0%6.114 F108$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Each $1,000$2.25 $1.32 $0.93 170% User Fee$1.32100%0%6.115 F108$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Base$41,221.00 $26,143.16 $15,077.84 158% User Fee$26,143.16100%0%6.116 F108$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Each $1,000$1.00 $0.76 $0.24 132% User Fee$0.76100%0%6.117 F108$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Base$56,211.00 $37,492.13 $18,718.87 150% User Fee$37,492.13100%0%6.118 F108$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Each $1,000$0.30 $0.26 $0.04 115% User Fee$0.26100%0%6.119 F108$50,000,001+Base$63,705.00 $44,078.59 $19,626.41 145% User Fee$44,078.59100%0%6.120 F108$50,000,001+Each $1,000$1.27 $0.13 $1.14 977% User Fee$0.13100%0%6.121 F111Additional Fire Plan Check Review - 4th submittal - 2 hr minPer Hour$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209.00100%0%Fire Protection SystemsFire Protection Systems - Plan Check (includes 2 checks and 1 recheck)6.122 F33$1 - $6,000Base$176.00 $321.00 ($145.00) 55% User Fee$321.00100%6.123 F33$6,001 - $25,000Base$176.00 $320.88 ($144.88) 55% User Fee$320.88100%0%6.124 F33$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $8.00 $1.24 116% User Fee$8.00100%0%6.125 F33$25,001 - $50,000Base$351.00 $472.87 ($121.87) 74% User Fee$472.87100%0%6.126 F33$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$3.51 $13.51 ($10.00) 26% User Fee$13.51100%0%6.127 F33$50,001 - $100,000Base$439.00 $810.64 ($371.64) 54% User Fee$810.64100%0%6.128 F33$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$1.76 $5.07 ($3.31) 35% User Fee$5.07100%0%6.129 F33$100,001 - $500,000Base$527.00 $1,063.97 ($536.97) 50% User Fee$1,063.97100%0%6.130 F33$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$1.31 $1.39 ($0.08) 94% User Fee$1.39100%0%6.131 F33$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$1,054.00 $1,621.28 ($567.28) 65% User Fee$1,621.28100%0%6.132 F33$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$3.51 $3.45 $0.06 102% User Fee$3.45100%0%6.133 F33$1,000,001+Base$2,810.00 $3,343.89 ($533.89) 84% User Fee$3,343.89100%0%6.134 F33$1,000,001+Each $1,000$0.93 $0.76 $0.17 122% User Fee$0.76100%0%Fire Protection Systems - Permit (includes upto 2 inspections) 6.135 F109$1 - $6,000Base$527.00 $439.10 $87.90 120% User Fee$439.10100%6.136 F109$6,001 - $25,000Base$527.00 $439.10 $87.90 120% User Fee$439.10100%0%6.137 F109$6,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$9.24 $11.56 ($2.32) 80% User Fee$11.56100%0%6.138 F109$25,001 - $50,000Base$703.00 $658.65 $44.35 107% User Fee$658.65100%0%6.139 F109$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$14.06 $24.99 ($10.93) 56% User Fee$24.99100%0%6.140 F109$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,054.00 $1,283.51 ($229.51) 82% User Fee$1,283.51100%0%6.141 F109$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$7.03 $6.76 $0.27 104% User Fee$6.76100%0%6.142 F109$100,001 - $500,000Base$1,406.00 $1,621.28 ($215.28) 87% User Fee$1,621.28100%0%6.143 F109$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$4.39 $5.40 ($1.01) 81% User Fee$5.40100%0%6.144 F109$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$3,162.00 $3,782.99 ($620.99) 84% User Fee$3,782.99100%0%6.145 F109$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$7.73 $3.92 $3.81 197% User Fee$3.92100%0%6.146 F109$1,000,001+Base$7,027.00 $5,742.04 $1,284.96 122% User Fee$5,742.04100%0%6.147 F109$1,000,001+Each $1,000$0.88 $1.72 ($0.84) 51% User Fee$1.72100%0%6.148 F32Installation or Modification of a Fire Protection System Without a PermitPenalty2x Permit Cost2x Permit CostPenalty 2x Permit Cost4 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Other Fire Prevention Inspections6.149 F35Annual Fire Inspection (Basic)Each $264 $314 ($50) 84% User Fee $314 100%6.150 F40Annual High-rise Building (2 Hr. Min)Per Hour $352 $419 ($67) 84% User Fee $419 100%6.151 F41New Occupancy / BusinessEach$351 $314 $37 112% User Fee$314100%6.152 F45Title 19, 5 Year Automatic Fire Sprinkler CertificationPer System$351 $400 ($49) 88% User Fee$400100%6.153 F36Re-inspection Per Inspection$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.154 F39Inspection for Which a Fee is not Specifically IndicatedPer Inspection$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.155 F37Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours (2 hour minimum)Per Hour$176 $254 ($78) 69% User Fee$254100%6.156Inspection Cancellation FeeEach$209Penalty$209100%Miscellaneous Fire Prevention Fees6.157 F104Application for Use of Alternate Methods of ProtectionPer Request$264 $145 $119 182% User Fee$145100%6.158 F113Key Box ServicePer Location$88 $114 ($26) 77% User Fee$114100%6.159 F105Emergency Response DUI Cost RecoveryPer Incident Actual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.160 F106Emergency Response Hazmat Cost RecoveryPer Incident Actual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.161 F107InvestigationsPer Hour$176 $209 ($33) 84% User Fee$209100%6.162 F112Fire WatchEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost6.163 F102Hazard Mitigation Fee (Includes all other incident types)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostDepartmental Surcharges6.164Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%Preventable False Alarms6.165 F1142nd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$106 $109 ($3) 97% Penalty$109100%6.166 F1143rd alarm (Within 12 months of 1st alarm)Per Incident$211 $217 ($6) 97% Penalty$217100%6.167 F1144th and other additional alarms within 12 months of 1st preventable alarmPer Incident$529 $544 ($15) 97% Penalty$544100%7. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNINGPre-Application Meeting7.01j(g yFaçade)Each $2,000 $404 $1,596 495% User Fee $404 100%7.02Medium Project (Non-Residential up to 10 Units)Each $2,000 $1,213 $787 165% User Fee $1,213 100%7.03Large Project (Non-Residential over 10 Units)Each$2,000 $6,173 ($4,173) 32% User Fee$6,173100%Public Hearing ApplicationsConditional Use Permit / Site Development Review7.04 PL4Multi-Family Residential or Civic UseEach$3,461 $14,327 ($10,866) 24% User Fee$14,327100%7.05 PL4All OthersEach $4,488 $10,284 ($5,796) 44% User Fee $10,284 100%7.06 PL5ModificationEach$2,333 $5,231 ($2,898) 45% User Fee$5,231100%Minor Use Permit7.07 PL7ResidentialEach$1,900 $2,603 ($703) 73% User Fee$2,00077%7.08 PL7All OthersEach $1,725 $2,199 ($474) 78% User Fee $2,199 100%7.09 PL7Small CellEach$1,390User Fee$1,390100%Design Review - Signs7.10 PL22Type A (up to 25 sq.ft.)Each$173 $580 ($407) 30% User Fee$25043%7.11 PL22Type B (up to 100 sq.ft.)Each$862 $969 ($107) 89% User Fee$90093%7.12 PL22Type C / Master SignEach$1,725 $2,199 ($474) 78% User Fee$2,199100%Design Review7.13 PL23Single Family Residential / New or Additions to 2 to 3 UnitsEach$1,212 $2,603 ($1,391) 47% User Fee$2,603100%7.14 PL24Multi-Family Residential / Subdivisions 4 of More Units / Modifications / Additions to 4 of More UnitsEach$2,161 $3,412 ($1,251) 63% User Fee$3,412100%7.15 PL25Commercial and IndustrialEach$2,559 $3,816 ($1,257) 67% User Fee$3,816100%7.16 PL26Projects Requiring Planning Commission ApprovalEach$1,464 $5,029 ($3,565) 29% User Fee$5,029100%7.17 PL27Resubmitted (after 2 reviews by Design Review Board)Each$1,509 $2,199 ($690) 69% User Fee$2,199100%Environmental7.18 PL28Categorical ExemptionEach$173 $287 ($114) 60% User Fee$287100%7.19 PL29Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration and other Contract Planning StudiesEach$5,175 $16,348 ($11,173) 32% User Fee$16,348100%7.20 PL30Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Each$10,349 $20,391 ($10,042) 51% User Fee$20,391100%7.21Environmental Documents Prepared by 3rd PartyEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostSubdivisions7.22 PL31Tentative Subdivision MapEach$862 $2,603 ($1,741) 33% User Fee$2,603100%7.23 PL32Tentative Parcel MapEach$173 $2,199 ($2,026) 8% User Fee$2,199100%Transportation Demand Management Plan:7.24 PL20Initial Filing FeeEach$1,208 $2,603 ($1,395) 46% User Fee$2,603100%7.25 PL20Annual Monitoring (plus survey cost)Each $1,725 $1,795 ($70) 96% User Fee $1,795 100%7.26 PL20Tri-annualEach$1,725 $1,795 ($70) 96% User Fee$1,795100%5 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Other Public Hearing Applications7.27 PL12VarianceEach$4,312 $9,274 ($4,962) 46% User Fee$9,274100%7.28 PL14Master PlanEach$20,898 $17,359 $3,539 120% User Fee$17,359100%7.29 PL15Development AgreementEach$18,422 $13,316 $5,106 138% User Fee$13,316100%7.30 PL1Planned Unit DevelopmentEach$9,844 $14,327 ($4,483) 69% User Fee$14,327100%7.31 PL2Precise PlanEach$9,844 $8,263 $1,581 119% User Fee$8,263100%7.32 PL3Precise Plan Modification (Residential Only)Each$6,391 $6,242 $149 102% User Fee$6,242100%7.33 PL6Temporary Use PermitEach$1,647 $1,209 $438 136% User Fee$1,209100%7.34 PL8Zoning Amendment (Text)Each$8,625 $15,337 ($6,712) 56% User Fee$15,337100%7.35 PL9Rezoning MapEach$8,625 $11,295 ($2,670) 76% User Fee$11,295100%7.36 PL11Specific PlanEach$21,074 $18,369 $2,705 115% User Fee$18,369100%7.37 PL13General Plan AmendmentsEach$9,841 $18,774 ($8,933) 52% User Fee$18,774100%Modifications & Waivers7.38 PL21Minor (Staff Review)Each$259 $855 ($596) 30% User Fee$855100%7.39 PL21Major (Planning Commission Review)Each$1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) 57% User Fee$3,007100%Time Extensions7.40 PL18Non-Conforming UseEach$862 $2,963 ($2,101) 29% User Fee$2,963100%7.41 PL19Time Extension for all Other Permits and MapsEach$862 $2,154 ($1,292) 40% User Fee$2,154100%Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to the City Council by:7.42 PL17Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision to the Planning CommissionEach$862 $4,220 ($3,358) 20% User Fee$4,220100%7.43 PL16Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to City Council Each$1,725 $5,231 ($3,506) 33% User Fee$5,231100%Miscellaneous Fees7.44 PL34Minor Changes to Approved PermitEach$173 $1,795 ($1,622) 10% User Fee$1,795100%7.45 PL36Inspection Fees: Additional visitsEach$345 $383 ($38) 90% User Fee$383100%7.46 PL37Certificate of AlterationEach$1,725 $3,007 ($1,282) 57% User Fee$3,007100%7.47Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (taxi)Each$173 $1,390 ($1,217) 12% User Fee$1,390100%7.48Sidewalk Dining Permit (Annual)Each$518 $540 ($22) 96% User Fee$540100%7.49 PL10Site Clearance / Zoning Verification LetterEach$173 $179 ($6) 96% User Fee$179100%7.50Zoning Verification ReviewEach$833 $899 ($66) 93% User Fee$899100%7.51Legal NoticesEach$518 $383 $135 135% User Fee$383100%7.52Zoning Administrator DecisionEach$862 $1,592 ($730) 54% User Fee$1,592100%7.53Short Term Rental ApplicationEach$0 $784 ($784) 0% User Fee$10013%Planning Support to Building7.54Single Family Residential (New or Remodel)Each$606User Fee$606100%7.55Multi-Family / Commercial / Industrial (New or Tenant Improvement)Percentage of Building Permit Fee5%User Fee5%100%Master Licensing Agreements (Cell Towers) City Owned Poles7.56 PL51Master Agreement Deposit$4,347 $4,000 $347 109% Deposit$4,000100%Privately Owned Poles7.57 PL51Administrative Deposit Per Pole $983 $1,000 ($17) 98% Deposit $1,000 100%7.58 PL51Attachment Fee / Annual RentPer Pole $1,553 $1,553 $0 100% Market Rent$1,553100%Departmental Surcharges7.59Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%8. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - HOUSINGDevelopment Application Including Affordable Housing8.01Application (review BMR Plan)Each $514 User Fee $257 50%8.02Agreement PreparationEach $579 User Fee $289 50%8.03Agreement Preparation - with waiver or Each $966 User Fee$48350%Initial Sale of For-Sale BMR Units8.04Less than 10 BMR unitsEach$282User Fee$14150%8.0510-50 BMR unitsEach$334User Fee$16750%8.06More than 50 BMR unitsEach$462User Fee$23150%8.07Consultant CostsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostInitial Lease Up of Rental BMR Units8.08Less than 10 BMR unitsEach$282User Fee$14150%8.0910-50 BMR unitsEach$334User Fee$16750%8.10More than 50 BMR unitsEach$462User Fee$23150%8.11Non-profit, fully-affordable projectEach$128User Fee$6450%8.12Consultant CostsEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostBMR Monitoring8.13Condos (per unit)Each$51User Fee$08.14Rentals (per development)Per Development$166User Fee$8350%Refinance and or Subordination of Agreement or Loan8.15Single Family or CondoEach$322User Fee$16150%8.16Multi-FamilyEach$733User Fee$36650%8.17Payoff DemandEach$51User Fee$51100%8.18Resale Administration - Single Family / CondoEach$1,628User Fee$1,628100%Real Estate Transactions8.19Initial Consideration for Purchase OffersEach$847User Fee$847100%Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility8.20TEFRA HearingEach $1,252 User Fee $1,252 100%9. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDINGSingle Family ResidentialPermit (Inspection)9.01 BL3$1 - $500Base$84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) 44% User Fee$189.47100%9.02 BL3$501 - $2,000Base$84.00 $189.47 ($105.47) 44% User Fee$189.47100%0%9.03 BL3$501 - $2,000Each $100$2.00 $9.47 ($7.47) 21% User Fee$9.47100%0%9.04 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Base$112.00 $331.57 ($219.57) 34% User Fee$331.57100%0%9.05 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$24.00 $18.53 $5.47 129% User Fee$18.53100%0%9.06 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Base$672.00 $757.87 ($85.87) 89% User Fee$757.87100%0%9.07 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$27.00 $32.84 ($5.84) 82% User Fee$32.84100%0%9.08 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,342.00 $1,578.89 ($236.89) 85% User Fee$1,578.89100%0%9.09 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$13.42 $13.58 ($0.16) 99% User Fee$13.58100%0%9.10 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,014.00 $2,257.81 ($243.81) 89% User Fee$2,257.81100%0%9.11 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$8.39 $7.70 $0.69 109% User Fee$7.70100%0%9.12 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$5,371.00 $5,336.65 $34.35 101% User Fee$5,336.65100%0%9.13 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$16.11 $5.75 $10.36 280% User Fee$5.75100%0%9.14 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$9,398.00 $8,210.22 $1,187.78 114% User Fee$8,210.22100%0%9.15 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$1.68 $2.84 ($1.16) 59% User Fee$2.84100%0%9.16 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$16,781.00 $13,894.22 $2,886.78 121% User Fee$13,894.22100%0%9.17 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$2.07 $3.16 ($1.09) 66% User Fee$3.16100%0%9.18 BL3$5,000,001+Base$20,138.00 $20,209.78 ($71.78) 100% User Fee$20,209.78100%0%9.19 BL3$5,000,001+Each $1,000$0.89 $1.58 ($0.69) 56% User Fee$1.58100%0%9.20Plan Check FeeVariesUser Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee65% of Building Permit Fee6 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Commercial / Industrial / Multi-FamilyPermit (Inspection)9.21 BL3$1 - $500Base$84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) 89% User Fee$94.73100%9.22 BL3$501 - $2,000Base$84.00 $94.73 ($10.73) 89% User Fee$94.73100%0%9.23 BL3$501 - $2,000Each $100$2.00 $8.42 ($6.42) 24% User Fee$8.42100%0%9.24 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Base$112.00 $221.04 ($109.04) 51% User Fee$221.04100%0%9.25 BL3$2,001 - $25,000Each $1,000$24.00 $12.01 $11.99 200% User Fee$12.01100%0%9.26 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Base$672.00 $497.35 $174.65 135% User Fee$497.35100%0%9.27 BL3$25,001 - $50,000Each $1,000$27.00 $11.05 $15.95 244% User Fee$11.05100%0%9.28 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Base$1,342.00 $773.66 $568.34 173% User Fee$773.66100%0%9.29 BL3$50,001 - $100,000Each $1,000$13.42 $25.58 ($12.16) 