HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 123-2020 (20-677)
Development Impact Fee Study
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT
September 2020
mat rix
consulting group
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. Legal Framework 10
3. Projected Growth and Development 13
4. Childcare Impact Fee 17
5. Library Impact Fee 25
6. Police Impact Fee 32
7. Fire Impact Fee 39
8. Transportation Impact Fee 46
Appendix A - Police Infrastructure Costs
Appendix B – Fire Infrastructure Costs
Appendix C – DKS Associates Technical Memorandum – Transportation
Appendix D – Transportation Projects
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Development Impact Fee Study
conducted and compiled by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of South San
Francisco.
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK
The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of South San Francisco to evaluate
four development impact fees – Childcare, Library, Police, and Fire Impact Fees.
Additionally, the City contracted with DKS to calculate a Citywide Transportation Impact
Fee. Childcare impact fees have not been reevaluated since 2001, and were last
increased in 2007. Police and Fire impact fees have not been evaluated since 2012, and
the City has not increased the impact fee since initial adoption. The proposed Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee incorporates two existing impact fees – East of 101 Traffic and
Bike / Pedestrian. The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee has not been evaluated since its
adoption in 2007, but has been annually increased. The Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee
was implemented in 2017, but has not been increased annually. The Library Impact Fee
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,
there is the potential for the service level standard to decline if appropriate measures are
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
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.
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, Police, and Transportation.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
As outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, proportional costs associated with future
infrastructure impacts, along with administrative overhead, were used to calculate the full
cost of the impact fees presented. The following subsections show the results of the
updated impact fees calculated for the City for each of these areas.
1 Childcare Impact Fee
The Childcare Impact Fee for the City of South San Francisco was developed and
implemented in 2001 to help mitigate the impact of new development upon the need for
future childcare space needs. The City last increased these fees in 2007. Through the
course of this analysis, the impact fees were evaluated based upon the current projected
impacts between 2020 and 2040. The following table compares the city’s current fees to
the full cost fee calculated through this study, the resulting surplus / (deficit), and the cost
recovery:
Table 1: Childcare Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density $1,979 $5,748 ($3,769) 34%
Medium Density $1,858 $5,034 ($3,176) 37%
High Density $1,851 $4,285 ($2,434) 43%
Other Residential $1.28 $3.19 ($1.91) 40%
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.68 $0.82 ($0.14) 83%
Hotel / Visitor $0.18 $0.32 ($0.14) 57%
Office / R&D $0.57 $1.49 ($0.92) 38%
Industrial $0.54 $0.50 $0.04 107%
The City’s cost recovery for Childcare impact fees ranges from a low of 34% for Low
Density residential properties to a high of 107% for industrial properties. The full cost fee
calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge and
is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.
2 Library Impact Fee
There is currently no impact fee charged for the expansion, rehabilitation, or replacement
of library facilities or materials. Through this study, the project team worked with Library
staff to calculate the projected impacts of increased residents and employees within the
City over the next 20 years. Similar to other impact fees in the City, the cost per dwelling
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.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
Table 2: Library Impact Fees – Full Cost
Category Full Cost Impact Fee
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density $1,647
Medium Density $1,441
High Density $1,227
Commercial / Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Commercial / Retail $0.07
Hotel / Visitor $0.03
Office / R&D $0.12
Industrial $0.04
The full cost calculated for the library varies from $1,227 for highly dense multi-family
complexes to $1,647 for low density single-family homes, and from $0.03 per square foot
for hotels to a high of $0.12 per square foot for office / research and development projects.
3 Police Impact Fee
The Police Impact Fees currently charged by the City have been in place since 2012, and
have not been updated based upon a CPI or any other construction cost factor. Currently,
the City charges a singular Public Safety Fee, with 40% of the fee attributed to Police and
60% of the fee attributed to Fire. The fees were originally calculated as separate fees and
then bundled together after calculation into a singular fee. For purposes of this analysis
the fee has also been calculated separately. The following table compares the City’s
current fees (proportionate to Police) to the full cost calculated through this study:
Table 3: Police Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density $514 $750 ($236) 69%
Medium Density $324 $656 ($332) 49%
High Density $225 $559 ($333) 40%
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.18 $0.28 ($0.11) 62%
Hotel / Visitor $0.17 $0.11 $0.06 155%
Office / R&D $0.18 $0.51 ($0.34) 34%
Industrial $0.07 $0.17 ($0.10) 41%
The full cost fee for Police is significantly higher for most categories compared to the
current proportion of fee retained by the Police Department. The cost recovery ranges
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.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
4 Fire Impact Fee
The Fire Impact Fee was implemented at the same time as the Police Impact Fee in 2012.
Currently, the Police and Fire Impact Fees are charged together as a singular fee on the
fee schedule and then split apart in the City’s accounting system, with 60% of the fee
attributed to Fire and 40% of the fee attributed to Police. Similar to the prior nexus analysis
the Fire and Police Impact Fees were calculated separately. The following table compares
the City’s current fees (proportionate to Fire) to the full cost calculated through this study.
Table 4: Fire Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density $771 $1,008 ($237) 76%
Medium Density $486 $883 ($397) 55%
High Density $338 $751 ($413) 45%
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.26 $0.38 ($0.12) 68%
Hotel / Visitor $0.25 $0.15 $0.10 167%
Office / R&D $0.26 $0.69 ($0.43) 38%
Industrial $0.11 $0.23 ($0.12) 48%
The current cost recovery level for Fire Impact fees ranges from a low of 38% for Office /
R&D properties to a high of 167% for Hotel / Visitor properties. The full cost represents
the maximum amount the City can charge to recover for appropriate fire-related impacts.
5 Public Safety Impact Fee
As the Police and Fire Impact Fee sections discussed, the City currently charges a
singular fee encompassing Police and Fire, which was calculated at 40% for Police and
60% for Fire. Through this study, the Police and Fire impact fees were calculated
separately, with the option for the City to combine the fees together on its fee schedule;
similar to its current practice. The following table compares the City’s current fees to the
full cost calculated through this study for Police and Fire.
Table 5: Public Safety Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density $1,285 $1,758 ($473) 73%
Medium Density $810 $1,539 ($729) 53%
High Density $563 $1,310 ($747) 43%
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
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 Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
The City currently charges two different transportation impact fees – East of 101 Traffic
Impact Fee and a Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee. Through the course of this analysis, it
was determined that a singular citywide Transportation Impact Fee should be developed.
The actual impact fee calculations were performed by DKS Associates and included in
this report with all other impact fees evaluated for the City. The following table compares
the city’s current fee (East of 101 and Bike / Pedestrian Fee) to the full cost fee calculated
by DKS, the surplus / (deficit) per unit, and the cost recovery percentage:
Table 6: Citywide Transportation Impact Fees – Current vs. Full Cost
Category
Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Cost
Recovery %
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single-Family $243 $27,377 ($27,134) 1%
Multi-Family $170 $15,776 ($15,606) 1%
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
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.
1 A $0.24 per square foot fee for the Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee is also charged.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
7 Summary
This report details the calculations for each of the impact fees, as well as validates the
nexus that exists between the full cost identified and the proportionate impact of new
development.
4 IMPLEMENTATION
The impact fees calculated through this study are representative of the full cost
associated with the proportionate share and impact of new development within the City.
City staff, management, and Council can utilize the information in this report to determine
if new development should bear the full cost of their proportionate impact, or if this share
should be reduced for development incentivization or other policy considerations and
factors. The following subsections discuss the key aspects for impact fee implementation
and updates, which includes: collection of fees, annual reporting requirements, refunds /
credits / appeals, and annual updates.
1 Collection of Impact Fees
Section 66007 of the California Government Code outlines when impact fees should be
paid for residential, multi-family, and commercial occupancies. Impact fees for Residential
projects should be assessed and paid upon the date of final inspection or issuance of
certificate of occupancy. For Multi-family and Commercial projects, fees can be paid in
phases, at the completion of each phases final inspections.
Alternatively, the City has the option to collect impact fees prior to final inspection. This is
only applicable if the City already has funds earmarked for specific projects that are in the
vicinity of or are directly impacted by the proposed development. Typically, these fees
should be collected at the building phase, and based upon the actual build out (dwelling
units and square footage).
2 Annual Impact Fee Reporting Requirements
Section 66006 of the California Government Code dictates that once per year, within 6
months of the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public detailed
information regarding impact fees. This detailed information, should at a minimum
include:
• Impact Fee name / type
• Beginning and Ending balance of the account or fund.
• Amount of fees collected in the fiscal year being reported on and the total interest
earned.
• Identification of project(s) on which the funds are being earmarked for.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
• Identification of the approximate date on which the projects would commence.
• Identification of any interfund loans or transfers related to capital projects, and the
amount of the transfer.
• Amount of any refunds or allocations made on behalf of the impact fee funds.
The above reports must be submitted and reviewed by City Council, within 15 days of
being posted publicly.
3 Refunds / Credits / Appeals / Waivers
Section 66001 requires that every five years, the City must make findings regarding the
utilization of the impact fee revenue and / or proposed utilization of it within five years of
collection. If such findings are not made within five years of impact fee collection, the City
must refund the monies to the developer.
As part of the adoption of the impact fee resolution, the City may choose to also identify
circumstances or instances in which a developer could obtain credits, exemptions, or
appeal fees. Fee credits are typically obtained in the case of redevelopment, for example,
if a developer was to redevelop an existing 10 multi-unit complex into a 15 multi-unit
complex, the developer retains credit for the 10 existing units and only pays impact fees
on the 5 new units being added. This credit is only provided if the existing facility had
already paid into impact fees. If the existing development had not paid any impact fees,
there would be no credit applicable.
Impact fee resolution may also include a discussion regarding fee exemptions. If a
development project is determined to have no documented impact on the facilities for
which the impact fees are being imposed (through a CEQA or other type of review
document), then the project may be exempt from impact fees. The exemptions must not
be granted by right and should be reviewed by City staff and Council to ensure that they
are warranted and appropriate.
Any reductions in impact fees, or waivers or appeals regarding impact fees, would have
to be determined by city staff and council and would be granted depending upon the
nature and proportion of the impact of the future / proposed development on future
infrastructure needs. Depending upon the nature of the project and its documented
impacts, there might be a more in-depth process necessary to ensure that all impact fees
collected are fair, proportionate, and in compliance with AB1600 and the Mitigation Fee
Act.
4 Annual Increases
The City’s current ordinances governing the impact fees provide the City with the ability
to increase impact fees annually based upon either a Consumer Price Index (CPI) or
Construction Cost Index (CCI). Typically, it is recommended that impact fees be updated
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
based upon the CCI, as those are more reflective of actual infrastructure costs. Therefore,
it is recommended that the City should consider updating all existing ordinances and
resolutions for current and future impact fees to be annually increased in-line with CCI
increases. This ensures that increases in construction costs are included in the impact
fees and proportionate share is passed onto new development.
The annual increase is not meant to be an infinite increase in fees. Per the Mitigation Fee
Act, the nexus for the impact fees should be reevaluated every five years to ensure that
there is still an appropriate correlation between the current fee being charged and
proposed development within the City.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
2. Legal Framework
Impact Fees are a mechanism for new development to pay for their proportionate share
of impact upon City owned facilities and infrastructure. The following subsections discuss
the State’s requirements for impact fees and the City’s legal authority for assessing these
fees.
1 STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY
Development Impact Fees are governed by Government Code Section 66000 et seq.,
known as the Mitigation Fee Act, which specifies that there needs to be a nexus between
the collection of fees and the new residential and non-residential development within a
City’s service area. It also states that this revenue can only be used to expand current or
purchase new facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. It does not allow for revenue to be
used for staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs.
The Mitigation Fee Act, or AB1600, requires that there be certain findings that have to be
met in order for there to be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the new
development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure. The following points
highlight each of the key finding requirements:
• Purpose of Fee: The specific types of facilities, infrastructure, equipment, and
projects for which the impact fee will be utilized. It is important to note it cannot be
utilized for operational purposes.
• Use of Fee Revenue: The revenue collected from the impact fees can only be
used to fund specific facility expansions, infrastructure improvements, or to
purchase new equipment.
• Benefit Relationship: The benefit relationship requires that the use of the impact
fee revenue and the type of development project upon which it is imposed is
reasonable.
• Impact Relationship: In order to establish an impact relationship there needs to
be a clear and reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility or
infrastructure and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• Proportionality: The proportionality requirement states that the impact fee
established must be directly related to the proportionate impact of the type of
development project.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
For each of the five impact fees evaluated through this study, the individual chapter will
discuss how the fee is able to meet the nexus criteria identified.
2 CITY LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR IMPACT FEES
The City of South San Francisco has the legal authority to charge for the five impact fees
identified as these fees are referenced in the municipal code or were adopted via
resolution. The following table summarizes for each impact fee evaluated the relevant
municipal code and key factors:
Table 7: City Municipal Code Information on Impact Fees
Impact Fee Municipal Code Chapter Notes / Key Factors
Childcare Impact Fee Section 20.310
Fee amount determined by
council resolution. Provisions for
automatic annual adjustment
based upon Engineering Cost
Index (ECI)
Library Impact Fee New
This is a new impact fee and at
a minimum a resolution would
be needed to establish authority
to impose the fee.
Police Impact Fee None / Resolution 97-2012
Chapter 15.38
Provisions for annual increases
based upon CPI-W. Fire Impact Fees
Citywide Transportation Impact
Fee New2
This is a new impact fee that is
being proposed to combine East
of 101 Traffic Impact Fee and
Bike / Pedestrian Impact Fee.
As outlined in the table above, only the Childcare and current Bike / Pedestrian Impact
Fees are codified in the municipal code, while the Public Safety and East of 101 Impact
Fees were authorized through a resolution. In order for the City to adopt and implement
the Library and Citywide Transportation Impact Fees, the following would need to be
considered:
• Library Impact Fee: A resolution would need to accompany the impact fee to
ensure appropriate authority has been established to charge and impose this fee.
• Citywide Transportation Impact Fee: The current Bike / Pedestrian ordinance in
the Municipal Code would need to be repealed / removed, and a new resolution
would need to be adopted to ensure appropriate authority is established to charge
and impose this new fee. Furthermore, the resolution would need to clearly state
that it supersedes the East of 101 resolution.
2 The current impact fees charged by the City for Transportation include East of 101 authorized by Resolution No. 84-2007 and Bike
/ Pedestrian Impact Fee authorized based upon Section 8.68 of the Municipal Code.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
Along with ensuring that the City has codified its authority to charge these impact fees, it
should also consider implementing a consistent annual increase factor. Currently, the
Childcare Impact Fee allows for annual increases based upon ECI, whereas the Public
Safety Impact Fee allows for increases based upon CPI-W. Adopting a singular increase
factor will ensure that fees are appropriately and consistently increased annually.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
3. Projected Growth and Development
The primary criteria for determining the projected impact of new development for impact
fees is the amount of projected increase to the City’s population (residential and
commercial). These projections then form the basis of impact fee calculations. In order to
calculate the projected growth and development, as well as density requirements, the
project team reviewed the following sources of data:
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): Data from ABAG was utilized
for 2020 and 2040 Estimates regarding total number of residential population
within the City.
• General Plan, Facilities Plans, Regional Plans, and City Projections:
Projection information based upon city and regional documents was utilized for
cost calculation and assumptions. General Plan and facilities master plan
information was used to estimate future dwelling units, square footage growth,
employment information, as well as facility needs. Regional plans were utilized for
childcare projection needs within the community.
• US Census Bureau: The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS)
information was used to calculate residential densities.
The information from these sources was utilized to calculate the projected increase in
population as well as resulting population densities. The following subsections discuss
the population projections calculated and the population densities used to calculate the
impact fees.
1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The basis for impact fees is predicated on sufficient population growth that results in a
meaningful impact on city infrastructure. The following table shows data published by
ABAG for the current residential population, 2040 estimates, and associated increases
for the City of South San Francisco:
Table 8: ABAG Population Projections through 2040
Category
2020
Estimates
2040
Estimates
Total Projected
Increase
Residential Population 68,105 80,015 11,910
As the table indicates, ABAG is projecting that the residential population in South San
Francisco will increase by 11,910 by 2040.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
In reviewing the ABAG 2020 and 2040 estimates for employment within South San
Francisco, it was determined that the projections did not accurately reflect the current or
future level of employment. Therefore, the project team worked with City staff to utilize
projections developed by the Employment Development Department (EDD), internal
documents related to entitlement within the General Plan, and two major development
projects entitled within the City. The following table shows the different components
utilized to calculate the projected employment increase through 2040:
Table 9: Employment Projections through 2040
Category Amount
2020 Employment 57,1823
General Plan Projection 16,0514
Genentech Employment 12,5505
Southline Employment 11,2006
Total Projected Employment Increase 39,801
2040 Estimated Employment 96,983
As the table indicates, it is projected that there would be an increase of approximately
40,000 jobs over the next 20 years. The primary source of these employment increases
are due to two large projects (Genentech and Southline). The numbers noted in these
tables were used as the basis for all of the proportionate impact calculations through this
study, with employment information utilized for calculations associated with non-
residential projected growth.
2 POPULATION DENSITIES
In addition to the population projection information, the other set of data that is
consistently utilized in the calculations is the density associated with residential and non-
residential categories. The following subsections discuss the population density
assumptions utilized in the calculation of all impact fees in this report.
