ITEM 5. 2
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT
JULY 11, 2022 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE WEST/ CENTRAL
LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND
CENTRAL LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL
FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE FEES
RECOMMENDED THEREIN
RECOMMENDATION: Council to Consider the Following:
1. Hold a Public Hearing; and
2. Adopt a Resolution Approving the
West/ Central Lathrop Regional
Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific
Plan Capital Facility Fee Update Studies and
the Fees Recommended Therein
SUMMARY:
Capital Facilities Fees ( CFF) and City planning fees are necessary to provide a revenue source by which new development within the City will contribute a fair and proportionate share of the cost of providing infrastructure, community facilities, and entitlements. The current Regional Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific Plan CLSP) CFFs are insufficient to provide adequate revenue for the construction of various improvements including storm drainage, a water tank and booster pump station, and three traffic signals.
Staff requests that City Council hold a public hearing, consider all information and public testimony and, if determined to be appropriate, adopt a resolution approving the City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update, included as Attachment B" and the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, included as Attachment ' C", and the fees and capital improvements recommended therein.
BACKGROUND:
On February 11, 2019, City Council adopted a Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fees Study Update prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group ( GCG). GCG updated existing fees for inflation, updated project costs for the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation CFF and Sewer/ Recycled Water System CFF, and prepared a new In- Lieu Community Parks Dedication fee for the CLSP area.
On July 8, 2019, City Council adopted an additional Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facility Fees Study prepared by GCG. GCG updated existing fees to include reimbursements for the storm drainage system improvements, entitlement costs, and planning fees. On February 8, 2021, City Council adopted the Central Lathrop CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 2
JULY 11, 2022, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
Specific Plan Neighborhood Park Capital Facility Fee Update Study and the fees recommended therein.
City staff retained GCG to assist in updating the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facility Fee Update Studies.
As development occurs within the CLSP area, traffic signals and intersection improvements are required to accommodate increases in traffic volumes. Three additional traffic signals have been constructed or guaranteed on Golden Valley Parkway at the intersections of Spartan Way, Stanford Crossing Drive and Faber Drive. The intersection of Central Pacific Street and Spartan Way aiso needs to be reconstructed to its final configuration. The City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update serves to adjust the Transportation CFF rates to include these facilities. The updated West/ Central Lathrop Transportation CFF rates impact three areas of Lathrop including Central Lathrop, Mossdale and the Stewart Tract/ River Islands and the changes are summarized below in Tables 1 through 3.
Table 1 — CLSP Fee Comparison
Proposed Cui-•ent Percent
Land L?se C' FF C' FF Increase
Resi enti l
Sitlgle Family 4, 192 Per Unit 4, Q$ 2 Per tiuit 2. 7° l0 MU ti- Fa11111}' 2, 574 p
r Unit 2, SQ.r1 per tiiiit 2.']%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 3, 902 e i. 000 st $ 3, gpp e, i, 000 t 2,' 7/ a Retail Commercial 5, 342 per 1. qoo s£ $ 5, 201 pe1 l. aoo 5£ 2. 7% CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 3
JULY 11, 2022, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
Table 2 — Mossdale Village Fee Comparison
Piroposed Cuerent Percent
Lancl Use CFFI CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 3, 994 per t nit 3, 987 er Unit 0, 2%
Multi-Family 2, 4(?3 per t nit 2, 459 per Unit 0, 2%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 5, 730 er 1, 00o sf $ 5' 720 per IA00 sf 0, 2% Retaii Commercial 6, 327 r I. 000 s $ 6,316 per IAUo st 0, 2% Table 3 — Stewart Tract/ River Islands Fee Comparison
P roposed Cu• rent Percent
Laud ITSe FF C' FF Increase
Residential
Single Family 4, 592 t` r 4,.590 pe1 L u t 0. 0%
Mtlltt- Farillly 19 per L?nit
a$ 1'] Fer uiut 0. 1%
Non- Residential
SenricelOffice Commercial 4, 213 pzi t. 000 yt $ 4, 211 el l, o sf 0. 0% Retail Commercial 7, 631 p
i I. 000 sr $ 7 627 per 1, 00o s£ p. l%
Further, additional storm drainage infrastructure for the Central Lathrop Watersheds 2 and 4 and a new water tank and booster pump station have been constructed to support the CLSP area. The Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study serves to adjust the current storm drainage CFF rates as well as create a new CFF to recover the cost of the water tank and booster pump station. The updated Central Lathrop Specific Plan CFF rates impact only the Central Lathrop area and the updated rates are summarized below in Table 4.
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 4
JULY 11, 2022, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
Table 4 — CLSP Fee Summary
Fee Per Fee Per
Single- Multi- Fee Per
Reimbursable Family Family Non- Residential
Item Unit Unit Acre
1 Storm Drain System Improtiements- Watershed# 2 Fee 9, 655 3, 361 6, 579 2 Storm Drain S stem Im rovements- Watershed# 4 Fee na na 45, 322 3 Water Tank# 1 Fee 2, 323 1, 432 S7, 024
Tota I
The fees associated with both studies will be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternative sources ( i. e., state or federal grants), revised cost, or changes in land uses or development plans. In addition to such adjustments, each year the CFFs will be adjusted by the change in the Engineering News Record 20- City CCI over the prior calendar year. Both fee studies are based on the ENR 20- City CCI value of 12, 481. 8 for December 2021.
Staff requests that City Council hold a public hearing, consider all information and public testimony and, if determined to be appropriate, adopt a resolution approving the City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update, included as Attachment B" and the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, included as Attachment " C", and the fees and capital improvements recommended therein.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
The current Regional Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific Plan CFFs are insufficient to provide adequate revenue for the construction of various improvements including storm drainage, a water tank and booster pump station, and three traffic signals. Therefore, staff requests that City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update, included as Attachment " 6" and the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, included as Attachment " C", and the fees recommended therein.
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 5
JULY 11, 2022, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the City as the CFFs wiil be collected from new development at building permit issuance and used to reimburse the cost of construction of the facilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution Approving the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facility Fee Update Studies and the Fees Recommended Therein
B. City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update, dated June 30, 2022
C. Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, dated June 30, 2022 CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 6
ULY 11, 2022, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
APPROVALS
6/ s?- e' 2Z
Brad ylor
Date
City Engineer
yrv r a
Cari Jame Date
Finance Di ctor
o - ZZ- Zo22
Michael King Date
Assistant City Manager
20 'ZZ.
Salva or Navarrete Date
City Attorney
7• • Zz
St en J. Salvatore Date
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LATHROP ADOPTING
THE WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CENTRAL
LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN CAPITAL FACILITY FEE UPDATE STUDIES AND THE
FEES RECOMMENDED THEREIN
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, City Council adopted a Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fees Study Update prepared by Goodwin Consulting Group ( GCG). GCG updated existing fees for inflation, updated project costs for the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation CFF and Sewer/ Recycled Water System CFF, and prepared a new In- Lieu Community Parks Dedication fee for the CLSP area; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2019, City Council adopted an additional Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facility Fees Study prepared by GCG. GCG updated existing fees to include reimbursements for the storm drainage system improvements, entitlement costs, and planning fees. On February 8, 2021, City Council adopted the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Neighborhood Park Capital Facility Fee Update Study and the fees recommended therein; and
WHEREAS, City staff retained GCG to assist in updating the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation and Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facility Fee Update Studies; and
WHEREAS, as development occurs within the CLSP area, traffic signals and intersection improvements are required to accommodate increases in traffic volumes.
Three additional traffic signals have been constructed or guaranteed on Golden Valley Parkway at the intersections of Spartan Way, Stanford Crossing Drive and Faber Drive. The intersection of Central Pacific Street and Spartan Way also needs to be reconstructed to its final configuration. The City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update serves to adjust the Transportation CFF rates to include these facilities. The updated West/ Central Lathrop Transportation CFF rates impact three areas of Lathrop including Central Lathrop, Mossdale and the Stewart Tract/ River Islands and the changes are summarized below in Tables 1 through 3; and
Table 1 — CLSP Fee Comparison
Proposed Cui1•ent Percent
Land Use CFF CFF Increase
Residential
Sitlgle Farnily 4, 192 Per tiiiit 4, Q$ Z per t;nit 2.']% Multi-Family 2, 574 pe1 riit 2, 505 pert,'nir 2. 7%
Non- Residentia l
Service/ Office Commercial 3, 942 e i, 000 st $ 3 HOO per I. 000 sf 2. 7% Retail Commercial 5, 342 zl l.oao st $ 5, 201 r l, 000 st 2,' 7% Table 2 — Mossdale Village Fee Comparison
Proposed Cui•rent Percent
Lancl Use CFFi F Increase
Residential
Su1g Fatnily 3, 994 Per L; nit 3, 957 per Unit 0. 2%
Multi-Family 2, 463 Per L nit 2, 459 per vnit 0, 2%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 5, 730 Per 1. 000 5f $ 5 72Q per I, 000 sf Q. 2% Retail Commercial 6, 327 ner 1. 00o s $ 6, 316 ner 1. 000 sf p,2% Table 3 — Stewart Tract/ River Islands Fee Comparison
P bposed Cur ent Percent
Lt nd ITs e C' FF CFF Incre as e
Residential
Sulgle Family 4, 592 per E3nit 4, 590 Per Unit 0. 0%
Mult- Fam y
2, 819 P
L nir 2,817 per unit 0. 1%
Non-Residential
ServicelOffice Commercial 4, 213 per L000 sf $ 4 211 Pel I. 000 s£ 0. 0% Retail Commercial 7, 631 pe, t, 000 s£ , 627 pe t. 000 st' 0. 1% WHEREAS, additional storm drainage infrastructure for the Central Lathrop Watersheds 2 and 4 and a new water tank and booster pump station have been constructed to support the CLSP area. The Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study serves to adjust the current storm drainage CFF rates as well as create a new CFF to recover the cost of the water tank and booster pump station.
The updated Central Lathrop Specific Plan CFF rates impact onty the Central Lathrop area and the updated rates are summarized below in Table 4; and Table 4 — CLSP Fee Summary
Fee Per Fee Per
Single- Multi- Fee Per
Reimbursable Family Family Non- Residential
Item Unit Unit Acre
1 Storm Drain System Impro ments - Watershed# 2 Fee 9, 655 3, 361 60, 579 2 Storm Drain System Impro ements - Watershed# 4 Fee na na 45, 322 3 WaterTank# 1 Fee 2, 323 1, 432 S7, 024
Tota I
WHEREAS, the fees associated with both studies will be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternative sources i. e., state or federal grants), revised cost, or changes in land uses or development plans. In addition to such adjustments, each year the CFFs will be adjusted by the change in the Engineering News Record 20- City CCI over the prior calendar year.
Both fee studies are based on the ENR 20- City CCI value of 12, 481. 8 for December 2021; and
WHEREAS, Staff requests that City Council hold a public hearing, consider all information and public testimony and, if determined to be appropriate, adopt a resolution approving the City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update and the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, included as Attachments " B" and " C" to the July 11, 2022 City Manager' s Report, and the fees recommended therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lathrop does hereby adopt the City of Lathrop West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fees Study Update, dated June 30, 2022 attached as Attachment B" to the City Manager' s Report of July 11, 2022 and the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Capital Facilities Fee Study, dated April 27, 2022 attached as Attachment" C" to the City Manager' s Report of July 11, 2022 and incorporated herein by this reference and Council hereby adopts the fees and the capital improvements recommended therein and adds the fees to the Capital Facility Fee Program based on findings required by the State of California Mitigation Fee Act ( also known as " AB 1600," Government Code sections 66000, et seq.) specifically Council hereby makes all of the following findings:
1. The purpose of the CFFs is to provide funding for the Facilities identified in this Nexus Study. Pursuant to the Lathrop Municipal Code Section 3. 20. 040 collected fees may be used for no other purpose.