52% User Fee$25.58100%0%9.30 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Base$2,014.00 $2,052.56 ($38.56) 98% User Fee$2,052.56100%0%9.31 BL3$100,001 - $500,000Each $1,000$8.39 $6.12 $2.27 137% User Fee$6.12100%0%9.32 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Base$5,371.00 $4,499.83 $871.17 119% User Fee$4,499.83100%0%9.33 BL3$500,001 - $1,000,000Each $1,000$16.11 $9.88 $6.23 163% User Fee$9.88100%0%9.34 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Base$9,398.00 $9,441.76 ($43.76) 100% User Fee$9,441.76100%0%9.35 BL3$1,000,001 - $3,000,000Each $1,000$1.68 $1.44 $0.24 117% User Fee$1.44100%0%9.36 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Base$16,781.00 $12,315.34 $4,465.66 136% User Fee$12,315.34100%0%9.37 BL3$3,000,001 - $5,000,000Each $1,000$2.07 $6.22 ($4.15) 33% User Fee$6.22100%0%9.38 BL3$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Base$20,138.00 $24,756.98 ($4,618.98) 81% User Fee$24,756.98100%0%9.39 BL3$5,000,001 - $10,000,000Each $1,000$0.89 $3.49 ($2.60) 26% User Fee$3.49100%0%9.40 BL3$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Base$24,613.00 $42,187.92 ########## 58% User Fee$42,187.92100%0%9.41 BL3$10,000,001 - $25,000,000Each $1,000$0.89 $3.79 ($2.90) 24% User Fee$3.79100%0%9.42 BL3$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Base$38,038.00 $98,996.35 ########## 38% User Fee$98,996.35100%0%9.43 BL3$25,000,001 - $50,000,000Each $1,000$0.45 $3.13 ($2.68) 14% User Fee$3.13100%0%9.44 BL3$50,000,001+Base$49,226.00 $177,151.36 ########## 28% User Fee $177,151.36100%0%9.45 BL3$50,000,001+Each $1,000$0.98 $1.56 ($0.58) 63% User Fee$1.56100%0%Commercial Plan Check 9.46Up to $50,000VariesUser Fee 60% of Building Permit Fee9.47$50,000 to $1,000,000VariesUser Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee9.48$1,000,001+VariesUser Fee 75% of Building Permit FeeMechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (Plan Check and Inspection) 9.49 BL7MEP Plan Check and InspectionPer TradeVariesUser Fee 15% of Building PBuilding Flat Fees9.50 BL1Inspections Or Re-Inspections Outside Normal Business HoursPer Hour$112 $212 ($100) 53% User Fee$212100%9.51 BL2Re-Inspections During Normal HoursPer Hour$112 $189 ($77) 59% User Fee$189100%9.52 BL6Permit Process - Initial Project Input, Fee Collection (New / Existing Residential, Commercial, and MF)Each$224 $260 ($36) 86% User Fee$260100%9.53 BL9Additional Plan Review Required by Changes, Additions or Revisions to Approved PlansPer 30 Min$56User Fee Actual Cost + 15% Processing Fee9.54OTC or Standalone MEP PermitEach$276User Fee$276100%Photovoltaic Fees9.55 BL16Commercial PhotovoltaicEach$391 $608 ($217) 64% User Fee$608100%9.56 BL17Residential PhotovoltaicEach$224 $276 ($52) 81% User Fee$276100%Residential Miscellaneous Fees9.57Residential Water HeaterEach$125 $137 ($12) 91% User Fee$137100%9.58Residential ReroofEach$350 $512 ($162) 68% User Fee$512100%9.59Residential Garage DoorEach$125 $324 ($199) 39% User Fee$324100%9.60Residential Kitchen UpdateEach$350 $654 ($304) 54% User Fee$654100%9.61Residential Bath UpdateEach$250 $467 ($217) 54% User Fee$467100%9.62Residential Furnace ReplacementEach$125 $184 ($59) 68% User Fee$184100%9.63Residential Service UpgradeEach$150 $231 ($81) 65% User Fee$231100%9.64Residential Lateral ReplacementEach$150 $184 ($34) 82% User Fee$184100%9.65Residential EV ChargerEach$130 $279 ($149) 47% User Fee$279100%Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO)Review9.66Small (500 - 2,500 square feet)Each $493 User Fee $493 100%9.67Large (2,500+ square feet)Each$1,213User Fee$1,213100%SurchargesDepartmental Surcharges9.68 PL38General Plan Maintenance Fee (applies to Building permit valuation greater than $100,000)Percentage0.16% 0.11% 0.05% 140% User Fee0.11%100%9.69Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee3%100%9.70Building Mandated Training SurchargePer Permit$8$7 $1 108% User Fee$7State Surcharges9.70California Building Standards CommissionPer $25,000$1$1 $0 100% SB1473$1100%9.71SMIP Fee - ResidentialPer $1,000$0.28 $0.28 $0 100% State Regulatio$0.28100%9.72SMIP Fee - CommercialPer $1,000$0.13 $0.13 $0 100% State Regulatio$0.13100%10. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERINGEncroachment PermitsSewer Improvements10.01Sewer Lateral Video ReviewEach$75 $96 ($21) 78% User Fee$8690%10.02Sewer Lateral CertificateEach$78 $63 $15 124% User Fee$5790%10.03Sewer Lateral Plan Review and PermitEach$325 $382 ($57) 85% User Fee$34290%Minor Frontage Improvements10.04MFI Plan ReviewEach$325 $315 $10 103% User Fee$28290%Small Cell Towers10.05Cell Phone Tower Review (City owned pole)Each$325 $2,045 ($1,720) 16% User Fee$2,045100%10.06Cell Phone Tower Review (non-City pole)Each$325 $503 ($178) 65% User Fee$503100%Utility Improvements10.07Utility / Outside Service Connection ReviewEach$325 $283 $42 115% User Fee$283100%10.08Utility Access and TCP Only Review Each$325 $220 $105 148% User Fee$220100%Dig Once10.09Dig Once AdvertisementEach$325 $503 ($178) 65% User Fee$503100%10.10Dig Once Policy AdministrationDeposit$10,000User Fee$10,000100%65% of Building Permit Fee75% of Building Permit Fee15% of Building Permit FeeActual Cost + 15% Processing Fee60% of Building Permit Fee7 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Potholing10.11Potholing PermitEach$325 $670 ($345) 49% User Fee$670100%Revocable Encroachment Permits10.12Revocable Encroachment Plan ReviewEach$325 $283 $42 115% User Fee$283100%10.13AgreementEach$325 $709 ($384) 46% User Fee$709100%10.14Revocable Encroachment Annual Renewal FeeAnnually$325 $189 $136 172% User Fee$189100%Miscellaneous10.15No Parking SignsEach$3$5 ($2) 60% User Fee$5100%10.16Sidewalk Closure for Maintenance or Construction - per day of sidewalk closurePer Day$152 $96 $56 158% User Fee$96100%Public Improvement Plan Check (Cost of ROW Improvements)10.17 PW1Up to $49,999Base$609.00 $1,726.92 ($1,117.92) 35% User Fee$1,726.92100%10.18 PW1$50,000 - $99,999Base$912.00 $1,726.92 ($814.92) 53% User Fee$1,726.92100%0%10.19 PW1$50,000 - $99,999Each $10,000$31.05 $726.71 ($695.66) 4% User Fee$726.71100%0%10.20 PW1$100,000 - $249,999Base$1,216.00 $5,360.49 ($4,144.49) 23% User Fee$5,360.49100%0%10.21 PW1$100,000 - $249,999Each $10,000$138.00 $321.86 ($183.86) 43% User Fee$321.86100%0%10.22 PW1$250,000 - $499,999Base$4,561.00 $10,188.40 ($5,627.40) 45% User Fee$10,188.40100%0%10.23 PW1$250,000 - $499,999Each $10,000$62.10 $279.18 ($217.08) 22% User Fee$279.18100%0%10.24 PW1$500,000 - $999,999Base$6,082.00 $17,167.89 ########## 35% User Fee$17,167.89100%0%10.25 PW1$500,000 - $999,999Each $10,000$120.00 $130.78 ($10.78) 92% User Fee$130.78100%0%10.26 PW1$1,000,000+Base$12,163.00 $23,706.94 ########## 51% User Fee$23,706.94100%0%10.27 PW1$1,000,000+Each $100,000$12.00 $364.22 ($352.22) 3% User Fee$364.22100%0%10.28 PW14th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisionsEach$152 $1,084 ($932.22) 14% User Fee$1,084100%Public Improvement Permit / Inspection (Cost of ROW Improvements)10.29 PW1.1Up to $49,999Base$456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) 79% User Fee$575.69100%10.30 PW1.1$50,000 - $99,999Base$456.00 $575.69 ($119.69) 79% User Fee$575.69100%0%10.31 PW1.1$50,000 - $99,999Each $5,000$20.70 $326.22 ($305.52) 6% User Fee$326.22100%0%10.32 PW1.1$100,000 - $249,999Base$684.00 $3,837.90 ($3,153.90) 18% User Fee$3,837.90100%0%10.33 PW1.1$100,000 - $249,999Each $5,000$5.20 $127.93 ($122.73) 4% User Fee$127.93100%0%10.34 PW1.1$250,000 - $499,999Base$912.00 $7,675.81 ($6,763.81) 12% User Fee$7,675.81100%0%10.35 PW1.1$250,000 - $499,999Each $5,000$10.35 $76.76 ($66.41) 13% User Fee$76.76100%0%10.36 PW1.1$500,000+Base$1,520.00 $11,513.71 ($9,993.71) 13% User Fee$11,513.71100%0%10.37 PW1.1$500,000+Each $25,000$3.11 $191.90 ($188.79) 2% User Fee$191.90100%0%10.38 PW1.1Additional InspectionsEach $152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee $192 100%Other Fees10.39Work without a permit (after the fact permit) - Fee + Plan Check FeeEach2x Permit FeePenalty 2x Permit Fee10.40Engineering Staff Construction Coordination Committee (CCC) Per Meeting$152 $173 ($21) 88% User Fee$173100%Permit Work Deposit10.41Sewer Lateral DepositSecurity Deposit $1,000 $1,000 $0 100% Security Depos$1,000100%10.42Minor Frontage ImprovementsSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.43Utility TrenchingSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.44Pothole ProjectsSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%10.45All other ROW improvement projectsSecurity Deposit $5,000 $5,000 $0 100% Security Depos$5,000100%Mapping10.46Map ExtensionsEach$325 $912 ($587) 36% User Fee$912100%10.47Final / Parcel Map Review and ProcessingEach$325 $5,270 ($4,945) 6% User Fee$5,270100%10.48Property Merger / NoticeEach$325 $2,398 ($2,073) 14% User Fee$2,398100%10.49 PW11Lot Line Adjustment / Certificate of ComplianceEach$325 $2,289 ($1,964) 14% User Fee$2,289100%10.50Lot Conformance / Certificate of ComplianceEach$325 $1,819 ($1,494) 18% User Fee$1,819100%10.51 PW14Grant of Easement / Easement Abandonment RequestEach$3,802 $2,982 $820 127% User Fee$2,982100%10.52Subsequent Engineering Mapping ReviewsEach$456 $661 ($205) 69% User Fee$661100%10.53Engineering AgreementsEach$1,085 $3,297 ($2,212) 33% User Fee$3,297100%10.54Outside Sewer Service AgreementEach$1,085 $5,472 ($4,387) 20% User Fee$5,472100%10.55Benchmark Maintenance FeeEach$152 $220 ($68) 69% User Fee$220100%Subdivision Tentative Map10.56 PW9Minor Tentative Map Each$152 $2,706 ($2,554) 6% User Fee$2,706100%10.57 PW7Major Tentative MapEach$325 $3,948 ($3,623) 8% User Fee$3,948100%10.58Each Additional Lot Over 5Each$26 $55 ($29) 47% User Fee$55100%Transportation10.59 PW16Transportation - Single trip, or a modification of on original permitEach$16 $31 ($15) 52% California Code$1652%10.60 PW17Transportation - Annual or repetitive permitAnnually$90 $94 ($4) 96% California Code$9096%GradingHauling Permit10.61Hauling Permit FeeEach$190 $223 ($33) 85% User Fee$223100%10.62Hauling Permit DepositSecurity Deposit $2,000 $2,000 $0 100% Security Depos$2,000100%Grading Plan Check and Permit10.63 PW2251 - 9,999 Cubic YardsBase$1,216.00 $3,598.91 ($2,382.91) 34% User Fee$3,598.91100%10.64 PW2210,000 - 49,999 Cubic YardsBase$1,520.00 $3,598.91 ($2,078.91) 42% User Fee$3,598.91100%0%10.65 PW2210,000 - 49,999 Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $178.28 $495.49 ($317.21) 36% User Fee$495.49100%0%10.66 PW2250,000 - 99,999 Cubic YardsBase$2,689.12 $5,580.86 ($2,891.74) 48% User Fee$5,580.86100%0%10.67 PW2250,000 - 99,999 Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $178.28 $220.22 ($41.94) 81% User Fee$220.22100%0%10.68 PW22100,000 + Cubic YardsBase$2,205.00 $6,681.94 ($4,476.94) 33% User Fee$6,681.94100%0%10.69 PW22100,000 + Cubic YardsEach 10,000 c.y. $114.00 $330.32 ($216.32) 35% User Fee$330.32100%0%10.70 PW234th and subsequent Plan Checks or RevisionsEach$304 $881 ($577) 35% User Fee$881.00100%0%10.71Grading Permit DepositSecurity Deposit $50,000 $50,000 $0 100% Security DepositErosion Control Compliance10.72BaseBase$150.00 $191.90 ($41.90) 78% User Fee$192100%10.73Per 250 cubic yards (round to the nearest 250)Each 250 c.y.$15.00 $15.99 ($0.99) 94% User Fee$16100%8 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Miscellaneous10.74 PW25Inspections Outside of Normal Business HoursPer Hour$228 $227 $1 100% User Fee$227100%10.75 PW26Re-inspection Assessed Under Provisions of Section 305(h)Per Hour$152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee$192100%10.76 PW27Inspections for which a fee is not specifically indicatedPer Hour$152 $192 ($40) 79% User Fee$192100%10.77Permit reinstatement feeEach$76 $63 $13 121% User Fee$63100%10.78Research for Non-Permit Application InquiresEach$63User Fee$63100%10.79Engineering Staff Time for Services not Specifically IndicatedPer Hour$220User Fee$209%Planning Support10.80Engineering Staffing TAGsPer Meeting $152 $173 ($21) 88% User Fee $173 100%Engineering Design and Conditions Review10.81Single Family Res / new or additions (1-3 units)Each $5,000 Deposit $661 N / A N / A User Fee $661 100%10.82Multi-Family Res / new or modifications (4 or more units)Each$5,000 Deposit $1,762 N / A N / A User Fee$1,762100%10.83Commercial / IndustrialEach$5,000 Deposit $2,202 N / A N / A User Fee$2,202100%10.84Projects requiring City Council ApprovalEach$5,000 Deposit $2,863 N / A N / A User Fee$2,863100%10.853rd and subsequent resubmittalsEach$5,000 Deposit $551 N / A N / A User Fee$551100%Building SupportEngineering Site Review (Cost of Site Improvements)10.86Up to $49,999Base$304.00 $786.52 ($482.52) 39% User Fee$786.52100%10.87$50,000 - $99,999Base$912.00 $786.52 $125.48 116% User Fee$786.52100%0%10.88$50,000 - $99,999Each $10,000$182.00 $528.52 ($346.52) 34% User Fee$528.52100%0%10.89$100,000 - $249,999Base$1,824.00 $3,429.12 ($1,605.12) 53% User Fee$3,429.12100%0%10.90$100,000 - $249,999Each $10,000$111.00 $176.17 ($65.17) 63% User Fee$176.17100%0%10.91$250,000 - $499,999Base$3,496.00 $6,071.72 ($2,575.72) 58% User Fee$6,071.72100%0%10.92$250,000 - $499,999Each $10,000$109.00 $167.36 ($58.36) 65% User Fee$167.36100%0%10.93$500,000 - $999,999Base$6,232.00 $10,255.84 ($4,023.84) 61% User Fee$10,255.84100%0%10.94$500,000 - $999,999Each $10,000$55.00 $105.70 ($50.70) 52% User Fee$105.70100%0%10.95$1,000,000+Base$8,968.00 $15,541.04 ($6,573.04) 58% User Fee$15,541.04100%0%10.96$1,000,000+Each $100,000$27.00 $330.32 ($303.32) 8% User Fee$330.32100%0%10.974th and subsequent Plan Checks or revisionsEach$1,100 $881 $219 125% User Fee$881100%Departmental Surcharges10.98Technology Fee (applies to permit fee)Percentage3%User Fee11. PUBLIC WORKS - WATER QUALITY CONTROLPermits and Renewals: (valid for 3-year time intervals)11.01 PW28Food Facility Discharge PermitEach$152 $1,976 ($1,824) 8% User Fee$75038%11.02 PW28SIU Wastewater Discharge PermitEach$609 $2,440 ($1,831) 25% User Fee$2,10086%11.03 PW28General / Groundwater Discharge PermitEach$152 $515 ($363) 30% User Fee$515100%11.04 PW28Waste / Septage Hauler Discharge PermitEach$152 $605 ($453) 25% User Fee$605100%Inspections and Reviews11.05 PW29Water Quality Compliance ReviewPer Hour$152 $181 ($29) 84% User Fee$181100%11.06 PW31Inspections - Outside of Normal Pretreatment ActivitiesPer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.07 PW32Inspections - Outside of Normal Business HoursPer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.08 PW33Special Monitoring Activities for Enforcement and SurveillancePer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.09 PW34Special Sampling / Equipment UsePer Hour$152 $193 ($41) 79% User Fee$193100%11.10 PW36Water Quality Control Plan ReviewEach$163 $181 ($18) 90% User Fee$181100%11.11Stormwater Facility InspectionEach$580User Fee$30052%11.12Water Quality ReviewPer Hour$152 $189 ($37) 80% User Fee$189100%Wastewater Lab Testing / Analysis11.13 PW35BODEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.14 PW35CODEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.15 PW35TSSEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.16 PW35Oil & GreaseEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.17 PW35Metals (except Hg)EachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.18 PW35HgEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.19 PW35pHEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.20 PW35BioassayEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.21 PW35CNEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.22 PW35PAHEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.23 PW35PhenolEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.24 PW35AmmoniaEach Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Actual Cost11.25 PW35ConductivityEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.26 PW35Oxygen Uptake RateEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost11.27 