1 Residential Population Density
Due to the diverse nature of residential development within the City of South San
Francisco, there are three types of densities: low, medium, and high. The low density
refers to Single Family homes. Medium density refers to multi-family housing and small
3 The 57,182 reflects the EDD Employment number from 2018 utilized for early general plan projection calculations internally within
the City. Based upon discussion with City staff it was determined that this estimate of employment was appropriate to be utilized for
2020.
4 The City’s General Plan Consultants (Fehr and Peers) project an increase of approximately 16,051 jobs based upon the future
projects scheduled for entitlement through the general plan buildout calculation. It is important to note that this projection excludes the
100 employees projected for the City’s new civic campus as those reflect a shifting of existing city employees.
5 Table 3-7 of the Genentech Project Description submitted to the city, estimates an additional increase of 12,550 potential employees
based upon the scope of the project.
6 Based upon initial projections developed by the Southline Project consultants as part of the Environmental Impact Report and CEQA
analysis.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
complexes (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, etc.). Lastly, high density refers to
condensed large apartment complexes (5+ more units). The city is proposing to retain
these three levels of densities to determine proportional impacts. The definition of each
type of density (low, medium, and high) is based upon the city’s internal planning
designations. For purposes of this analysis, the project team utilized the densities as
included based upon the number of units; however, the City has the flexibility to redefine
the densities within the ordinance / resolution for each impact fee.
Due to population fluctuations and variation in dwelling unit assumptions from year to
year, residential density was recalculated for this impact analysis, incorporating more
current information rather than relying upon recent nexus analyses. As such, the project
team utilized information from the American Community Survey (ACS)7 regarding the total
population per dwelling unit type and the total number of dwelling units to come up with
the resulting average population density per unit for South San Francisco. The following
table shows this calculation:
Table 10: Residential Population Density
Category Total Population Total # of Units Population / Unit
(Avg. Density)
Low Density8 48,933 14,197 3.45
Medium Density8 4,899 1,623 3.02
High Density8 11,705 4,555 2.57
The total population for each density category was divided by the associated number of
dwelling units in order to determine the average population per density type. The average
density per unit is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation to derive the base impact
fee.
2 Non-Residential / Commercial Density
Similar to the residential density calculation, a calculation was performed for non-
residential development within the City. The City utilizes four main commercial categories
– Commercial / Retail9, Hotel / Visitor, Office / R&D, and Industrial. The City is currently
working with Fehr and Peers to conduct an update to its General Plan. As part of that
analysis, when conducting the employment projections for the City, Fehr and Peers
utilized certain assumptions regarding the level of employment per square foot for
different types of non-residential land uses. Therefore, for consistency purposes, the
project team utilized the densities as provided by Fehr and Peers. The following table
shows the density associated with each non-residential category type:
7 ACS 2017 Tables B25033 and B25032 were utilized as those were the most recent calculations.
8 Low Density = Single Family Attached / Detached; Medium Density = 2-4 Units; High Density = 5+ units
9 Commercial / Retail is also meant to be an all-encompassing category that includes all types of non-office, non-hotel, and non-
industrial projects and could include grocery stores, retail shops, strip malls, services (i.e. hair, nail, fitness), etc. The City has the
ability to more clearly define this in its resolution associated with impact fees.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
Table 11: Employment Density
Category Density (Sq. Ft. per employee)
Commercial 76810
Hotel / Visitor 2,000
Office / R&D 425
Industrial 1,25011
The density (square footage per employee) is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation
to derive the base impact fee.
The following chapters utilize the assumptions included in this section to help project the
proportionate impact of new development on the City’s existing and proposed
infrastructure.
10 The employment density of 768 per square foot was calculated based on weighting the retail density (1 employee per 1,000 square
feet) and service density (1 employee per 225 square feet) on the square footage of businesses entitled within the City. Approximately
70% of the square feet of commercial projects entitled in the city fell under the retail category, as such the weighted average was
skewed more towards the retail density and closer to the 1,000 square footage.
11 This was calculated by taking the straight average between manufacturing (1 employee per 650 sq. ft.), wholesale trade (1 employee
per 1,100 sq. ft.), and agricultural (1 employee per 2,000 sq. ft.) as the City does not have a multitude of these businesses, therefore,
a straight average was used.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
4. Childcare Impact Fee
The City of South San Francisco provides childcare services through its Parks and
Recreation Department. The City is unique in its imposition of a Childcare Impact Fee to
help mitigate the impacts of new development as it relates to creating the demand for
additional childcare facilities and needs. The City currently operates and owns several
childcare facilities and are proposing the addition of new childcare facilities to help meet
existing and future needs. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and
standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to
meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of childcare impact fees.
1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Childcare Impact Fee is based upon the existing and future demand of childcare
needs for the City of South San Francisco. The childcare demands for the City are
generated from residents and employees working within the city limits. The childcare
demand is typically measured based upon the number of childcare spaces needed. These
childcare spaces can be in City run and owned facilities, private facilities, or home-care
facilities. The projected demand for existing residents was sourced from the 2017
Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment conducted for San Mateo County.
To calculate the demand for employees working within the City of South San Francisco,
the project team utilized the assumptions from the original Childcare Nexus Analysis and
reviewed it with City staff. The original analysis assumed that 5% of the City’s existing
workforce (2020 Employees) would require childcare services in the city in which they
work. Those childcare services would only be limited to up to 5 years of age, as once
children hit the age to attend local schools the need for childcare facilities would shift
closer to the child’s home rather than closer to the parent’s workplace. Among the two
childcare age categories (infant and preschool) it was determined in the previous nexus
analysis that 60% of the demand would be for preschool and 40% would be for infants.
Based upon the studies and assumptions noted above, the following table shows the
existing childcare spaces needed by residents and employees by childcare age category:
Table 12: Estimated Childcare Demand – Number of Spaces
Childcare Age Category Residents Employees Total Demand
Birth to 2 or Infant 596 686 1,282
3 to 5 or Preschool 2,251 1,029 3,280
6 to 13 or School Age 2,082 2,082
Special Children - All Ages 468
468
TOTAL 5,397 1,715 7,112
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
As the table indicates, the total demand for current childcare spaces is approximately
7,112. The childcare spaces were utilized to calculate the current standard per resident
and per employee. The following table shows the calculation of childcare spaces standard
per resident and per employee:
Table 13: Childcare – Current Standard Calculation
Category Total Childcare Space 2020 Estimated Population Standard Per Capita
Resident 5,397 68,105 0.079
Employee 1,715 57,182 0.030
Based upon the current childcare space needs and population, the estimated standard
per resident is 0.079 spaces or approximately 8 spaces per 100 residents and 0.030
spaces per employee or 3 spaces per existing 100 employees in the City.
This standard per capita was applied to the future projected residential and employment
increases over the next 20 years to calculate the projected demand for childcare spaces
by resident and employee, as well as overall future demand. The following table shows
this future projection calculation:
Table 14: Childcare – Future Projected Demand
Category Standard Per Capita Projected Population Increase Total Childcare Spaces
Resident 0.079 11,910 944
Employee 0.030 39,801 1,194
TOTAL 2,138
In order for the City to maintain its current standard of childcare space needs per resident
and employee, there would be a need for an additional 2,138 childcare spaces over the
next 20 years.
However, it is important to note that not all of these childcare spaces are expected to be
met through traditional childcare facilities. Some of these needs are met through family
members, informal daycare centers, and other non-traditional means of childcare. The
Brion & Associates 2001 Childcare Nexus Analysis, and the City’s ordinance related to
childcare, state that it is expected that the Childcare Impact Fee assumes that only 50%
of these projected spaces should be covered through Impact Fee Revenue. The following
table shows the expected amount of childcare spaces to be funded.
Table 15: Childcare – Projected Childcare Spaces to be Funded
Childcare Spaces Needed % to Be Funded Total Childcare Spaces Funded
2,138 50% 1,069
Based upon the 50% standard, it is assumed that 1,069 additional childcare spaces
should be funded through the Childcare Impact Fee.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS
The Childcare Impact Fee revenue is primarily used to fund the construction or expansion
of existing and future childcare facilities. As the projections are based upon childcare
spaces, the cost for the childcare facilities must be calculated on a per space basis. In
2016 Brion & Associates conducted an SMC Early Learning Facilities study that evaluated
the estimated cost per childcare space based upon different childcare construction types.
The following table shows the cost per childcare space based upon the type of childcare
facility:
Table 16: Childcare Cost Per Space by Type of Childcare Facility
Childcare Facility Type Cost Per Childcare Space
New Bldg Construction $43,183
New or Existing Commercial $53,800
Expanding Existing Centers $37,003
Portable Buildings $25,412
Employer-Based Centers $41,033
As the table indicates, the cost per childcare space varies significantly depending on
facility type, with a portable building costing $25,412 per childcare space and a brand
new or existing commercial building costing $53,800. To determine the average cost per
childcare space, the project team reviewed with City staff the proportion of childcare
facilities expected to be utilized over the next five years based upon each facility type. As
the City does not necessarily keep track of facilities based upon the types noted above,
staff chose to default to the proportion of childcare facilities utilized by San Mateo County
in the Brion & Associates study. The following table shows by childcare facility type, the
cost per space, the proportion of facilities, and the resulting cost per space:
Table 17: Proportionate Cost per Childcare Space
Childcare Facility Type Cost Per
Childcare Space
Facility
Proportion
Proportionate
Cost Per Space
New Bldg Construction $43,183 40% $17,273
New or Existing Commercial $53,800 20% $10,760
Expanding Existing Centers $37,003 15% $5,550
Portable Buildings $25,412 20% $5,082
Employer-Based Centers $41,033 5% $2,052
TOTAL PROPORTIONATE COST PER CHILDCARE SPACE $40,718
The resulting cost per childcare space is approximately $40,718. The total cost per
childcare space is applied to the projected childcare spaces to be funded to arrive at the
total estimated cost for childcare facilities:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
Table 18: Estimated Childcare Future Facility Costs
Category Amount
Estimated Childcare Space Needs 1,069
Estimated Cost per Childcare Space $40,718
TOTAL ESTIMATED FUTURE FACILITY COSTS $43,527,221
In order to meet the city’s estimated demand of funding 1,069 future childcare spaces,
the facility costs would be approximately $43.5 million.
Beyond estimating the future facility needs, the Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to
charge an administrative fee to recover the costs associated with City staff to monitor and
report upon the impact fees. The project team calculated the administrative or admin fee
based upon the total indirect costs allocated to the Childcare Impact Fee Fund from the
FY20 Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the three-year average revenue collected. The
following table shows this calculation:
Table 19: Childcare Admin Fee Calculation
Category Childcare Impact Fee Fund
Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $28,539
Impact Fee Revenue – 3 yr. average $853,362
Admin Fee Rate 3.34%
As the table indicates, the proposed administrative rate for the Childcare Impact fee is
3.34%, which is lower than the 5% administrative fee established in 2001.
3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
The $43.5 million in projected future facility costs for Childcare needs is inclusive of
residential and employee needs. Therefore, in order to allocate the costs between
residential and employees, the proportion of future childcare needs between residents
and employees was utilized. The following table shows the calculation for residents and
employees:
Table 20: Childcare Cost Allocation Between Residents and Employees
Category Future Childcare
Space Need Proportion Estimated Childcare
Facility Cost
Total
Allocated Cost
Resident 944 44% $43,527,221 $19,218,754
Employee 1,194 56% $43,527,221 $24,308,467
Due to approximately 56% of the future childcare space needs being related to
employees, approximately $24.3 million of the $43.5 million is associated with employees
working within the city. The remaining $19.2 million is associated with residents.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
The total allocated costs to residents and employees is then converted into a cost per
capita based upon the projected population increase. The following table shows the cost
per capita calculation for residents and employees:
Table 21: Childcare Cost Allocation Between Residents and Employees
Category Total
Allocated Cost
Projected
Population Increase
Cost Per
Capita
Resident $19,218,754 11,910 $1,614
Employee $24,308,467 39,801 $611
The cost per capita is $1,614 for residents compared to $611 for employees. It is expected
that the cost would be significantly higher for residents as they have the larger proportion
of childcare demands that need to be met. The cost per capita for residents and
employees was converted into an impact fee based upon the density per unit. For
residential properties, the density is per dwelling unit (du) and for commercial properties
it is per square foot (sq. ft.). The following table shows this calculation:
Table 22: Childcare Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,614 3.45 $5,562 per du
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $1,614 3.02 $4,871 per du
High Density (18+ du / acre) $1,614 2.57 $4,147 per du
Other Residential 1,80012 $3.09 per sq. ft.
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $611 768 $0.80 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $611 2,000 $0.31 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $611 425 $1.44 per sq. ft.
Industrial $611 1,250 $0.49 per sq. ft.
The impact fees range from a low of $4,147 per dwelling unit for high density to a high of
$5,562 per dwelling unit for low density. Among commercial properties the cost per
square foot varies from a low of $0.31 for hotels to a high of $1.44 for office / R&D
Projects.
The admin fee of 3.34% was applied to the impact fees calculated to determine the full
cost impact fee for Childcare by category. The following table shows the full cost
calculated.
12 Based upon the City’s current general plan the standard residential property is 1,800 sq. ft., and was used as the basis for the
Other Residential category. This calculation was derived by dividing $5,563 (Low Density) by 1,800 (standard square footage).
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
Table 23: Childcare Impact Fee Calculation Including Administrative Fee
Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $5,562 $186 $5,748 per du
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $4,871 $163 $5,034 per du
High Density (18+ du / acre) $4,147 $138 $4,285 per du
Other Residential $3.09 $0.10 $3.19 per sq. ft.
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.80 $0.02 $0.82 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $0.31 $0.01 $0.32 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $1.44 $0.05 $1.49 per sq. ft.
Industrial $0.49 $0.01 $0.50 per sq. ft.
Incorporating the administrative fee enables the city to recover for the financial support
and staff time associated with monitoring and reporting on the use of impact fee funds.
The following table compares the City’s current Childcare Impact Fees to the full cost
impact fees, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit:
Table 24: Current vs. Full Cost Childcare Impact Fees
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,979 $5,748 ($3,769)
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $1,858 $5,034 ($3,176)
High Density (18+ du / acre) $1,851 $4,285 ($2,434)
Other Residential $1.28 $3.19 ($1.91)
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.68 $0.82 ($0.14)
Hotel / Visitor $0.18 $0.32 ($0.14)
Office / R&D $0.57 $1.49 ($0.92)
Industrial $0.54 $0.50 $0.04
The City is under-recovering for all but one fee category, Industrial, in which there is
currently a $0.04 per square foot over-recovery. The under-recoveries are as low as $0.14
per square foot for commercial and hotel / visitor, and as high as $3,769 per residential
dwelling unit. The City’s original Childcare Impact Fees were established in 2001 and
since then the fee has only been increased in 2007. The original childcare fee calculated
in 2001 assumed a cost per childcare space of $9,176; whereas the full cost impact fee
assumes a cost per childcare space of $40,718, which is reflective of current construction
costs. This difference in the cost per childcare space is the primary reason for the
increased full cost fee.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
4 NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented
it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table
outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Childcare Impact Fee meets the
AB1600 criteria.
Table 25: Childcare Impact Fees Nexus Criteria
Criteria Meet Don’t Meet
Purpose of Fee
The fee would be used to fund the development of new
childcare facilities or expand existing childcare facilities.
Use of Fee Revenue
The Parks and Recreation Department has detailed capital
improvement plans that outline the utilization of this fee
revenue for current and future years to help ensure that there is
appropriate expansion and development of childcare facilities to
meet current and future resident and employee needs.
Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to develop new
facilities or expand existing facilities, which would be directly
proportional to the increased need for childcare spaces. The
increase in residential population is related to the number of
dwelling units and the impact fee would be applicable to
dwelling units. The increase in employment is related to non-
residential space and is applicable to square footage.
Impact Relationship
Based upon the current childcare demand needs in the City,
there is a standard level of childcare space needs per resident
and employee. In order to maintain that standard, the addition
of new residents and employees would require the need for
additional childcare spaces.
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling unit
depending upon the density of the housing units to capture the
residential impacts as the primary mechanism for addition of
residential population to the City is through increased dwelling
units. For employees the fee is based upon non-residential
square footage as that is the primary mechanism associated
with increases in employment within the City.
As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to
continue to charge a Childcare Impact Fee.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of
surrounding jurisdictions. The following table compares the city’s current fee and
proposed full cost fee for Childcare to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which
charge a childcare impact fee:
Table 26: Childcare Impact Fee Comparative Survey
Fee Category / Jurisdiction SSF – Current SSF - Full Cost San Francisco San Mateo
Residential
Low Density – Per DU $1,979 $5,748 $1.14 per sq. ft.
Medium Density- Per DU $1,858 $5,034 $2.27 per sq. ft.
High Density – Per DU $1,851 $4,285 $2.27 per sq. ft.