2. New residential and non- residential development will generate additional demand for the facilities identified in these Fee Studies. The facilities included in these Fee Studies will ensure that the City will maintain the desired level of service to all areas in the City.
3. CFF revenue collected will fund the facilities included in these Fee Studies.
These facilities will serve development in the City and the proposed fees in these Fee Studies are a fair- share cost allocation based on the impact that future development will have on these facilities and improvements.
4. A reasonable relationship between the amount of each CFF and the cost of the public facility is established in these Fee Studies through the use of cost allocation factors to estimate the demand for a facility or, the impact that a land use will have on a facility. For example, the cost allocation for the Transportation CFF is based on the peak evening trip generation for each specific land use. The trip generation rates, which differ between land use categories, measure each land use' s impact on transportation facilities and infrastructure. As a result, each land use category or development type is allocated its fair share of the cost based on its impact, as identified by its cost allocation factor. By assigning the demand for facilities based on the cost allocation factors for each land use and quantifying that demand in the calculation of the CFFs, a reasonable relationship is established between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities attributable to the distinct types of development in the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lathrop this 11tn day of July 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Sonny Dhaliwal, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS T FORM:
Teresa Vargas, City Clerk Salvador Navarrete, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT B
GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP
CITY OF LATHROP
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES
FEES STUDY UPDATE
o ,, ,
c
d .
y,, %
o: r
8 y,
June 30, 2022
333 UNIVERSITY AVE, SUITE 160 • SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PHO[ vE: ( 91 6) 561- 0890 • FAX: ( 91 6) 561 -0891
WWW. GOODWINCONSULTINGGROUP. NET
CITY OF LATHROP
WEST/CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEES STUDY UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. CLSP Land Uses.................................................................................................................. 3
3. Fee Methodology................................................................................................................. 5
4. West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fee Update................... 7
5. Nexus Findings .................................................................................................................. 18
6. Fee Prograin Administration.............................................................................................. 21 Maps
Exhibit1 — CLSP Site Location....................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 2— Mossdale Village and Mossdale Landing................................................................... 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CFF UPDATE The City of Lathrop (" City") retained Goodwin Consulting Group to update the City' s West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fee (" WCLRT CFF" or" CFF") for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Area (" CLSP"), Mossdale Village, and the Stewart Tract aka River Islands) areas. As new development occurs in these three areas, it is critical that fees in the CFF program be updated regularly to ensure that CFF rates keep up with the rising costs of infrastructure, facilities, and land.
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CFF
The WCLRT CFF was created in 2003 to supplement funding for transportation facilities needed for the West Lathrop Specific Plan Area. The capital improvement plan for the WCLRT CFF currently includes 28 transportation projects. This West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation Capital Facilities Fee Study Update ( the " Fee Study") adds four additional intersection improvements that wi( 1 be located in the CLSP area.
In addition to the four intersection improvements, this Fee Study inflates the transportation facilities costs in the CFF CIP to 2022 dollars based on the ENR 20- City CC1. The total cost of the transportation facilities in the WCLRT CFF program, in 2022 dollars, is $ 324. 3 million.
Table ES- 1 on the following page summarizes the proposed WCLRT CFFs for the three development areas. The City also levies a 3. 0% administ- ation fee to all its CFFs to pay for the administrative duties associated with the CFF pi-ogram. This 3. 0% administration fee is not included in the proposed CFFs shown in Table ES- 1.
Ciry ofLathrop i WCGRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Stardy Table ES- 1
Fee Summary
Mossdale Stewart
CLSP Village Tract
Land Use CFF CFF CFF
Residential
Single Family 4, 192 per Unit 3, 994 per Unit 4 592 Per Unit Multi- Family 2 574 per Unit 2 463 per Unit 2 819 per Unit Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 3 902 Per l, 000 st' $ 5, 730 per l, 000 sf $ 4, 213 per 1, 00o Sf Retail Commercial 5 342 per 1, 000 sf $( 32'] per 1, 000 sf $'] 631 per 1, 000 sf The proposed CFF applies to new development within Mossdale Village and certain areas within the Mossdale L,anding developments for which the development agreement between the City and the developer has e
ired. E ibit 2 in this report identifies the remaining areas in the Mossdale L.anding developments that are subject only to annual inflation increases based on the ENRconstruction index
FEE COMPARISON
Tables ES- 2 through ES- 4 on the foilowing pages compare the proposed WCLRT CFFs to the City' s current WCLRT CFFs. These tables show that the proposed CFFs are slightly higher than the current CFF rates. For example, the proposed CFF rates for the CLSP area are approximately
3. 0% higher than the City' s current rates and proposed CFF rates for Mossdale Village and River lslands increase by less than 0. 2% over the City' s current CFF rates.
Ciry ofl athrop ii WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Upda[ e Study Table ES- 2
CLSP Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF
Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFF CFF Increase
Residential
Single Famlly 4 192 per L7nit 4 082 per Unit 2,']%
Multl- Fam11y 2 574 Per Unit 2 505 per Unit 2. 7%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 3, 902 per t, 000 st' $ 3 HOO per l, 000 sf 2. 7% Retail Commercial 5 342 per l, 000 sf $ 5, 201 per t, 000 sf 2. 7% Table ES- 3
Mossdale Village Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFFI CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 3, 994 Per unit 3 987 per Unit 0, 2%
Multi-Family 2 463 per Unit 2, 459 per unit p, 2%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 5, 730 per 1, 00o sf $ 5' 720 per l, 000 sf 0. 2% Retail Commercial 327 per 1, 00o sf $ 6, 316 per l, 000 sf p, 2%, The proposed CFF applies to new development within Mossdale Village and certain areas within the Mossda( e Landing developments for which the development agreement between the City and the developer has e ired. E ibit 2 in this report identifies the remaining areas in the Mossdale Landing developments that are subject only to annual inflation increases based on the ENR construction index City ofLathrop iii WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study Table ES- 4
Stewart Tract/ River Islands Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFF CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 4, 592 per Unit 4, 590 per Un t p, p%
Multl- Fam11y 2 819 per Unit Z$ j'] per Unit Q, j%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 4, 213 per t, 000 sf $ 4, 211 per t, 000 sf 0.0% Retail Commercial 7, 631 per, 000 sf $' 7 C2'] per l, 000 sf 0. 1%
FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The WCLRT CFFs may be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternative sources ( i. e., state or federal grants), revised costs, or changes in land uses, densities, or development plans. In addition to such adjustments, each year the CFFs will be adjusted by the change in the ENR 20- City Construction Cost Index (" ENR 20- City CCP') over the prior calendac year. This Fee Study adjusted facilities costs in this report based on the ENR 20- City CCI December 2021 value of 12, 481. 82.
ASSEMBLY BILL 602
On September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 was signed into law and became effective starting January 1, 2022. The law establishes additional procedural and transparency requirements on public agencies when establishing new fees or increasing existing development inlpact fees. AB 602 amends Government Code Sections 65940. 1 and 66019 and adds Government Code Section 66016. 5 and Health and Safety Code Section 50466. 5. Be1ow are some ofthe most significant i•ec uirements imposed by AB 602:
New Requirements For Nexus Studies
When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service ( LOS) for the public facility; identify the proposed new level of service, and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
City of Lathrop iv WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study If a nexus study supports an increase to existing fee, the public agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fee revenue collected under the original fee
Large jurisdictions, for example, counties that have a population greater than 250, 000 residents, must adopt a capita( improvement plan as a part of the nexus study Nexus studies adopted after 07/ 01/ 22, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development that is proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development or the nexus study must make findings that an alternative fee calculation methodology creates a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development
This section of the impact fee reguirements does not apply to any fees or charges pursuant to Government Code Section 60013, which includes water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges
New Transparency Requirements For Public Agencies
Fees must be posted to the public agency' s website within 30 days of any change in the fees
Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are rec uired pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 Public agencies must post to their website all nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies that were conducted on or after January 1, 2018 New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
Nexus studies must be updated at least every 8 years, from the period beginning on January l, 2022
Nexus studies and impact fees must be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice (this is an increase from the current 10 days)
Members of the public may submit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insufficient; the public agency must consider all such evidence City of Lathrop v WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
1. INTROD UCTION
BACKGROUND
The City of Lathrop is located in the Sacramento central valley, approximately 58 miles south of Sacramento and 80 miles east of San Francisco. When the City incorporated in 1989, its population was approximately 6, 500; as of January 2022, the California Department of Finance estimates the City' s population is 31, 331.
In 1990 the City adopted its original Capital Facilities Fees program to fund growth in the City.
In 1994 the City updated the CFF and included additional fees in the program. In subsequent years the City added other fees to the CFF program. For example, in 1997 it added the West Lathrop Specific Plan Regional Transportation lmpact Fee, which was developed in coordination the San Joaquin Council of Governments and area developers. In 2003 a comprehensive effort was undertaken to update the CFF program to include new planning areas in the western part of the City and establish new fees for these areas. One of the new CFFs was the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation CFF. The WCLRT CFF was created in 2003 to supplement funding for transportation facilities needed for the West Lathrop Specific Plan Area. The capital improveinent plan for the West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportation CFF currently includes 28 transportation projects.
FEES CALCULATED IN THIS CFF STUDY UPDATE
The West/ Central Lathrop Regional Transportatiou CFF for the CLSP area has been updated in this Fee Study to include four additional traffic improvements, including three traffic signals and traffic improvements at a fourth intersection in the CLSP area. Additionally, all the transportation facilities in this transportation CFF program have been updated in this Fee Study based on the increase in the ENR 20- City CCI for December 2021, which is 12,481. 82.
City ofLathrop 1 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study MITIGATION FEE ACT( AB 1G00
The Mitigation Fee Act, commonly known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, was enacted by the State of California in 1987 and created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code. AB 1600 requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval for a development project:
1. ldentify the purpose of the fee
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
A. The fee' s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
B. The need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
C. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attrit utable to the development on which the fee is imposed
The purpose of this Fee Study is to demonstrate that the fees calculated herein comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The assumptions, methodologies, facility standards, costs, and cost allocation factors that were used to establish the nexus between the fees and the development on which the fees will be levied are summarized in subsequent chapters of this report.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this report has been organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 2 Provides a bcief summary of the land uses planned for CLSP Chapter 3 Provides an explanation of the fee methodology used to calculate the fees in this Fee Study
Chapter 4 Provide details of the fee calculations for transportation CFF Chapter 5 Discusses the nexus findings for the CFFs
Chapter 6 Addresses implementation of the updates to the fee program, future fee adjustments, and administrative duties required by the fee law Clty of Lathrop 2 WCI RT Capital F'acilities Fee Update Study
2. Land Uses in CLSP
CLSP area abuts the northern boundary of Mossdale Village and includes 1, 521 acres that are planned for 5, 144 residential units and approximately 4. 7 million square feet of commercial space.
The 5, 144 units include 4, 870 single family residential (" SFR") units and 274 multifamily residential (" MFR") units. Saybrook CLSP, LLC ( Saybrook) is the primary developer in CLSP.
Saybrook estimates that their project will include a total of 1, 850 residential units, including 1, 576 SFR and 274 MFR units.
Table 1
CLSP Land Use Summary
Key I, 5, Acres
VR- CL Variable D " Ressdeatial- CL 703. 1
HR-CL D ' Reside ntial- CL 28. 3
R 1 iLT- CL Rcsidcntial l Mixed Use-GL 45. 2
4C1VR O e- Commer+ciat Itesidtntiat 67. 0
E'V VTP- CL ZVastewat r Tr atrn t Ptas i-CL
OC- CL Of+ ce Commercial- CL 239. 7
NC- CL N ' hood Comcnercial-CL 12. 6
SPC- CL S ' Ca nnercial- CL 7. 9
P- 5PtNC- CL PublicclSemi- Public.+' 1 T ' . Comm' 1- CL 1 l. l HS•CL School- CL 50.4
K.-B- CI, K-8 Sch l-CL 54. 6
CP- CL Gornm ' Park- CL 70.0
P'- t:L N ' haad Park- CL 45. 0
05-CL Levee, S ace, River- CL 93. 8
n a Ma' Roads- CL 92. 7
CLSP Gross Acrea e 152I. 0
Sour ce: Centra! Lathrop Specific Piarr
City of Lathrop 3 WCLRT CapitaJ Facilities Fee Update StUdy Exhibit 1 — Map of Central Lathrop Specific Plan
Stockton
4 1
1 v .