PW35OthersEachActual Cost Actual CostUser Fee Actual CostAdministrative Code Enforcement11.28 PW37Failure to Comply with Violation NoticeEach$351 $351 $0 100% Penalty$351100%9 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %12. PARKS AND RECREATIONProgram Guide Activities12.01ClassesSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.02AquaticsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.03SportsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.04ChildcareSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.05CampsSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity Guide12.06Adults / Senior ActivitiesSeasonalee Activity GuideMarket Rate See Activity GuidePicnic Areas12.07Application ProcessingPer Application $36 $52 ($16) 69% User Fee $37 71%Picnic Areas - Orange Park12.08Refundable Deposit - covers clean-up, repair, and/or overtime costsSecurity Deposit$207 $200 $7 104% Security Depos$215108%12.09Extended HoursPer hour$52 $43 $9 121% Market Rate$54124%Eucalyptus Shelter (15 Tables- 10am-6pm)12.10ResidentPer Day$321 $164 $157 195% Market Rate$331201%12.11Non-ResidentPer Day$336 $164 $172 204% Market Rate$346211%Area #2 (2 tables) - Residential12.12ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.13Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Area #3 (3 tables)12.14ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.15Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%Area #4 (4 tables)12.16ResidentPer Day$68 $141 ($73) 48% Market Rate$7050%12.17Non-ResidentPer Day$83 $141 ($58) 59% Market Rate$10071%Area #5 (5 tables)12.18ResidentPer Day$86 $176 ($90) 49% Market Rate$8950%12.19Non-ResidentPer Day$101 $176 ($75) 58% Market Rate$12068%Picnic Areas - Alta LomaArea #1 (6 tables)12.20ResidentPer Day$104 $210 ($106) 50% Market Rate$10751%12.21Non-ResidentPer Day$119 $210 ($91) 57% Market Rate$14067%Area #2 (2 tables)12.22ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.23Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Area #3 (2 tables)12.24ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.25Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%Picnic Areas - Avalon Park5 small tables12.26ResidentPer Day$63 $176 ($113) 36% Market Rate$6537%12.27Non-ResidentPer Day$78 $176 ($98) 44% Market Rate$8046%Picnic Areas - Buri Buri ParkI (6 tables)12.28ResidentPer Day$104 $210 ($106) 50% Market Rate$10751%12.29Non-ResidentPer Day$119 $210 ($91) 57% Market Rate$14067%II (2 tables)12.30ResidentPer Day$35 $55 ($20) 63% Market Rate$3665%12.31Non-ResidentPer Day$50 $55 ($5) 91% Market Rate$5192%III (3 tables)12.32ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.33Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%IV (3 tables)12.34ResidentPer Day$51 $81 ($30) 63% Market Rate$5365%12.35Non-ResidentPer Day$66 $81 ($15) 82% Market Rate$81100%Picnic Areas - Sellick Park7 tables, includes Campfire area12.36ResidentPer Day$86 $244 ($158) 35% Market Rate$8936%12.37Non-ResidentPer Day$101 $244 ($143) 41% Market Rate$16065%Picnic Areas - Westborough Park12.38Damage Deposit (Refundable)Security Deposit$207 $200 $7 104% Security Depos$215108%12.39Extended HoursPer Hour$52 $43 $9 121% Market Rate$54124%12.40Additional Gas GrillEach $104 $70 $35 150% Market Rate $107 154%Sheltered Area (18 tables)12.41ResidentPer Day$342 $623 ($281) 55% Market Rate$35257%12.42Non-ResidentPer Day$357 $623 ($266) 57% Market Rate$40064%Area 2 (5 tables)12.43ResidentPer Day$124 $176 ($52) 71% Market Rate$12873%12.44Non-ResidentPer Day$140 $176 ($36) 80% Market Rate$14381%Combined Sheltered Area & Area 2 (23 tables)12.45ResidentPer Day$450 $794 ($344) 57% Market Rate$46458%12.46Non-ResidentPer Day$466 $794 ($328) 59% Market Rate$50063%Facility Rentals - Magnolia CenterFull Center 12.47ResidentPer Hour$185 $57 $128 325% Market Rate$191334%12.48Non-ResidentPer Hour$200 $57 $143 351% Market Rate$206361%Meeting Room Rental12.49ResidentPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%12.50Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 338% Market Rate$100345%10 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Facility Rentals - Municipal Services Building12.51Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.52Atrium and Room A / B Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%12.53Social Hall Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$500 $500 $0 100% Security Depos$500100%Social Hall w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.54ResidentPer Hour$201 $78 $123 259% Market Rate$207267%12.55Non-ResidentPer Hour$216 $78 $138 278% Market Rate$222287%12.56Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$186 $78 $108 240% Market Rate$192247%Atrium Kitchen (As add-on to Social Hall only - Min. 2 hour rental)12.57ResidentPer Hour$83 $60 $23 137% Market Rate$86142%12.58Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $60 $38 162% Market Rate$101167%12.59Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $60 $8 113% Market Rate$71118%Social Hall (Min. 5 hour rental)12.60ResidentPer Hour$201 $78 $123 259% Market Rate$207267%12.61Non-ResidentPer Hour$216 $78 $138 278% Market Rate$222287%12.62Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$186 $78 $108 240% Market Rate$192247%Atrium/Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.63ResidentPer Hour$130 $52 $78 251% Market Rate$134259%12.64Non-ResidentPer Hour$145 $52 $93 280% Market Rate$149289%12.65Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$115 $52 $63 222% Market Rate$119230%Atrium w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.66ResidentPer Hour$119 $52 $67 230% Market Rate$123237%12.67Non-ResidentPer Hour$134 $52 $82 259% Market Rate$138267%12.68Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$104 $52 $52 201% Market Rate$108209%Marie Peterson Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.69ResidentPer Hour$104$9 $95 1206% Market Rate$1071243%12.70Non-ResidentPer Hour$119$9 $110 1381% Market Rate$1221415%12.71Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$89$9 $80 1032% Market Rate$921063%Marie Peterson Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.72ResidentPer Hour$93$9 $84 1079% Market Rate$961111%12.73Non-ResidentPer Hour$108$9 $99 1253% Market Rate$1111290%12.74Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$78$9 $69 905% Market Rate$81940%Betty Weber Room & Butterfly Room (Min. 1 hour rental)12.75ResidentPer Hour$93 $29 $64 323% Market Rate$96333%12.76Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 341% Market Rate$111386%12.77Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $29 $39 237% Market Rate$81282%Community Room w/o Kitchen, No Food (Min. 2 hour rental)12.78ResidentPer Hour$114 $29 $85 397% Market Rate$117408%12.79Non-ResidentPer Hour$129 $29 $100 449% Market Rate$132459%12.80Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$99 $29 $70 344% Market Rate$102355%William M. Belloni Family Room (Min. 2 hour rental)12.81ResidentPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%12.82Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $29 $69 341% Market Rate$101351%12.83Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $29 $39 237% Market Rate$70244%Rental Extras12.84Portable BarEach$60 $22 $38 278% Market Rate$60278%12.85Coffee PotEach$5$4 $1 139% Market Rate$5143%12.86Sound SystemEach$75 $22 $53 348% Market Rate$75348%12.87Flip Chart with Paper/MarkersEach$12$4 $8 334% Market Rate$12344%12.88LCD ProjectorEach$50 $22 $28 232% Market Rate$50232%12.89Event Day Room Setup AdjustmentEach$75 $43 $32 174% Market Rate$75174%12.90LCD DisplaysEach$20 $22 ($2) 93% Market Rate$2093%12.91Portable StageEach$100 $86 $14 116% Market Rate$100116%12.92Projection ScreensEach$5 $22 ($17) 23% Market Rate$524%12.93Duplicate Permit Fee Retrieval CostEach$25$9 $16 278% User Fee$9100%12.94City Holiday Rental SurchargePer Hour$31 $43 ($12) 72% Surcharge$3274%12.95Co-Sponsored GroupsPer Hour$52 $29 $23 181% Market Rate$54186%12.96Special use RentalsPer Hour$83 $29 $54 289% Market Rate$85297%Facility Rentals - Westborough Park Building12.95Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.96Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Multi-Use / Activity Rooms w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.97ResidentPer Hour$152 $57 $95 264% Market Rate$157272%12.100Non-ResidentPer Hour$167 $57 $110 290% Market Rate$172299%12.101Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$137 $57 $80 238% Market Rate$142247%Multi-Use Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.102ResidentPer Hour$142 $57 $85 247% Market Rate$146254%12.103Non-ResidentPer Hour$157 $57 $100 273% Market Rate$161280%12.104Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$127 $57 $70 221% Market Rate$131228%Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 4 hour rental)12.105ResidentPer Hour$120 $57 $63 209% Market Rate$124215%12.106Non-ResidentPer Hour$135 $57 $78 235% Market Rate$139242%12.107Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$105 $57 $48 183% Market Rate$109190%Facility Rentals - Joseph A. Fernekes Building12.108Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.109Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Multi Use Activity Room w/Kitchen (Min. 5 hour rental)12.110ResidentPer Hour$191 $57 $134 332% Market Rate$197342%12.111Non-ResidentPer Hour$206 $57 $149 358% Market Rate$212369%12.112Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$176 $57 $119 306% Market Rate$182317%Rental Extras12.113Outside Gas GrillEach$100 $70 $31 144% Market Rate$107154%11 of 12Attachment 2
Consolidated Fee ResultsCity of South San Francisco, CAProposed Fee No.Current Fee No.Fee TitleUnit Current Fee Total CostSurplus / (Deficit)Cost RecoveryRules and RegulationsStaff Recommended FeeCouncil Recommended FeeStaff Recommended Cost Recovery %Council Recommended Cost Recovery %Facility Rentals - Terrabay Recreation Center12.114Facility Reservation Refundable DepositSecurity Deposit$300 $300 $0 100% Security Depos$300100%12.115Damage / Cleaning DepositSecurity Deposit$350 $350 $0 100% Security Depos$350100%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen, Gym and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental)12.116ResidentPer Hour$174 $57 $117 303% Market Rate$179312%12.117Non-ResidentPer Hour$189 $57 $132 329% Market Rate$194337%12.118Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$159 $57 $102 277% Market Rate$164285%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Poppy Room (Min. 3 hour rental)12.119ResidentPer Hour$120 $57 $63 209% Market Rate$124215%12.120Non-ResidentPer Hour$135 $57 $78 235% Market Rate$139242%12.121Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$105 $57 $48 183% Market Rate$109190%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/Kitchen and Gym (Min. 3 hour rental)12.122ResidentPer Hour$130 $57 $73 226% Market Rate$134233%12.123Non-ResidentPer Hour$145 $57 $88 252% Market Rate$149260%12.124Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$115 $57 $58 200% Market Rate$119207%Iris Room 1 & 2 w/Kitchen (Min. 3 hour rental)12.125ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$96167%12.126Non-ResidentPer Hour$108 $57 $51 188% Market Rate$111193%12.127Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$78 $57 $21 136% Market Rate$81141%Gymnasium (Min. 3 hour rental)12.128ResidentPer Hour$104 $57 $47 181% Market Rate$107186%12.129Non-ResidentPer Hour$119 $57 $62 207% Market Rate$122212%12.130Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$89 $57 $32 155% Market Rate$92159%Iris Room 1 and 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.131ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.132Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $57 $41 170% Market Rate$100174%12.133Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $57 $11 118% Market Rate$70122%Poppy Room w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.134ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.135Non-ResidentPer Hour$98 $57 $41 170% Market Rate$100174%12.136Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$68 $57 $11 118% Market Rate$70122%Iris Room 1 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.137ResidentPer Hour$83 $57 $26 144% Market Rate$85149%12.138Non-ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$100174%12.139Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$63 $57 $6 110% Market Rate$70122%Iris Room 1 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.140ResidentPer Hour$73 $57 $15 126% Market Rate$75130%12.141Non-ResidentPer Hour$88 $57 $30 152% Market Rate$90157%12.142Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$58 $57 $0 100% Market Rate$60104%Iris Room 2 with Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.143ResidentPer Hour$78 $57 $21 136% Market Rate$80140%12.144Non-ResidentPer Hour$93 $57 $36 162% Market Rate$95165%12.145Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$63 $57 $6 110% Market Rate$65113%Iris Room 2 w/o Kitchen (Min. 2 hour rental)12.146ResidentPer Hour$73 $57 $16 127% Market Rate$75131%12.147Non-ResidentPer Hour$88 $57 $31 153% Market Rate$90157%12.148Non-Profit GroupsPer Hour$58 $57 $1 101% Market Rate$60104%Facility Rentals - Damage / Overtime / Clean-Up Deposit (refundable if no violation)12.149High Risk EventSecurity Deposit$500 $500 $0 100% Security Depos$500100%Other Facility Rental Fees12.150Insurance (Subject to change from insurance company year to year) Per Event$150-$300 Actual CostPass Through$150-$300 (Based on Actual Cost)12.151Application Processing FeeEach $83 $106 ($23) 78% User Fee $85 81%Facility Rentals - Alcohol Surcharge:12.152ChampagneEach$26 Actual CostPass Through$3012.153Champagne & WineEach$52 Actual CostPass Through$5512.154Champagne / Wine / BeerEach$79 Actual CostPass Through$8012.155Champagne / Wine / Beer / Mixed DrinksEach$104 Actual CostPass Through$105Facility Rental - Refunds12.156Within 1 year of eventEach50% of FeePolicy50% of Fee12.157Within 60 days of eventEach0% of FeePolicy0% of FeeMiscellaneous FeesOther Services12.158Community Garden PlotPer Plot$104 $469 ($365) 22% Market Rate$11023%12.159Artist Studio FeePer Sq. Ft. $0.52 $0.78 ($0.26) 67% Market Rate $0.54 69%12.160Special Event & Recital TicketsEach$12.50 $26 ($14) 48% Market Rate $6-$1512.161Seasonal EventsSeasonalSee Flyer / Activity GuidesMarket Rate12.162Special Event Support StaffPer Hour$31 $39 ($8) 80% User Fee$3282%Tree Fees12.163Tree Planting DepositPer Tree$350 $500 ($150) 70% Security Depos$37575%12.164Protected Tree PermitEach$105 $432 ($327) 24% User Fee$12529%12.165Wholesale Tree PurchasePer Tree$500 Actual CostUser Fee Actual Cost12 of 12Attachment 2
Master Fee Study Results FY 20-21Presentation to Budget Standing CommitteeHeather Enders, Management Analyst II3 AUGUST 2020
AGENDA1Scope of Work provided by Matrix2Citywide Fee Study3Cost Recovery Analysis4Proposed Changes + Market Comparison5Recommended Next Steps2
Program Goals1Scope of WorkComprehensive User Fee StudyIdentify the total cost of providing each City service at the appropriate activity level and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates and charges by public entities.Compare service costs with existing policy-based recovery levels. This includes service areas where the City is currently charging, as well as recommended areas where the City should charge, in light of the City’s practices, or the practices of similar or neighboring cities. Recommend potential new fees and charges for services that the City currently provides but does not have fee and/or charges established. Cost Allocation PlanEstablish time estimates by position for each service provided.Allocated overhead costs, including departmental and Citywide overhead in a defensible manner. 3