Other Residential – Per Sq. Ft. $1.28 $3.19 $2.27
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial – Per Sq. Ft $0.68 $0.82 $1.9513 $1.0814
Office – Per Sq. Ft $0.57 $1.49 $1.9513 $1.0814
Industrial – Per Sq. Ft $0.54 $0.50 $1.9513 $1.0814
Hotel – Per Sq. Ft. $0.18 $0.32 $1.9513 $1.0814
There are only two other jurisdictions that charge a childcare impact fee – San Francisco
and San Mateo. San Mateo only charges commercial projects greater than 10,000 square
feet and San Francisco charges projects greater than 25,000 square feet. The surveyed
fees for commercial projects are higher than South San Francisco’s current fees, but are
in line with its full cost fees.
San Mateo does not currently charge any new residential projects a Childcare Impact
Fee, whereas San Francisco assesses residential projects a per square foot impact fee.
As a comparison, a new single family home (2,500 sq. ft.) would be assessed an impact
fee of $2,850 in San Francisco, which is higher than the current fee charged by South
San Francisco, but about half of the full cost.
13 Only applicable to projects greater than 25,000 sq. ft.
14 Only applicable to projects greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
5. Library Impact Fee
The City of South San Francisco currently has three library branches – Grand Avenue,
South San Francisco Public Library, and Community Learning Center. These three library
branches primarily serve a residential population. There are currently no impact fees
associated with replacement of library materials or facilities. Through this analysis, the
project team worked with City staff to calculate a proposed library impact fee to be
imposed upon new development to pay for their proportionate impact on replacement and
rehabilitation of library materials and facilities. The following subsections discuss the
growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions, impact fee calculation,
ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of library impact fees.
1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
As discussed in the methodology overview, the level of standard has been utilized as the
basis for the calculation of Library impact fees. There are two main components of
infrastructure associated with the library – library space and collection items. As there is
a proportionate increase in population, there will be the need for not only additional library
space to accommodate those residents and employees working in the city, but also the
need for additional collection materials for those residents and employees. In order to
determine the impact of residents and employees on the library, the project team had to
calculate the total service population for the library’s services. An employee working
within the city does not have the same access or tendency to use the library, as such their
impact and weight should be proportionately less. The following table shows the current
population for each category, the proportionate weight and the equivalent residential
population:
Table 27: Current Weighted Service Population for the Library
Category Existing Population Weight Factor Weighted Population
Residential 68,105 1.0 68,105
Employees 57,182 0.1115 6,430
TOTAL 74,535
As the table indicates, the weighted service population for the library is 74,535 and should
be utilized to calculate the standard per capita. The following table shows the current
square footage of library space, the current number of items in circulation, and the
standard per capita.
15 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team analyzed the hours that the library was open and available to employees
as a proportion to residents, which was calculated at 22%. It was then determined that while employees might not have the tendency
to use the library for 100% of that 22% of time that it is available, they would have the ability to use it at least 50% of that time. This
assumption was discussed with Library staff and it was determined that 11%, in lieu of more concrete information, was an appropriate
factor to weight the service population.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
Table 28: Current Library Standard / Capita
Category Amount Service Population Standard / Capita
Library Sq. Ft. 45,006 74,535 0.60
Total Collection Items 144,461 74,535 1.94
The current population standard equates to approximately 0.60 sq. ft. of library space and
approximately two (2) library materials. Similar to calculating the current weighted service
population, the project team calculated the projected weighted increase in population:
Table 29: Projected Weighted Increased Population for the Library
Category Projected Increase Weight Factor Weighted Population
Residential 11,910 1.0 11,910
Employees 39,801 0.11 4,476
TOTAL 16,386
Based upon projected service population increases, the project team calculated the
increased need for library square footage and additional collection items:
Table 30: Projected Library Needs Based Upon Population Increase
Category Population Increase Standard / Capita Projected Total
Library Sq. Ft. 16,386 0.60 9,894.01
Total Collection Items 16,386 1.94 31,758
Based upon the proposed population increase, there is the projected need for
approximately 9,900 sq. ft. of additional library space, and 32,000 additional materials to
be in circulation. The additional square footage and collections could be enough for a new
smaller library branch or it could be to expand existing facilities to accommodate the need
for new residents and employees within the City.
2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS
In order to calculate the costs associated with projected service population and its
associated needs, the project team utilized projected square footage, cost per square
foot, projected circulation items, and cost per item. The following table shows this
calculation:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
Table 31: Projected Library Cost Based Upon Population increase
Category Projected Expansion Cost / Unit Total Projected Cost
Library Space 9,894.01 $72516 $7,173,156
Circulation Items 31,758 $19.3217 $613,649
TOTAL $7,786,805
The total projected cost associated with future residential and non-residential
development through 2040 would be approximately $7.8 million.
In addition to the $7.8 million in projected costs associated with future residents and
employees, the Mitigation Fee Act also enables the City to charge an administrative fee
associated with annual monitoring and reporting of these funds. As there is no current
impact fee for the Library, the administrative charge calculated for the proposed fees was
calculated based off of an average of the Childcare Impact Fee Administration, and Parks
and Recreation Administration Fee. These are the only two current impact fees charged
that are part of community services and could be considered relatable to library services.
In order to calculate the administrative fee, the project team took the overhead allocated
to the impact fee funds for Childcare and Parks and Recreation through the FY20 Cost
Allocation Plan and divided it by the total impact fee revenue collected. However, due to
the fluctuation in the amount of impact fee revenue, a 3 year average was utilized to allow
for normalization in the administrative fee calculated. The following table shows the Admin
Fee calculation for the Library:
Table 32: Library Admin Fee Calculation
Category Childcare Parks and Recreation Average
Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $28,539 $30,912 $29,726
Impact Fee Revenue – 3 yr. average $853,362 $1,058,588 $955,975
Admin Fee Rate 3.34% 2.92% 3.11%
Based upon the calculation methodology, the administrative fee to be applied to the full
cost results of the proposed Library Impact Fees would be 3.11%. This percentage would
enable the City to recover the costs associated with tracking revenues in a separate fund
and developing annual mitigation fee monitoring reports by Finance staff.
3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
The proposed increased costs associated with new development would be approximately
$7.8 million. In order to determine the proportion of costs that should be borne by
16 Cost per square foot is based upon the Measure W – Community Civic Center Study for the potential cost to build a new library.
17 The $19.32 is based upon an average of the cost associated with the circulation budget and acquiring 10% of the library’s existing
collection as new items and / or the number of new books in circulation. It includes all materials types, such as digital and hard copy
books.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
residents (including students) and employees, the project team calculated the proportion
of the weighted population increase:
Table 33: Calculation of Split of Costs Between Categories
Category Weighted Population Proportionate Share
Residential 11,910 73%
Employees 4,476 27%
TOTAL 16,386 100%
This proportionate share was used to allocate the cost of $7.8 million to the two different
categories and calculate the resulting residential and employee costs, as well as the cost
per capita.
Table 34: Proposed Library Impact Fee Cost Per Capita Calculation
Category Total Cost Total Projected Increase Cost Per Capita
Residential $5,684,368 11,910 $477.28
Employees $2,102,437 38,901 $52.82
The cost per future resident for projected library needs is $477 and the cost per employee
is approximately $53. This seems appropriate as the residential development and growth
has a larger proportionate impact upon the library and its needs. The cost per capita from
this table was converted into a cost per dwelling unit and cost per sq. ft. based upon the
density factors discussed in the projected growth and development chapter. The following
table shows this calculation:
Table 35: Library Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density $477.28 3.45 $1,647 per du
Medium Density $477.28 3.02 $1,441 per du
High Density $477.28 2.57 $1,227 per du
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $52.82 768 $0.07 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $52.82 2,000 $0.03 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $52.82 425 $0.12 per sq. ft.
Industrial $52.82 1,250 $0.04 per sq. ft.
The cost per dwelling unit varies from a low of $1,227 for high density residential
developments to a high of $1,674 for low density (single-family) homes and from a low of
$0.03 for hotels to a high of $0.12 for office / R&D developments. To calculate the full
allowable fee, the 3.11% administrative fee is applied to the cost per dwelling unit. The
following table shows this calculation:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
Table 36: Library Impact Fee Cost Calculation Including Administrative Fee
Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density $1,647 $51 $1,698 per du
Medium Density $1,441 $45 $1,486 per du
High Density $1,227 $38 $1,265 per du
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $0.07 $0.00 $0.07 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $0.03 $0.00 $0.03 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $0.12 $0.01 $0.13 per sq. ft.
Industrial $0.04 $0.01 $0.04 per sq. ft.
The full cost for a Library Impact Fee would vary from a low of $1,265 per dwelling unit to
a high of $1,698 per dwelling unit depending upon the type of residential development; or
it would vary from a low of $0.03 per square foot for a new hotel to a high of $0.13 per
square foot for a new office or R&D complex within the City.
4 NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented
it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table
outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Library Impact fee meets the criteria.
Table 37: Library Impact Fees Nexus Criteria
Criteria Meet Don’t
Meet
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the fee would be to expand and / or remodel
existing library branches, acquire additional space or repurpose
current spaces to address emerging community needs, bolster the
library collection in diverse electronic and hardcopy formats and
replace / upgrade furniture, fixtures and equipment to continue to
meet the existing service level standard of the community.
Use of Fee Revenue
The Library has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the
utilization of this fee revenue for current and future years to help
ensure that there is appropriate expansion and / or remodel of
library facilities, including technology within the library to meet
community goals and objectives.
Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing
library space to accommodate growing and emerging patron needs
for materials, equipment, and program and learning space, which
would directly be due to increased service population. The
residential service population is applicable to dwelling units and
employment service population is applicable to square footage per
commercial development.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
Criteria Meet Don’t
Meet
Impact Relationship
Based upon the current library space and library materials in the
City, there is a standard level of library space and materials per
resident. In order to maintain that standard, the addition of new
residents and employees would require the need for expanded
library facilities and services.
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling unit
depending upon the density factor of housing or the square footage
of the commercial project. The density factor concept ensures that
those units with potentially higher proportion of future residents pay
their fair share compared to housing units with lesser amounts of
residents and similarly larger businesses pay a higher proportionate
of share depending upon the type of the business.
As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to
impose a Library Impact Fee.
5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of
surrounding jurisdictions and if they charge a Library Impact Fee. The following table
compares the city’s proposed full cost for library impacts to other surveyed jurisdictions
in the region, which charge a Library Impact Fee:
Table 38: Library impact Fee Comparative Survey
Fee Category / Jurisdiction SSF - Full Cost Burlingame Millbrae Palo Alto
Residential
Low Density – Per DU $1,698 $2,382 $217 $1,12618
Medium Density- Per DU $1,486 $1,415 $160 $67419
High Density – Per DU $1,265 $1,415 $160 $674
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial – Per Sq. Ft. $0.07 $0.48 $0.34 $0.28
Office – Per Sq. Ft. $0.12 $0.70 $0.78 $0.28
Industrial Per Sq. Ft. $0.04 $0.23 $0.07 $0.28
Hotel – per sq. ft. $0.03 $0.48 $3020 $0.119
As the table indicates there are only three other surveyed jurisdictions that charge impact
fees associated with their Libraries – Burlingame, Millbrae, and Palo Alto. The City’s full
cost fees are higher than Palo Alto and Millbrae, but below or in line with Burlingame’s
fees. Some jurisdictions may consider Library Impact Fees part of a General
18 For projects greater than 3,000 sq. ft. the fee increases from $1,126 to $1,676.
19 If the high density projects are less than 900 sq. ft. the fee is $370.
20 This fee is charged per room.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
Governmental Facilities Fee or Community Facilities Fee; hence why they don’t have
separate fees. Additionally, many jurisdictions do not have their own libraries (it is run
through the County) and as such are not able to charge impact fees associated with the
library.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
6. Police Impact Fee
The South San Francisco Police Department currently has one Police Station – its
headquarters, but also has a small space attached to Miller Garage in the east side of the
City for officers to use as necessary. The department is currently in the midst of building
a new headquarters. Currently, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact
fee for Police and Fire called a Public Safety Impact Fee. Similar to the original analysis,
a separate Police Impact Fee and Fire Impact Fee was calculated. The following
subsections discuss the growth assumptions utilized, cost components included, resulting
impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative analysis of
Police Impact Fees.
1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Police Department services both residential and commercial populations
(employees). Future increased development would result in the need for an expanded
Police headquarters and / or the need for a substation. The primary goal of the Police
Department is to provide safety and security services within the City, that benefit both
existing and future development. In order to determine the proportionate share of existing
and future development, the project team calculated the future service population for the
City. An employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use police
services as a resident, as such their impact and weight should be proportionately less.
The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate
weight and the equivalent residential population:
Table 39: Future Weighted Service Population Increase Calculation
Category Existing
Population
Projected
Increase
Weight
Factor
Weighted Population
Increase
Residential 68,105 11,910 1.0 11,910
Employees 57,182 39,801 0.4421 17,512
TOTAL 125,287 29,422
As the table indicates, the projected increase in the service population is approximately
29,422, which reflects approximately a 23% increase compared to the existing population.
Therefore, future development should bear approximately 23% of the costs.
2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS
Due to the projected increase in residential and non-residential population there will be
an impact on the department’s infrastructure. The planning horizon for the impact fee is
21 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team utilized the proportion of calls for service that are commercial.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
20 years (2020 through 2040), and while the department intends to purchase some
additional equipment, it will also need to replace existing equipment and vehicles, and
upgrade its facilities during that span. A proportionate share of those upgrades should be
borne by future development as future development will benefit from that equipment and
the facilities. The following table shows by cost category, the average annual cost, the
number of planning years, and the resulting cost for 20 years:
Table 40: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost for 20 Years
Category Average Annual Cost Planning Horizon Total Cost
Equipment $739,955 20 $14,799,095
Vehicles $479,610 20 $9,592,200
Facility $1,137,152 20 $22,743,046
TOTAL $2,356,717 20 $47,134,341
A detailed accounting of the average annual cost for equipment, vehicles, and facilities
has been included in Appendix A of this report. Overall, in the next 20 years the Police
Department will require approximately $47 million to meet the needs of existing and future
residents and non-residents.
In addition to the $47 million in infrastructure costs, the other cost component to be
considered is the administrative fee. In the prior nexus study, the administrative fee
utilized was 2%. For purposes of this study, the project team calculated the administrative
fee based upon the total indirect costs allocated to the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund
from the FY 2020 Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the average revenue collected by
the fund over the last two years. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 41: Police Admin Fee Calculation
Category Public Safety Impact Fee Fund
Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $24,185
Impact Fee Revenue – 2 yr. average22 $659,283
Admin Fee Rate 3.67%
The proposed administrative fee for the Police Impact fee would be 3.67%, which is higher
than the current 2% administrative fee. This 3.67% accounts for support provided by City
staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds.
3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Police
Department are approximately $48 million. However, not all of this cost should be borne
22 Due to the anomalous collection of revenue in FY17 for the Public Safety Impact Fee, it was excluded from the calculation and
only a 2 year average (FY18 and FY19) was utilized.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
by the future population. Based upon the growth assumptions analysis, only 15% of these
costs should be borne by the future population. The following table shows the calculation
for costs to be borne by future residential and non-residential populations:
Table 42: Projected Cost Calculation Between Existing and Future Population
Category Infrastructure Costs Proportion Total Cost to Be Borne
Current Population $47,134,341 77% $36,293,442
Future Population $47,134,341 23% $10,840,898
Of the $48 million, only $10.8 million should be borne by future populations. This $10.8
million is divided by the total projected population increase, to calculate the cost per
capita, as shown in the following table:
Table 43: Projected Cost for New Development – Per Capita
Future Population Cost Projected Population Increase Cost / Capita
$10,840,898 51,71123 $209.64
The cost per capita from this table ($209.64) was converted into a cost per dwelling unit
and cost per sq. ft. based upon the density factors discussed in the projected growth and
development chapter. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 44: Police Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density $209.64 3.45 $723 per du
Medium Density $209.64 3.02 $633 per du
High Density $209.64 2.57 $539 per du
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $357.53 768 $0.27 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $357.53 2,000 $0.10 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $357.53 425 $0.49 per sq. ft.
Industrial $357.53 1,250 $0.17 per sq. ft.
The cost per dwelling varies from a low of $539 for high density residential developments
to a high of $723 for low density (single-family) homes. The fees for commercial and non-
residential vary from $0.10 per square foot for hotel / visitor properties to a high of $0.49
per square foot for office / R&D properties. To calculate the full allowable fee, the 3.67%
administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:
23 While the employees are weighted for service population calculation purposes, on a per capita calculation each employee still
counts as singular and as such the 51,711 reflects the total of the 11,910 residents and 39,801 employees projected.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
Table 45: Police Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee
Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $723 $27 $750 per du
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $633 $23 $656 per du
High Density (18+ du / acre) $539 $20 $559 per du
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $0.27 $0.01 $0.28 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $0.10 $0.01 $0.11 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $0.49 $0.02 $0.51 per sq. ft.
Industrial $0.17 $0.00 $0.17 per sq. ft.
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the
proportionate impact of future development.
As discussed, the City currently charges a singular Public Safety Impact Fee. The
following table compares the current police portion (40%) of the Public Safety Impact Fee
to the police full cost impact fee, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit.