J
V'.,
o:
r ..
J`
c
in j 5
Q- c
g
J3
CI.SP Area f
jf
i /
Mossdals Village Area
o d 9r„
r`
l i
araaise,
r a d, ' ' r
M81ltBC8
j' ,%f`; za
7 P f
S
v
LO
f h
05 '
t , City of Lathrop Planning
Area Boundary
4 Tracy J i i Sub- Plan Area# 1
a
c East Lathrop}
Sub- Plan Area# 2 as
5 Expressed in the Water
Master Pian
l^ West Central Lathrop)
Additionai Portion of
Sub-Plan Area# 2 as
Expressed in the City
General Plan
Sub-Plan Area# 3
1 I J ( Stewart Track)
City ofLathrop 4 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
3. FEE METHODOLOGY
When impact fees are calculated, an analysis must be presented in enough detail to demonstrate that a logical and thorough consideration was applied in the process of determining how the fees relate to the impacts from new development. Various findings pursuant to the impact fee statute must be made to ensure that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee amount and the impact caused by development on which the fee will be levied. Following is a discussion of the method used in this Fee Study to allocate facilities costs to development and determine the fees in the fee program.
FEE METHODOLOGY
The plan- based fee methodology is used in this Fee Study. This methodology is used for facilities that must be designed based on future demand projections within a geographic location. Typically, a formal plan such as a specific plan, facilities needs assessment, or master plan identifies and supports the level of facilities required to serve the plan area. This plan would typically consider the existing facilities already in place and determine what additional facilities would be necessary to accommodate new develop nent. For example, the need for transportation- related improvements depends specifically on the projected number of trips that must be accommodated on specific roadways. An analysis of existing facilities, geographic constraints, and current levels of service must be completed in order to identify the future facility needs. This information is analyzed in conjunction with a projection ofthe amount and location of future development in the plan area to determine the adequacy of existing facilities and the demand for new improvements that will be required. Depending on the level of existing facilities, the plan- based fee methodology may allocate planned facilities costs to either future development only or to future and existing development. The steps to calculate a fee under the pla i-based fee methodology include the following:
Step 1 Identify existing facilities and estimate futuce demand for facilities at build out of the p( an area
Step 2 Determine facilities needed to serve anticipated growth in the plan area Step 3 Estimate the gross cost of facilities needed to serve the future development in the plan area
Step 4 Subtract the gross cost of any facilities included in the facilities plan that will cure an existing deficiency in service or will serve other development areas Ciry of Lathrop 5 WCLRT Capilal Facilities/' ee Update Study Step S Subtract revenues available from alternative funding sources, if any, to identify a net facilities cost that will be allocated to future development.
Step 6 Select cost allocation factors ( e. g., trips generated) that will be used to allocate facility costs on a proportional impact basis; apply cost allocation factors to each of the land use categories based on their relative service demand or impact on each type offacility
Step 7 Estimate the total impact from future development by multiplying the total number of units/ acres/ square feet for each respective land use by its cost allocation factor.
Suin the total cost allocation factors for each land use category Step 8 Determine the percentage distribution of the cost allocation factors for each land use category by dividing the total of the cost allocation factors for each land use category by the total of all cost allocation factors for all land use categories Step 9 Multiply the percent distribution for each land use category, as determined in Step 8, by the total facilities cost to determine the portion of the facility cost that is allocated to each land use category
Step 10 Divide the facilities cost that is allocated to each land use category, as determiiled in Step 9, by the number of residential units or per 1, 000 square feet of building space, to determine the facilities fees
City ofLathrop 6 WCLRT Capita! Facilities Fee Update Study
4. WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CFF UPDATE This section of the report identifies the facilities, costs, and the updated CFF rates required to fund the transportation facilities in the WCLRT CFF program.
BACKGROUND
The WCLRT CFF was created in 2003 to supplement the existing WLSP Regional Transportation lmpact Fee ( RTIF). The RTIP was created in 1997 to mitigate the transportation impacts from developments in the West Lathrop Specific Plan area ( WLSP). The WLSP area includes the Mossdale Village, CLSP, and River Islands developments. The WCLRT CFF provides a revenue source for funding transportation facilities that include specific transportation projects serving development areas west of the l- 5 highway.
FACILITIES AND COSTS
Table 2 on the following page identifies the transportation facilities in the WCLRT CFF program and presents their costs in 2022 dollars. These facilities costs have been inflated over the years based on the ENR 20- City CCL In 2022 City staff identified the need for three additional traffic signals and traffic improvements to a fourth intersection in the CLSP area. These traffic improvements, totaling $ 1. 2 million and identified in Table 2 as item numbers 29 through 32, are necessary to serve development in the WLSP area. Because the improvements primarily will serve the WLSP area, their costs are allocated to CLSP, Mossdale Village, and Stewart Tract developments.
City of Lathrop 7 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study Table 2 - Transportation Facilities and Costs
Project Cost
No. Routa Project Limits Description 2022$)
1 ANor A. enue
Between Macathur Dm,e and Widen roadway to 4 lanes with left tum at all intersections $ 5, 368, 000
Paradise A, enue and dri eways
2 Golden Valle Parkwa
Between Paradise A. enue and Construct a 41ane roadway with left tum lanes at all Y Y
Paradise Cut inlersections and drieeways includes Paradise Cut bridge $ 50, 793, 000
3 Golden Valle Parkwa
Belween Paradise cul and San Construct a 41ane diuded arterial. Includes San Joaquin Ri, er y Y
Joaquin Ri er Bridge.
34, 888, 000
4 Golden Valley Parkway
Between San Joaquin Ri er and
Construct a 41ane diNded aRerial. 4, 631, 000
Rieer Edge Aeenue
5 Golden Valley Parkway
Between Ri. er Edge A enue and
Construct a Glane di ided aRerial. 9, 463, 000
Rieer Island Parkway.
6 Golden Valley Parkway
Between Ri, er Island Parkway and
Construct a 61ane diuded arterial. 10, 168, 000
Lathrop Road
7 Golden Valley Parkway
B W Lathrop Road and Central
Construct a 4/ 6 diuded arterial. 7, 971, 000
Lathrop Specific Plan north border
Golden Valley Parkway/ - $ etween Central Lathrop Specific Consfruct a improeed 2- lane artenal. 2, 405, 000
Manthey Road Plan noAh border and Roth Road.
g
Roth Road Interchange
Roth Road Interchange
Signalize and impro, e ramp intersections, include 4 lanes in $ 265,000
Impro ements interchange area.
Lalhrop Road Interchange
Lathrop Road Interchange
Signalize and improee ramp interseclions, include 8 lanes in $ 42 666, 000
Improeements interchange area.
11 Lathrop Road
Between Golden Valley Parkway
Conslruct a 6- lane diNded arterial. 1, 611, 000
and I- 5
12 Louise A, enue Interchange
Louise Aeenue Interchange
Construct 8 lanes in interchange area, expand ramps,
gq5, 001, 000 Improvements upgrade signals as required. 13 Ri. er Island Parkway
Between Golden Valley Parkway
Contstruct a 6- lane diuded arterial. 1, 275, 000
and I- 5
Between Golden Valley Parkway 14 Rieer Island Parkway and McKee A, enue Construct a 61ane diuded arterial. 2, 551, 000
15 Ri. er Island Parkwa
Between McKee A, enue and San Construct a 41ane diuded arterial. Includes San Joaquin Ri, er Y
Joaquin Rieer Bridge.
16, 747, 000
A Ri er Island Parkway
Between San Joaquin Ri er and
Construct a 4-lane diNded arterial. 2, 674, 000
Broad Street
B Broad Street
Between Ri. er Island Parkway and
Construcl a 41ane diuded aRerial. 4, 095, 000
South Ri, er Island Parkway
C ' S. Ri, er Island Parkway
Between Broad Street and Golden
Construct a 4- lane diuded artenal. 3, 964, 000
Valley Parkway.
etween - i, er - out s an
14 D Broad Street Parkway and Golden Valley Construct a 4- lane di ided arterial. 3, 079, 000 Parkw.
Paradise Aeenue Interchange Construct new diagnonal ramps, signalize ramp intersections, 16 Impro ments
Paradise A. enue Interchange add left turn lanes on all approaches to new signalized 34, 980,000 intersectfons, maintain 2- lane o, erpass.
17 Paradise A, enue
Between I- 205 and Golden Valley Widen roadway to 4 lanes with left turn at all interseclions Parkway and dri eways
1, 657, 000
19 MacaRhur Dri, e Interchange
Macarthur Dri, e Interchan e Construct interchan e im ro, ements Improvements 9 9 P 18, 553, 000 20 Macarthur Driee Belween I- 205 and Arbor A, enue Widen Roadway to 4 lanes. 2, 302, 000 21 rbyo r Aeenue and Macarthur
Tratfic Signal Construcl new traffic signals. 794, 000
22 Golden Valley Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new traffc signals. 794, 000 Paradise Aeenue Golden Valley Parkway and
z3
Ri. er Island Parkway
Trafiic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 794, 000
24 Golden Valley Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 794, 000
Lathrop Road
25 Ri. er Island Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 466, 000 Broad Street Z6
S. Ri er Island Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new tra c signals. 466, 000
Broad Street
27 Golden Valley Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 466, 000 Broad Street t._. _
28 Golden Valley Parkway and
Traffic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 466, 000 S. Ri, er Island Parkway Golden Valley Parkway and
29 Stanford Crossing
Traific Signal Construct new trafic signals. 448, 366
30 Golden Valley Parkway and
Trafic Signal Construct new lraffic signals. 448, 366 Faber Street 31 Golden Valley Parkway and
Spartan Way
Trafic Signal Construct new traffic signals. 180, 000
32 Central Pacific Street and
Impro, ements Project Improeement costs 100, 000 Spartan Way ToW I 324, 323, 732
1. $ 180, 000 of the project cost will be funding through the( ee programwith the rerteinder of the cosi funded through a grant.
City of Lathrop 8 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Stztdy Table 3 on the following page shows the total cost of the transportation facilities in the WCLRT CFF program is $ 324. 3 million. An estimated $ 110. 4 million in fee revenue is expected to be collected through the WLSP RTIF program for seven transportation projects that are in both of these transportation fee programs. This amount will be used to reduce the total cost of the transportation projects to be funded through WCLRT CFF. This would leave a net cost of$213. 9 million to be allocated to development through the WCLRT CFF program.
The cost allocation percentages shown in Table 3 are based on a traffic model analysis conducted by TJKM in 2003 and were applied in the WCLRT CFF calculation in the 2005 Fee Study. Costs are allocated based on trip generation from the following five zones:
1. Area A = Central Lathrop Specific Plan area
2. Area B = Mossdale Village
3. Area C = River Islands
4. Area D = East Lathrop
5. Area E = Areas outside the City
Based on the trip generation allocation, the CLSP area is allocated approximately $ 41. 2 million of the transportation project costs, or about 19% of the total $ 2139 million cost; Mossdale Village is allocated$ 23. 2 million, or about 11% ofthe total cost; and River Islands is allocated$ 68. 8 million, or about 32% of the total cost. The remaining 38% of the cost, approximately $ 80. 7 million, is allocated to East Lathrop and areas outside of the City and therefore this portion of the total cost cannot be collected and will need to be funded through other alternative sources.