Study Objectives1Scope of WorkProvide a review of current services and costsAnalyze current cost recovery levelsHighlight subsidiesIdentify potential revenue sourcesThis Study did not:Study EfficiencyService levels were analyzed in the context of fee related services only.Audit ProcessesCurrent process steps were documented to aid in developing defensible time estimates.4
User Fee Study ResultsCost Recovery Analysis52Citywide Fee StudyCost Recovery Impacts ‐100% Cost RecoveryDepartment Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Cost Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Planning $370,040 $608,464 ($238,424) 61%Building $5,843,112 $5,443,550 $399,563 107%Fire ‐Prevention $2,842,269 $2,270,322 $571,947 125%Engineering $1,779,285 $2,090,706 ($311,421) 85%Water Quality $59,075 $447,608 ($388,533) 13%TOTAL $10,893,781 $10,860,650 $33,131 100%
Comparison of Cost Recovery63Cost Recovery107%61%125%85% 85%42%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Current Cost Recovery vs. Typical Cost RecoveryTypical Cost RecoveryCurrent Cost Recovery
Overview of Proposed Fee Changes4Proposed Changes433 fees are proposed to increase due to:Consolidation of services into a singular permit.Process or time estimate changes due to code changes or service level increases.159 fees are proposed to decrease due to:Process efficiencies such as reducing time estimates due to technology or requirement changes.Position changes such as utilizing lower level staff to perform work in lieu of higher level staff.111 fees are proposed to remain unchanged due to state or council set policies.7
Comparative Market Survey4Market ComparisonThe Fee Study Report provides a detailed comparison of current fees charged by the City to other local jurisdictions.Comparative surveys do not provide adequate or objective information regarding the relationship of a jurisdiction’s cost to its fees. Each jurisdiction and its fees are different and many are not based on actual cost of providing services.The same “fee” with the same name may have different processes, or include different service levels. Overall, the City is on par with neighboring and similar jurisdictions.8
Recommended Next Steps5RecommendationsBudget Standing Committee provide input regarding the proposed updates to the Master Fee ScheduleStudy Session for full City Council review on August 12thAdoption by City Council on August 26thFees go into effect on November 22nd9
QUESTIONS?10
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding proposed amendments to Development Impact Fees (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Budget Standing Committee review the proposed updates to the City of South San
Francisco Development 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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
8.Sewer Capacity Fee
9.Commercial Linkage Fee
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.A draft of the Development Impact Fee Report is attached as Attachment 1.
Matrix and staff will finalize the report before full Council adoption.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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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.
•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 Draft 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 byCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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
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.
1.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.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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
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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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
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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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.
F.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.
Cultural Arts/Landscaping In-Lieu Fee
As part of the Study conducted by Matrix,a thorough review of fees were analyzed.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.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,
staff is recommending that this fee be eliminated.The City should consider in its place the creation of a
separate public art in-lieu fee.
G.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 7/31/2020Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
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 Budget Standing Committee provide feedback in advance of the City Council
adoption currently anticipated for August 26,2020.The proposed development impact fees are provided in
Attachment 3.
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
The Budget Standing Committee should provide staff direction on the proposed updated and new development
impact fees.Staff will present these findings at the August 12,2020 City Council Study Session and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-535 Agenda Date:8/3/2020
Version:1 Item #:3.
impact fees.Staff will present these findings at the August 12,2020 City Council Study Session and
subsequently the City Council will consider adopting the Impact Fees at the August 26,2020 City Council
meeting.If approved as planned at the August 26,2020 City Council meeting the proposed fees will go into
effect on November 22, 2020.
Between now and the Study Session,ECD staff will conduct outreach to key commercial stakeholders to
review the proposed fees.Staff will present their findings of that outreach effort at the Council Study Session
anticipated for August 12, 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 Draft 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 Budget Standing Committee 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,
and a new Parking 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.Draft 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.Proposed Development Impact Fees
4.PowerPoint Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/31/2020Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
Development Impact Fee Study
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
DRAFT REPORT
July 2020
mat rix
consulting group
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. Legal Framework 9
3. Projected Growth and Development 12
4. Childcare Impact Fee 16
5. Library Impact Fee 24
6. Police Impact Fee 31
7. Fire Impact Fee 38
8. In-Lieu Fees 45
9. Transportation Impact Fee 47
Appendix A - Police Infrastructure Costs
Appendix B – Fire Infrastructure Costs
Appendix C – DKS Associates Technical Memorandum – Transportation
Appendix D – Transportation Projects
DRAFT 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 draft 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,
DRAFT 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.
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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%
DRAFT 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.
DRAFT 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%
DRAFT 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 AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
Additionally, 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.
1 A $0.24 per square foot fee for the Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee is also charged.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
The City is already following best practices by collecting each impact fee in a separate
fund, reporting on it annually, and ensuring that expenses are allocated within 5 years of
collection. The City should continue to follow these practices.
Lastly, while the City currently classifies impact fees based upon low (single-family) or
medium / high density (multi-family) classifications, there is no separate classification for
accessory dwelling units (ADU). The City should consider developing a policy in relation
to ADU’s which identifies if any or all impact fees are applicable, as well as if there should
be a different rate from the density-based residential fees to be applied to ADUs.
Documenting this policy ensures that if there is a need for changes in the future, there is
the ability for the City to implement those changes without having to impact some of the
other fee categories.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
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
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
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).
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
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
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
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
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
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
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
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:
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
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.
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
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
DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
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 IMPROVEMENTS COSTS SUMMARY
1 See Appendix A for project list.
2 Includes only projects that would be eligible for TIF funding.
TABLE 90: MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Notes: "EDU" is equivalent dwelling unit.
Fees shown do not include a two percent charge for administration of the Transportation Impact Fee program
that may be increased to up to four percent but shall be no greater than the cost incurred by the City to
administer the program. Hotel rate based on rate per 1000 square feet and 700 sf per room.
a) Applies to development projects that do not clearly conform to one of the defined residential or non-
residential categories and is likely to be applicable only in exceptional cases. In such cases the fee would be
based on an estimated trip generation rate adjusted for equivalent dwelling units.
Sources: Tables 2 and 6.
PROJECT SOURCES1 NUMBER OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COSTS
PROJECT TYPES
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle &
Pedestrian
MOBILITY 2020 PROJECTS2 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE EAST
OF 101 AREA (2007) 12 $512,000,000 Arterial
Improvements
TOTAL 156 $688,476,068
LAND USE EDU RATE COST PER EDU TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY 1.00 $26,840 $26,840 per dwelling unit
MULTI-FAMILY 0.58 $26,840 15,467 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL $26,840
RETAIL 1.20 $26,840 $32.28 per square foot
HOTEL/MOTEL 1.22 $26,840 22,861 per room
OFFICE/R&D 1.15 $26,840 30.85 per square foot
INDUSTRIAL 0.60 $26,840 16.07 per square foot
OTHERa TBD $26,840 TBD per square foot
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 20
Table 91: Additional EDU Rates
Sources: See Table 2.
TABLE 92: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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
DRAFT 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).
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 2
plans including the Active South City project, the Mobility 2020 Plan, and the project list
from the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee (see “Improvements and Costs”).
3. Proportionality – A reasonable relationship should exist between the amount of the fee and
the portion of public facilities cost associated with new development. This finding is based
on the cost per unit of development (equivalent dwelling unit) and rates of use by land use
category (see “Transportation Demand”).
In addition to the above findings, the Act also requires findings regarding the purpose of the fee
and a description of the public facilities to be funded by the fee. The purpose of the TIF is to
expand the City’s transportation network to accommodate increased demand by new
development. Examples of the types of projects to be funded by the fee are listed in Appendix
A, with additional detail available in the source documents.
EXISTING AND FORECAST TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND
The TIF amount is partly based on the demand for transportation infrastructure associated with
existing and new development. The TIF will fund multimodal improvements to and expansions of
the transportation network that will benefit new development.
LAND USE
Estimates of existing land use are required to determine the existing level of investment in the
City’s multimodal transportation network relative to existing levels of transportation demand. DKS
developed estimates of existing levels of land use using two sources:
1) The California Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State formed the basis for existing residential land uses.
2) Employment by industry sector as developed for the ongoing General Plan update and
provided by the Department of Economic and Community Development. The employment by
sector was converted to estimates of retail, office, industrial, and hotel use with
employment density factors consistent with those being used in the City’s travel demand
model and General Plan updates.
Forecasts of future land use are required to estimate additional demands on the transportation
system from new development and potential fee revenue. Growth projections by land use category
were developed from the pipeline projects compiled for the ongoing General Plan analyses. These
projections were developed in consultation with the City’s Economic and Community Development
Department. While these growth estimates are what can be reasonably foreseen over the planning
horizon of 2020 to 2040, the ultimate buildout capacity of the City may be greater or lesser,
depending on the outcome of the general plan update. Growth projections are used only to
estimate the level of revenue that might be generated from the proposed TIF and do not directly
enter the calculation of the maximum justifiable fee. This analysis will be updated based on the
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 3
adopted general plan update should there be any significant change in the capital planning
documents mentioned above or the growth forecast.
The amount of future year development by land use category was calculated as existing
development plus growth development. Table 1 presents the amount of existing, new
development, and total future development by category.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
This nexus analysis uses person trip generation rates by land use category to account for variations
in travel demand among land uses. Trip generation rates by land use category reflect either the
origin or destination of a trip and are therefore a reasonable measure of the desire for mobility by
residents and workers to access homes, jobs, shopping, and other activities. This approach
provides a reasonable relationship between the type of development that would pay the fee, the
amount of the fee, and the cost of transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate that
development.
As shown in Table 2, the trip generation rates, combined with average trip lengths associated with
each category of land use, are used to develop Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) on the basis of
person miles traveled. In this way, different land uses are expressed in terms of their travel
demand relative to the single-family dwelling unit. The EDUs represent a common denominator
with which to calculate the transportation impact fee. Vehicle trip rates are used as an indicator of
person trip rates because vehicle occupancy across all land uses is close to 1.0.