Table 46: Police Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $514 $750 ($236)
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $324 $656 ($332)
High Density (18+ du / acre) $225 $559 ($333)
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.18 $0.28 ($0.11)
Hotel / Visitor $0.17 $0.11 $0.06
Office / R&D $0.18 $0.51 ($0.34)
Industrial $0.07 $0.17 ($0.10)
As the table indicates, all current impact fees, except for the hotel / visitor category are
under-recovering compared to the full cost of impact fees. The singular over-recovery is
by approximately $0.06 per square foot. The under-recovery is lower for non-residential
properties such as $0.10 per square foot for industrial and higher for residential properties
($236 per dwelling unit). These fees have not been updated in eight years, and as such
some of the projected increases in fees would be expected due to cost factor increases.
However, the primary difference in costs results from the current fee only accounting for
the replacement of equipment, while the full cost includes both equipment and facilities.
The inclusion of Police Facility costs is allowable and should be represented as it helps
account for any facility upgrades or changes that need to be made to serve the existing
and future population.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
As aforementioned, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact fee for
Police and Fire called a Public Safety Impact Fee. When this fee was originally developed,
separate impact fees for Police and Fire were calculated, and then added together to
create the Public Safety Impact Fee. Based upon the calculations it was determined that
40% of the Public Safety Impact fee would reflect Police, and 60% would represent Fire.
This nexus analysis, similar to the prior analysis has calculated these impact fees
separately. The following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee to
the Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fee (Police and Fire) and the associated surplus /
(deficit) per unit.
Table 47: Public Safety Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,285 $1,758 ($473)
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $810 $1,539 ($729)
High Density (18+ du / acre) $563 $1,310 ($747)
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.44 $0.66 ($0.22)
Hotel / Visitor $0.42 $0.26 $0.16
Office / R&D $0.44 $1.20 ($0.76)
Industrial $0.18 $0.40 ($0.22)
As the table indicates, the full cost of the overall Public Safety impact fee is significantly
higher than the current fees charged by the City. At the culmination of the analysis, the
City has the option to continue to bundle these fees on its fee schedule, or represent them
separately. If the City were to bundle them together the updated split for the fee would be
43% for Police and 57% for Fire. For all monitoring and tracking purposes, the City
collects and stores the funds in separate accounts and should continue to do so even if it
collects it as a singular fee.
4 NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented
it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table
outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Police Impact fee meets the AB1600
criteria.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
Table 48: Police Impact Fees Nexus Criteria
Criteria Meet Don’t Meet
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the fee would be to expand existing or
proposed police headquarters, replace equipment and
vehicles, and acquire additional equipment necessary to
provide public safety services in the community.
Use of Fee Revenue
The Police Department has detailed capital improvement
plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for
current and future years to help ensure that there is
appropriate expansion of police facilities and equipment to
meet public safety goals of the City.
Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate
police headquarters space to accommodate increased
officers and equipment. The increase in officers and need
for equipment replacement or facility upgrades is directly
relatable to population increases. The service population of
residential is applicable to dwelling units and for employees
is based on square footage.
Impact Relationship
Based upon the current police space and police equipment
in the City, there is a standard level of replacement
associated with those items. In order to ensure that
services for future and existing residents are met, the
facility and equipment should be replaced in a timely
manner throughout the 20 year planning horizon. Only a
proportion of the replacement costs (15%) based upon
future growth as a component of the overall projected
population of the city is used to assign the impact to future
population.
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee would be a flat fee per dwelling
unit depending upon the density of the housing units. The
fees for non-residents would be applied based upon square
footage and density of the types of non-residential property
categories.
As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to
impose a Police Development Impact Fee.
5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of
surrounding jurisdictions who charge a Police Impact Fee. The following table compares
the city’s current fee and full cost to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which
charge a Police Impact Fee:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
Table 49: Police Impact Fee Comparative Survey
Residential Commercial / Non-Residential
Jurisdiction
Low
Density
– Per DU
Medium
Density
– Per DU
High
Density
– Per DU
Commercial
– Per Sq. Ft
Office
– Per
Sq. Ft
Industrial –
Per Sq. Ft
Hotel –
Per Sq.
Ft.
SSF – Current $514 $324 $225 $0.18 $0.18 $0.07 $0.17
SSF - Full Cost $750 $656 $559 $0.28 $0.51 $0.17 $0.11
Burlingame $437 $259 $259 $0.10 $0.15 $0.05
The only surveyed jurisdiction that charges a stand-alone Police Impact Fee rather than
a combined Public Safety Impact Fee is Burlingame. When comparing the current and
full cost Police Impact Fee only for South San Francisco, both are higher than the fees
charged by Burlingame.
However, in order to provide a true comparison between surveyed jurisdictions, the
following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee and full cost Public
Safety Impact Fee to the Police and Fire Impact Fees collected by other jurisdictions.
Table 50: Police and Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey
Residential Commercial / Non-Residential
Jurisdiction
Low
Density –
Per DU
Medium
Density-
Per DU
High
Density
– Per DU
Commercial
– Per Sq. Ft
Office
– Per
Sq. Ft
Industrial
– Per Sq.
Ft
Hotel –
Per Sq.
Ft.
SSF – Current $1,285 $810 $563 $0.44 $0.44 $0.18 $0.42
SSF - Full Cost $1,758 $1,539 $1,310 $0.66 $1.20 $0.40 $0.26
Burlingame $1,079 $640 $640 $0.35 $0.51 $0.17 $0.35
Millbrae $1,159 $854 $854 $0.37 $0.81 $0.08 $16324
Palo Alto $1,081 $865 $865 $0.60 $0.81 $0.20 $0.60
San Bruno $1,145 $1,144 $1,144 $0.58 $0.58 $0.23 $9524
As the table indicates, the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee is in line with most of
the jurisdictions surveyed. The City’s full cost fees for commercial projects are in line with
Palo Alto and San Bruno; however, its full cost fee for residential projects is higher than
the other jurisdictions.
24 These fees are applied per hotel room, not per square foot.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
7. Fire Impact Fee
The Fire Department currently has five stations throughout the City to serve the current
residential population. The Fire Department provides prevention, hazardous materials,
fire life / safety, fire suppression, and emergency medical services to the residents,
students, and employees of South San Francisco. As mentioned in the previous chapter,
the City of South San Francisco currently charges a singular impact fee for Fire and Police
called a Public Safety Impact Fee. Similar to the original analysis, a separate Fire Impact
Fee and Police Impact Fee was calculated. The following subsections discuss the growth
assumptions utilized, cost components included, resulting impact fee calculation, ability
to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative analysis of Fire Impact Fees.
1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Fire Department serves both residential and commercial populations (employees).
Future increased development would result in the need for expanded or relocated Fire
stations, additional equipment and vehicles. The primary goal of the Fire Department is
to provide fire prevention and suppression services within the City. These services benefit
both existing and future development to determine the proportionate share of existing and
future development, the project team calculated the future service population for the City.
An employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use police
services as a resident, as such their impact and weight should be proportionately less.
The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate
weight and the equivalent residential population:
Table 51: Future Weighted Service Population Increase Calculation
Category Existing
Population
Projected
Increase
Weight
Factor
Weighted Population
Increase
Residential 68,105 11,910 1.0 11,910
Employees 57,182 39,801 0.4325 17,114
TOTAL 125,287 29,024
As the table indicates, the projected increase in the service population is approximately
29,024, which reflects approximately a 23% increase compared to the existing population.
Therefore, future development should bear approximately 23% of the costs.
25 To calculate the employee weight factor, the project team utilized the proportion of fire calls for service that are commercial relative
to residential calls for service.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
2 COST ASSUMPTIONS AND COMPONENTS
Due to the projected increase in residential and non-residential population there will be
an impact on the department’s infrastructure. The planning horizon for the impact fee is
20 years (2020 through 2040) and while the department intends to purchase some
additional equipment and relocate facilities, it will also need to replace existing equipment
and upgrade its facilities during that span. A proportionate share of those upgrades should
be borne by future development as future development will benefit from that equipment
and the facilities. The following table shows by cost category, the average annual cost,
the number of planning years, and the resulting cost for 20 years:
Table 52: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost for 20 Years
Category Average Annual Cost Planning Horizon Total Cost
Equipment $477,273 20 $9,545,456
Vehicles $678,746 20 $13,574,923
Facilities $2,013,015 20 $40,260,297
TOTAL $3,169,034 20 $63,380,676
A detailed accounting of the average annual cost for equipment, vehicles, and facilities
have been included in Appendix B of this report. Overall, in the next 20 years the Fire
Department will require approximately $63 million to meet the needs of existing and future
population of the City.
In addition to the $63 million in costs, the other cost component to be considered is the
administrative fee. Similar to the proposed Police impact fee, an administrative fee for the
Fire Impact Fee was calculated. In the prior nexus study, the administrative fee utilized
was 2%. As the administrative fee for the Police Impact Fee was calculated based upon
the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund, which is comprised of both Police and Fire Impact
fees, the same calculation is being utilized for the Fire Impact Fee calculation. For
purposes of this study, the project team calculated the administrative fee based upon the
total indirect costs allocated to the Public Safety Impact Fee Fund from the FY 2020
Citywide Cost Allocation Plan and the average of the revenue collected by the fund over
the last two years. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 53: Fire Admin Fee Calculation
Category Public Safety Impact Fee Fund
Citywide Overhead – FY20 Cost Plan $24,185
Impact Fee Revenue – 2 yr. average26 $659,283
Admin Fee Rate 3.67%
26 Due to the anomalous collection of revenue in FY17 for Public Safety Impact Fee, it was excluded from the calculation and only a
2 year average (FY18 and FY19) was utilized.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
The proposed administrative fee for the Fire Impact fee would be 3.67%, which is higher
than the current 2% administrative fee. This 3.67% accounts for support provided by City
staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds.
3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Fire Department
are approximately $63 million. However, not all of this cost should be borne by the future
population. Based upon the growth assumptions analysis, only 15% of these costs should
be borne by the future population. The following table shows the calculation for costs to
be borne by future residential and non-residential populations:
Table 54: Projected Cost Calculation Between Existing and Future Population
Category Infrastructure Costs Proportion Total Cost to Be Borne
Current Population $63,380,676 77% $48,803,120
Future Population $63,380,676 23% $14,577,555
Of the $63 million, only $14.6 million should be borne by the future population. This $14.6
million is divided by the total projected population increase, to calculate the cost per
capita, as shown in the following table:
Table 55: Projected Cost for New Development – Per Capita
Future Population Cost Projected Population Increase Cost / Capita
$14,577,555 51,71127 $281.90
The cost per capita from this table ($281.90) was converted into a cost per dwelling unit
and cost per sq. ft. based upon the density factors discussed in the projected growth and
development chapter. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 56: Fire Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per Capita Density / Unit Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $281.90 3.45 $973 per dwelling unit
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $281.90 3.02 $851 per dwelling unit
High Density (18+ du / acre) $281.90 2.57 $724 per dwelling unit
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $281.90 768 $0.37 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $281.90 2,000 $0.14 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $281.90 425 $0.66 per sq. ft.
Industrial $281.90 1,250 $0.23 per sq. ft.
27 While the employees are weighted for service population calculation purposes, on a per capita calculation each employee still
counts as singular and as such the 51,711 reflects the total of the 11,910 residents and 39,801 employees projected.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
As the table above indicates, the cost per dwelling unit varies from a low of $724 for high
density residential developments to a high of $973 for low density (single-family) homes.
The fees for commercial and non-residential vary from $0.14 per square foot for hotel /
visitor properties to a high of $0.66 per square foot for office / R&D properties. To calculate
the full allowable fee, the 3.67% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The
following table shows this calculation:
Table 57: Fire Impact Fee Calculation Including Administrative Fee
Category Impact Fee Admin Fee Total Impact Fee
Residential
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $973 $35 $1,008 per dwelling unit
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $851 $32 $883 per dwelling unit
High Density (18+ du / acre) $724 $27 $751 per dwelling unit
Commercial / Non-Residential
Commercial / Retail $0.37 $0.01 $0.38 per sq. ft.
Hotel / Visitor $0.14 $0.01 $0.15 per sq. ft.
Office / R&D $0.66 $0.03 $0.69 per sq. ft.
Industrial $0.23 $0.00 $0.23 per sq. ft.
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the
proportionate impact of future development.
As discussed previously, the City currently charges a singular Public Safety Impact Fee.
The following table compares the current fire portion (60%) of the Public Safety Impact
Fee to the fire full cost impact fee, and the associated surplus / (deficit) per unit.
Table 58: Fire Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $771 $1,008 ($237)
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $486 $883 ($397)
High Density (18+ du / acre) $338 $751 ($413)
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.26 $0.38 ($0.12)
Hotel / Visitor $0.25 $0.15 $0.10
Office / R&D $0.26 $0.69 ($0.42)
Industrial $0.11 $0.23 ($0.13)
As the table indicates, all current impact fees, other than hotel / visitor, are under-
recovering compared to the full cost. The over-recovery for the hotel / visitor fees is
approximately $0.10 per square foot. The under-recovery is lower for non-residential
properties such as $0.12 per square foot for commercial / retail and higher for residential
properties ($413 per dwelling unit). These fees have not been updated in eight years, and
as such some of the projected increases in fees would be expected due to cost factor
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
increases. Furthermore, other projected increases have to do with increased costs
associated with facility and equipment rehabilitation, acquisition, and replacement.
As aforementioned, the City of South San Francisco charges a singular impact fee for
Fire and Police called a Public Safety Impact Fee. When this fee was originally developed,
separate impact fees for Fire and Police were calculated, and then added together to
create the Public Safety Impact Fee. Based upon the calculations it was determined that
60% of the current fee would reflect Fire, and 40% of the current fee would represent
Police. This nexus analysis, similar to the prior analysis has calculated these impact fees
separately. The following table compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee to
the Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fee (Police and Fire) and the associated surplus /
(deficit) per unit.
Table 59: Current vs. Full Cost Public Safety Impact Fees
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Low Density (Up to 8 du / acre) $1,285 $1,758 ($473)
Medium Density (8-18 du / acre) $810 $1,539 ($729)
High Density (18+ du / acre) $563 $1,310 ($747)
Commercial / Non-Residential (per square foot)
Commercial / Retail $0.44 $0.66 ($0.22)
Hotel / Visitor $0.42 $0.26 $0.16
Office / R&D $0.44 $1.20 ($0.76)
Industrial $0.18 $0.40 ($0.22)
As the table indicates, the full cost of the overall Public Safety impact fee is significantly
higher than the current fees charged by the City. At the culmination of the analysis, the
City has the option to continue to bundle these fees on its fee schedule, or represent them
separately. If the City were to bundle them together the updated split for the fee would be
43% for Police and 57% for Fire. For all monitoring and tracking purposes, the City
collects and stores the fund in separate accounts and should continue to do so even if it
collects it as a singular fee.
4 NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented
it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per AB1600. The following table
outlines each criterion point, and how the proposed Fire Impact fee meets the AB1600
criteria.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
Table 60: Fire Impact Fees Nexus Criteria
Criteria Meet Don’t Meet
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the fee would be to upgrade existing Fire
stations, relocate, and reconstruct existing fire stations, as
well as replace outdated fire equipment.
Use of Fee Revenue
The Fire Department has detailed capital improvement
plans that outline the utilization of this fee revenue for
current and future years to help ensure that there is
appropriate expansion of fire facilities and equipment to
meet the public safety goals of the City.
Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate
existing fire stations to accommodate the appropriate
number of ambulances and engines, as well as ensure that
stations are located in appropriate locations to allow for the
most efficient response for service. New residents and
employees receive benefits from increased equipment and
more efficient response times.
Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have
an impact on the ability of the fire stations to respond
adequately, including in an efficient manner. Therefore, the
cost associated with adding additional equipment or
expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to
allow for responses would be borne by new residents or
employees.
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon
proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact
by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The
fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit for residential
properties and on a per sq. ft. basis for commercial
properties as the impact is more space based rather than
unit based.
As the table demonstrates, the City is able to meet all five of the criteria necessary to
impose a Fire Development Impact Fee.
5 COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of
surrounding jurisdictions who charge a Fire Impact Fee. The following table compares the
city’s current fee and full cost for Fire to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region, which
charge a fire impact fee:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
Table 61: Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey
Residential Commercial / Non-Residential
Jurisdiction
Low
Density –
Per DU
Medium
Density-
Per DU
High
Density –
Per DU
Commercial
– Per Sq. Ft
Office
– Per
Sq. Ft
Industrial –
Per Sq. Ft
Hotel –
Per Sq.
Ft.
SSF – Current $771 $486 $338 $0.26 $0.26 $0.11 $0.25
SSF - Full Cost $1,008 $883 $751 $0.38 $0.69 $0.23 $0.15
Burlingame $642 $381 $381 $0.25 $0.36 $0.12
Napa $656 $589 $589 $0.51 $0.32 $1.17
The only surveyed jurisdictions that charge a stand-alone Fire Impact Fee rather than a
combined Public Safety Impact Fee are Burlingame and Napa. South San Francisco’s
current and full cost commercial fees are in line with the fees charged by both Burlingame
and Napa, however, the full cost calculated for residential fees is much higher.
In order to provide a true comparison between surveyed jurisdictions, the following table
compares the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee and full cost Public Safety Impact
Fee to the Police and Fire Impact Fees collected by other jurisdictions.
Table 62: Police and Fire impact Fee Comparative Survey
Residential Commercial / Non-Residential
Jurisdiction
Low
Density –
Per DU
Medium
Density-
Per DU
High
Density
– Per DU
Commercial
– Per Sq. Ft
Office
– Per
Sq. Ft
Industrial
– Per Sq.