Ciry ofLathrop 9 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study Table 3 - Transportation Facilities Cost Allocation
Less:' 97 Net
Project Cost RTIF Project Cost Contribution to Projects by Area Net Project Cost by Area No. ( 2022$) ( 2022$) ( 2022$) A B C D E Total A B C Total 1 $ 15, 368, 000 0 $ 15, 368, 000 11. 1% 7. 1% 48. 5% 2. 0% 31. 3% 100% $ 1, 707, 555 $ 1, 086, 626 $ 7,451, 151 $ 10, 245, 332 2 $ 50, 793, 000 ($ 31, 785, 000) $ 19, 008, 000 14. 0% 2. 0% 45. 0% 18. 0% 21. 0% 100% $ 2, 661, 120 $ 380, 160 $ 8, 553, 599 $ 11, 594, 879 3 $ 34, 888, 000 ($ 21, 832, 000) $ 13, 056, 000 19. 1% 173% 482% 4. 5% 10. 9% 100% $ 2, 492, 510 $ 2, 255, 127 $ 6, 290, 619 $ 11, 036, 255 4 S4, 631, 000 ($ 2, 898, 000) $ 1, 733, 000 13. 1% 21. 2% 59. 1% 5. 8% 0]% 100% $ 227, 693 $ 366, 839 $ 1, 024, 620 $ 1, 619, 153 5 $ 9, 463, 000 ($ 5, 922, 000) $ 3, 541, 000 19. 4% 19. 4% 507% 9. 0% 1. 5% 100°/ $ 687, 060 $ 687, 060 $ 1, 796, 925 $ 3, 171, 045 6 $ 10, 168, 000 ($ 6, 363, 000) $ 3, 805, 000 49. 1% 20. 9% 202% 7. 4% 2. 5% 100% $ 1, 867, 484 $ 793, 680 $ 770, 338 $ 3, 431, 502 7 $ 7, 971, 000 0 $ 7, 971, 000 69. 9% 8. 1% 7. 4% 14. 0% 0. 7% 100% $ 5, 567, 977 $ 644, 713 $ 586, 102 $ 6, 798, 792 8 $ 2, 405, 000 0 $ 2, 405, 000 68. 9% 0. 9% 1. 9% 25. 5% 2. 8% 100% $ 1, 656, 272 $ 22, 687 $ 45, 378 $ 1, 724, 338 9 $ 1, 265, 000 0 $ 1, 265, 000 16. 6% 4. 1% 5. 5% 23. 0% 50. 9% 100% $ 210, 242 $ 52, 245 $ 68, 943 $ 331, 430 10 $ 42, 666, 000 ($ 6,653, 000) $ 36, 013, 000 30. 9% 5. 3% 6. 8% 32. 9% 24. 1% 100% $ 11, 131, 619 $ 1, 890, 683 $ 2, 448, 883 $ 15, 471, 184 11 $ 1, 611, 000 0 $ 1, 611, 000 59. 9% 4.4% 5. 8% 27]% 2. 2% 100% $ 964, 247 570, 554 $ 94, 074 $ 1, 128, 875 12 $ 45, 001, 000 0 $ 45, 001, 000 62% 167% 25. 6% 18]% 32. 7% 100% $ 2, 808, 064 $ 7, 528, 667 $ 11, 506,756 $ 21, 843, 487 13 $ 1, 275, 000 0 $ 1, 275, 000 9.8% 27. 0% 40. 2% 18. 0% 4. 9% 100% $ 125, 409 $ 344, 877 5512, 091 $ 982, 377 14 $ 2, 551, 000 0 $ 2, 551, 000 17. 9% 17. 9% 47. 1% 11. 4% 57% 100% $ 455, 536 $ 455, 536 $ 1, 202, 614 $ 2, 113, 686 15 $ 16, 747, 000 0 $ 16, 747, 000 18. 4% 12. 9% 55. 8% 7. 5% 5. 4% 100% $ 3, 075, 979 $ 2, 164, 577 $ 9, 341, 864 $ 14, 582, 421 T T..-,..._....__- a...__..._._.__..._,,. r.
A $ 2, 674, 000 D $ 2, 674, 000 18. 9% 12. 8% 55. 4% 7. 4% 5. 4% 100% $ 505, 921 $ 343, 342 $ 1, 481, 663 $ 2, 330, 926 B $ 4, 095, 000 0 $ 4, 095, 000 12. 4% 15. 7% 59. 5% 4. 1% 8. 3% 100% $ 507, 780 $ 642, 915 $ 2, 436, 935 $ 3, 587, 630 C $ 3, 964, 000 0 $ 3, 964, 000 3. 0% 34. 8% 59. 8% 1. 8% 0. 6% 100% $ 120, 854 81, 377, 731 $ 2, 368, 731 $ 3, 867, 317 D $ 3, 079, 000 0 3, 079, 000 10. 9% 91% 63. 6% 3. 6% 12. 7% 100% $ 335, 919 $ 280, 189 1, 959, 167 $ 2, 575, 275 T._T _
16 $ 34, 980, 000 ($ 34, 980, 000) 0 57% 6. 1% 47. 9% 2. 6% 37. 7% 100% 0 0 0 0 17 $ 1, 657, 000 SO $ 1, 657, 000 7. 0% 7. 0% 62. 0% 1. 0% 23. 0% 100% $ 115, 990 5115, 990 $ 1, 027, 340 $ 1, 259, 320 19 $ 18, 553, 000 0 $ 18, 553, 000 8. 5% 4. 4% 24. 2% 2. 9% 60. 1% 100% $ 1, 578, 860 $ 808, 910 $ 4, 487, 971 $ 6,875, 741 r_ .T... r... ......_. r.__..__
20 $ 2, 302, 000 0 $ 2, 302, 000 10. 0% 7. 0% 43. 0% 2. 0/ 38. 0% 100% $ 230, 200 $ 161, 140 $ 989, 860 $ 1, 381, 200 21 $ 794, 000 0 $ 794, 000 9. 5% 64% 408% 2. 1% 41. 3% 100% 75, 509 $ 50, 419 $ 324, 031 $ 449, 959 22 $ 794, 000 0 $ 794, 000 9. 4% 8. 2% 61. 1% 1. 4'/ 0 19. 9% 100% 74, 715 $ 65, 029 $ 484, 737 $ 624, 481 23 $ 794, 000 0 $ 794, 000 24. 0% 26. 7% 33. 1% 12. 3% 4. 0% 100% 190, 560 $ 211, 601 $ 262, 735 $ 664, 896 T _.._ , m..,__.__ r _.. ...._ ._ .._
m
24 3794, 000 y0 $ 794, 000 62. 5% 8. 7% 8 8% 18. 3% 1. 6% 100% $ 496, 568 569, 317 $ 69, 951 $ 635, 836 25 $ 466, 000 0 $ 466, 000 17. 1% 12. 4% 6L1% 6. 4% 3. 0% 100% 79, 826 $ 57, 831 5284, 539 5422, 196 26 $ 466, 000 0 $ 466, 000 8. 8% 14. 7% 64. 4% 32% 8. 9% 100% 40, 776 $ 68,642 $ 300, 197 $ 409, 614 r.__ „ _:.:. r ._._- ._-.... . ..-- ..,..-,... ..----
27 $ 466, 000 0 $ 466, 000 8]% 15. 0% 64. 6% 57% 62% 100% 40, 355 $ 69,760 $ 300, 804 $ 410, 919 28 $ 466, 000 SO $ 466, 000 7. 2% 22. 3% 63. 3% 6. 2% 1. 0% 100% 33, 599 5103, 778 $ 295, 071 $ 432, 448 29 $ 448, 366 D 3448, 366 100. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0°/ 100% $ 448, 366 0 0 $ 448, 366 T..,_ _..
30 $ 448, 366 0 $ 448, 366 100. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 100% $ 448, 366 $ 0 0 $ 448, 366 31 $ 180, 000 0 $ 180, 000 49. 1% 20. 9% 202% 7. 4% 2. 5% 100% 88, 344 $ 37, 546 $ 36, 442 $ 162, 331 32 $ 100, 000 0 $ 100, 000 100. 0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 100% $ 100, 000 $ 0 0 $ 100, 000 Total $ 324, 323, 732 ($ 110, 433, 000) $ 213, 890, 732 41, 751, 275 $ 23, 208, 172 $ 68, 804, 130 $ 133, 163, 578 1 Area A= CLSP
Area B= Mossdale Village
Area C= Stewart Tract/ Ri er Islands
Area D= East Lathrop
Area E= Areas outside the City
City ofLathrop 10 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
COST ALLOCATION
The total cost allocated to CLSP, Mossdale Village, and River Islands are further allocated to development planned in each of these three areas. This cost allocation methodology used in this Fee Study is the same that was used in the 2005 Fee Study. Development estimates for each of the three project areas are multiplied by the adjusted PM peak hour trip rates to determine total trip volume. PM Peak hour trips are adjusted by reducing the trip totals for Retail and Office development by 60% and 20%, respectively, to account for pass- by and diverted trips that are linked to other trips. Reducing these trip totals ensures that trip generation estimates on the roadways is not overestimated. Based on adjusted PM Peak Hour trip volume, an allocation of the total cost is calculated for each land use category. The cost per unit was calculated by dividing the total units into the total allocated cost far each land use category. Tables 4 to 6 show the cost per residential unit and per 1, 000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development in each of the three project areas. The cost per unit or per 1, 000 building square feet is also the WCLRT CFF rate foe each land use category.
Table 4
CLSP - Cost Allocation
Adjusted PM Adjusted PM Cost per
Units/ Peak Hour Peak Hour Percent Total Unit/
Land Use Bldg SF Trip Rate Trip Volume Allocation Costs Bldg SF Area A- CLSP Cost 41, 151, 275
Dwel/ ing
Residential Unitse
r Unit er Unit
Single Family 4, 870 1. 01 4, 919 49. 61% $ 20, 417, 172 $ 4, 192 Multi-Family 274 0. 62 170 1. 71% $ 705, 615 $ 2, 574
Subtotal- Residential 5, 144 5, 089 51. 33% $ 21, 122, 787 Non- Residential Bldg SF per 1, 000 SF Per 1, 000 SF
Service/ Office Commerciai 3, 524, 250 0. 94 3, 313 33. 42% $ 13, 752, 695 $ 3, 902 Retail Commercial 1, 174, 750 1. 29 1, 512 15. 25% $ 6, 275, 793 $ 5, 342 Subtotal- Non- Residential 4, 699, 000 4, 825 48. 67% $ 20, 028, 488 Tot21 9, 914 100. 00% $ 41, 151, 275
City ofLalhrop 11 WCLIZT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study Table 5
Mossdale Villa e- Cost Allocation
Adjusted PM Adjusted PM Cost per
Units/ Peak Hour Peak Hour Percent Total Unit/
Land Use Bidg SF Trip Rate Trip Volume Allocation Costs Bldg SF Area B- Mossdale Village Cost $ 23, 208, 172
Dwelling
Residential Unitse
r Unit er Unit
Single Family 3, 605 1. 01 3, 641 62. 04% $ 14, 397, 846 $ 3, 994 Multi- Family 122 0. 62 76 1. 29°/ o $ 300, 532 $ 2, 463 Subtotal- Residential 3, 727 3, 717 63. 33% $ 14, 698, 377 Non- Residential Bldg SF per 1, 000 SF Per 1, 000 SF
Service/ Office Commercial 344, 396 1. 45 499 8. 50% $ 1, 973, 228 $ 5, 730 Retail Commercial 1, 033, 189 1. 60 1, 653 28. 16°/ o $ 6, 536, 567 $ 6, 327 Subtotal- Non- Residentiai 1, 377, 585 2, 152 36. 67% $ 8, 509, 795 Total 5, 869 100. 00% $ 23, 208, 172
Table 6
Stewart Tract/ River Islands - Cost Allocation
Adjusted PM Adjusted PM Cost per
Units/ Peak Hour Peak Hour Percent Total Unit/
Land Use Bldg SF Trip Rate Trip Volume Allocation Costs Bldg SF Area C- Stewart Tract Cost 68, 804, 130
Dwelling
Residential Unitse
r Unit
r Unit
Single Family 9, 371 1. 01 9, 465 62. 54% $ 43, 030, 996 $ 4, 592 Multi- Family 1, 629 0. 62 1, 010 6. 67°/ o $ 4, 591, 791 $ 2, 819 Subtotal- Residential 11, 000 10, 475 69. 22% $ 47, 622, 787 Non- Residential Bldg SF per 1, 000 SF Per 1, 000 SF
Service/ Office Commercial 4, 267, 000 0. 93 3, 954 26. 13% $ 17, 976, 182 $ 4, 213 Retail Commercial 420, 000 1. 68 705 4. 66% $ 3, 205, 161 $ 7, 631 Subtotal- Non- Residential 4, 687, 000 4, 659 30. 78% $ 21, 181, 343 Total 15, 134 100. 00% $ 68, 804, 130
City of Lathrop 12 WCLRT Ccipital Facilities 1%ee Update Study
WEST/ CENTRAL LATHROP REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FEE
Table 7 shows the proposed WCLRT CFFs for the three project areas. It should be noted that the proposed CFF for Mossdale Village would only apply to development in Mossdale Village and certain areas within the Mossdale Landing developments for which the development agreement between the City and the developer has expired. Exhibit 2 on the following page identifies the remaining areas in the Mossdale Landing developments, highlighted in blue,. that are subject only to annual inflation increases based on the ENR construction index.