Some trips from existing and new development do not place significant additional demand on the
transportation network because they are intermediate stops on the way between primary origins
and destinations. Stopping at a grocery store or gas station on the way home from work would be
an example of such a “pass by” trip. Table 2 includes an adjustment for retail land use trip
generation to account for this phenomenon.
Table 3 shows the Equivalent Dwelling Units derived from the land use data in Table 1 and the
EDU factors from Table 2. Since the EDU factors are based on relative travel demand, the EDUs
shown in Table 2 represent the allocation of travel demand from existing and future development
in South San Francisco by land use. The new TIF will fund enhancements, improvements, and
expansion of citywide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased travel demand
from new development.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 4
TABLE 1 : EXISTING AND FORECAST DEVELOPMENT
Sources and Notes
a) Existing residential units- CA Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019. Single family includes detached and attached units.
Existing non-residential land use derived from employment by industry sector from California Employment
Development Department, 2018; Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2018; and Strategic
Economics, 2020. Nonresidential building square feet based on employment estimates and density factors
(square feet per employee) and recategorization into broad land use categories as follows: retail - 1000,
service - 225, (office), other - 800 (office), office/biotech/R&D - 425 (office), hotel - 2000, manufacturing -
650 (industrial), wholesale trade - 1100 (industrial), agricultural - 2000 (industrial).
b) Growth projections from Economic and Community Development Department, as compiled from
development pipeline projects.
LAND USE EXISTING
2020a
GROWTH
2020-2040b
TOTAL
2040
RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS)
SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302
MULTI-FAMILY 5,787 3,189 8,976
TOTAL 22,059 3,219 25,278
NONRESIDENTIAL (BUILDING SQUARE FEET)
RETAIL 3,401,000 78,339 3,479,339
HOTEL/MOTEL 8,872,000 364,500 9,236,500
OFFICE/R&D 7,250,025 12,673,495 19,923,520
INDUSTRIAL 22,594,900 4,263 22,599,163
TOTAL 42,117,925 13,120,597 55,238,522
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020
TABLE 2 : EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT RATES
Sources:
Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th edition; ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd
Edition, Table E.9: Pass-By and Non-Pass-By Trips, Weekday PM Peak Period; SANDAG, Brief Guide of
Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002); Jan de Roos, Planning and Programming
a Hotel (The Scholarly Commons: Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, 2011
Notes
a) Person-miles traveled
b) Thousand square feet
c) Accounts for trip ends that are not part of a new travel tour but are made mostly en route to another origin
or destination and do not represent significant additional demand on the transportation network.
d) Hotel/Motel trip rate based on ITE rate per room and 700 gross building square feet per room.
LAND USE
ITE
LAND
USE
CODE1
DAILY
TRIP
RATE
UNIT TRIP
LENGTH
PERCENT
NEW
TRIPS
P MTa
PER
UNIT
EQUIVALENT
DWELLING UNITS
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY 210 9.44 Dwelling
unit 7.90 100 74.58 1.00 per SFDU
MULTI-FAMILY 221 5.44 Dwelling
unit 7.90 100 42.98 0.58 per MFDU
NONRESIDENTIAL
RETAIL 820 37.75 KSFb 3.60 66c 89.69 1.20 per KSF
HOTEL/MOTEL d 310 11.94 KSF 7.60 100 90.74 1.22 per KSF
OFFICE/R&D 710 9.74 KSF 8.80 100 85.71 1.15 per KSF
INDUSTRIAL 110 4.96 KSF 9.00 100 44.64 0.60 per KSF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 6
TABLE 3 : EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
LAND USE EXISTING 2020 GROWTH 2020-2040 TOTAL 2040
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY 16,272 30 16,302
MULTI-FAMILY 3,335 1,838 5,173
SUBTOTAL 19,607 1,868 21,475
NONRESIDENTIAL
RETAIL 4,090 94 4,184
HOTEL/MOTEL 10,795 444 11,239
OFFICE/R&D 8,333 14,566 22,899
INDUSTRIAL 13,525 3 13,528
SUBTOTAL 36,743 15,107 51,850
TOTAL 56,350 16,975 73,325
SHARE 77% 23% 100%
Sources: Tables 1 and 2.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 7
CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
This section presents the City’s existing standard for transportation infrastructure based on the
existing level of investment in that infrastructure.
INVENTORY OF CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Determining the investment that the City has made to date in its transportation network requires
identification of the components of the City’s multimodal transportation network that connect
residential neighborhoods, retail and employment centers, and other destinations across the city
and outside the city. Streets and other transportation infrastructure that serve a specific
neighborhood and do not provide connectivity between areas are excluded from this inventory.
The citywide multimodal transportation infrastructure was quantified using street centerline
Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the map of streets by classification published in the
City’s current general plan, and online aerial photographs. The transportation network is defined as
arterials and collectors that provide connectivity among different neighborhoods in South San
Francisco and to regional destinations. This network includes the entire roadway curb-to-curb
(vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and on street parking), as well as adjacent sidewalks, medians,
traffic signals, and off-street paths. As mentioned above, the network excludes local streets used
primarily for access to individual properties within specific neighborhoods.
Figure 1 shows a map of the City’s existing citywide transportation network that will be eligible for
improvement or expansion projects funded by the proposed citywide TIF. Quantities for each
component of the inventory are summarized in Table 4.
FACILITY STANDARDS AND LEVEL OF INVESTMENT
New development will place additional demands on the City’s transportation network. The nexus
between new development and the need for citywide transportation infrastructure hinges on
maintaining the City’s existing facility standard as it grows. The existing facility standard is derived
from the inventory shown in Figure 1 and Table 4 expressed per EDU for existing development. The
maximum justified TIF is then based on new development maintaining the level of investment
represented by this existing facility standard.
The existing transportation network is valued by applying current unit replacement costs to the
inventoried quantities. The unit costs used to estimate replacement cost are shown in Table 5.
These unit costs are based on recent capital project costs in the San Francisco Bay Area and have
been confirmed by City staff (see Appendix B for detailed unit costs).
As shown in Table 6, the City has invested almost $27,000 per EDU in its existing transportation
infrastructure. This amount represents the maximum justified level of investment from new
development necessary to maintain the existing facility standard. Because the facility standard is
based on citywide multimodal infrastructure, the City may use revenues from the proposed TIF to
fund improvements anywhere on the citywide network for any mode (permitted use of TIF revenue
is further discussed under “Use of Fee Revenue”).
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 8
FIGURE 1 CITYWIDE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 9
TABLE 4 :CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Source: DKS Associates
TABLE 5 : TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS (2020$)
Source: DKS Associates 2020
Notes: a) Does not include Temporary Traffic Control. b) Percent of total before contingency; includes 20%
for project design, 15% for construction engineering, and 5% for project management, c) Construction
Cost*(1+Design Management%) * (1+ Contingency%), d) Cost of street lighting, water pollution prevention,
street furniture and drainage not included in unit cost.
INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY
ROADWAY Square Feet 17,582,145
SIDEWALK Square Feet 3,026,716
CURB & GUTTER Linear Feet 577,840
MEDIAN Square Feet 1,009,061
BICYCLE PATH Square Feet 180,576
BICYCLE LANE Linear Feet 666,574
TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersections 113
INFRASTRUCTURE
TYPE UNIT CONSTRUCTION
COSTa
DESIGN &
MANAGEMENT
COSTb
CONTINGENCY TOTAL
UNIT COSTc
ROADWAYd Square Foot $37 40% 20% $63
SIDEWALK Square Foot $31 40% 20% $52
CURB & GUTTER Linear Foot $86 40% 20% $144
MEDIAN Square Foot $28 40% 20% $47.04
BICYCLE PATH Square Foot $26 40% 20% $44
BICYCLE LANE Linear Foot $10 40% 20% $17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL Intersection $528,000 40% 20% $887,040
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 10
TABLE 6 : E XISTING FACILITY STANDARD & LEVEL OF INVESTMENT
Note: All dollars in 2020$
Sources: DKS Associates, Tables 3, 4, and 5.
INFRASTRUCTURE
TYPE
INVENTORY
AMOUNT UNITS
EQUIVALENT
DWELLING
UNITS
EXISTING
FACILITY
STANDARD
(UNITS
PER EDU)
REPLACE-
MENT COST
PER UNIT
EXISTING
LEVEL OF
INVESTMENT
PER EDU
ROADWAY 17,582,145 Square feet 56,350 312.0 $63 $19,605
SIDEWALK 3,026,716 Square feet 56,350 53.7 52 2,797
CURB & GUTTER 577,840 Linear feet 56,350 10.3 144 1,478
MEDIAN 1,009,061 Square feet 56,350 17.9 47 842
BICYCLE PATH 180,576 Square feet 56,350 3.2 44 140
BICYCLE LANE 666,574 Linear feet 56,350 11.8 17 199
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 113 Intersections 56,350 0.002 887,040 1,779
TOTAL $26,840
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 11
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS
This section describes the City’s planned transportation improvements along with associated costs
to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues to
accommodate that development.
A list of transportation improvement projects was compiled from project needs identified in several
planning studies. These sources include the East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Study, the Mobility
2020 Study, and the Active South City study (currently underway) for bicycle and pedestrian
projects. The total estimated project costs from these three sources alone approaches $689 million.
Note that only capital projects that would be eligible for funding through the TIF were included in
this total (the Mobility 2020 Study included some transit operations and Transportation Demand
Management projects). The list also excludes projects designed for facility maintenance or
rehabilitation. The included projects would improve, enhance, and/or expand the City’s existing
transportation system.
Table 7 provides a summary of projects and associated costs. A detailed project listing is provided
in Appendix A. This project list is meant to exemplify the types of projects that could receive
funding from the proposed TIF and is not intended to be an exhaustive or prescriptive list. New
project needs may be identified once the TIF is in place.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
This section combines the results of the analyses described in the preceding sections to arrive at a
maximum justifiable TIF fee schedule. The City may adopt any fee level below the maximum
justified fee, taking into account economic development policy, fee levels charged by comparable
jurisdictions, and potentially other policy considerations. The City may adopt fees with varying
levels of discount by land use category based on reasonable policy considerations, such as more
deeply discounting industrial fees to encourage industrial development as part of an economic
development policy.
COST PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT AND FEE SCHEDULE
The maximum justified fee per EDU is $26,840 based on maintaining the existing facility standard
and level of investment as presented in Table 6. Any fee level per EDU may be adopted as long as
it is less than the maximum justified amount and the percent reduction in the fee per EDU may
vary by land use category. Calculated using the EDU rates shown in Table 2, the maximum justified
fee rates for each basic land use category are shown in Table 8.
If desired, the fees calculated for basic land use categories shown in Table 8 may be refined to
better reflect the travel demand characteristics of more narrowly defined land uses. EDU rates may
be developed for the specialized land uses, as was done for the more generic land use categories,
based on their trip generation and/or trip length characteristics. The EDU factor for each specialized
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 12
TABLE 7 : TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS COSTS SUMMARY
1 See Appendix A for project list.
2 Includes only projects that would be eligible for TIF funding.
TABLE 8 : MAXIMUM JUSTIFIABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Notes: "EDU" is equivalent dwelling unit.
Fees shown do not include a two percent charge for administration of the Transportation Impact Fee program
that may be increased to up to four percent but shall be no greater than the cost incurred by the City to
administer the program. Hotel rate based on rate per 1000 square feet and 700 sf per room.
a) Applies to development projects that do not clearly conform to one of the defined residential or non-
residential categories and is likely to be applicable only in exceptional cases. In such cases the fee would be
based on an estimated trip generation rate adjusted for equivalent dwelling units.
Sources: Tables 2 and 6.
PROJECT SOURCES 1 NUMBER OF
PROJECTS
ESTIMATED
COSTS
PROJECT TYPES
ACTIVE SOUTH CITY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle &
Pedestrian
EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
STUDY UPDATE 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal
MOBILITY 2020 PROJECTS2 12 $512,000,000 Arterial
Improvements
TOTAL 156 $688,476,068
LAND USE EDU RATE COST PER EDU TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY 1.00 $26,840 $26,840 per dwelling unit
MULTI-FAMILY 0.58 $26,840 15,467 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL $26,840
RETAIL 1.20 $26,840 $32.28 per square foot
HOTEL/MOTEL 1.22 $26,840 22,861 per room
OFFICE/R&D 1.15 $26,840 30.85 per square foot
INDUSTRIAL 0.60 $26,840 16.07 per square foot
OTHERa TBD $26,840 TBD per square foot
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 13
land use would then be its trip rate divided by the trip rate for the standard (1.0) EDU (single-
family dwelling unit rate). Table 9 lists the EDU rates for several potential additional land use
categories.
COMPARABLE FEE RATES
When adopting a fee level, one consideration is the level of fees charged by nearby jurisdictions as
well as the current transportation impact fees being collected in South San Francisco. Table 10 lists
the transportation impact fees charged by several Bay Area jurisdictions as well as the existing fee
levels for the existing citywide bicycle and pedestrian fee and the East of 101 traffic impact fee.
Note that the existing East of 101 fee is collected only on commercial, office, and hotel uses in the
portion of the City east of US-101.
REVENUE PROJECTIONS
The amount of revenue that can be collected under the new TIF will depend on the fee levels
adopted by the City as well as the expected growth over the planning horizon. As neither of these
factors has been finalized, it is not possible to predict with any certainty the level of revenue that
would be generated by the new TIF. However, as shown in Table 11, a transportation impact fee
set at the maximum justifiable level would generate more revenue for transportation
improvements over the 20-year planning horizon than would existing fees. This maximum level of
revenue generated would be less than the identified project needs. As mentioned in the
introduction, the proposed TIF would replace these two existing fees.
USE OF FEE REVENUE
The types of projects anticipated that could be eligible to receive fee revenue are listed in Appendix
A. The City may modify the project list, adding or replacing projects as long as the modified
projects are consistent with the nexus analysis. Projects eligible for funding with the proposed TIF
must be capital projects, must be part of the citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1
and summarized in Table 4, and must consist of an enhancement, upgrade, or expansion of the
citywide transportation network. These criteria are explained further below:
• Capital projects only – capital project costs may include design, engineering,
environmental review, permits, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, project
management, and construction of all related infrastructure.
• Part of the citywide transportation network. Capital projects must be part of the
citywide transportation network shown in Figure 1. Projects on local streets that serve only
to provide access to individual properties would not be eligible.
• Enhancement, upgrade, or expansion only. Projects that are merely replacing or
maintaining existing infrastructure would not be eligible. Projects must add capacity,
serve additional modes, or otherwise upgrade existing infrastructure.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 14
T ABLE 9 : ADDITIONAL EDU RATES
Sources: See Table 2.
TABLE 10: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ PER UNIT)
CITY SFDU MFDU RETAIL (PER
SF)
OFFICE
(PER SF)
INDUSTRIAL
(PER SF)
HOTEL
ROOM
BURLINGAME $1,573 $1,105 $1.81 $7.285 $1.146 N/A
EL CERRITO $3.322 $2,325 $4.48 $3.85 $2.43 $3,650/KSF
REDWOOD CITY $1,617 $992 $3.94/ $10.75a $2.38 $1.55 $945
SAN BRUNO $3,374 $2,610 $8.95 $6.95 $2.78 $1,527
SAN MATEO $4,760.95 $2,922.38 $8.18763 $4.37010 $2.84713 N/A
CURRENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FEES
BICYCLE-
PEDESTRIAN $243 $170 $0.36 $0.09 $0.12 $0.24/visitor
SF
EAST OF 101
TRAFFIC
IMPACT B
N/A N/A $25.06 $6.05 N/A $1,407.23
Sources: City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule Effective on July 1, 2019, City of El Cerrito FY 29-20 Master
Fee Schedule, Redwood City Development Impact Fees as of September 1, 2016, City of San Bruno Resolution
no. 2019-20, City of San Mateo Proposed Comprehensive Fee schedule July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021, City of
South San Francisco Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019.
aGeneral retail/supermarket, bBefore any adjustments for inflation.