Ft
Hotel –
Per Sq.
Ft.
SSF – Current $1,285 $810 $563 $0.44 $0.44 $0.18 $0.42
SSF - Full Cost $1,758 $1,539 $1,310 $0.66 $1.20 $0.40 $0.26
Burlingame $1,079 $640 $640 $0.35 $0.51 $0.17 $0.35
Millbrae $1,159 $854 $854 $0.37 $0.81 $0.08 $16328
Palo Alto $1,081 $865 $865 $0.60 $0.81 $0.20 $0.60
San Bruno $1,145 $1,144 $1,144 $0.58 $0.58 $0.23 $9528
As the table indicates, the City’s current Public Safety Impact Fee is in line with most of
the jurisdictions surveyed. The City’s full cost fees for commercial projects are in line with
Palo Alto and San Bruno; however, its full cost fees for residential projects are higher than
the other jurisdictions.
28 These fees are applied per hotel room, not per square foot.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
8. 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 63: Existing and Forecasted Land Use
Category Existing 2020 Growth 2020-2040 Total 2040
Residential (Dwelling Units)29
Single-Family 16,272 30 16,302
Multi-Family 5,787 3,189 8,976
Non-Residential (Building Square Feet)30
Retail 3,401,000 78,339 3,479,339
Hotel / Motel 8,872,000 364,500 9,236,500
Office 7,250,025 12,673,495 19,923,520
Industrial 22,594,900 4,263 22,599,163
29 Existing 2020 Dwelling units based upon CA Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019. Single family includes detached and attached units.
30 Non-residential land uses - Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Job Counts by NAICS Industry Sector
2017. Nonresidential building square feet based on employment estimates and density factors of 400, 450, 1,000, and 1,500 square
feet per employee for commercial, office, industrial, and hotel respectively.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
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 64: EDU Calculation by Land Use
Category ITE Land Use
Code31
Daily Trip
Rate Unit Trip
Length
Percent New
Trips
VMT per
Unit EDU
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single-Family 210 9.44 du 7.90 100 74.58 1.00
Multi-Family 220 5.44 du 7.90 100 42.98 0.58
Non-Residential (Building Square Feet)
Retail 820 37.75 KSF 3.60 6632 89.69 1.20
Hotel / Motel33 310 11.94 KSF 7.60 100 90.74 1.22
Office 710 9.74 KSF 8.80 100 85.71 1.15
Industrial 110 4.96 KSF 9.00 100 44.64 0.60
The EDU calculated for single-family homes is 1.00, and 0.58 for Multi-Family homes.
Alternatively for non-residential projects, the calculation is based upon multiples of
thousand square feet, so the EDU factor is 1.20 per KSF.
The EDU factor based upon the traffic generation rates are applied to the existing and
projected growth in order to calculate actual projected units (dwelling units or thousands
31 Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th edition; ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Table E.9:
Pass-By and Non-Pass-By Trips, Weekday PM Peak Period; SANDAG, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San
Diego Region (2002); Jan de Roos, Planning and Programming a Hotel (The Scholarly Commons: Cornell University School of Hotel
Administration, 2011.
32 Accounts for trip ends that are not part of a new travel tour but are made mostly en route to another origin or destination and do not
represent significant additional demand on the transportation network.
33 Hotel/Motel trip rate based on ITE rate per room and 700 gross building square feet per room.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
of square feet) associated with future development. The following table shows this
calculation:
Table 65: 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 66: Infrastructure Inventory and Existing Facility Standard
Infrastructure Category Unit Total Quantity EDU Existing Facility Standard
Roadway Square Feet 17,582,145 56,350 312.0
Sidewalk Square Feet 3,026,716 56,350 53.7
Curb & Gutter Linear Feet 577,840 56,350 10.3
Median Square Feet 1,009,061 56,350 17.9
Bicycle Path Square Feet 180,576 56,350 3.2
Bicycle Lane Linear Feet 666,574 56,350 11.8
Traffic Signal Intersections 113 56,350 0.002
The primary source of traffic related infrastructure in the city is related to square footage
or roadways and sidewalks. In order to calculate the current cost standard associated
with residential and non-residential units, the cost per unit was calculated for each of the
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
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 67: 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 68: Level of Investment by Infrastructure Type
Infrastructure
Category
Existing Facility
Standard
Replacement
Cost
Existing Level of
Investment per EDU
Roadway 312.0 $63 $19,605
Sidewalk 53.7 $52 $2,797
Curb & Gutter 10.3 $144 $1,478
Median 17.9 $47 $842
Bicycle Path 3.2 $44 $140
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
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 69: Transportation Improvements Cost Summary
Project Source Number of
Projects
Estimated
Costs Project Types
Active South City Project
Recommendations 128 $142,305,516 Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Mobility 2020 Projects 16 $34,170,552 Multimodal
Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of
101 Area (2007) 12 $512,000,000 Arterial
Improvements
TOTAL 156 $688,476,068
The projected estimated costs for transportation improvements for the City are $688
million and comprised of 156 projects. Appendix D provides a detailed listing of the
projects for which the full cost transportation impact fee could be utilized. The City
assumes that approximately 100% of these projects will be completed through the 20
year planning horizon (by 2040).
Similar to all of the other impact fees, an administrative fee was calculated for the
Transportation Impact Fee. DKS assumed the administrative fee at a rate of 2%, which
is in line with the overhead costs allocated to the Bike / Pedestrian and East of 101 Traffic
Impact Fees and revenues collected. It is primarily meant to account for the City’s
overhead costs related to tracking and reporting on the use of impact fee revenues.
3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
As the previous section calculated, the total existing facility standard results in $26,840
per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). This full cost impact fee per EDU is converted into the
transportation impact fee based upon the EDU factor calculated in the growth
assumptions of this section. The following table shows this calculation:
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
Table 70: 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 71: 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 72: Citywide Transportation Impact Fee – Current vs. Full Cost
Category Current
Fee
Full Cost
Fee
Surplus /
(Deficit) Per Unit
Residential
Single-Family $243 $27,377 ($27,134)
Multi-Family $170 $15,776 ($15,606)
34 The criteria of 700 sq. ft. per room was utilized.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
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 73: Transportation Impact Fees Nexus Criteria
Criteria Meet Don’t Meet
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the fee would be to upgrade existing
transportation measures or fund the construction of new
transportation measures based upon the projected
increase in development within the City.
Use of Fee Revenue
Appendix D of this report includes a list of detailed projects
upon which the projected Transportation Impact Fee could
be utilized. The City has the right to modify the project list,
adding or replacing projects as long as they are consistent
with the nexus analysis and are capital projects, part of the
citywide transportation network and are related to
enhancement, upgrades, and expansion of existing and
future transportation infrastructure.
Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to enhance,
upgrade, or expand existing and future transportation
infrastructure. New residents and employees receive
benefit from these transportation project improvements.
35 A fee of $0.24 per sq. ft. is added on for the Bike / Ped Fe e.
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
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 74: Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Comparative Survey
Residential Commercial / Non-Residential
Jurisdiction Single-
Family –
Per DU
Multi-
Family –
Per DU
Retail – Per
Sq. Ft
Office –
Per Sq.
Ft
Industrial
– Per Sq.
Ft
Hotel –
Per
Room
SSF – Current $243 $170 $25.42 $6.14 $0.12 $1,40721
SSF - Full Cost $27,377 $15,776 $32.93 $31.47 $16.39 $23,318
Burlingame
$1,573 $1,105 $1.81 $7.29 $1.15 $1.81
per sq.
ft.
Millbrae $1,875 $1,061 $7.22 $2.12 $1.193 $1,136
Mountain View $4,788 $2,681 $5.11 $5.11 $5.11 $2,961
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
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 75: 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 76: 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 77: 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 78: 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 79: 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 80: 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 81: 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 82: 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 83: 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 $27,000 per EDU in its existing transportation
infrastructure. This amount represents the maximum justified level of investment from new
development necessary to maintain the existing facility standard. Because the facility standard is
based on citywide multimodal infrastructure, the City may use revenues from the proposed TIF to
fund improvements anywhere on the citywide network for any mode (permitted use of TIF revenue
is further discussed under “Use of Fee Revenue”).
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 15
Figure 1 Citywide Multimodal Transportation Network
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 16
TABLE 84:CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Source: DKS Associates
TABLE 85: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS (2020$)
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% $887,040
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 17
TABLE 86: E XISTING FACILITY STANDARD & LEVEL OF INVESTMENT
Note: All dollars in 2020$
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 87: TRANSPORTATION IMPROV EMENTS COSTS SUMMARY
1 See Appendix A for project list.
2 Includes only projects that would be eligible for TIF funding.
TABLE 88: 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 $26,840 TBD per square foot
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 20
Table 89: Additional EDU Rates
Sources: See Table 2.
TABLE 90: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COMPARISON ($ 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 91. 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 92: Transportation Projects to Be Funded
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
HSIP Cycle 9 Ped safety traffic signal
upgrades
12 signals along Spruce, Grand and
Linden convert to mast arm and install
ped heads
$2,853,318
HSIP Cycle 9 Ped safety and ADA
improvements
Orange/Canal/Nyrtle and Hillside/Franklin
RRFB and ADA curb ramps
$234,024
Community
Identified
Hillside Road Diet Hillside/Lincoln intersection
improvements and road diet
$862,407
HSIP Cycle 9 JS/Hickey/Longford
Intersection
Improvements
Improvements at intersection, ATP
application
$5,930,852
Community
Identified
Hillside Sister-Cities
Traffic Calming
Speed cushion installations, striping
improvements and ped crossing
improvements in Paradise Valley
neighborhood (partial eligibility)
$566,650
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Oyster Point
Boulevard/Dubuque
Avenue
Re-stripe US-101 off-ramp approach to
Dubuque Ave from an existing exclusive
left, shared through/left turn and
exclusive right turn lane to provide
exclusive left turn lanes and a shared
through/right turn lane.
$55,817
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Bayshore/Airport Blvd &
Sister Cities/Oyster Point
Blvd
Change WB second left turn lane to
through lane, through/right to a right turn
lane, widen EB Sister Cities Blvd to one
additional left turn lane, signal mod
$835,141
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Eccles Ave & Oyster
Point Blvd
Remove median and widen east side
Eccles Ave., add additional left turn lane,
signal mod
$615,998
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Gull Drive & Oyster Point
Blvd
Widen NB Gull Dr. to provid two left turn
lanes and one right turn lane, signal mod
$968,537
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Airport Blvd & Miller
Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp
Widen SB 101 off-ramp and replace
retaining wall, restripe SB through/left to
through-only, remove street parking to
increase turn lane storage, signal mod
$2,894,166
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Airport Blvd & Grand
Ave
Restripe SB Airport Blvd. right turn lane
to through-right and through-left lane to
left turn only, signal mod
$217,617
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Dubuque Ave & East
Grand Ave
Widen Grand Ave to improve turning
radius for trucks, remove pork chop and
correct pavement cross slope
$5,255,876
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 24
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Grandview Dr (DNA
Way) & Grand Ave
New signal mod, add one right turn lane
on SB Grandview Ave., one through lane
on NB Grandview Ave., add left turn and
through-left lanes on EB Grand Ave.,
signal interconnect installation
$995,951
Traffic Impact
Fee Study
Update E101
(2007)
Airport Blvd & San
Mateo Ave
Add additional left turn lane and restripe
through-left to be left turn only on WB
Airport Blvd., eliminate weaving section
on NB Produce Ave., signal mod
$1,507,493
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
South Airport
Blvd/Mitchell Ave &
Gateway Blvd
Add additional right-turn lane and change
through-left to through on EB Airport
Blvd., add two through lanes and right-
turn lane on MitchellAve., add right-turn
lane and change through-right to right
only on SB Gateway, new signal
installation
$5,710,328
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
South Airport Blvd &
Utah Ave
Add one SB left-turn lane and change NB
through lane to through-right on Airport
Blvd., signal mod
$622,894
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Harbor Way Widen Harbor Way to 4 lanes with
parking prohibition between Grand Ave.
and Mitchell Ave., new signal installation
$7,463,682
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Hwy 101 northbound
hook ramps/S. Airport
Blvd
Widen US-101 off-ramp to add one lane
at the exit and one right-turn lane at the
intersection, relocate US-101 NB hook
on-ramp toward north, widen SB S.
Airport Blvd. between hook ramps and
Utah Ave. to add left turn lane.
Reconfigure NB S. Airport Blvd between
hook ramps and Utah Ave. to add one
through lane and one left-turn lane,
signal mod
$4,014,611
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Widen Gull Road to extend left-turn lane $297,316
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
East Grand Ave &
Littlefield Ave
Widen and prohibit street parking on
Grand Ave. to one EB through lane and
one let-turn lane, realign striping on WB
E. Grand Ave.
$1,671,977
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
East Grand Ave &
Allerton Ave
Add one through lane on E. Grand Ave.,
new signal mod, install dedicated left-turn
lane from EB Grand Ave. to Allerton
Ave., signal interconnect installation
$908,622
E101 Traffic
Impact Fee
Study
Utah Ave & Harbor Way Widen and prohibit street parking on
Harbor Way to add SB right-turn and NB
through lanes, restripe and prohibit street
parking on Utah Ave. to add one EB left-
turn and one WB left-turn, new signal
mod
$1,642,020
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 25
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Mobility 2020
Projects
I-380 Connection via
Haskins Way
Connects I-380/North Access Road
directly to the Area via Haskins Way. 1/2
mil bridge includes four lanes of traffic
and Bay Trail extensions
$128,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Utah Avenue
Interchange
Extends Utah Avenue for South Airport
Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with a
new southbound on-ramp and off-ramp.
1/4 mile extension includes four lanes of
traffic, sidewalks, and bike lanes.