Table 7
Proposed West/ Central Lathrop Re ional Transportation CFF Mossdale Stewart
CLSP Village Tract
Land Use CFF CFFI CFF
Residential
Single Fam11y 4 192 per Unit 3 994 per Unit 4 592 per Unit Multl- Family 2 574 per Unit 2 4( 3 per Unit 2$ 19 per Unit Non-Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 3 902 per 1, 000 sf 5 730 per 1, 000 sf $ 4 213 per 1, 000 sf Retail Commercial 5 342 per l, 000 Sf $ 6, 327 per t, 000 st' $ 7, 631 per t, 000 St' The proposed CFF applies to new development within Mossdale Village and certain areas within the Mossdale Landing developments for which the development agreeinent between the City and the developer has ea ired. Exhibit 2 in this report identifies the remaining areas in the Mossdale L.anding developments that are subject only to annual inflation increases based on the ENRconstruction index City ofLathrop 13 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update StzEdy Exhibit 2 — Map of Mossdale Villa e and Mossdale Landin i '' r 3
p . ,
aY i,,,
w
y Q'"
6 m A ,; 6 ,
q
Y,
s " e s r e4 ' r .- ,
gx a2' d,"' E'" i.+
y ,.,"; A ,
R Y C'
x ° .^
t' , r
n
r,;.
w
y
u
c r.
A
C, 3
t
i,. i
t
p
X{
t b
Y ,
y: &
fi
r 7
a
e ' g
y''`
r
f`, s
y =
t , .
r '
b
fl y Y t'` r i 9 .
i r^,.
t'
44°' t
q t i cr d
t
i ${''.'
n
L ' #. ha 3: t k . vf
u
P>
4 a„` ffi# ., k .
r
y ,
rc.,
a a;'"
m
y ". y
rC ,«.'
k;
y
F
x
MOSSDALE VILLAGE
MOSSDALE IANDING
Ciry ofLathrop 14 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Stzrdy
FEE COMPARISON
Tables 8 through 10 compare the proposed WCLRT CFFs to the current City CFFs. These tables show that the proposed WCLRT CFFs are only slightly higher than the current 2022 City CFF rates. The proposed CFF rates for the CLSP area increase by approximately 3. 0% over the City' s current rates and proposed CFF rates for Mossdale Village and River Islands increase by less than
0. 2% over the City' s current CFF rates.
Table 8
CLSP Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF
Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFF CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 4 192 per Unit 4 082 Per Unit 2, 7%
Multi- Family 2 574 Per Unit Z SQS per Unit 2. 7%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 3, 902 pe- 1, o0o sf $ 3, 800 per l, 000 sf 2. 7% Retail Commercial 5, 342 per 1, 00o sf $ 5, 201 Per t, 000 sf 2. 7% City ofLathrop I S WCLXT Capital Facilities P'ee Update Study Table 9
Mossdale Village Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFFI CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 3 994 Per Unit 3 987 per Unit 0, 2%
Multi- Family 2 463 per Un t 2 459 per Un t 0, 2%
Non-Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 5, 730 pe , 000 sf $ 5' 720 per l, 000 st 0, 2% Retail Commercial O 327 Per 1, 000 sf $( 316 per 1, 000 sf 0, 2% The proposed CFF applies to new development within Mossdale V'illage and ceitain areas within the Mossdale Landing developments for which the development agreement between the City and the developer has expired. E ibit 2 in this report identifies the remaining areas in the Mossdale Landing developments that are subject only to annual inflation increases based on the ENR consti action index Table 10
Stewart Tract/ River Islands Fee Comparison— Proposed vs Current CFF Proposed Current Percent
Land Use CFF CFF Increase
Residential
Single Family 4 592 per Uuit 4 590 Per Unit 0. 0%
Multi- Family 2 819 Per Unit 2 817 per Unit 0. 1`%
Non- Residential
Service/ Office Commercial 4, 213 Per t, 000 sf $ 4, 211 per 1, 00o st' 0. 0% Retail Commercial 7, 631 per l, 000 sf $ 7, 627 per l, 000 sf 01% City of Lathrop 16 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study AB 602
Tables 8 through l0 show that the proposed WCLRT CFFs are slightly higher than the City' s current WCLRT CFFs. Pursuant to AB 602, if a fee study supports increasing an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the fee study that supported the original or prior fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original or prior fee.
This Fee Study and City staff support increasing the current WCLRT CFFs that were adopted by the Lathrop City Council in 2019 because the additional fee revenue will be needed to fund the four additional transportation facilities that have been recently added to the transportation capital improvement plan. These facilities will allow the City to maintain its existing D level of traffic • service in the WLSP area.
City ofLathrop 17 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study S. NEXUS FINDINGS
Development in the City will create a need for additional transportation facilities as well as expansion of existing facilities to serve future residents and employees. The WCLRT CFF program will provide funding for transportation facilities in accordance with the policies and goals set forth by the City. As required pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the CFFs calculated in this Fee Study meet the nexus requirements of the law, as outlined below.
NEXUS TEST
Purpose of the Fees
The purpose of the CFFs is to provide funding for the transportation facilities identified in this Fee Study.
Use of Fee
CFF revenue will be used to fund future development' s fair share of the cost of transportation facilities that have been identified by the City as necessary to serve new development in the City.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
New residential and non- residential developinent will generate additional demand for the transportation facilities identified in this Fee Study. The facilities included in this Fee Study will ensure that the City will maintain the desired D level of ti•ansportation service to all areas in the City.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee' s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
CFF revenue collected will fund the transportation facilities included in this Fee Study. These facilities will serve development in the City and the proposed fees in this Fee Study are a fair-share cost allocation based on the impact that future development will have on these facilities and improvements.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
A reasonable relationship between the amount of each CFF and the cost of the public facility, or Cily of Lathrop 1 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Sti dy portion thereof, is established in this Fee Study through the use of cost allocation factors to estimate the demand for a
facility or, the impact that a land use will have on a
facility. For example, the
cost allocation for the Transportation CFF is based on the peak evening trip generation for each specific land use. The trip generation rates, which differ between land use categories, measure each land use' s impact on transportation facilities and infrastructure. As a result, each land use category or development type is allocated its fair share of the cost based on its impact, as identified by its cost allocation factor.
By assigning the demand for facilities based on the cost allocation factors for each land use and quantifying that demand in the calculation of the CFFs, a reasonable relationship is established between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities attributable to the distinct types of development in the City.
AB 602 AND RESIDENTIAL CFF RATES
The City' s current residential WCLRT CFFs, as well as the proposed WCLRT CFFs in this Fee Study, are based on the trip generation of single family and multifamily residential units determined through empirical studies and presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE) Trip Generation manual. By linking the average number of trips generated by the type of residential unit to the total estimated trips that will be generated by future development and the cost of the future transportation facilities needed, a reasonable relationship can be established between the impact of each type of development and the portion of the cost of future transportation facilities that are attributed to each u it of develop nent. The portion of the cost of the future transportation facilities attributed to each residential unit of development can then be used to determine the fee per single family and multifamily unit. However, AB 602, Section 66016. 5( a)( 5)( A) of the Government Code ( GC), states that, A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development..."
The AB 602 goes on to further state that a nexus study does not need to comply with Section ( A) above if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
i) An explanation as to why the square footage is ot an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development.
ii) Au explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
Ciry of Lathrop 19 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
The City' s engineering staff has concluded that applying trip generation rates, based on the ITE Trip Generation manual, to the residential land uses provide a sound methodology of establishing a reasonable relationship between the WCLRT CFF and the burden posed by development. The ITE has developed and refined trip generation data over several decades and this data is used in traffic models to determine the size of future roadways as well as other transportation facilities.
The trip generation manuals present residential trip generation rates for single family, multifamily units, and other types of residential developments. However, trip generation data is not available based on the sc uare footage of a residential w1it. Because per square foot empirical data is not available to link the impact of residential building square footage on future transportation infrastructure, it is not an appropriate metric to calculate the WCLRT CFF.
Finally, to address item ( iii) above, the WCLRT CFF proposed in this Fee Study ensures that smaller developments will pay their proportionate fair share of fees since all categories of residential units have the same trip generation rates and thus have the same WCLRT CFF. As a result, smaller developments will have less units and therefore pay proportionately less in fees.
City of Lathrop 20 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
6. FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
FEE IMPLEMENTATION
According to the California Government Code, prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee, a public agency must hold at least one open and public meeting; a public notice for this meeting must be posted at least 30 days prior to the meeting. At least 10 days prior to this meeting, the agency must make data on facility costs and funding sources available to the public. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, and a general explanation of the matter, are to be published in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code. The Fee Study and fees established herein will be adopted through a City ordinance and resolution. Once the fee program is adopted by the Lathrop City Council, it shall become effective no sooner than sixty days after the final legislative action.
FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The WCLRT CFF will be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of funding from alternative sources ( i. e., state or federal grants), revised costs, or changes in land uses or development pians . In addition to such adjustments, each year the WCLRT CFF will be adjusted by the change in the Engineering News Record 20- City CCI over the prior calendar year.
This Fee Study adjusted costs in this report based on the ENR 20- City CCI value of 12, 481. 8 for December 2021.