LAND USE (ITE CODE)
DAILY
TRIP
RATE
UNIT TRIP
LENGTH
PERCENT
NEW
TRIPS
PMTa
PER
UNIT
EDU RATE
RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
HIGH-RISE (222) 4.45 dwelling
unit 7.9 100 35.16 0.47
MULTIFAMILY MID RISE
WITH 1ST FLOOR
COMMERCIAL (231) 3.44 dwelling
unit 7.9 100 27.18 0.36
NONRESIDENTIAL
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
(760) 11.26 KSF b 8.8 100 99.09 1.33
HIGH CUBE PARCEL HUB
WAREHOUSE (156) 7.75 KSF 9 100 69.75 0.94
HIGH CUBE FULFILLMENT
CENTER WAREHOUSE (155) 8.18 KSF 9 100 73.62 0.99
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS• JULY 2020 15
TABLE 11. REVENUE PROJECTIONS
LAND USE
EXPECTED
GROWTH
2020-2040
(SQ. F T )
EO101
GROWTH
WEST-
SIDE
GROWTH
EO101 FEE EXISTING BIKE-
PED FEE
REVENUE
(EXISTING) PROPOSED TIF
RESIDENTIAL (DWELLING UNITS) Fee Rate1 Revenue Fee
Rate2
Revenue Fee Rate1 Revenue
SINGLE FAMILY 30 - 30 N/A - $243 7,289 7,289 $26,840 805,200
MULTI-FAMILY 3,189 - 3,189 N/A - $170 540,781 540,781 $15,467 49,324,263
TOTAL
3,219 - 3,219 N/A - 548,070 548,070 50,129,463
NONRESIDENTIAL (SQUARE
RETAIL 78,339 20,000 58,339 $25.06 501,200 $0.36 28,552 529,752 $32.28 2,528,783
HOTEL 364,500 190,000 174,500 $1,407.23 381,962 $0.24 87,181 469,143 $22,861.22 11,904,164
OFFICE/R&D 12,673,495 10,641,637 2,031,858 $6.05 64,381,904 $0.09 1,190,042 65,571,946 $30.85 390,977,321
INDUSTRIAL 4,263 - 4,263 N/A - $0.12 512 512 $16.07 68,506
TOTAL 13,120,597 10,851,637 2,268,960 $65,265,066 $1,306,28
$66,571,353 $405,478,774
CITYWIDE
13,120,597 $65,265,066 $1,854,35
$67,119,423 $455,608,237
Sources: Tables 1, growth projections from City of South San Francisco, published fee rates.
Note: Existing fee rates include administrative portion of fees and adjustments for inflation that may have been applied.
1 Rates as published in Annual Impact Fee Report 2018-2019, City of South San Francisco. Fee for hotel is per room (assume 700 GSF per room).
2 Rates as published by City of South San Francisco, 2018. Assumes any growth mobile homes are counted as multifamily units. Hotel rate is per
“visitor SF”
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS • JULY 2020
APPENDIX A – PROJECT LIST
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List
Source Project Location Project Description
Planning Level
Cost Estimate
($2020)
HSIP Cycle 9Ped safety traffic signal upgrades
12 signals along Spruce, Grand and Linden convert to mast arm and install ped
heads $ 2,853,318
HSIP Cycle 9Ped safety and ADA improvements Orange/Canal/Nyrtle and Hillside/Franklin RRFB and ADA curb ramps $ 234,024
Community Identified Hillside Road Diet Hillside/Lincoln intersection improvements and road diet $ 862,407
HSIP Cycle 9
JS/Hickey/Longford Intersection
Improvements Improvements at intersection, ATP application $ 5,930,852
Community Identified Hillside Sister‐Cities Traffic Calming
Speed cushion installations, striping improvements and ped crossing
improvements in Paradise Valley neighborhood (partial eligibility) $ 566,650
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue
Re‐stripe US‐101 off‐ramp approach to Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive
left, shared through/left turn and exclusive right turn lane to provide exclusive
left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. $ 55,817
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study
Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister
Cities/Oyster Point Blvd
Change WB second left turn lane to through lane, through/right to a right turn
lane, widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to one additional left turn lane, signal mod $ 835,141
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd
Remove median and widen east side Eccles Ave., add additional left turn lane,
signal mod $ 615,998
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Gull Drive & Oyster Point Blvd
Widen NB Gull Dr. to provid two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, signal
mod $ 968,537
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off‐
ramp
Widen SB 101 off‐ramp and replace retaining wall, restripe SB through/left to
through‐only, remove street parking to increace turn lane storage, signal mod $ 2,894,166
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Airport Blvd & Grand Ave
Restripe SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane to through‐right and through‐left lane
to left turn only, signal mod $ 217,617
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave
Widen Grand Ave to improve turning radius for trucks, remove pork chop and
correct pavement cross slope $ 5,255,876
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Grandview Dr (DNA Way) & Grand Ave
New signal mod, add one right turn lane on SB Grandview Ave., one through
lane on NB Grandview Ave., add left turn and through‐left lanes on EB Grand
Ave., signal interconnect installation $ 995,951
Traffic Impact Fee Study
Update East of 101 Area
(2007) Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave
Add additional left turn lane and restripe through‐left to be left turn only on
WB Airport Blvd., eliminate weaving section on NB Produce Ave., signal mod $ 1,507,493
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study
South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave &
Gateway Blvd
Add additional right‐turn lane and change through‐left to through on EB Airport
Blvd., add two through lanes and right‐turn lane on MitchellAve., add right‐turn
lane and change through‐right to right only on SB Gateway, new signal
installation $ 5,710,328
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave
Add one SB left‐turn lane and change NB through lane to through‐right on
Airport Blvd., signal mod $ 622,894
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Harbor Way
Widen Harbor Way to 4 lanes with parking prohibition between Grand Ave. and
Mitchell Ave., new signal installation $ 7,463,682
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study
Hwy 101 northbound hook ramps/S.
Airport Blvd
Widen US‐101 off‐ramp to add one lane at the exit and one right‐turn lane at
the intersection, relocate US‐101 NB hook on‐ramp toward north, widen SB S.
Airport Blvd. between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add left turn lane,.
Reconfigure NB S. Airport Blvd between hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add one
through lane and one left‐turn lane, signal mod $ 4,014,611
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Widen Gull Road to extend left‐turn lane $ 297,316
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave
Widen and prohibit street parking on Grand Ave. to one EB through lane and
one let‐trun lane, realign striping on WB E. Grand Ave. $ 1,671,977
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave
Add one through lane on E. Grand Ave., new signal mod, install dedicated left‐
turn lane from EB Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave., signal interconnect installation $ 908,622
East of 101 Area Traffic
Impact Fee Study Utah Ave & Harbor Way
Widen and prohibit street parking on Harbor Way to add SB right‐turn and NB
through lanes, restripe and prohibit street parking on Utah Ave. to add one EB
left‐turn and one WB left‐turn, new signal mod $ 1,642,020
Mobility 2020 Projects I‐380 Connection via Haskins Way
Connects I‐380/North Access Road directly to the Area via Haskins Way. 1/2 mil
bridge includes four lanes of traffic and Bay Trail extensions $ 128,000,000.00
Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue Interchange
Etends Utah Avenue for South Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with a
new southbound on‐ramp and off‐ramp. 1/4 mile extension includes four lanes
of traffic, sidewalks, and bike lanes. $ 77,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects
Grand Avenue Northbound Offramp
Flyover
Realigns northbound US‐101 off‐ramp to Grand Avenue above the new Caltrain
Station. Two lane off‐ramp aligns with Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue
intersection $ 34,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Sierra Point Connection
Extends Veterans Boulevard to Shoreline Court via two lane street via existing
parking lots and new bridge. Includes reconstruction of Bay Trail bridge $ 12,000,000
A‐1
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List
Source Project Location Project Description
Planning Level
Cost Estimate
($2020)
Mobility 2020 Projects Railroad Avenue Extension
Extends Railroad Avenue from Linden Avenue to Littlefield Avenue. One mile
street extension includes grade separation of Caltrain, two lanes of traffic, and
bicycle/pedesrian trail $ 261,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Oyster Point Boulevard*
Reduce median width width to add curbside bus/bike lanes, in‐line bus stops,
close missing crosswalk gaps, and reconfigure traffic signals $ 7,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects East Grand Avenue*
Address unmet traffic signal needs, reconfigure traffic signals, close sidewalks
and bikeway gaps, widen sidewalks, add curb extensions, add raised median
east of Littlefied, add on‐street bus stops and bus lanes/queue jumps, and
remove slip lanes $ 22,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects South Airport Boulevard*
Address gaps in median, widen sidewalks, upgrade traffic signals, upgrade bus
stops $ 14,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Utah Avenue*
Add traffic signal at Utah Avenue/Harbor Way intersection; add bike lanes and
address sidewalk gaps $ 3,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Gull Drive*Widen Gull Drive from two lanes to four lanes $ 6,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Forbes Boulevard*
Add traffic signal Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, connect bike
trails, address sidewalk gaps, and extend road diet from Allerton Way to Eccles
Avenue $ 4,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects
Caltrain Access Improvements & Rails
to Trails Projects
Construct approximately three miles of trails within the Area along former
railways and excess street right of way $ 7,000,000
Mobility 2020 Projects Centennial Trail‐Bay Trail Connector
Bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting existing Bay Trail terminus at Costco to
Tanforan Avenue, with connection to Centennial Trail and San Bruno BART $ 14,000,000
Development Impact
Mitigation Fee Analysis Centennial Connector New Bikeway Project from Mission Rd/Grand Ave to Centennial Trail $ 68,644
Active South City Projects Arroyo Drive Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Oake Avenue $ 631,449
Active South City Projects Orange/Canal Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB $ 3,368,040
Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to Miller Avenue $ 524,888
Active South City Projects El Camino Real Bicycle project from City Limit to City Limit $ 8,260,694
Active South City Projects W Orange Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $ 1,326,000
Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from Miller Avenue to Armour Avenue $ 170,958
Active South City Projects
Alta Loma Drive/Buri Buri Bicycle
Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $ 4,123,860
Active South City Projects Avalon Bicycle Boulevard Group Short Term Improvement ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade $ 2,174,640
Active South City Projects Bike/Ped Bridge Study Bicycle project from Airport Boulevard to Poletti Way $ 19,500,000
Active South City Projects Centennial Trail Connections Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to El Camino Real $ 49,375
Active South City Projects Chestnut Avenue Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Sunset Avenue $ 1,954,485
Active South City Projects Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Bayshore Boulevard to E Grand Avenue $ 6,864
Active South City Projects Hickey Boulevard Bicycle project from City Limit to El Camino Real $ 1,712,810
Active South City Projects Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Junipero Serra Boulevard to El Camino Real $ 3,157,145
Active South City Projects Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Skyline Boulevard to Junipero Serra Boulevard $ 5,592,834
Active South City Projects Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to S Airport Boulevard $ 773,308
Active South City Projects Bayshore Boulevard Bicycle project from Sister Cities Boulevard to City Limit $ 1,903,075
Active South City Projects Centennial Trail Bicycle project from Existing trail to City Limit $ 401,030
Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Forbes Boulevard to Haskins Avenue $ 2,294,336
Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Poletti Way $ 390,000
Active South City Projects E Grand Avenue Trail Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard $ 557,799
Active South City Projects
Evergreen/Holly Bicycle Boulevard
Group Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB $ 2,532,660
Active South City Projects Forbes Boulevard Bicycle project from Eccles Avenue to Allerton Avenue $ 2,052,980
Active South City Projects Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard $ 1,402,712
Active South City Projects Harbor Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB 265200
Active South City Projects Linden Bicycle Boulevard Group Opportunity Project ‐ Proposed Class IIIB, facility upgrade 1,299,480$
Active South City Projects McLellan Dr Bicycle project from El Camino Real to Mission Road 86,397$
A‐2
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List
Source Project Location Project Description
Planning Level
Cost Estimate
($2020)
Active South City Projects Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard 472,258$
Active South City Projects Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to Lawndale Boulevard 440,786$
Active South City Projects N Access Rd Bicycle project from Bay Trail to S Airport Boulevard 571,311$
Active South City Projects Poletti Way Bicycle project from Caltrain Station Tunnel to Oyster Point Boulevard 1,340,830$
Active South City Projects S Spruce Ave Bicycle Project from El Camino Real to N Canal St 2,268,438$
Active South City Projects Sneath Ln extension Bicycle Project from Huntington Ave to S Linden Ave 1,022,346$
Active South City Projects Bay Trail/Shaw/Tanforan Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to Huntington Ave 1,782,091$
Active South City Projects Colma Creek Bay Trail Bicycle Project from Existing Bay Trail to Utah Ave 565,500$
Active South City Projects Colma Creek Service Road Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Colma Creek Trail 4,095$
Active South City Projects E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to End of street 10,626$
Active South City Projects E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Gateway Blvd 20,592$
Active South City Projects Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from Westborough Blvd to Shannon Dr 1,635,096$
Active South City Projects Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from King Dr to Westborough Blvd 1,669,717$
Active South City Projects Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Spruce Ave 405,038$
Active South City Projects Greendale Bicycle Boulevard Group 1,763,580$
Active South City Projects Harbor Way Bicycle Project from RR tracks/proposed trail to Littlefield Ave 24,115$
Active South City Projects Huntington Ave Bicycle Project from Spruce Ave to Noor Ave 811,863$
Active South City Projects Junipero Serra Blvd Bicycle Project from Avalon Dr to City limit 6,389,555$
Active South City Projects Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Marina Blvd to Parking lot 13,295$
Active South City Projects Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Gateway Blvd 45,669$
Active South City Projects Produce Ave/ new road Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd/San Mateo Ave to Utah Ave extension 1,142,622$
Active South City Projects Shannon Bicycle Boulevard Group 1,206,660$
Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Sister Cities Blvd 120,728$
Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Chapman Ave 114,258$
Active South City Projects Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Gateway Blvd to Belle Aire Rd 1,924,416$
Active South City Projects Country Club Dr Bicycle Project from Alida Way to El Camino Real 63,407$
Active South City Projects Gateway Trail Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 1,303,385$
Active South City Projects Gellert‐Chateau 119,981$
Active South City Projects Haskins Way Bicycle Project from E Grand AveE Grand Ave to North Access Road 2,099,636$
Active South City Projects Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Linden Ave to Spruce Ave 20,703$
Active South City Projects Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to Ridgeview Court 121,371$
Active South City Projects Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to Proposed trail 1,365$
Active South City Projects near Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 1,554,126$
Active South City Projects Oak Ave Bicycle Project from Mission Rd to Grand Ave 390,897$
Active South City Projects Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Centennial Trail to Railroad Ave 132,192$
Active South City Projects S Spruce Bicycle Project from N Canal St to Railroad Ave 458,904$
Active South City Projects San Mateo Avenue Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to S Sirport Blvd 133,848$
Active South City Projects Sister Cities Blvd Bicycle Project from Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd 2,686,082$
Active South City Projects Utah Ave Bicycle Project from San Mateo Ave to US‐101 49,764$
Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr 781,794$
Active South City Projects Chestnut Ave Bicycle Project from Sunset Ave to Hillside Blvd 831,945$
Active South City Projects Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to Mission Rd 206,138$
Active South City Projects Linden Ave Bicycle Project from Tanforan Ave to Baden Ave 168,847$
Active South City Projects Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Utah Ave 1,139,761$
Active South City Projects Mitchell Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to AIrport Blvd 53,196$
Active South City Projects near Harbor Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Littlefield Ave 1,643,124$
Active South City Projects Utah Ave Bicycle Project from US‐101 to Littlefield Ave 1,804,140$
Active South City Projects DNA Way Bicycle Project from Existing facility to Existing facility 32,338$
Active South City Projects near Cabot Rd Bicycle Project from Allerton Ave to E Grand Ave 1,192,484$
Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Westborough Blvd 21,486$
Active South City Projects W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to Fairway Dr 11,830$
Active South City Projects Mission and Lawndale/McLellan
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at
all four corners. Provide leading pedestrian intervals for all crossings. Construct
sidewalks on the west side of McLellan south of Mission Road.1,250,340$
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and McLellan
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Install a high‐visibility
crosswalk at the western ECR approach. Provide a leading pedestrian interval
for the ECR crossings. Construct curb extensions.1,352,000$
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and BART
Straighten the crosswalk across the northern approach. Upgrade both
crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.139,750$
Active South City Projects Grand and Airport Boulevard
Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two marked crossings to high‐visibility.