$77,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Grand Avenue
Northbound Offramp
Flyover
Realigns northbound US-101 off-ramp to
Grand Avenue above the new Caltrain
Station. Two lane off-ramp aligns with
Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue
intersection
$34,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Sierra Point Connection Extends Veterans Boulevard to Shoreline
Court via two lane street via existing
parking lots and new bridge. Includes
reconstruction of Bay Trail bridge
$12,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Railroad Avenue
Extension
Extends Railroad Avenue from Linden
Avenue to Littlefield Avenue. One mile
street extension includes grade
separation of Caltrain, two lanes of traffic,
and bicycle/pedestrian trail
$261,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Oyster Point Boulevard* Reduce median width to add curbside
bus/bike lanes, in-line bus stops, close
missing crosswalk gaps, and reconfigure
traffic signals
$7,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
East Grand Avenue* Address unmet traffic signal needs,
reconfigure traffic signals, close
sidewalks and bikeway gaps, widen
sidewalks, add curb extensions, add
raised median east of Littlefied, add on-
street bus stops and bus lanes/queue
jumps, and remove slip lanes
$22,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
South Airport Boulevard* Address gaps in median, widen
sidewalks, upgrade traffic signals,
upgrade bus stops
$14,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Utah Avenue* Add traffic signal at Utah Avenue/Harbor
Way intersection; add bike lanes and
address sidewalk gaps
$3,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Gull Drive* Widen Gull Drive from two lanes to four
lanes
$6,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Forbes Boulevard* Add traffic signal Forbes
Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection,
connect bike trails, address sidewalk
gaps, and extend road diet from Allerton
Way to Eccles Avenue
$4,000,000
Mobility 2020
Projects
Caltrain Access
Improvements & Rails to
Trails Projects
Construct approximately three miles of
trails within the Area along former
railways and excess street right of way
$7,000,000
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 26
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Mobility 2020
Projects
Centennial Trail-Bay
Trail Connector
Bicycle/pedestrian bridge connecting
existing Bay Trail terminus at Costco to
Tanforan Avenue, with connection to
Centennial Trail and San Bruno BART
Station
$14,000,000
Development
Impact
Mitigation Fee
Analysis
Centennial Connector New Bikeway Project from Mission
Rd/Grand Ave to Centennial Trail
$68,644
Active South
City
Arroyo Drive Bicycle project from El Camino Real to
Oake Avenue
$631,449
Active South
City
Orange/Canal Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Short Term Improvement - Proposed
Class IIIB
$3,368,040
Active South
City
Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to Miller
Avenue
$524,888
Active South
City
El Camino Real Bicycle project from City Limit to City
Limit
$8,260,694
Active South
City
W Orange Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Short Term Improvement - Proposed
Class IIIB, facility upgrade
$1,326,000
Active South
City
Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from Miller Avenue to
Armour Avenue
$170,958
Active South
City
Alta Loma Drive/Buri
Buri Bicycle Boulevard
Group
Short Term Improvement - Proposed
Class IIIB, facility upgrade
$4,123,860
Active South
City
Avalon Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Short Term Improvement - Proposed
Class IIIB, facility upgrade
$2,174,640
Active South
City
Bike/Ped Bridge Study Bicycle project from Airport Boulevard to
Poletti Way
$19,500,000
Active South
City
Centennial Trail
Connections
Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to El
Camino Real
$49,375
Active South
City
Chestnut Avenue Bicycle project from El Camino Real to
Sunset Avenue
$1,954,485
Active South
City
Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Bayshore Boulevard
to E Grand Avenue
$6,864
Active South
City
Hickey Boulevard Bicycle project from City Limit to El
Camino Real
$1,712,810
Active South
City
Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Junipero Serra
Boulevard to El Camino Real
$3,157,145
Active South
City
Westborough Boulevard Bicycle project from Skyline Boulevard to
Junipero Serra Boulevard
$5,592,834
Active South
City
Airport Boulevard Bicycle project from 2nd Lane to S
Airport Boulevard
$773,308
Active South
City
Bayshore Boulevard Bicycle project from Sister Cities
Boulevard to City Limit
$1,903,075
Active South
City
Centennial Trail Bicycle project from Existing trail to City
Limit
$401,030
Active South
City
E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Forbes Boulevard to
Haskins Avenue
$2,294,336
Active South
City
E Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to
Poletti Way
$390,000
Active South
City
E Grand Avenue Trail Bicycle project from Grand Avenue to
Forbes Boulevard
$557,799
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 27
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Evergreen/Holly Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Opportunity Project - Proposed Class IIIB $2,532,660
Active South
City
Forbes Boulevard Bicycle project from Eccles Avenue to
Allerton Avenue
$2,052,980
Active South
City
Grand Avenue Bicycle project from Spruce Avenue to
Airport Boulevard
$1,402,712
Active South
City
Harbor Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Opportunity Project - Proposed Class
IIIB
$265,200
Active South
City
Linden Bicycle
Boulevard Group
Opportunity Project - Proposed Class
IIIB, facility upgrade
$1,299,480
Active South
City
McLellan Dr Bicycle project from El Camino Real to
Mission Road
$86,397
Active South
City
Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to
Lawndale Boulevard
$472,258
Active South
City
Mission Rd Bicycle project from Chestnut Avenue to
Lawndale Boulevard
$440,786
Active South
City
N Access Rd Bicycle project from Bay Trail to S Airport
Boulevard
$571,311
Active South
City
Poletti Way Bicycle project from Caltrain Station
Tunnel to Oyster Point Boulevard
$1,340,830
Active South
City
S Spruce Ave Bicycle Project from El Camino Real to N
Canal St
$2,268,438
Active South
City
Sneath Ln extension Bicycle Project from Huntington Ave to S
Linden Ave
$1,022,346
Active South
City
Bay Trail/Shaw/Tanforan Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to
Huntington Ave
$1,782,091
Active South
City
Colma Creek Bay Trail Bicycle Project from Existing Bay Trail to
Utah Ave
$565,500
Active South
City
Colma Creek Service
Road
Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to
Colma Creek Trail
$4,095
Active South
City
E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to
End of street
$10,626
Active South
City
E Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Existing facility to
Gateway Blvd
$20,592
Active South
City
Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from Westborough Blvd to
Shannon Dr
$1,635,096
Active South
City
Gellert Blvd Bicycle Project from King Dr to
Westborough Blvd
$1,669,717
Active South
City
Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to
Spruce Ave
$405,038
Active South
City
Greendale Bicycle
Boulevard Group
$1,763,580
Active South
City
Harbor Way Bicycle Project from RR tracks/proposed
trail to Littlefield Ave
$24,115
Active South
City
Huntington Ave Bicycle Project from Spruce Ave to Noor
Ave
$811,863
Active South
City
Junipero Serra Blvd Bicycle Project from Avalon Dr to City
limit
$6,389,555
Active South
City
Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Marina Blvd to
Parking lot
$13,295
Active South
City
Oyster Point Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to
Gateway Blvd
$45,669
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 28
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Produce Ave/ new road Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd/San
Mateo Ave to Utah Ave extension
$1,142,622
Active South
City
Shannon Bicycle
Boulevard Group
$1,206,660
Active South
City
Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to Sister
Cities Blvd
$120,728
Active South
City
Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Armour Ave to
Chapman Ave
$114,258
Active South
City
Airport Blvd Bicycle Project from Gateway Blvd to
Belle Aire Rd
$1,924,416
Active South
City
Country Club Dr Bicycle Project from Alida Way to El
Camino Real
$63,407
Active South
City
Gateway Trail Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to
Oyster Point Blvd
$1,303,385
Active South
City
Gellert-Chateau $119,981
Active South
City
Haskins Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave
E Grand Ave to North Access Road
$2,099,636
Active South
City
Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Linden Ave to
Spruce Ave
$20,703
Active South
City
Hillside Blvd Bicycle Project from Sister Cities Blvd to
Ridgeview Court
$121,371
Active South
City
Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to
Proposed trail
$1,365
Active South
City
near Eccles Ave &
Oyster Point Blvd
Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to
Oyster Point Blvd
$1,554,126
Active South
City
Oak Ave Bicycle Project from Mission Rd to Grand
Ave
$390,897
Active South
City
Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Centennial Trail to
Railroad Ave
$132,192
Active South
City
S Spruce Bicycle Project from N Canal St to
Railroad Ave
$458,904
Active South
City
San Mateo Avenue Bicycle Project from Airport Blvd to S
Sirport Blvd
$133,848
Active South
City
Sister Cities Blvd Bicycle Project from Hillside Blvd to
Airport Blvd
$2,686,082
Active South
City
Utah Ave Bicycle Project from San Mateo Ave to
US-101
$49,764
Active South
City
W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to
Fairway Dr
$781,794
Active South
City
Chestnut Ave Bicycle Project from Sunset Ave to
Hillside Blvd
$831,945
Active South
City
Grand Ave Bicycle Project from Chestnut Ave to
Mission Rd
$206,138
Active South
City
Linden Ave Bicycle Project from Tanforan Ave to
Baden Ave
$168,847
Active South
City
Littlefield Ave Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to Utah
Ave
$1,139,761
Active South
City
Mitchell Ave Bicycle Project from Harbor Way to
AIrport Blvd
$53,196
Active South
City
near Harbor Way Bicycle Project from E Grand Ave to
Littlefield Ave
$1,643,124
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 29
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Utah Ave Bicycle Project from US-101 to Littlefield
Ave
$1,804,140
Active South
City
DNA Way Bicycle Project from Existing facility to
Existing facility
$32,338
Active South
City
near Cabot Rd Bicycle Project from Allerton Ave to E
Grand Ave
$1,192,484
Active South
City
W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to
Westborough Blvd
$21,486
Active South
City
W Orange Ave Bicycle Project from Library Driveway to
Fairway Dr
$11,830
Active South
City
Mission and
Lawndale/McLellan
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at
all four corners. Provide leading
pedestrian intervals for all crossings.
Construct sidewalks on the west side of
McLellan south of Mission Road.
$1,250,340
Active South
City
El Camino Real and
McLellan
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install a high-visibility
crosswalk at the western ECR approach.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
the ECR crossings. Construct curb
extensions.
$1,352,000
Active South
City
El Camino Real and
BART
Straighten the crosswalk across the
northern approach. Upgrade both
crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
$139,750
Active South
City
Grand and Airport
Boulevard
Remove free right turn lane. Upgrade two
marked crossings to high-visibility.
Consider pedestrian-only phase.
Construct a pedestrian refuge island at
the Airport Boulevard approach.
$334,750
Active South
City
El Camino Real and
Ponderosa
Construct sidewalks on the eastern side
of ECR between County Club Drive and
Ponderosa. Upgrade all three marked
crosswalks to high-visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
the ECR crossings. Construct median
refuge islands for the ECR crossings.
$459,875
Active South
City
Grand Avenue and E
Grand Avenue
Upgrade two existing crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks. Remove free right
turn lane at southeast corner. Install
pedestrian refuge island in the E Grand
Avenue crossing. Install curb extensions
at the northeast, southwest, and
southeast corners. Add a leading
pedestrian interval for the E Grand
Avenue crossing.
$919,750
Active South
City
Mission and Sequoia Install a crosswalk on the northern
approach. Upgrade all crosswalks to
high-visiblity crosswalks. Construct curb
extensions.
$1,062,750
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 30
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Orange and Railroad Upgrade the transverse crosswalk across
Railroad Avenue to high-visibility and
construct a curb extension at the
southeast corner.
$68,250
Active South
City
Orange and Tennis
Drive
Construct curb extensions for the
crossings of Orange Avenue and Tennis
Drive. Install a high-visibility crosswalk
across Tennis Drive.
$263,250
Active South
City
Westborough and
Galway
Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow
high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the
Westborough crossings. Construct curb
ramps at all corners. Install curb
extensions to tighten corner radii.
Update/add school zone signs.
$1,453,400
Active South
City
Westborough and
Junipero Serra
Boulevard
Construct sidewalks on the southern side
of Westborough Boulevard through the
interchange area to Junipero Serra.
Install/upgrade high visibility crosswalks
at all interchange crossing locations.
Install with appropriate signs and
pavement markings.
$191,165
Active South
City
Spruce and Grand Install yellow transverse markings around
the decorative crosswalk. Upgrade three
remaining crosswalks to high-visibility.
Consider installing curb extensions at all
corners.
$1,073,150
Active South
City
Oyster Point/Sister Cities
and Airport
Construct curb extensions at the north,
west, and south corners. Upgrade two
marked crosswalks and realign to be
straight. Implement a leading pedestrian
interval for both crosswalks.
$741,000
Active South
City
Arroyo and Alta Loma Construct curb extensions on both sides
of the crosswalk. Construct a median
refuge island. Install an RRFB. Install a
high visibility crosswalk across Alta Loma
Drive.
$406,250
Active South
City
E Grand and Poletti Way Mark crosswalks across E Grand Avenue
and Industrial Way to enhance Caltrain
and Grand Avenue access. Tighten
corner radii to square-up intersection
approaches. Provide the proposed trail
with an enhanced crossing.
$289,250
Active South
City
El Camino Real and
Kaiser
Construct sidewalks on the south side of
ECR from the bus stop to the bend in Del
Paso Drive. Build sidewalk between ECR
and Del Paso. At the Kaiser driveway,
upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Redesign the pedestrian
refuge island in the western ECR
crossing. Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for the ECR crossing.
$215,735
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 31
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
El Camino Real and S
Spruce
Upgrade all four crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks. Construct pedestrian
refuge islands for the two ECR crossings.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
the ECR crossings. Consider curb
extensions at all four corners.
$1,475,500
Active South
City
Grand and Linden Install advance stop markings at all
approaches. Provide a leading
pedestrian intervals for all crossings.
$171,600
Active South
City
Grand and Maple Install advance stop markings at all
approaches. Provide a leading
pedestrian intervals for all crossings.
$171,600
Active South
City
Hickey and El Camino
Real
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Straighten the northern ECR
crosswalk. Install a high-visibility
crosswalk across the sourther ECR
approach (push back the northbound
stop bar and median to create a straight
crossing). Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for the ECR crossings.
$160,875
Active South
City
Miller and Oakcrest Construct curb extensions at the
southeast, southwest, and northwest
corners. Install advance stop/yield
pavement markings. Consider installing
an RRFB.
$686,400
Active South
City
BART/Cymbidium Circle
Neighborhood Path
Create a stair channel along the existing
stairs to improve bicycle access. Remove
the gate at Alta Loma/Cymbidium to open
stair access to both neighborhoods. At
ECR, upgrade crosswalk to high visibility
and straighten the crosswalk. Provide a
leading pedestrian interval.
$136,500
Active South
City
Spruce and S Canal
Way
Straighten the crosswalk across S Canal
Street. Upgrade both crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks. Construct a curb
extension at the southeast corner. Add
trail wayfinding information. Consider
leading pedestrian interval for Spruce
Avenue crossing.
$242,125
Active South
City
Westborough and Gellert Upgrade the three marked, and install on
the fourth approach high-visibility
crosswalks. Build out the necessary
corners to straighten all crosswalks.
Construct pedestrian refuge islands at all
crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for the northern Westborough
crosswalk.
$2,314,000
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 32
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Westborough/Chestnut
and El Camino Real
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Straighten the northen
crosswalk across Chestnut. Provide a
leading pedestrian interval for all
crossings. Consider installing curb
extensions at all corners. Extend all four
medians to create pedestrian refuge
islands.
$2,314,000
Active South
City
El Camino Real and
Arroyo & Arroyo and Del
Paso
Remove the crosswalk at Del Paso Drive
across Arroyo Drive; close gap in median
and remove yield paddle. At ECR,
upgrade all crosswalks to high visibility
crosswalks. Provide a leading pedestrian
interval for ECR crossings. Consider curb
extensions at all four corners
$1,266,525
Active South
City
Grand and Cypress Install advance yield markings and signs
for the Grand Avenue crossings.
$12,000
Active South
City
Grand mid-block
crossings between
Linden and Maple
Install advance yield pavement markings
and signs.
$16,250
Active South
City
Hillside and Arden Refresh the two existing high-visibility
crosswalks. Construct curb extensions at
the two eastern corners. Install advance
stop/yield markings.
$296,400
Active South
City
Hillside and Belmont Shift the crossing of Hillside Boulevard to
the western approach to improve site
lines. Install curb extensions at all three
corners with a crosswalk. Install an
RRFB for the Hillside crosswalk.Install
advance yield markings.
$677,300
Active South
City
LInden and N Canal Widen on or both of the existing paths on
the Colma Creek bridge to ADA
complaint width. Install appropriate curb
ramps. Mark a crosswalk across S Canal
street if sidewalks are present on the
west side.
$108,290
Active South
City
Miller and Westview Construct curb extensions at the
southeast, southwest, and northwest
corners. Straighten the crosswalk across
Miller. Install advance stop/yield
pavement markings. Consider installing
an RRFB.
$689,650
Active South
City
S Airport and Utah Consistent with proposed Utah
overcrossing of 101, install high visibility
crosswalks at all four approaches.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval.
$191,750
Active South
City
Spruce and Hillside Construct curb extensions at the two
northern and southeastern corners. Mark
highvisibility crosswalks across Spruce
Avenue and School Street.
$598,000
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 33
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Spruce and Park Way Upgrade the two existing crosswalks
across Park Way to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install high-visbility
crosswalks across both Spruce
approaches. Install advance stop
markings. Paint/refresh red curb at all
corners.
$93,686
Active South
City
Utah Ave/San Mateo
Ave
Install a protected intersection with high
visibility crosswalks.
$650,000
Active South
City
Westborough and Callan Upgrade all four crosswalks to yellow
high-visibility crosswalks. Construct
pedestrian refuge islands on the
Westborough and Callan crossings.
Update/add school zone signs.
$629,525
Active South
City
Airport and Gateway Upgrade existing crosswalks to high-
visibility crosswalks. Construct median
refuge islands at the west, east, and
south approaches. Remove slip lane
from southern approach.
$793,000
Active South
City
Chestnut and
Commercial
Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visbility.
Remove the slip lane from the southeast
corner and construct a curb extension;
straighten both crosswalks from this
corner.
$247,000
Active South
City
Grand and Gateway Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Remove free right turn lanes
at northwest and southeast corners.
Install pedestrian refuge islands in all
crossings. Install curb extensions at all
four corners.
$2,645,500
Active South
City
Grand and Walnut Install advance yield pavement markings
and signs.
$29,250
Active South
City
Holly/Crestwood Upgrade all crossings to high-visibility
crosswalks. Consider installing a
neighborhood traffic circle.
$247,000
Active South
City
Junipero Serra and
Arroyo
Construct sidewalks on the western
(highway) side of Junipero Serra
Boulevard from the interchange to Arroyo
Drive. Install a HAWK beacon at
JSB/Arroyo Drive.
$546,000
Active South
City
Junipero Serra and
Avalon & Avalon and
Valverde
Mark high-visibility crosswalks across
Valverde Drive. Construct sidewalks on
the eastern (golf course) side of JSB to
Westbrough Boulevard from Avalon
Drive. Mark a high-visibility crosswalk
across the eastern approach of Avalon
Drive/JSB.
$256,750
Development Impact Fee Study City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Francisco Transportation Impact Fee Update • Fee Calculations• July 2020 34
Source Project Location Project Description Cost ($2020)
Active South
City
Junipero Serra and
Hickey
Remove the free right turn lane at the
southeast, southwest, and northwest
corner. Upgrade all crosswalks to high
visibility crosswalks. Provide leading
pedestrian intervals for both crosswalks.
Construct pedestrian refuge islands.
$1,579,500
Active South
City
Spruce and N. Canal St Build curb extensions at the two northern
corners. Straighten and upgrade all three
marked crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks.
$277,875
Active South
City
East Grand and Forbes Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Install curb extensions at all
four corners. Install pedestrian refuge
islands across E Grand Avenue.
$1,329,250
Active South
City
El Camino Real and W
Orange
Straighten the southern crosswalk across
ECR. Create pedestrian refuge islands
for the ECR crossings. Upgrade all four
crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks.
Provide a leading pedestrian interval for
the ECR crossing.
$429,000
Active South
City
Grand and Mission Upgrade both crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Extend medians and create
pedestrian refuge islands.
$279,500
Active South
City
Grand and Orange Upgrade all crosswalks to high-visibility
crosswalks. Consider installing curb
extensions at all four corners. Provide a
leading pedestrian interval for the
crossings of Grand Avenue.
$1,222,000
EXHIBIT B
Fee Calculation Formulas
A. New Construction
Fee =
Fee per Dwelling Unit or per
Square Foot Based on Applicable
Land Use Category
X New Dwelling Units or
New Square Feet
For development projects with multiple land use categories, the total Fee amount equals the sum
of the Fee applied to each land use category.