ASSEMBLY BILL 602
On September 28, 2021, Assembiy Bill 602 was signed into law and became effective starting January 1, 2022. The law establishes additional procedural and transparency requirements on public agencies when establishing new fees or increasing existing development impact fees. AB 602 amends Government Code Sections 65940. 1 and 66019 and adds Government Code Section 66016. 5 and Health and Safety Code Section 50466. 5. Below are some of the most significant requicements imposed by AB 602:
City ofLathrop 21 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study New Requirements For Nexus Studies
When applicable, the nexus study sha( 1 identify the existing level of service ( LOS) for the public facility; identify the proposed new level of service, and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
If a nexus study supports an increase to existing fee, the public agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus sttiidy supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fee revenue collected under the original fee
Large jurisdictions, for example, counties that have a population greater than 250, 000 residents, must adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study Nexus studies adopted after 07/ O1/ 22, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development that is proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development ar the nexus study must make findings that an alternative fee calculation methodology creates a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development
This section ofthe impact fee requirements does not apply to any fees or charges pursuant to Government Code Section 60013, which includes water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges
New Transparency Requirements For Public Agencies
Fees must be posted to the public agency' s website within 30 days of any change in the fees
Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are required pursuant to Governlnent Code Section 66006 Public agencies must post to their website all exus studies, cost of service studies, or ec uivalent studies that were conducted on or after January l, 20] 8 New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
Nexus studies must be updated at least every 8 years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022
Nexus studies and impact fees must be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice ( this is an increase from the current l 0 days) Members of the public may submit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insuff cient; the public agency must consider al( such evidence Ciry ofLathrop 22 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATNE DUTIES
The Government Code requires a public agency to report, every year and every fifth year, certain financial information regarding their impact fees. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year the public agency must make the following information available for the past fiscal year:
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund b) The amount of fee revenue
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund d) The amount offee revenue collected and interest earned e) An identi cation of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of public improvement that was funded with fees fj An identification of an approximate date by which time construction on the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement g) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, when it will be repaid and at what interest rate
h) The amount of any refunds made once it is determined that sufficient monies have been collected to fund all projects
The public agency must nake this information available for public review and must also present it at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less tl an 15 days after this information is made available to the public.
FIFTH- YEAR ADMIMSTRATNE DUTIES
For the fifth year following the first deposit into the fee account and every five years thereafter, the public agency must make the followii g findings with respect to any cemaining funds in the fee accounts:
a) lde tify the purpose to which the fee is to be put
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged
c) ldentify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing incomplete improvements
d) Designate the approximate dates on which funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate accounts or funds
City ofLathrop 23 WCLRT Capilal Facilities Fee Update Study As with the annual report, the five- year report must be made public within 180 days after the end of the public agency' s fiscal year and must be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled public meeting. The public agency must make these findings; otherwise, the law states that the City must refund the fee revenue to the then current owners ofthe development project.
City ofLathrop Z4 WCLRT Capital Facilities Fee Update Study
ATTACHMENT C
GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP
CENTRAL LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN ( CLSP
CAPITAL FACILITIEs FEE ( CFF) STUDy
Fees Included:
1. Update of CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements— WS2
2. Update of CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements— WS4
3. New CLSP Water Tank# 1
SM I Q IN" '
Gti
s '
r;=F;
iH'„,
x y „:,.
O
y %.
y'9.,.:' ti
June 30, 2022
333 UNIVERSITY AVE, SUITE 160 • SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PHONE: ( 91 6) 561 - 0890 • FAX: ( 91 6) 561 - 0891
WWW. GOODWINCONSULTINGGROUP. NET
CENTRAL LATHROP SPECIFIC PLAN (CLSP CAPITAL FACILITIES
FEESSTUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section paEe
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................... i
1. lntroduction.......................................................................................................................... l
2. CLSP Land Uses.................................................................................................................. 3
3. Fee Methodology................................................................................................................. 6
4. Watershed 2 CFF ................................................................................................................. 8
5. Watershed 4 CFF........................... ................................................................ 11
6. Water Tank 1 CFF .................................................................................... 16
7. Nexus Findings.................................................................................................................. 19
8. Fee Summary................................................................................................................... 22
9. Fee Program Administration....................................................................... 24 Maps
Exhibit 1 — Map of Central Lathrop Specific P1an....................................................... 5 Exhibit 2 - CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvement Areas WS2 and WS 4.................. 14 - 15 Exhibit 3 — Map of Water Tank # 1 Area................................................... .................. 18 Appendix A— Developable Acreage in CLSP Storm Drainage System Watershed Areas 2 and 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE FEE STUDY
The City of Lathrop (" City") retained Goodwin Consulting Group to assist in establishing fees for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Area (" CLSP") pursuant to the provisions in the Assignment and Amendment of Development Agreement By and Between the City of Lathrop, Saybrook CLSP, LLC and Lathrop Land Acquisition, LLC Relating to the Central Lathrop Specific Plan the DA"). The DA was approved by the City Council on December 5, 2016.
The fees ( the " CLSP Fees") presented in this Central Lathrop Specific Plan ( CLSP) Capital Facilities Fee ( CFF) Study(" Fee Study") include the fo(lowing:
CCFF for CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements— Watershed 2 CFF for CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements— Watershed 4 CFF for CLSP Water Tank# 1
CAPITAL FACILITIES COSTS
Section 7. 05. 4. of the DA states that Saybrook CLSP, LLC shall provide storm drain facilities adequate to accommodate the storm water runoff from the area. Exhibit D3 in the DA identifies the construction costs for storm drainage improveinents for Watershed 2 ( WS2) and Watershed 4 WS4). These storm drainage facilities have been constructed by Saybrook and Richland Planned Communities, the prior developer (" Richland" or the " Prior Developer") for the project.
Additionally, Section 7. 05. 2. 5 of the DA states that Saybrook shall construct one or more water tanks consistent with the Water System Report for the CLSP. Saybrook has constructed Water Tank 1 and their engineer provided the costs to construct the water tank.
WATERSHED 2 WS 2
WS 2 system improvements include pipelines, manholes, and a shared pump station. The total cost of storm drainage system improvements for WS 2 was $ 6, 321, 210 in 2017. An additional l, 245, 930 in improvements was identified in 2021. These 20l 7 and 2021 costs are inflated by the 20- City ENR Construction Cost lndex ( CCI) to 2022 dollars and additional pump station improvements tota( ing$ 869, 000 increased the cost to $ 9, 737, 508 in 2022 do( lars. These facilities will serve development in the WS2 and therefore the total cost is allocated proportionately to properties in WS2 based on total net acreage. Total net acreage in WS2 is 160. 7 acres and this excludes City- owned property, parcels planned for future parks, and public roads. The WS 2 area is planned for variable and high density residential, office/ commercial, and a neighborhood park.
City of Lathrop i CLSP Capi/ al Facilities Fee Study
WATERSHED 4 ( WS 4)
WS 4 system improvements include pipelines, manholes, and a shared pump station. The total cost of storm drainage system improvements for WS 4 is $ 5, 286, 045 in 2017. An additional 899, 130 in improvements was identified in 2021. These 2017 and 2021 costs were inflated by the ENR 20- City CCI to 2022 dollars and additional pump station improvements totaling$ 869, 000 increased the cost to $ 8, 090, 006 in 2022 dollars. These facilities will serve development in the WS4 and therefore the total cost is allocated proportionately to properties in WS4 based on net acreage. Total net acreage in WS4 is 178. 5 acres and this excludes City- owned property, parcels planned for future parks, and pub(ic roads. The area is planned for office/ commercial development.
WATER TANK# 1
Water Tank # 1 improvements include all construction and installation costs for the CLSP Water Tank # 1. The total cost of Water Tank # 1 is $ 4, 774, 309 in 2021 dollars. The 2021 cost was inflated by the ENR 20- City CCI to 2022 dollars. Water Tank# 1 will serve a portion of the CLSP area identified in the Stanford Crossing Water Tank# 1 Development Area Exhibit (Exhibit 3) in this report. The total cost is allocated to all development in the applicable area proportionately based on the relative water demand( gallons per day) of each p( anned land use. The total estimated demand in the Water Tank# 1 area is estimated to be 938, 720 upon buildout of the expected land uses. This area is planned for variable density residential, mixed- use residential, neighborhood commercial, office/ commercial, and a neighborhood park.
ToTAL CosTs
Table l summa- izes the total costs included in the Fee Program. The City inflates fees every January based on the Engineering News Record 20- City CCI. Table 1 below shows the value of the ENR 20- City CCI at severai points from December 2016 to December 2021. Based on the increased value of the ENR 20- City CCI, the costs in this Fee Study were increased by 18. 54%,
9. 67%, or 6. 23% dependiiig on the year in which the cost esti nates were developed.
City ofLathrop zi CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Table 1
ENR 20- City CCI Increases
ENR
20- City °/ a Increase
Month Year CCI to 2022
December 2016 10, 530. 00 18. 54%
December 2019 11, 381. 00 9. 67%
March 2021 11, 749. 75 6. 23%
December 2021 12, 481. 82 0. 00%
In addition to the inflation adjustment, an additional cost of $ 869, 000 was added to the storm drainage system improvement costs for Watersheds 2 and 4 due to improvements required for the shared pump station serving these areas. Finally, the costs of Water Tank # 1 were added and escalated to 2022 dollars. Table 2 below summarizes the updated costs included in this Fee Study.
Table 2
CLSP Fee Program Costs
Cost
No. Improvement 2p22
r___.._ ..___._______ T.____________--.,--_______--------...________.______.____. 1 Storm Drain System Impro ments - Watershed # 2 9, 737, 508 o
y.
e_ . ._ _..,
p.-=-
g___ .._,._.____n_-e---.,_...---- o--m_ _.... w.m__ __ m___.... . 2 Storm Drain S stem Im rovements - Watershed# 4 8, 090, 006 3 Water Tank # 1 5, 071, 773
Total 22, 899, 287
1. All costs inflated to 2022 dollars pursuant to the CLSP Development Agreement.
Represents 18. 54% increase for 2017 costs, 9. 67% increase for 2019 costs, and 6. 23% for 2021 costs.
Source: MacKay & Somps; Exhibit D3 of the Assignment and Amendment of Development Agreement between City of Lathrop, Saybrook CLSP, LLC and Lathrop Land Acquisition, LLC Relating to the CLSP
City ofLathrop iii CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
FEE SCHEDULE
Tables 3 below summarizes the proposed CLSP Fees. The WS 2 Fee is $ 9, 655 per single- family unit( including both LDR and MDR zoning designations), $ 3, 361 per multi-family unit( including the HDR zoning designation), and $ 60, 579 per non- residential net acre. The WS 2 Fee will be levied only in the Watershed 2 area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook wiil receive fee credi s or reimbursement( their choice) for its development in WS 2 and also reimbursement from other developers in the WS 2 area.
The WS 4 Fee is $ 45, 322 per net acre of development and will be levied only in the Watershed 4 area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook will receive fee credits or reimbursement( their choice) for its development in WS 4 and also reimbursement from other developers in the WS 4 area.
The Watet- Tank#] Fee is $ 2, 323 per single- family unit, $ 1, 432 per multi- family unit, and $ 7, 024 per non- residential net acre. The WaterTank# 1 Fee will be levied only in the Water Tank# 1 Fee area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook will receive fee credits for its development in the Water Tank # 1 area and also reimbursement from other developers in the Water Tank# 1 area.
Table 3
CLSP Fee Summary
Fee Per Fee Per
Single- Multi- Fee Per
Reimbursable Family Family Non- Residential
Item Unit Unit Acre
1 Storm Drain System Impro ements - Watershed# 2 Fee 9, 655 3, 361 60, 579 2 Storm Drain System Impro ements - Watershed# 4 Fee na na 45, 322 3 Water Tank# 1 Fee 2, 323 1, 432 7, 024
Tota I
City ofLathrop iv CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The CLSP Fees may be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, revised costs, or changes in land uses, or development plans. In addition to such adjustments, each year the CLSP Fees will be adjusted by the change in the ENR 20- City CCI over the prior calendar year.
The inflation- adjusted facilities and planning costs in this Fee Study are based on the ENR 20- City CCI value for December 2021, which is 12, 481. 8.