Consider pedestrian‐only phase. Construct a pedestrian refuge island at the
Airport Boulevard approach.334,750$
A‐3
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List
Source Project Location Project Description
Planning Level
Cost Estimate
($2020)
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and Ponderosa
Construct sidewalks on the eastern side of ECR between County Club Drive and
Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings. Construct median
refuge islands for the ECR crossings.459,875$
Active South City Projects Grand Avenue and E Grand Avenue
Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Remove free right
turn lane at southeast corner. Install pedestrian refuge island in the E Grand
Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions at the northeast, southwest, and
southeast corners. Add a leading pedestrian interval for the E Grand Avenue
crossing.919,750$
Active South City Projects Mission and Sequoia
Install a crosswalk on the northern approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐
visiblity crosswalks. Construct curb extensions.1,062,750$
Active South City Projects Orange and Railroad
Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across Railroad Avenue to high‐visibility and
construct a curb extension at the southeast corner.68,250$
Active South City Projects Orange and Tennis Drive
Construct curb extensions for the crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive.
Install a high‐visibility crosswalk across Tennis Drive.263,250$
Active South City Projects Westborough and Galway
Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough crossings. Construct curb ramps
at all corners. Install curb extensions to tighten corner radii. Update/add school
zone signs.1,453,400$
Active South City Projects
Westborough and Junipero Serra
Boulevard
Construct sidewalks on the southern side of Westborough Boulevard through
the interchange area to Junipero Serra. Install/upgrade high visibility crosswalks
at all interchange crossing locations. Install with appropriate signs and
pavement markings.191,165$
Active South City Projects Spruce and Grand
Install yellow transverse markings around the decorative crosswalk. Upgrade
three remaining crosswalks to high‐visibility. Consider installing curb extensions
at all corners.1,073,150$
Active South City Projects Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport
Construct curb extensions at the north, west, and south corners. Upgrade two
marked crosswalks and realign to be straight. Implement a leading pedestrian
interval for both crosswalks.741,000$
Active South City Projects Arroyo and Alta Loma
Construct curb extensions on both sides of the crosswalk. Construct a median
refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a high visibility crosswalk across Alta Loma
Drive.406,250$
Active South City Projects E Grand and Poletti Way
Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue and Industrial Way to enhance Caltrain
and Grand Avenue access. Tighten corner radii to square‐up intersection
approaches. Provide the proposed trail with an enhanced crossing.289,250$
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and Kaiser
Construct sidewalks on the south side of ECR from the bus stop to the bend in
Del Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR and Del Paso. At the Kaiser
driveway, upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Redesign the
pedestrian refuge island in the western ECR crossing. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.215,735$
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and S Spruce
Upgrade all four crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian
refuge islands for the two ECR crossings. Provide a leading pedestrian interval
for the ECR crossings. Consider curb extensions at all four corners.1,475,500$
Active South City Projects Grand and Linden
Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian
intervals for all crossings.171,600$
Active South City Projects Grand and Maple
Install advance stop markings at all approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian
intervals for all crossings.171,600$
Active South City Projects Hickey and El Camino Real
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northern ECR
crosswalk. Install a high‐visibility crosswalk across the sourther ECR approach
(push back the northbound stop bar and median to create a straight crossing).
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossings.160,875$
Active South City Projects Miller and Oakcrest
Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners.
Install advance stop/yield pavement markings. Consider installing an RRFB.686,400$
Active South City Projects
BART/Cymbidium Circle Neighborhood
Path
Create a stair channel along the existing stairs to improve bicycle access.
Remove the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open stair access to both
neighborhoods. At ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility and straighten the
crosswalk. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.136,500$
Active South City Projects Spruce and S Canal Way
Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal Street. Upgrade both crosswalks to high‐
visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb extension at the southeast corner. Add
trail wayfinding information. Consider leading pedestrian interval for Spruce
Avenue crossing.242,125$
Active South City Projects Westborough and Gellert
Upgrade the three marked, and install on the fourth approach high‐visibility
crosswalks. Build out the necessary corners to straighten all crosswalks.
Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all crosswalks. Provide a leading
pedestrian interval for the northern Westborough crosswalk.2,314,000$
A‐4
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Example Project List
Source Project Location Project Description
Planning Level
Cost Estimate
($2020)
Active South City Projects
Westborough/Chestnut and El Camino
Real
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Straighten the northen
crosswalk across Chestnut. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for all
crossings. Consider installing curb extensions at all corners. Extend all four
medians to create pedestrian refuge islands.2,314,000$
Active South City Projects
El Camino Real and Arroyo & Arroyo
and Del Paso
Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive across Arroyo Drive; close gap in
median and remove yield paddle. At ECR, upgrade all crosswalks to high
visibility crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for ECR crossings.
Consider curb extensions at all four corners 1,266,525$
Active South City Projects Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs for the Grand Avenue crossings.12,000$
Active South City Projects
Grand mid‐block crossings between
Linden and Maple Install advance yield pavement markings and signs. 16,250$
Active South City Projects Hillside and Arden
Refresh the two existing high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at
the two eastern corners. Install advance stop/yield markings.296,400$
Active South City Projects Hillside and Belmont
Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to the western approach to improve site
lines. Install curb extensions at all three corners with a crosswalk. Install an
RRFB for the Hillside crosswalk.Install advance yield markings.677,300$
Active South City Projects LInden and N Canal
Widen on or both of the existing paths on the Colma Creek bridge to ADA
complaint width. Install appropriate curb ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S
Canal street if sidewalks are present on the west side.108,290$
Active South City Projects Miller and Westview
Construct curb extensions at the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners.
Straighten the crosswalk across Miller. Install advance stop/yield pavement
markings. Consider installing an RRFB.689,650$
Active South City Projects S Airport and Utah
Consistent with proposed Utah overcrossing of 101, install high visibility
crosswalks at all four approaches. Provide a leading pedestrian interval.191,750$
Active South City Projects Spruce and Hillside
Construct curb extensions at the two northern and southeastern corners. Mark
highvisibility crosswalks across Spruce Avenue and School Street.598,000$
Active South City Projects Spruce and Park Way
Upgrade the two existing crosswalks across Park Way to high‐visibility
crosswalks. Install high‐visbility crosswalks across both Spruce approaches.
Install advance stop markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all corners.93,686$
Active South City Projects Utah Ave/San Mateo Ave Install a protected intersection with high visibility crosswalks. 650,000$
Active South City Projects Westborough and Callan
Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the Westborough and Callan crossings.
Update/add school zone signs.629,525$
Active South City Projects Airport and Gateway
Upgrade existing crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Construct median
refuge islands at the west, east, and south approaches. Remove slip lane from
southern approach.793,000$
Active South City Projects Chestnut and Commercial
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visbility. Remove the slip lane from the
southeast corner and construct a curb extension; straighten both crosswalks
from this corner.247,000$
Active South City Projects Grand and Gateway
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Remove free right turn
lanes at northwest and southeast corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands in all
crossings. Install curb extensions at all four corners.2,645,500$
Active South City Projects Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings and signs.29,250$
Active South City Projects Holly/Crestwood
Upgrade all crossings to high‐visibility crosswalks. Consider installing a
neighborhood traffic circle.247,000$
Active South City Projects Junipero Serra and Arroyo
Construct sidewalks on the western (highway) side of Junipero Serra Boulevard
from the interchange to Arroyo Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at JSB/Arroyo 546,000$
Active South City Projects
Junipero Serra and Avalon & Avalon
and Valverde
Mark high‐visibility crosswalks across Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks on
the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to Westbrough Boulevard from Avalon
Drive. Mark a high‐visibility crosswalk across the eastern approach of Avalon 256,750$
Active South City Projects Junipero Serra and Hickey
Remove the free right turn lane at the southeast, southwest, and northwest
corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Provide leading
pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks. Construct pedestrian refuge islands.1,579,500$
Active South City Projects Spruce and N. Canal St
Build curb extensions at the two northern corners. Straighten and upgrade all
three marked crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks.277,875$
Active South City Projects East Grand and Forbes
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Install curb extensions at all
four corners. Install pedestrian refuge islands across E Grand Avenue.1,329,250$
Active South City Projects El Camino Real and W Orange
Straighten the southern crosswalk across ECR. Create pedestrian refuge islands
for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the ECR crossing.429,000$
Active South City Projects Grand and Mission
Upgrade both crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Extend medians and
create pedestrian refuge islands.279,500$
Active South City Projects Grand and Orange
Upgrade all crosswalks to high‐visibility crosswalks. Consider installing curb
extensions at all four corners. Provide a leading pedestrian interval for the
crossings of Grand Avenue.1,222,000$
A‐5
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE • FEE CALCULATIONS • JULY 2020
APPENDIX B – UNIT COST ESTIMATES
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Roadway
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $3.28 3.28$
2 Remove Existing Pavement (Obliteration)1.00 SF $0.70 0.70$
3Roadway Excavation (2' depth)0.07 CY $145.00 10.74$
4 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 0.36$
5 Class 2 Aggregate Base (18") (Assume 145lb/CF)0.11 Ton $90.00 9.79$
6
Asphalt Concrete (6")(Type A, assume 150
lbs/CF)0.04 Ton $235.00 8.81$
7 Mobilization 1 LS 3.40$ 3.40$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 34.00$
Subtotal (Contract Items) 37.00$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Sidewalk
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $0.60 1.00$
2 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 1.00$
3 Sidewalk (includes 3" AB)1.00 SF $26.00 26$
4 Mobilization 1 LS 2.80$ 3$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 28$
Contract Items 31$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Curb and Gutter
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1Type “S1-6" Curb 1 LF $60.00 60$
2 Sawcut Gutter 1 LF $18.00 18$
3 Mobilization 1 LS 7.80$ 8$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 78$
Contract Items 86$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Median
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Median (Island) Paving 1.00 SF $25.00 25$
2 Mobilization 1 LS 2.50$ 3$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 25$
Contract Items 28$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Bicycle Path (Shared Use Path)
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Clearing and Grubbing 1.00 SF $3.28 4.00$
2 Remove Existing Pavement (Obliteration)1.00 SF $0.70 1.00$
3Roadway Excavation (1.5')0.06 CY $145.00 9.00$
3 Finish Grading within Right of Way 1.00 SF $0.36 1.00$
4 Class 2 Aggregate Base (4") (Assume 145lb/CF)0.03 Ton $90.00 3.00$
5
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (4")(assume 150
lbs./CF)0.03 Ton $166.09 5.00$
6 Mobilization 1 LS 2.30$ 3.00$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 23$
Contract Items 26$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Remove existing striping 1.00 LF $3.00 3.00$
2 Striping 1.00 LF $4.25 5.00$
3 Signage 0.0008 EA $500.00 1.00$
4 Mobilization 1 LS 0.90$ 1.00$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 9$
Contract Items 10$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate
1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number
Infrastructure Type:Traffic Signal for One Intersection
Date of Estimate:Mar. 6, 2020 Revision No.
Revision Date
Prepared by:M. Shiferaw Revised by
No. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
1 Furnish & Install Cabinet and Controller on New
Foundation 1 EA $45,000.00 45,000$
2 Furnish and Install Fiber Switch In Controller
Cabinet. 1 EA $2,500.00 2,500$
3 Terminate fiber optic cable in cabinet 1EA $2,500.00 2,500$
4 Splice 12 Strand SMFO Cable to trunk cable in
vault 1 EA $1,000.00 1,000$
5 Furnish & Install Opticom EVP system in signal
cabinet 1 EA $7,500.00 7,500$
6 Furnish & Install Opticom Card Rack 1 EA $1,000.00 1,000$
7 Furnish & Install Opticom Detector 4 EA $1,200.00 4,800$
8 Furnish & Install VIVDS System, incl. cameras,
comms manager, and SDLC hub (per intersection)1 EA $25,000.00 25,000$
9 Furnish & Install CCTV Camera 1EA $5,000.00 5,000$
10 Furnish & Install Detector Handhole 4 EA $500.00 2,000$
11 Furnish & Install Detector Loops (6'x6')8EA $2,000.00 16,000$
12 Furnish & Install LED Countdown Pedestrian
Signal Head 8 EA $800.00 6,400$
13 Furnish & Install Polara Navigator Pedestrian
Pushbutton 8EA $1,200.00 9,600$
14 Furnish & Install Polara CCU in Cabinet 1 EA $4,500.00 4,500$
15 Furnish & Install SNS on Mast Arm 4 EA $2,000.00 8,000$
16 Furnish & Install LED Luminaire 4 EA $1,500.00 6,000$
17 Furnish & Install Photoelectric Control Unit (PEU)1EA $500.00 500$
18 Furnish & Install Pull Box #5 4 EA $900.00 3,600$
19 Furnish & Install Pull Box #6 2 EA $1,000.00 2,000$
20 Furnish & Install Fiber Optic Splice Vault 1 EA $1,250.00 1,250$
21 Furnish and install 2" conduit with backfill and
trenching 100 LF $120.00 12,000$
22 Furnish and install 3" conduit with backfill and
trenching 1000 LF $125.00 125,000$
23 Furnish and install 4" conduit with backfill and
trenching 100 LF $130.00 13,000$
24 Furnish & Install Type 1-B 4' Pole and Foundation 4EA $3,500.00 14,000$
25 Furnish & Install Type 1-B 10' Pole and
Foundation 4 EA $6,500.00 26,000$
26 Furnish & Install Type 28-5-100 Pole and
Foundation 4 EA $26,000.00 104,000$
27 Furnish & Install Signal Head Mount Type SV-1-T 4EA $700.00 2,800$
28 Furnish & Install Pedestrian Signal Head Mount SP-
2-T 4 EA $1,000.00 4,000$
29 Furnish & Install #14 Conductors 7000 LF $1.50 10,500$
30 Furnish & Install #10 Conductors 1500 LF $2.00 3,000$
31 Furnish & Install #8 Conductors 600 LF $2.50 1,500$
32 Furnish & Install #6 Conductors 50 LF $3.00 150$
33 Furnish & Install #2 Conductors 1000 LF $4.00 4,000$
34 Furnish & Install Detector Lead-in Cables 250 LF $3.00 750$
35 Furnish & Install EVP Cable (Opticom Model 138)500 LF $3.00 1,500$
36 Furnish & Install CCTV Cable (CAT6)100 LF $3.00 300$
37 Furnish & Install VIVDS Cable (3-wire)500 LF $3.00 1,500$
38 Furnish & Install 12-strand Fiber Optic Cable 300 LF $5.00 1,500$
39 Furnish & Install Trace Cable (#10)300 LF $2.00 600$
Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.
Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
40 Mobilization 1 LS 48,000.00$ 48,000$
CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 480,000$
Contract Items 528,000$
P:\P\17\17011-018 SSF Transportation Impact Fee Assistance\05 Analysis\03 Calculations-Unit Costs & Inventory\SSF Transportation Impact Fee Unit Costs.xls
Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Single Family$243 $27,377 Y$6,721.37 ($20,655) 25%Multi-Family$170 $15,776Y$3,873.30($11,903) 25%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$25.42$32.93 Y$25.42 ($7.51) 77%Office / R&D - Per Sq Ft$6.14$31.47 Y$29.15 ($2.32) 93%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.12$16.39 Y$13.15 ($3.24) 80%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$3.05$46.64Y $3.50 ($43.14) 8%Impact Fee Category Current Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit $1,979 $5,748 Y $3,463.48 ($2,284) 60%Medium Density - Per Unit$1,858 $5,034Y $3,033.16($2,000) 60%High Density - Per Unit$1,851 $4,285Y $2,582.20($1,703) 60%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft $0.68 $0.82 Y $0.68 ($0.14) 83%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft $0.57 $1.49 Y $1.26 ($0.23) 85%Industrial - Per Sq Ft $0.54 $0.50 Y $0.50 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft $0.18 $0.32 Y $0.25 ($0.07) 78%Citywide Transportation Impact Fees (Includes E 101 and Bike/Ped Fees)Childcare Impact FeesAttachment 3Page 1 of 11
Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$0$1,691 Y$693.28 ($998) 41%Medium Density - Per Unit$0$1,480Y$606.87($873) 41%High Density - Per Unit$0$1,260Y$516.44($743) 41%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.07 Y$0.07 $0.00 100%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.12 Y$0.12 ($0.00) 97%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.04 Y$0.04 $0.00 95%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$0.00$0.03 Y$0.03 $0.00 108%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$1,285$1,758 Y$1,387 ($372) 79%Medium Density - Per Unit$810$1,539Y$1,214($325) 79%High Density - Per Unit$563$1,310Y$1,033($277) 79%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$0.44$0.66 Y$0.44 ($0.22) 66%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$0.44$1.20 Y$1.10 ($0.10) 92%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$0.18$0.40 Y$0.40 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$0.42$0.26 Y$0.26 $0.00 100%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Single-Family Home - Per Unit$29,824 $41,606 N$30,481 ($11,125) 73%2-4 Units$25,857 $35,938N$26,328 ($9,610) 73%5-19 Units$22,058 $30,511N$22,352 ($8,159) 73%20-49 Units$17,921 $24,602N$18,023 ($6,579) 73%50+ Units$15,726 $21,466N$15,726($5,740) 73%Mobile Home$23,071 $31,958N$23,071($8,887) 72%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$3.58$5.03 N$3.58 ($1.45) 71%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$2.77$4.46 N$4.46 ($0.00) 100%Industrial - Per Sq Ft*$1.95$2.11 N$2.00 ($0.11) 95%Hotel - Per Sq Ft*$3.17$4.78 N$3.17 ($1.61) 66%*A $700 administrative fee is also added to the final fee amount.Public Safety Impact FeesParks and Recreation Impact FeesLibrary Impact FeesPage 2 of 11
Current, Full Cost, and Recommended Fee LevelsImpact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Low Density - Per Unit$4,786$4,786 N$4,786 $0 100%Medium Density - Per Unit$3,637$3,637N$3,637$0 100%High Density - Per Unit$3,637$3,637N$3,637 $0 100%Commercial/Retail - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Industrial - Per Sq Ft$1.29$1.29 N$1.29 $0.00 100%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$1.91$1.91 N$1.91 $0.00 100%Impact Fee CategoryCurrent Fee Full Cost FeeStudied (Y/N)Staff Recommended FeeSurplus / (Deficit) Cost Recovery %Retail - Per Sq Ft$2.50 $227.00 N$2.50 ($225)1%Office/R&D - Per Sq Ft$15.00 $185.00 N$15.00($170)8%Hotel - Per Sq Ft$5.00 $127.00 N$5.00 ($122)4%Commercial Linkage FeeSewer Capacity Impact FeesPage 3 of 11
Research & Development PrototypeComparison JurisdictionsSq. ft. 150,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities TotalCost / Sq. Ft.Avg Rent / SFPalo Alto $152,400 $5,479,500 $42,600 $792,150 $44,700 $120,900 $1,360,335 $7,992,585 $53.28 $6.05San Bruno $139,500 $1,965,000 $1,294,500 $87,000 $1,042,500 $258,000 $4,786,500 $31.91 $5.25San Mateo $4,048,500 $162,000 $655,500 $37,500 $4,903,500 $32.69 $5.17San Francisco $292,500 $3,804,000 $2,550,524 $6,647,024 $44.31 $7.00Redwood City $3,000,000 $256,500 $3,275,550 $6,532,050 $43.55 $6.67Mountain View $4,237,500 $3,630,000 $1,216,500 $9,084,000 $60.56 $3.96Averages $103,950 $3,746,100 $42,600 $227,250 $792,150 $669,600 $103,950 $1,791,473 $1,467,615 $6,657,610 $44.38 $5.68SSF - Recommended $2,250,000 $18,000 $189,000 $669,000 $165,000 $4,372,500 $496,500 $8,160,000 $54.40 $5.50Page 4 of 11
Research & Development150,000 square foot developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTINGMAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDEDTotal4,324,500$ Total34,148,246$ Total8,250,000$ Per EDU4,324.50$ Per EDU34,148.25$ Per EDU8,250$ Per SF28.83$ Per SF227.65$ Per SF55.00$ Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic6.14$ 31.47$ 53% 29.15$ Parks2.77$ 4.46$ 8% 4.46$ Library‐$ 0.12$ 0% 0.12$ Child Care0.57$ 1.49$ 2% 1.26$ Safety0.44$ 1.20$ 2% 1.10$ CLF15.00$ 185.00$ 27% 15.00$ Sewer1.29$ 1.29$ 2% 1.29$ Sewer E1012.02$ 2.02$ 4% 2.02$ School0.60$ 0.60$ 1% 0.60$ Total/SF28.83$ 227.65$ 100% 55.00$ % Increase91%Evaluate Using Max FeasibleTrafficParksChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolPage 5 of 11
Residential PrototypeComparison Jurisdictions# of Units180 Sq. Ft. / Unit1,000 Sq. ft. 180,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction Housing Library Parks Childcare Public SafetyTransport Utilities Total Cost / UnitAvg Rent1-BdrmSan Mateo $3,504,600 $526,028 $450,720 $4,481,348 $24,896 $2,660Redwood City $3,600,000 $2,003,029 $178,560 $429,084 $6,210,673 $34,504 $2,850Dublin $2,948,040 $37,260 $948,690 $3,933,990 $21,856 $2,420Emeryville $5,253,300 $717,120 $309,600 $6,280,020 $34,889 $2,490Sunnyvale $3,600,000 $372,240 $3,972,240 $22,068 $2,560Averages $4,151,100 N/A $2,293,197 N/A $37,260 $506,380 $396,468 $4,975,654 $27,642.52 $2,596SSF - Recommended $92,959 $2,830,680 $464,796 $185,918 $697,194 $654,660$4,926,208 $27,368 $2,470Page 6 of 11
Residential180‐unit prototype rental developmentResidential fees charged on a per‐unit basisEXISTINGMAXIMUM ALLOWEDRECOMMENDED Total4,648,045$ Total9,289,617$ Total5,623,708$ Per Unit25,822$ Per Unit51,609$ Per Unit31,243$ Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic170$ 15,776$ 12% 3,873$ Parks15,726$ 21,466$ 50% 15,726$ Library‐$ 1,260$ 2%516$ Child Care1,851$ 4,285$ 8% 2,582$ Safety563$ 1,310$ 3%1,033$ Sewer3,637$ 3,637$ 12% 3,637$ School3,875$ 3,875$ 12% 3,875$ Total/Unit 25,822$ 51,609$ 100% 31,243$ % Increase21%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersBike & PedParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSchoolPage 7 of 11
Hotel PrototypeComparison Jurisdictions# of Rooms120Sq. Ft. / Room500Sq. ft. $60,000*** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities Total Cost / RoomCost / Sq. Ft.San Bruno $18,240 $786,000 $169,560 $11,400 $183,240 $146,760 $1,315,200 $10,960 $21.92San Mateo $647,400 $64,800 $262,200 $300,480 $1,274,880 $10,624 $21.25Redwood City $300,000 $113,400 $28,800 $442,200 $3,685 $7.37Dublin $179,520 $4,800 $219,330 $403,650 $3,364 $6.73Emeryville $265,800 $66,600 $139,680 $472,080 $3,934 $7.87Sunnyvale $540,000 $349,860 $889,860 $7,416 $14.83Burlingame $38,400 $28,680 $7,080 $21,000 $108,600 $26,520 $230,280 $1,919 $3.84Mountain View $143,700 $258,600 $599,280 $1,001,580 $8,347 $16.69Avg Impact Fee$12,400 $447,150 $28,680 $64,800 $84,400 $169,560 $12,400 $204,364 $220,368 $753,716 $6,281 $12.56SSF - Recommended $300,000 $1,710 $15,000 $190,200 $300,000 $0 $235,800 $1,042,710 $8,689 $17.38Page 8 of 11
Hotel120‐room, 60,000 SF developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTING MAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDED Total2,453,169$ Total27,534,098$ Total2,510,775$ Per Room20,443.08$ Per Room 229,450.82$ Per Room20,923.13$ Per SF16.35$ Per SF183.56$ Per SF16.74$ Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic3.05$ 46.64$ 21% 3.50$ Parks3.17$ 4.78$ 19% 3.17$ Library‐$ 0.03$ 0% 0.03$ Child Care0.18$ 0.32$ 1% 0.25$ Safety0.42$ 0.26$ 2% 0.26$ CLF5.00$ 127.00$ 30% 5.00$ Sewer1.91$ 1.91$ 11% 1.91$ Sewer E1012.02$ 2.02$ 12% 2.02$ School0.60$ 0.60$ 4% 0.60$ Total/SF16.35$ 183.56$ 100% 16.74$ % Increase2%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersTrafficParksChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetyCLFSewerSewer E101SchoolPage 9 of 11
Industrial PrototypeComparison JurisdictionsSq. ft. 60,000 *** Note that school fees are not included in this analysis because of difficulty with making apples to apples comparisons.Jurisdiction General GovtHousing Library Childcare Park Community Center Public SafetyTransportation Utilities Total Cost / Sq. Ft.Palo Alto $15,060 $1,275,600 $17,040 $316,860 $17,880 $12,000 $283,896 $1,938,336 $32.31San Bruno $22,200 $786,000 $205,800 $13,800 $166,800 $64,800 $1,259,400 $20.99San Mateo $1,619,400 $64,800 $170,820 $1,855,020 $30.92Millbrae $900 $4,440 $1,200 $4,860 $71,580 $82,980 $1.38San Francisco $117,000 $1,344,000 $2,550,524 $4,011,524 $66.86Redwood City $300,000 $93,000 $28,800 $421,800 $7.03Fremont $37,860 $240,000 $12,720 $171,000 $461,580 $7.69San Carlos $1,200,000 $133,680 $1,333,680 $22.23Milpitas $180,000 $47,605 $227,605 $3.79Dublin $89,520 $2,340 $219,330 $311,190 $5.19Emeryville $265,800 $87,000 $161,400 $514,200 $8.57Sunnyvale $855,000 $282,780 $1,137,780 $18.96Burlingame $18,300 $13,680 $3,360 $9,960 $68,760 $37,680 $151,740 $2.53Mountain View $1,553,800 $1,452,000 $486,600 $3,492,400 $58.21Avg Impact Fee$9,280 $827,560 $11,720 $90,900 $124,185 $74,960 $9,280 $333,332 $633,681 $1,228,517 $20.48SSF - Recommended $0 $2,400 $30,000 $120,000 $24,000 $789,000 $198,600 $1,164,000 $19.40Page 10 of 11
Industrial60,000 square foot developmentCommercial fees charged on a per square foot basisEXISTING MAX ALLOWEDRECOMMENDEDTotal402,000$ Total1,401,341$ Total1,200,000$ Per EDU402.00$ Per EDU1,401.34$ Per EDU1,200$ Per SF6.70$ Per SF23.36$ Per SF20.00$ Existing Max % of Total ProposedTraffic0.12$ 16.39$ 66% 13.15$ Parks1.95$ 2.11$ 10% 2.00$ Library‐$ 0.04$ 0.2% 0.04$ Child Care0.54$ 0.50$ 3% 0.50$ Safety0.18$ 0.40$ 2% 0.40$ CLF‐$ ‐$ 0%‐$ Sewer1.29$ 1.29$ 6% 1.29$ Sewer E1012.02$ 2.02$ 10% 2.02$ School0.60$ 0.60$ 3% 0.60$ Total/SF6.70$ 23.36$ 100% 20.00$ % Increase199%Evaluate in Line w/ PeersTrafficParksChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolTrafficParksLibraryChild CareSafetySewerSewer E101SchoolPage 11 of 11
Impact Fee StudyResultsPresentation to Budget Standing CommitteeJANET SALISBURY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE3 AUGUST 2020
AGENDA1Overview of Fee Proposals2Research and Development3Residential4Hotels5Industrial and Retail2
Overview of Proposed Fee Changes1Proposed ChangesRepeal E101 Traffic Impact Fee and Bike and Ped Impact FeeReplace with a NEW City-Wide Transportation Impact FeeNEW Library Impact FeeUpdate Childcare Impact FeeUpdate Public Safety Impact FeesNEW Parking In-Lieu FeeOther Impact Fees not studiedOyster Point Interchange FeeSewer Impact FeeE101 Sewer Impact Fee3
Research and Development24
High‐Density Residential35
Hotels64
Industrial75
Recommended Next Steps6RecommendationsBudget Standing Committee provide input regarding the proposed updatesStudy Session for full City Council review on August 12thAdoption by City Council on August 26thFees go into effect on November 22nd8
QUESTIONS?9