B. Intensification of Use
If proposal would add square feet to an existing building, the following formula applies:
Fee =
Fee per Square Foot
or per Dwelling Unit
Based on Proposed
Fee Land Use
Category
–
Fee per Square Foot or
per Dwelling Unit Based
on Highest Fee Land
Use Category for
Existing Permitted Use
X
Additional
Square
Feet
If proposal does not add square feet to an existing building, the following formula applies:
Fee =
Total Fee for
Proposed
Development –
Total Fee for Existing
Development, if
Existing were Required
to Pay Fee
There is no impact from a development project, and therefore no Fee due, if the Fee amount for
the proposed use is less than the Fee amount for the existing permitted use, regardless of whether
a public safety impact fee was previously charged or paid for the existing permitted use. If the
Fee amount for proposed use is less than the Fee for the existing use, there is no Fee refund or
credit.
C. Vacant Building
In the case of the intensification of use of a vacant building, the building’s current use shall be
the use when the building was occupied if the vacancy occurred within three years prior to the
date of the building permit application. If the vacancy began or occurred more than three years
prior to the date of the building permit application, then the Fee shall be applied as if the project
was new construction (as set forth above in paragraph A).
EXHIBIT A
-1 -
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (“this Agreement”) is entered into as of __________, 2020 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, (“Seller”) and
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, Inc. (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer are collectively
referred to herein as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A.Seller is owner of certain real property with an address of 109 Longford Drive,
South San Francisco, California, also known as San Mateo Assessor’s Parcel Number APN 010-
071-050, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the
"Property").
B.Seller purchased the Property in 1998.
C.On January 15, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order
N-06-19 that ordered the California Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to identify and prioritize excess
state-owned property and aggressively pursue sustainable, innovative, cost-effective housing
projects. Assembly Bill 1486, also passed in 2019, aims to connect developers who are interested
in building more affordable homes to surplus local public land that is both available and suitable
for housing development.
D.In April 2020, Seller designated the Property located as surplus, pursuant to the
Surplus Land Act, and provided notice to HCD, local public entities within South San Francisco,
and affordable housing developers who have notified HCD of their interest in developing
affordable housing on surplus local land.
E.Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, Seller received an offer from Buyer and began
negotiations for the sale of the Property.
F.Seller desires to sell the Property to Buyer, subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement and as further described in the Affordable Housing Agreement substantially in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “AHA”) which shall restrict the resale of the Property for a
period of at least fifty-five (55) years to households of no less than four (4) persons earning less
than or equal to eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income and, subject to compliance with all
applicable laws, such households shall include at least one member who lives or works in South
San Francisco. Upon Closing, the AHA will be recorded in the official records of San Mateo
County.
- 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS. The Recitals set
forth above and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement are each incorporated into the body of this
Agreement as if set forth in full.
2. PURCHASE AND SALE.
2.1 Agreement to Buy and Sell. Subject to the terms and conditions set
forth herein, Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to acquire the
Property from Seller.
2.2 Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property to be paid by
Buyer to Seller (the “Purchase Price”) is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000).
The Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at the Closing to the Seller.
3. ESCROW.
3.1 Escrow Account. Buyer has opened an interest-bearing escrow account
(the “Escrow”) maintained by _______________________ in South San Francisco (the “Escrow
Holder”), with interest accruing to the benefit of Buyer. Escrow Holder shall perform all escrow
and title services in connection with this Agreement.
3.2 Opening of Escrow. Within seven (7) business days after Seller has
obtained of City Council approval of this executed Agreement and the executed AHA, Buyer shall
open an Escrow Account with Escrow Holder. The date such fully executed Agreement and AHA
is received by Escrow Holder, as established and confirmed by Escrow Holder, will be deemed
the “Opening of Escrow” and Escrow Holder will give written notice to the Parties of such
occurrence.
3.3 Satisfaction of Due Diligence Contingency. Buyer shall have the right, in
its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for any reason prior to the expiration of the Due
Diligence Contingency Period (as defined in Section 5.2(a) below). Buyer hereby agrees to provide
written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period if Buyer
disapproves any due diligence items or approves all due diligence items (“Approval Notice”). If
Buyer disapproves any items through the delivery of the Approval Notice to Seller before
5:00 p.m. on the last day of the Due Diligence Contingency Period, this Agreement shall terminate,
and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder except those which
expressly survive the termination hereof. If Buyer fails to timely deliver the Approval Notice to
Seller, it will be conclusively presumed that Buyer has approved all such items, matters or
documents.
3.4 Independent Consideration. As independent consideration for Seller’s
entering into this Agreement to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer shall deliver three percent (3%)
of the sales price to Seller through Escrow (“Independent Consideration”). In the event that
Buyer terminates this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.3 above, Seller shall retain the
- 3 -
Independent Consideration; in the event that Buyer does not terminate this Agreement as aforesaid,
the Independent Consideration shall be applied to the Purchase Price at Closing.
4. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
4.1 Condition of Title/Preliminary Title Report. Escrow Holder shall deliver
a Preliminary Title Report for the Property (the “Preliminary Report”) to Buyer within three (3)
business days after the Opening of Escrow. Buyer shall have until the end of the Due Diligence
Contingency Period to approve the condition of title to the Property. If Buyer delivers the Approval
Notice, Buyer agrees to take title to the Property subject to the following “Permitted Exceptions”:
(a) standard printed exceptions in the Preliminary Report; (b) general and special real property
taxes and assessments constituting a lien not yet due and payable; and (c) the Schedule B
exceptions to the title referenced in the Approval Notice.
4.2 Environmental Condition of Property. Seller has provided Buyer with all
documents reasonably known to Seller pertaining to the environmental condition of the Property.
At Closing, the Buyer agrees to take title of the Property in AS- IS WHERE-IS condition with no
environmental remediation work required by or indemnities from the Seller or the Agency. Seller,
at Buyer’s expense, agrees to cooperate with Buyer to obtain regulatory approval of any necessary
environmental work for the Property. Buyer explicitly acknowledges that Buyer will be
responsible to manage and complete any remediation work for the Property after Closing. After
Closing, Seller shall have no further obligations with respect to environmental and/or natural
hazards remediation costs.
5. CLOSING AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE.
5.1 Closing. The closing (the “Closing” or “Close of Escrow”) will occur no
later than thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of the Due Diligence Contingency Period
as defined in Section 5.2(a) below (“Closing Date”) or such other date that the Parties agree in
writing.
5.2 Buyer’s Conditions to Closing. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property
is subject to the satisfaction of all of the following conditions or Buyer's written waiver thereof (in
Buyer’s sole discretion) on or before the Closing Date:
(a) Buyer has approved the condition of the Property and no adverse
environmental conditions requiring remediation are noted in any third-party reports, including
soils report and the Phase 1 . Buyer will have sixty (60) calendar days from following the
execution and delivery of this Agreement(the “Due Diligence Contingency Period”) to complete
physical inspections of the Property and due diligence related to the purchase of the Property.
Seller shall provide to Buyer copies of all reasonably available and known documents relating to
the ownership and operation of the Property, including but not limited to plans, permits and reports
(environmental, structural, mechanical, engineering and land surveys) that Seller has in its
possession not later than five (5) business days following the execution and delivery of this
Agreement, or as soon as practicable thereafter. All physical inspections must be coordinated with
- 4 -
Seller’s representative. Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Seller harmless for any damage
to the Property caused (but not merely revealed) by Buyer’s inspections.
(b) Seller has performed all obligations to be performed by Seller
pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) Seller’s representations and warranties herein are true and correct in
all material respects as of the Closing Date.
(d) The Title Company is irrevocably committed to issue an ALTA
standard coverage title insurance policy to Buyer, effective as of the Closing Date, insuring title to
Buyer in the full amount of the Purchase Price.
5.3 Seller’s Conditions to Closing. The Close of Escrow and Seller’s obligation
to sell and convey the Property to Buyer are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions
or Seller’s written waiver (in Seller’s sole discretion) of such conditions on or before the Closing
Date:
(a) Buyer has performed all obligations to be performed by Buyer
pursuant to this Agreement before Closing Date.
(b) Buyer's representations and warranties set forth herein are true and
correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date.
5.4 Conveyance of Title. Seller will deliver marketable fee simple title to Buyer
at the Closing, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions. The Property will be conveyed by Seller
to Buyer in an “as is” condition, with no warranty, express or implied, by Seller as to the physical
condition including, but not limited to, the soil, its geology, or the presence of known or unknown
faults or Hazardous Materials or hazardous waste (as defined by Section 12); provided, however,
that the foregoing shall not relieve Seller from disclosure of any such conditions of which Seller
has actual knowledge.
5.5 Deliveries at Closing.
(a) Deliveries by Seller. Seller shall deposit into the Escrow for
delivery to Buyer at Closing: (i) a grant deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
C (“Grant Deed”); (ii) an affidavit or qualifying statement which satisfies the requirements of
paragraph 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, any regulations thereunder
(the “Non-Foreign Affidavit”); (iii) a California Franchise Tax Board form 590 (the “California
Certificate”) to satisfy the requirements of California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
18805(b) and 26131.
(b) Deliveries by Buyer. No less than one (1) business day prior to the
close of escrow, Buyer shall deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the amount, which
together with the Independent Consideration is equal to: (i) the Purchase Price as adjusted by any
prorations between the Parties; (ii) the escrow fees and recording fees; and (iii) the cost of the Title
Policy.
- 5 -
(c) Closing. Upon Closing, Escrow Holder shall: (i) record the Grant
Deed; (ii) immediately following recordation of the Grant Deed, record the AHA; (iii) disburse to
Seller the Purchase Price, less Seller’s share of any escrow fees, costs and expenses; (iv) deliver
to Buyer the Non-Foreign Affidavit, the California Certificate and the original recorded Grant
Deed; (v) pay any commissions and other expenses payable through escrow; and (vi) distribute to
itself the payment of escrow fees and expenses required hereunder.
(d) Closing Costs. Buyer will pay all escrow fees (including the costs
of preparing documents and instruments), and recording fees. Buyer will also pay title insurance
and title report costs. Seller will pay all transfer taxes and governmental conveyance fees, where
applicable.
(e) Pro-Rations. At the close of escrow, the Escrow Agent shall make
the following prorations: (i) property taxes will be prorated as of the close of escrow based upon
the most recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the
close of escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer,
regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; and (ii) any bond or assessment that
constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow will be assumed by Buyer. Seller does not
pay ad valorem taxes.
6. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS.
6.1 Seller’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. In addition to the
representations, warranties and covenants of Seller contained in other sections of this Agreement,
Seller hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that the statements below in this Section
6.1 are each true and correct as of the Closing Date provided however, if to Seller’s actual
knowledge any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, Seller will notify Buyer in writing
and Buyer will have three (3) business days thereafter to determine if Buyer wishes to proceed
with Closing. If Buyer determines it does not wish to proceed, then the terms of Section 3.3 will
apply.
(a) Authority. Seller is a municipal corporation, lawfully formed, in
existence and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. Seller has the full right,
capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This
Agreement has been duly executed by Seller, and upon delivery to and execution by Buyer is a
valid and binding agreement of Seller.
(b) Encumbrances. Seller has not alienated, encumbered, transferred,
mortgaged, assigned, pledged, or otherwise conveyed its interest in the Property or any portion
thereof, nor entered into any Agreement to do so, there are no leases, occupancy rights, rights of
first refusal or rights of first offer that affect the Property and there are no liens, encumbrances,
mortgages, covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements or other matters affecting
the Property, except as disclosed in the Preliminary Report. Seller will not, directly or indirectly,
alienate, encumber, transfer, mortgage, assign, pledge, or otherwise convey its interest prior to the
Close of Escrow, as long as this Agreement is in force.
- 6 -
(c) There are no agreements affecting the Property except those which
have been disclosed by Seller. Except for the AHA, there are no agreements which will be binding
on the Buyer or the Property after the Close of Escrow, which cannot be terminated on thirty (30)
days prior written notice. The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties,
and the performance of all covenants of Seller contained in this Agreement are conditions
precedent to Buyer’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. The foregoing
representations and warranties shall survive the expiration, termination, or close of escrow of this
Agreement and shall not be deemed merged into the deed upon closing.
6.2 Buyer’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to the representations,
warranties and covenants of Buyer contained in other sections of this Agreement, Buyer hereby
represents, warrants and covenants to Seller that the statements below in this Section 6.2 are each
true as of the Effective Date, and, if to Buyer’s actual knowledge any such statement becomes
untrue prior to Closing, Buyer shall so notify Seller in writing and Seller shall have at least three
(3) business days thereafter to determine if Seller wishes to proceed with Closing.
(a) Buyer is a California corporation in good standing. Buyer has the
full right, capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement
and the AHA. This Agreement and the AHA have been duly executed by Buyer, and upon delivery
to and execution by Seller shall be a valid and binding agreement of Buyer.
(b) Buyer is not bankrupt or insolvent under any applicable federal or
state standard, has not filed for protection or relief under any applicable bankruptcy or creditor
protection statute, and has not been threatened by creditors with an involuntary application of any
applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute.
(c) Buyer accepts and acknowledges that, after Closing, the Property will be
subject to the AHA which will be recorded against the Property at Closing.
The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and
the performance of all covenants of Buyer contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent
to Seller’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder.
6.3 Property Sold, “AS IS”. Buyer specifically acknowledges that the Seller is
selling the Property on an “AS IS”, “WHERE IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS” basis and that,
subject to Seller's representations, warranties, covenants and obligations set forth in this
Agreement, and all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein, and any obligations arising
under applicable law, Buyer is not relying on any representations or warranties of any kind
whatsoever, express or implied, from Seller, or its employees, appointed or elected officials,
agents, or brokers as to any matters concerning the Property. The Seller makes no representations
or warranties as to any matters concerning the Property, including without limitation: (i) the
quality, nature, adequacy and physical condition of the Property, (ii) the quality, nature, adequacy,
and physical condition of soils, geology and any groundwater, (iii) the existence, quality, nature,
adequacy and physical condition of utilities serving the Property, (iv) the development potential
of the Property, and the Property's use, habitability, merchantability, or fitness, suitability, value
or adequacy of the property for any particular purpose, (v) except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, the zoning or other legal status of the Property or an y other public or private
- 7 -
restrictions on use of the Property, (vi) the compliance of the Property or its operation with any
Environmental Laws, covenants, conditions and restrictions of any governmental or quasi-
governmental entity or of any other person or entity, (vii) the presence or removal of Hazardous
Materials, substances or wastes on, under or about the Property or the adjoining or neighboring
property; (viii) the quality of any labor and materials used in any improvements on the Property,
(ix) the condition of title to the Property, (x) the leases, service contracts, or other agreements
affecting the Property, or (xi) the economics of the operation of the Property.
7. REMEDIES In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by Seller, i f
such breach or default occurs prior to Close of Escrow, Buyer reserves the right to either (a) seek
specific performance from Seller or (b) to do any of the following: (i) to waive the breach or
default and proceed to close as provided herein; (ii) to extend the time for performance and the
Closing Date until Seller is able to perform; or (iii) to terminate this Agreement upon written notice
to Seller, whereupon Seller shall cause Escrow Holder to return to Buyer any and all sums placed
into the Escrow by Buyer, and except for the rights and obligations expressly provided to survive
termination of this Agreement, neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities
hereunder. IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OR DEFAULT HEREUNDER BY BUYER AND
THE CLOSING DOES NOT OCCUR DUE TO SUCH DEFAULT, SELLER’S SOLE REMEDY
SHALL BE TO RETAIN THE DEPOSITS AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE PARTIES
AGREE THAT IN SUCH INSTANCE, THE DEPOSITS REPRESENT A REASONABLE
APPROXIMATION OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND ARE NOT INTENDED AS A
FORFEITURE OR PENALTY BUT RATHER AN ENFORCEABLE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES PROVISION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1671, ET
SEQ. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE ENTITLED TO LOST PROFITS OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER PARTY’S BREACH O F
THIS AGREEMENT.
Buyer’s Initials Seller’s Initials
8. BROKERS. Seller represents that no real estate broker has been retained by Seller
in the sale of the Property or the negotiation of this Agreement. Buyer represents that no real estate
broker has been retained by Buyer in the procurement of the Property or negotiation of this
Agreement. Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller from any and all claims,
actions and liability for any breach of the preceding sentence, and any commission, finder’s fee,
or similar charges arising out of Buyer’s conduct.