ASSEMBLY BILL 602
On September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 was signed into law and became effective starting January 1, 2022. The law establishes additional procedural and transparency requirements on public agencies when establishing new fees or increasing existing development impact fees. AB 602 amends Government Code Sections 65940. 1 and 66019 and adds Government Code Section 66016. 5 and Health and Safety Code Section 50466. 5. Below are some of the most significant requirements imposed by AB 602:
New Requirements For Nexus Studies
When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service ( LOS) for the public facility; identify the proposed new level of service, and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
If a nexus study supports an increase to existing fee, the public agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fee revenue collected under the original fee
Large jurisdictions, for example, counties that have a population greater than 250, 000 residents, must adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus sYudy Nexus studies adopted after 07/ O1/ 22, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing developrnent that is proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development or the nexus study must make findings that an alternative fee calculation methodology creates a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development
This section of the impact fee require nents does not apply to any fees or charges pursuant to Government Code Section 600] 3, which includes water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges
City of Lathrop v CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
New Transparency Requirements For Public Agencies
Fees must be posted to the public agency' s website within 30 days of any change in the fees
Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are required pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 Public agencies must post to their website all nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies that were conducted on or after Jafluary l, 20] 8 New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
Nexus studies must be updated at least every 8 years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022
Nexus studies and impact fees inust be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice ( this is an increase from the current 10 days)
Members of tlle public may submit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insufficient; the public agency must consider all such evidence City of Lathrop vi CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The City of Lathrop is located in the Sacramento central valley, approximately 58 miles south of Sacramento and 80 miles east of San Francisco. When the City incorporated in 1989, its population was approximately 6, 500; as of January 2021, the California Department of Finance estimates the City' s population is 28, 503.
FEES INCLUDED IN FEE STUDY
The City retained Goodwin Consulting Group to assist in establishing fees for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan Area pursuant to the provisions in the Assignment and Amendment of Development Agreement By and Between the City of Lathrop, Saybrook CLSP, LLC and Lathrop Land Acquisition, LLC Relating to the Central Lathrop Specific Plan.
The CLSP Fees presented in this Central Lathrop Specific Plarr ( CLSP) Capital Facilities Fee Study include the following:
CFF for CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements— Watershed 2 CFF for CLSP Storm Drainage Syste n Improvements— Watershed 4 CFF for CLSP Water Tank# 1
MITIGATION FEE ACT( AB 1600
Tlle Mitigation Fee Act, coinmonly known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, was enacted by the State of California in 1987 and created Section 66000 et. seg. of the Government Code. AB 1600 requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements w11en establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval for a development project Identify the purpose ofthe fee
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put
3. Deter nine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
A. The fee' s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
B. The need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Ciry of Lathrop 1 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
C. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facitity attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed
The purpose of this Fee Study is to demonstrate that the fees calculated herein comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The CLSP Storm Drainage System Improvements CFF for Watershed 2, Watershed 4, and Water Tank # 1 CFF were established in accordance with The Mitigation Fee Act. The assumptions, methodologies, facility standards, costs, and cost allocation factors that were used to establish the nexus between the fees and the development on which the fees will be levied are summarized in subsequent chapters of this report.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The remainder of this report has been organized into the fo( lowing chapters:
Chapter 2 Provides a brief summary of the land uses planned for CLSP Chapter 3 Provides an explanation of the fee methodology used to calculate the fees in this Fee Study
Chapters 4- 6 Provide details of the fee calculations for the CLSP WS2 and WS4 Storm Drainage System Improvement CFFs, as well as the Water Tank# 1 CFF
Chapter 7 Discusses the nexus findings for the WS2, WS4, and Water Tank# 1 CFFs
Chapter 8 Summarizes the CLSP Fees calculated in this report Chapter 9 Addresses implementation of the fee program, future fee adjustments, and ad ninistrative duties required by the fee law City of Lathrop 2 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
2. Land Uses in CLSP
CLSP abuts the northern boundary of Mossdale Village and includes 1, 521 gross acres that are planned for 5, 144 residential units and approximately 4. 7 million square feet of commercial space.
The 5, 144 units include 4, 870 single family residential (" SFR") units and 274 multifamily residential (" MFR") units. Saybrook is the primary developer in CLSP. Saybrook estimates that their portion of the CLSP will include a total of 1, 850 residential units, including 1, 576 SFR and 274 MFR units.
Table 4. 0
CLSP Land Use Summary
Key Land Use Acres
VR-CL Vaziable Deas' Residential- CL 703. 1
HR- CL D ' Res+ ential- CL 28. 3
Rt'A fU-CL Reside ial Mixed tFsaCL 45. 2
4CNR O# ce- Commercial Reside ztialf 7. 0
VX' I°P-CL astetivater Treatmcnt Plant- CL
4C- GL Of ce Cammercial- CL 239. 7
I C- CL I' ti barhood Canuntrcial- CL 12. 6
SPC- CL S Gommercial- CL 9
P- SP.I+3'C-CL Publicc:" Senri- Public.+'1 F ' . Coimn`l- CL 11. 2 HS- CL School- CL Sp.O
K-8-CL K-8 Schoal- CL 54. b
CP- GL Comrn ' Park- CL 0.0
NP- CL 1` ci borhood Park- CL 45. 0
OS- CL Levee, S ac, River- CL 93. 8
nda Ma' Raads- CL 92.?
e. sP+ ros A Zsz. o
Source: Cenirat Lathrop Specific Ptan
City ofLathrop 3 CLSP Capital Facilities F'ee Study
Table 4. 1 identifies the net acreage in the CLSP area. The total net acreage does not include public land uses, parks and open space, or major/existing roadways. Several updates to the net acreage have occurred since the CLSP was adopted and these changes have been incorporated into Table
4. 1. For example, an 18- acre site that was previously planned for a K-8 school was rezoned to Variable Density Residential; the City also rezoned 12. 56 acres of park land to residential development; and 5. 76 acres that were planned for Residential Mixed Use were developed as the City' s Generation Center. After incorporating these zoning changes, the total net acreage in the CLSP area equals 1, 128. 6 acres.
Table 41
CLSP Net Acreage Summary
Land Use Acreage ( Net)
Variable Densi Residential VR 747. 0
Hi h Densit Residential HR 2g,;
Residential Mixed Use) R Mll
3 26. 1
Office/ Commercial( Mixed) OCNR 67. 0
Office/ Commercial OC/ VR 239. 7
Nei hborhood Commercial NC I2, 6
S ecialt Commercial SPC 7. 9
CLSP Net Acreage 1128. 6
Net acreage does not include public uses, parks and open space, or major/existing roadways. z Variable Density Residential acreage includes a formerly planned 18- acre K- 8 schoolsite that was rezoned to VR;
13. 34 acres that were planned for Mixed Use Residential, but are developed as Variable Density Residential; and 12. 56 acres that were rezoned from park land to residential development. 3 Residential Mixed Use acreage exludes 19. 1 acres that were planned for R( MU); 13. 34 acres were developed as Variable Density Residential and an additional 5. 76 acres were de loped as the Lathrop Generations Center.
Source: Central Lathrop Specific Plan; MacKay& Somps
City ofLathrop 4 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Exhibit 1 — Map of Central Lathrop Specific Plan
l
Stockton
4 1,
I
j ' L
Q3'
c
S
i
Q
1n.
m 99
J 3
CLSP Area J
N .' '.. . . /
r
Mossdale Village Area i`
r/
j
O!d 9 e,..
f
f
i / ,
a f f! /`
i?,; i i /
yc3' '
3 Pa
dd
P,`
t ath: o:.fi, - ,% ... . Mt311t@C8
2 j`l i
L
S/,
f
J
20 f'•
05 '
S, City of Lathrop Planning
l Area Boundary
Tracy J Sub- Plan Area# 1
o` East Lathrop)
Sub-Pian Area# 2 as
Expressed i the Water
Master Plan
l ": West Central Lathrop)
J / Additional Portioo of
Sub- Pian Area# 2 as
Expressed in the City l General Plan
Sub- Plan Area# 3
Stewart Tract)
City of Lathrop 5 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
3. FEE METHODOLOGY
When impact fees are calculated, an analysis must be presented in enough detail to demonstrate that a logical and thorough consideration was applied in the process of determining how the fees relate to the impacts from new development. Various findings pursuant to the impact fee statute must be made to ensure that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee amount and the impact caused by development on which the fee will be levied. Following is a discussion of the method used in this Fee Study to allocate facilities costs to development and determine the fees in the fee program.
FEE METHODOLOGY
The plan- based fee methodology is used in this Fee Study. This methodology is used for facilities that must be designed based on future demand projections within a geographic location. Typically, a formal plan such as a specific plan, facilities needs assessment, or master plan identifies and supports the leve! of facilities required to serve the plan area. This plan would typically consider the existing facilities already in place and determine what additional facilities would be necessary to accommodate new development. For example, the need for transportation- related improvements depends specifically on the projected number of trips that must be accommodated on specific roadways. An analysis of existing facilities, geographic constraints, and current levels of service must be completed in order to identify the future facility needs. This information is analyzed in conjunction with a projection of the amount and location of future development in the plan area to determine the adequacy of existing facilities and the demand for new improvements that will be required. Depending on the level of existing facilities, the plan- based fee methodology may allocate planned facilities costs to either future development only or to future and existing development. The WS 2, WS 4, and Water Tank# 1 Fees were calculated based on the plan- based methodology. The steps to calculate a fee under the plan- based fee methodology include the following:
Step 1 Identify facilities and estimate future demand for facilities at build out of the plan area.
Step 2 Estimate the cost of facilities needed to serve the future development in the plan area.
Step 3 Subtract revenues available from alternative funding sources, if any, to identify a net facilities cost that will be allocated to future development.
City ofLathrop 6 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Step 4 Select cost allocation factor that will be used to allocate facility costs on a proportional impact basis; apply cost allocation factor to each of the land use categories based on their relative service demand or impact on each type of facility; this Fee Study uses net acres to allocate costs in WS 2 and WS 4 and average daily demand for water( gallons per day) for Water Tank# 1. Additionally, for the WS 2 Fee, costs are broken down by the net acreage associated with planned land uses in the WS 2 Area.
Step 5 If applicable, estimate the total iinpact from future development by multiplying the total number of units/ acres for each respective land use by its cost altocation factor.
Sum the total cost allocation factors for each land use category.
Step 6 Determine the percentage distribution of the cost allocation factors for each land use category by dividing the total of the cost allocation factors for each land use category by the total of all cost allocation factors for all land use categories.
Step 7 Multiply the percent distribution for each land use category, as determined in Step 6, by the total facilities cost to determine the portion of the facility cost that is allocated to each land use catego y.
Step 8 Divide the facilities cost that is aliocated to each land use category, as determined in Step 7, by the number of units/ acres to determine the facilities fees.
City ofLathrop 7 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
l. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS— WATERSHED 2 CFF
Section 7. 05. 4. of the DA states that Saybrook shall provide storm drain facilities adequate to accommodate the storm water runoff from the areas that it develops. Section 5. 05. 3 requires the City to establish a finance mechanism to allocated development its fair share project costs and reimburse Saybrook for any oversizing of facilities. All developable acres in WS 2 will be subject to the WS 2 CFF. This section of the report identifies the land acreage, costs, and the CFF rates required to fund the reimbursement of storm drainage infrastructure costs for Watershed 2.
WATERSHED 2 FACILITIES AND COSTS
Storm Drain system improvements for WS 2 were constructed by the Prior Developer and/ or Saybrook and consist of various size pipelines, manholes, one quarter of the total pump station cost and costs associated with right- of-way acyuisition, contingencies, and design, plan checic, bonding, stakin', and inspection. The original facilities cost was $ 6, 321, 210 in 20l 7; but the City identified additional facilities totaling $ 1, 245, 930 in 2021. These costs were inflated using the ENR 20- City CCI to $ 8, 868, 508 in 2022 dollars. Furthermore, a quarter of a pump station' s cost see Table 5), equal to $ 869, 000 was added to the tota( cost. Table 6 on the following page shows the total cost of WS 2 facilities is $ 9, 737, 508.