9. ASSIGNMENT. Absent an express signed written agreement between the Parties
to the contrary, neither Seller nor Buyer may assign its rights or delegate its duties under this
Agreement without the express written consent of the other. No permitted assignment of any of
the rights or obligations under this Agreement shall result in a novation or in any other way release
the assignor from its obligations under this Agreement.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Buyer
agrees to unconditionally and fully indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel satisfactory to Seller),
and hold Seller, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents,
- 8 -
consultants, contractors, and Agency harmless from and against any and all claims (including
without limitation third party claims for personal injury, real or personal property damage, or
damages to natural resources), actions, administrative proceedings (including without limitation
both formal and informal proceedings), judgments, damages, punitive damages, penalties, fines,
costs (including without limitation any and all costs relating to investigation, assessment, analysis
or clean-up of the Property), liabilities (including without limitation sums paid in settlements of
claims), interest, or losses, including reasonable attorneys’ and paralegals’ fees and expenses
(including without limitation any such fees and expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement or
collecting any sums due hereunder), together with all other costs and expenses of any kind or
nature (collectively, the “Costs”) that arise directly or indirectly from or in connection with the
presence, suspected presence, release, or suspected release, of any Hazardous Materials in, on or
under the Property or in or into the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about,
around, above, under or within the Property, or any portion thereof, except those Costs that arise
solely as a result of actions by Seller, or Seller’s agents, employees, or contractors. The
indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall specifically apply to and include claims or
actions brought by or on behalf of employees of Buyer or any of its predecessors in interest and
Buyer hereby expressly waives any immunity to which Buyer may otherwise be entitled under any
industrial or worker’s compensation laws. In the event the Seller suffers or incurs any Costs, Buyer
shall pay to Seller the total of all such Costs suffered or incurred by the Seller upon demand
therefore by Seller. The indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall include, without
limitation, all loss or damage sustained by the Seller due to any Hazardous Materials: (a) that are
present or suspected by a governmental agency having jurisdiction to be present in the Property or
in the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about, above, under, or within the
Property (or any portion thereof) or to have emanated from the Property, or (b) that migrate, flow,
percolate, diffuse, or in any way move onto, into, or under the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or
surface water at, on, about, around, above, under, or within the Property (or any portion thereof)
after the date of this Agreement as a result of Seller’s or its predecessors’ activities on the Property,
or those of Seller’s agents, employees, or contractors. The provisions of this Section 10 shall
survive the termination of this Agreement and the Close of Escrow.
11. RELEASE BY BUYER. Effective upon the Close of Escrow, except with respect
to the representations and warranties of Seller under Section 6.1 of this Agreement, Buyer waives
releases, remises, acquits and forever discharges Seller, and its officers, directors, board members,
managers, employees and agents, Agency, and any other person acting on behalf of Seller, from
any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses and
compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, which
Buyer now has or which may arise in the future on account of or in any way arising from or in
connection with the physical condition of the Property or any law or regulation applicable thereto
including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any federal, state or local law,
ordinance or regulation pertaining to Hazardous Materials. This Section 11 shall survive the
termination of this Agreement and the Close of Escrow.
BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT BUYER IS FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 1542 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
- 9 -
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT
THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR
SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR
HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, BUYER EXPRESSLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 1542
OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING RELEASE:
Buyer’s initials: _____________
12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; DEFINITIONS.
12.1 Hazardous Materials. As used in this Agreement, “Hazardous Materials”
means any chemical, compound, material, mixture, or substance that is now or may in the future
be defined or listed in, or otherwise classified pursuant to any Environmental Laws (defined below)
as a “hazardous substance”, “hazardous material”, “hazardous waste”, “extremely hazardous
waste”, infectious waste”, toxic substance”, toxic pollutant”, or any other formulation intended to
define, list or classify substances by reason of deleterious properties such as ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. The term “Hazardous Materials” shall also
include asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, radon, chrome and/or chromium,
polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum, petroleum products or by-products, petroleum components,
oil, mineral spirits, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable
as fuel, perchlorate, and methyl tert butyl ether, whether or not defined as a hazardous waste or
hazardous substance in the Environmental Laws.
12.2 Environmental Laws. As used in this Agreement, “Environmental Laws”
means any and all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, guidance
documents, judgments, governmental authorizations or directives, or any other requirements of
governmental authorities, as may presently exist, or as may be amended or supplemented, or
hereafter enacted, relating to the presence, release, generation, use, handling, treatment, storage,
transportation or disposal of Hazardous Materials, or the protection of the environment or human,
plant or animal health, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 9601), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.),
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
§ 7401 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act
(33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42
U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code § 13000
et seq.), the Toxic Mold Protection Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 26100, et seq.), the Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.5 et
seq.), the Hazardous Waste Control Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25100 et seq.), the
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans & Inventory Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code
- 10 -
§ 25500 et seq.), and the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substances Account Act (Cal.
Health and Safety Code, Section 25300 et seq.).
13. MISCELLANEOUS.
13.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If any party employs counsel to enforce or interpret this
Agreement, including the commencement of any legal proceeding whatsoever (including
insolvency, bankruptcy, arbitration, mediation, declaratory relief or other litigation), the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs (including the service
of process, filing fees, court and court reporter costs, investigative fees, expert witness fees, and
the costs of any bonds, whether taxable or not) and shall include the right to recover such fees and
costs incurred in any appeal or efforts to collect or otherwise enforce any judgment in its favor in
addition to any other remedy it may obtain or be awarded. Any judgment or final order issued in
any legal proceeding shall include reimbursement for all such attorneys’ fees and costs. In any
legal proceeding, the “prevailing party” shall mean the party determined by the court to most nearly
prevail and not necessarily the party in whose favor a judgment is rendered.
13.2 Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length and
each party has been represented by independent legal counsel in this transaction and this
Agreement has been reviewed and revised by counsel to each of the Parties. Accordingly, each
party hereby waives any benefit under any rule of law (including Section 1654 of the California
Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this
Agreement against the drafting party.
13.3 Survival. All indemnities, covenants, representations and warranties
contained in this Agreement shall survive Close of Escrow.
13.4 Successors. Except as provided to the contrary in this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and
assigns.
13.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13.6 Integrated Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement contains all the
agreements of the Parties concerning the subject hereof any cannot be amended or modified except
by a written instrument executed and delivered by the parties. There are no representations,
agreements, arrangements or understandings, either oral or written, between or among the parties
hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. In
addition there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, either oral or
written, between or among the Parties upon which any party is relying upon in entering this
Agreement that are not fully expressed herein.
13.7 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to
be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, such illegal, unenforceable,
or invalid provisions or part thereof shall be stricken from this Agreement, any such provision
shall not be affected by the legality, enforceability, or validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
- 11 -
If any provision or part thereof of this Agreement is stricken in accordance with the provisions of
this Section, then the stricken provision shall be replaced, to the extent possible, with a legal,
enforceable and valid provision this is in keeping with the intent of the Parties as expressed herein.
13.8 Notices. Any delivery of this Agreement, notice, modification of this
Agreement, collateral or additional agreement, demand, disclosure, request, consent, approval,
waiver, declaration or other communication that either party desires or is required to give to the
other party or any other person shall be in writing. Any such communication may be served
personally, or by nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express) which
provides a receipt of delivery, or sent by prepaid, first class mail, return receipt requested to the
party’s address as set forth below:
To Buyer: Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, Inc.
Attn: Maureen Sedonaen
500 Washington Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone No.: 415-625-1000
and a copy to: Tamsen Plume, Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, California 94111
To Seller: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: City Manager, Mike Futrell
Telephone No.: (650) 829-6620
Fax (650) 829-6609
With a copy to: Sky Woodruff, Principal
Meyers Nave
1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
If to Escrow Holder: North American Title Company
66 Bovet Road
San Mateo, CA 94402
Any such communication shall be deemed effective upon personal delivery or on
the date of first refusal to accept delivery as reflected on the receipt of delivery or return receipt,
as applicable. Any party may change its address by notice to the other party. Each party shall
make an ordinary, good faith effort to ensure that it will accept or receive notices that are given in
accordance with this section and that any person to be given notice actually receives such notice.
- 12 -
13.9 Time. Time is of the essence to the performance of each and every
obligation under this Agreement.
13.10 Days of Week. If any date for exercise of any right, giving of any
notice, or performance of any provision of this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday,
the time for performance will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next business day.
13.11 Reasonable Consent and Approval. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement, whenever a party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval under
this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If a party
is required or permitted to give its consent or approval in its sole and absolute discretion or if such
consent or approval may be unreasonably withheld, such consent or approval may be unreasonably
withheld but shall not be unreasonably delayed.
13.12 Further Assurances. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense
execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as
may be reasonably required or appropriate to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
13.13 Waivers. Any waiver by any party shall be in writing and shall not
be construed as a continuing waiver. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure to take
action on account of any default by any party. Consent by any party to any act or omission by
another party shall not be construed to be consent to any other subsequent act or omission or to
waive the requirement for consent to be obtained in any future or other instance.
13.14 Signatures/Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two
or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. Any one of such completely executed counterparts shall
be sufficient proof of this Agreement.
13.15 Date and Delivery of Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties intend that this Agreement shall be deemed
effective, and delivered for all purposes under this Agreement, and for the calculation of any
statutory time periods based on the date an agreement between parties is effective, executed, or
delivered, as of the Effective Date.
13.16 Representation on Authority of Parties. Each person signing this
Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to
execute and deliver this Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other tha t the
execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such party’s obligations
hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding
on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
13.17 Possession. At Closing, Seller shall deliver sole and exclusive
possession of the Property to Buyer.
13.18 Approvals. Whenever this Agreement calls for Seller approval,
consent, extension or waiver, the written approval, consent, or waiver of the Seller’s Executive
Director or his or her designee(s) shall constitute the approval, consent, extension or waiver of the
- 13 -
Seller, without further authorization required from the Seller’s Council. The Seller hereby
authorizes the City Manager and his or her designee(s) to deliver any such approvals, consents, or
extensions or waivers as are required by this Agreement, or that do not otherwise reduce Seller’s
rights under this Agreement, and to waive requirements under this Agreement, on behalf of the
Seller.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
- 14 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
SELLER:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: _______________________________
Mike Futrell
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Sky Woodruff
City Attorney
BUYER:
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco, Inc.
By: _______________________________
Title: _______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Counsel for Buyer
- 15 -
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B AHA
Exhibit C Grant Deed
Exhibit D Permitted Exceptions
- 16 -
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
- 17 -
Exhibit B
AFFORDABILITY HOUSING AGREEMENT
- 18 -
Exhibit C
GRANT DEED
- 19 -
Exhibit D
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
3586191.1
EXHIBIT B
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Economic Development Department
EXCEPTION FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
(Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
FOR BELOW MARKET RATE PROPERTY
This Affordable Housing Agreement for Below Market Rate Property (“Agreement”) is
entered into as of this _____ day of _____________, 202_, by and between the City of South San
Francisco (“City”) and _______________________________________________(“Owner”).
City and Owner are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A.On January 15, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order
N-06-19 that ordered the California Department of General Services (“DGS”) and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to identify and prioritize excess
state-owned property and aggressively pursue sustainable, innovative, cost-effective housing
projects. Assembly Bill 1486, also passed in 2019, aims to connect developers who are interested
in building more affordable homes to surplus local public land that is both available and suitable
for housing development.
B.In April 2020, City designated the Property located as surplus, pursuant to the
Surplus Land Act, and provided notice to HCD, local public entities within South San Francisco,
and affordable housing developers who have notified HCD of their interest in developing
affordable housing on surplus local land.
C.Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, City accepted Owner’s offer to purchase and
restrict the resale of the Property for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years to households of no
less than four (4) persons earning less than or equal to eighty percent (80%) of Area Median
Income (“Lower Income Households”) and, subject to compliance with all applicable laws, such
households shall include at least one member who lives or works in South San Francisco (“Eligible
Households”). The Parties have entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) conditioned
upon Owner’s agreement to restrict the resale of the Property in accordance with this Agreement.
2
WHEREAS, in order to effectuate the terms of the PSA, the Owner and City agree to adhere
to the schedule and terms as set forth in the Sale Terms and Conditions, and more particularly
described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, City and Owner hereby agree as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. As a condition of purchasing the Property, the Owner shall make it available for
sale as affordable to Eligible Households guaranteed by the Resale Restriction Documents as set
forth in Section 3 hereof and Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. In particular,
Owner shall sell the Property to a household of no less than four (4) persons whose annual gross
income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the annual median income for San Mateo County,
adjusted for household size, as published by the State of California annually, pursuant to California
Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932 (“Area Median Income”) and, subject to compliance
with all applicable laws, such Lower Income Households shall include at least one member who
lives or works in South San Francisco.
2. Owner shall price the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined
in the Sale Terms and Conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit C. City shall approve the sales price
for the Property prior to Owner entering into agreements with Eligible Households for the sale of
the Property.
3. Owner shall require each Eligible Household to execute a Resale Restriction and
Option to Purchase Agreement (“Resale Restriction Agreement”), an Excess Sale Proceeds
Promissory Note (“Promissory Note”), and a Performance Deed of Trust (“Deed of Trust”)
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (collectively, the “Resale Restriction
Documents”). The Resale Restriction Documents shall be recorded against the Property upon
close of escrow of sale for the Property. The Property shall remain restricted and affordable to
Eligible Households for a term of fifty-five (55) years, commencing on the date each of the
Property is first sold. The restrictions shall apply to all subsequent Owners during the term.
4. Owner shall ensure that each purchaser of the Property is a Lower Income
Household which meets the income requirements set forth in Section 1 hereof and, subject to
compliance with all applicable laws, ensure that such Lower Income Households includes at least
one member who lives or works in South San Francisco. Owner shall obtain an income and local
preference verification from each proposed purchaser, and shall submit such information to the
City for City’s approval as provided in Exhibit C. Owner shall work with the City and/or the City’s
Housing Administrator to identify and qualify eligible Owners for the Property. At the time of
sale, Owner shall pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all administrative and
3
processing costs and fees incurred in processing the sale of the Property, which may include the
City’s Housing Administrator fees.
5. The Property shall remain owner-occupied as enforced by the City through the
Resale Restriction Agreement.
6. Owner shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City in consultation
with Owner, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes
of action arising or allegedly arising out of or relating in any manner to Owner’s performance or
nonperformance under this Agreement, except to the extent arising from the gross negligence or
willful misconduct of the City. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or other
termination of this Agreement or any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this
Agreement.
7. Owner shall reimburse the City for all administrative/processing costs and fees
incurred in processing this Agreement, which may include reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
8. Owner hereby subjects the Property to the covenants, conditions and restrictions
set forth in this Agreement. The Parties hereby declare their express intent that all such covenants,
conditions and restrictions shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and
be binding upon Owner’s successors in title to the Property. All covenants without regard to
technical classification or designation shall be binding for the benefit of the City, and such
covenants shall run in favor of the City. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter
executed applicable to or conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held
to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants, conditions and
restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants, conditions and restrictions are set forth in such
contract, deed or other instrument. This Agreement shall be recorded on the Property upon close
of escrow pursuant to the PSA .
9. Prior to the closing of the sale of the Property to Eligible Households, the Owner
may not transfer the whole or any part of the Property, or this Agreement. .
10. Provided that Owner has complied with all of the terms and conditions set forth
herein, upon the sale by Owner of the Property, Owner shall be released from, and shall have no
further obligations under this Agreement except for the duty to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City as set forth in Section 6 above which shall not expire. Such release shall be
effective upon the sale and shall not require any further action or documentation by any party to
this Agreement. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an
original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.380.014 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
11. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement without regard to
principles of conflicts of laws. In the event that either party brings any action against the other
under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
4
12. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory
relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
13. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged
shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this
Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
14. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt
requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below:
Owner:
______________________________
______________________________
City: City of South San Francisco
Attn: Economic Development Director
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
15.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE.
5
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
OWNER :
By: ________________________________
Name Printed: _______________________
Its: _________________________________
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: ___________________________
Charles Michael Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Sky Woodruff, City Attorney
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED.
6
State of California )
) SS.
County of _______________ )
On _____________________, 2018, before me, _______________________________, a Notary
Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________ (Seal)
(This area for official notarial seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document
7
State of California )
) SS.
County of _______________ )
On _____________________, 2018, before me, _______________________________, a Notary
Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved
to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________ (Seal)
(This area for official notarial seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual
who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document
8
Exhibit A
Legal Description
That real property located in the City of South San Francisco , County of San Mateo, State of
California, described as follows:
PARCEL I:
9
Exhibit B
Form of Resale Restriction Documents
10
Exhibit C
Sale Terms and Conditions
1. Owner shall sell the Property at an affordable initial sales price. The City shall
approve the affordable initial sales price for the Property prior to the sale to an Eligible Household
which shall be set at a level at which allowable housing expenses do not exceed 30% x 70% of
AMI for a household size of no less than 4 persons. “Allowable housing expenses” means the total
monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. Allowable housing
expenses include loan principal and interest at the time of initial purchase by the homeowner,
allowances for property and mortgage insurance, property taxes, and a reasonable allowance for
utilities.
a. “Reasonable allowance for utilities” means the utility allowance published by the
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo from time to time. If the foregoing utility
allowance is no longer published, then a reasonable allowance for utilities shall be calculated based
upon comparable governmental published figures as determined by regulation of the City.
b. “Utilities” means garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other
heating, cooling, cooking and refrigeration fuels for a dwelling unit. Utilities does not include
telephone, cable or internet service.
2. The Owner shall, prior to the initial sale of the Property, obtain and cause to be submitted
to the City a verification of all household sources of income demonstrating that such household is
a Lower Income Household, and further meets the eligibility requirements for an Eligible
Household including that the Household contains no less than four (4) persons and includes at least
one member who lives or works in South San Francisco. Such income and eligibility verification
shall be submitted on such form as approved by the City. City shall approve each purchaser of an
the Property prior to the sale.
3. Owner shall work with the City to develop a marketing and sales plan for the Property.
3586207.1