Table 5
Additional Pump Station Costs
2017 - Saybrook Contact to Auburn 270, 000
Change Orders to Auburn Contract 2, 834, 548
r__--__----------_
Total Amount Paid to Auburn by 2017 Saybrook Contract 3, 104, 548 Sale of Equipment to Crow Holdings ( City ordered Removal) 254, 625) Amount Paid to TESCO by SFA 91, 950
Amount Paid to GENERAC by SFA 23, 214
Amount Paid to SHAPE by SFA 28, 965
Amount Paid to CRUMP by SFA 120, 971
Amount Paid to Rain for Rent by SFA 14, 931
Amount Paid to ARNAUDO by SFA 39, 000
Total Paid outside ofAuburn Contract by SFA
Y$
64, 407
Total Additional Cost Beyond 2006 Contract ( 2019 $) 3, 168, 955 Total Additional Cost Beyond 2006 Contract ( 2022 $) 3, 475, 470 1/ 4 ofAdditional Cost added to DA Pump Station Cost ( rounded) 869, 000 City ofLathrop 8 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Table 6
Watershed 2 Costs
Item Unit Unit Cost QTY item Sub- Total
A. Storm Drain System WS2 ( 2017$)
54" SD Pipe LF 150 1699 $ 254,850
72" SD Pipe LF 220 3347 $ 736, 340
90" SD Pipe LF 350 3737 $ 1, 307, 950
Manholes EA 5, 000 33 $ 165, 000
SD Pump Station for WS2( l/ 4 of total cost) LS 1, 750,000 1 $ 1, 750,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL( 2017$) 4, 214, 140
B. Storm Drain System WS2 Soft Costs ( 2017$)
Right of Way Acquisition SF 2. 00
Contingencies 30% 1, 264,242
Design/ Plan Check/ Bonding/ Staking Inspection 20% 842, 828 SOFT COST SUBTOTAL( 2017$) 2, 107, 070
C. Storm Drain System WS2 ( 2021 $)
Saddlc Type Manhole EA I5,000 6 $ 90, 000
72" RCP Storm Drain Pipe LF 330 3321 $ ], 095, 930
Storm Drain Manifold Structure EA 30, 000 2 $ 60,000
90° RCP Storm Drain Pipe LF 500 98 $ 49,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL( 2021 $) 1, 294, 930
TOTAG WS2 CONSTRUCTION AND SOFT COSTS( 2017 Dollars) ( A B) 6,321, 210 TOTAL WS2 CONSTRUCTIONAND SOFT COSTS( 2021 Dollars) ( C) 1, 294,930 TOTAL WS2 ( 2022 Dollars) 8, 868, 508
1/ 4 ofAdditional Costs For Pump Station 869, 000
TOTAL WS2: 9, 737, 508
Soto ce: MncKuy c Snmps; Cioodwin Con.sidGnK Groirp
WATERSHED 2 FEE SERVICE AREA
WS 2 has 160. 7 total net acres; ownership and acreage for each parcel are shown in Table 1 of Appendix A. The total net acreage excludes parcels that are owned by the City, an area zoned as a future park, and estimated acreage of public roads. The area is planned for variable and high density residential and office/commercial.
City ofLathrop 9 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
WS 2 FEE
The WS 2 Fee was caiculated on a per- developable acre basis by dividing the total cost of WS 2, 9, 737, 508, by the 160. 7 net acreage in the Watershed 2. This calculation results in a per- acre fee of$ 60, 579. This fee was then allocated to the anticipated land uses in WS 2 based on the acreage planned for Single- Family, Multi- Family, and Non- Residential Land Uses, and a per- unit fee was calculated for the residential land uses based on the expected density of development. Table 7 below shows the allocation of the per- acre fee to the various land uses.
Table 7
Watershed 2 Fee Allocation to Estimated Land Uses
Estimated
Net % of Net Allocated Density Number of Fee per
Land Use Acreage Acreage Cost ( UnitslAcre) Units UniUAcre per Unit
r Unit per Unit
Single- Family 43. 19 26.87°/o $ 2, 616, 401 6. 3 271 9, 655 Multi- Family 13. 65 8. 49% 826, 902 18. 0 246 3, 361
per Acre per Acre per Acre
Non- Residential 103. 90 64. 64% $ 6, 294, 205 N/ A N/ A 60, 579 Total 160. 74 100. 00% $ 9, 737, 508 517
Sources: MacKay& Somps; City of Lathrop
City ofLathrop 10 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
S. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS— WATERSHED 4 CFF
This section of the report identifies the land acreage, costs, and the CFF rate required to fund the reimbursement of storm drainage infrastructure costs for Watershed 4.
WATERSHED 4 FACILITIES AND COSTS
Storm drain system improvements for WS 4 were constructed by the Prior Developer and/ or Saybrook and consist of various size pipelines, manholes, one quarter of the total pump station cost and costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, contingencies, and design, plan check, bonding, staking, and inspection. The original facilities cost was $ 5, 286, 045 in 2017; but the City identified additional facilities totaling $ 899, 130 in 2021. These costs were inflated using the ENR 20- City CCl to $ 7, 221, 006 in 2022 dollars. Additionally, one quarter of a pump station' s costs, equal to $ 869, 000, was added to the cost. Table 8 on the following page details the total cost of WS 4 facilities is $ 8, 090, 006.
City ofLathrop I1 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Table 8
Watershed 4 Costs
Item Unit Unit Cost QTY Item Sub- Total
A. Storm Drain System WS4 ( 2017$)
54" SD Pipe LF 150 457 $ 68, 550
60" SD Pipe LF 175 270 $ 47, 250
72" SD Pipe LF 220 3839 $ 844,580
84" SD Pipe LF 280 640 $ 179, 200
90" SD Pipe LF 350 1627 $ 569, 450
Manholes EA 5, 000 Li $ 65, 000
SD Pump Station for WS4( 1/ 4 of total cost) LS 1, 750,000 1 $ 1, 750, 000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL( 2017$) 3, 524, 030
B. Storm Drain System WS4 Soft Costs ( 2017$)
Right of Way Acquisition SF 2. 00
Contingencies 30% 1, 057, 209. 00
Design/ Plan Check/ Bonding/ Staking Inspection 20% 704, 806. 00 SOFT COST SUBTOTAL( 2017$) 1, 762, 015
C. Storm Drain System WS4 ( 2021 $)
Saddle Type Manhole EA 15,000 6 $ 90, 000
72" RCP Storm Drain Pipe LF 330 2361 $ 779, 130
Storm Drain Manifold Structure F,A 30,000 1 $ 30, 000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL( 2021 $) 899, 130
TOTAL WS4 CONS7RUCTlON AND SOP7' COSTS( 2017 Dollm•s) ( A+ B) 5, 286, 04 TOTAL WS4 CONSTRUCTIONAND SOFT COSTS( 2021 Dollars) ( C) 899, 130 70TAL WS4 ( 2022 Dollars) 7,221, 006
1/ 4 of Additional Costs For Pum Station 869, 000
TOTAL WS4: 8, 090, 006
Soairce. MacKny& Somps; Goodtivin ConszJting Groig
WATERSHED 4 FEE SERVICE AREA
WS 4 has 178. 5 total net acres; ownership and acreage for each parcel are shown in Table 1 in Appendix A. The total net acreage excludes parcels that are owned by the City, a parcel zoned as a future park, and estimated acreage of public roads. The area is planned for office/ commercial.
City of Lathrop 12 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
WS 4 FEE
The WS 4 Fee was calculated on a per- developable acre basis by dividing the total cost of WS 4, 8, 090, 006, by the 178. 5 net acreage in the Watershed 4. This calculation results in a per- acre fee of$ 45, 322.
WS 2 AND WS 4 BOUNDARIES
Exhibit 2 on the following pages shows the boundaries of WS2 and WS 4.
City ofLathrop 13 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Exhibit 2- WS 2 and WS 4 Boundaries
xk..,,, 4 . ., aor, STC7f2M DRAIN SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
y--
x
cexra. i: uxr n srecirzc rv eawuar
r i; y
t
w. y3 ".^ t" 1
t
53 if
t
DE UW R04s
A`.
4 _
1,....
3 '^, w'
7w» ^
4, p" j ',
x;.,
jt ` r a
fF
r w
r .,: . . „".`
y Y' ! r
Ml. i!!+ l-l-+l,rir s aa as rr rt rs - -,' -=-, --` '*
s
w `
s w,„,, . , .
w
a a»;,. ,, -
kti'., v$ il S , r ' q
T
rwra'
y
m E
p.
e
y
a rx ' qa gq,'.,.
µ ,.,..,...,.. . r.+.. / . ._"
1, r . p...:.
vr d fi l; t b ,..
i
y`.
t .
t t> . Nn
f
w. . ' r,.: 8" a' f '
t
yr ,.
Ht. J..... e. ._.'..
T ( rx
i t r,
i*,
r" j ,
i
Yr
j,
E f` x
y
p,~ :.
i_ wr Qir
j1
S f
4 attfN }
m,
m
y TM :.
4r r+ ' ' x 5'' r x
a w
s t i
j
i a9' ,
w '`
r , ' ,} z: m
g.
a
y?"./ n5fi,
uA' i NiQ" 4. a , q • q$ s:+
7 k. k SnYtt t 4 2 t QY, v J';
r;
t_
s "
a,
p
d tr rr rc* mto wuvausY
a aa s; t, .
aS AJN z° n 5'.,, a{, 3 < s+. c 1. .` ac a. MINNY
a .». K Ixr' 1R+: Y' JWf1 C J3S. : 1M1 ,, s'. 7>
iDA P G." T CItY Oj dA7F rV tV". 7 aC iG1Ury KDdC4MtSA
ki91.?. Q. SI GS2T: iM 4A1M4 Yi. V PG! y
a
kIH,. ' P;:•' ltiJMt¢ i4
iDf. t?R•' B IAT# OP: i i1C94113:": Spu
O*• a:; wxen Wel
ge{. i at ,."°^' 3 , E' 1> w cxw. t wnvu
141. 7 0- ttl IATsMW aM1D CrJ787 i4ti 4' 1. 4+ Lf , .
an• a< . wzarvca ranwti
14t Z+ 0• Y'D UtMKr': N Aqti7$:+ kW ( O. t G7 {.,
J:. :. aarctx.
i t I+O. Ti L# hiqP: M6 C'yJi5:' 70N { X2. 6 Ki a
e.; turxc. y
tOt. t78. 7 IAT a1N1 l iYJIBi? tOw q20. 4 AC!+, ?: tf v ea u.., eercfitzac ix v r.
tCi• 7' 0• 7! 4AtMMp!' VA[ CAdISRIiw t" Y. b Cf' 7` .,,., iS'_ h , F..a c- a:. r wx SY1. ytQ•" S1Y Of ' JI FMtP Z. M'. M3J. P% b i l. R($. 1it. .
W 9: 1Cs
ir. xso. x utw; o, usa, sa to. o^. ac ,. o o.:*.
wp"
1wr. n. rr. wrr
19f ST0. 29 CSTY OF: ATI# C1 Y/ L3 4.. 7CQ.. A.. AMJfJ: N S AEa 7.' 1', uE3YlMCCQ/'/ NI 7ft. P40-' M I. T+MKt tM¢ X.AfJS' SCW C1. 6 at! A. X:Q. rr ,: bl vr6a SrkMfB 11, 8. E t wct. i+t+ fq1. 270di, AS+ K,V' iMt7 M OUxB." ipY {. 5 4f Y• ZGO• iNx! K/ if NAI' dN.ME3 It, 4 M tit 3? O. Yd Cttt M: AtMCP t+ a. e»
t,.
xa. i ur,nnr wn, Kzu: a: xear t. IGt ,
i i. TtC. A1 41TM10f GNC I J13 3SOM ( ti 6+ LI d 4i. 240. J9 G'sT'+ OF 41TMq9 ta! hG1 yd (+ g z tP6t? 4-! e UTMIO tNO riWU711: 410M < 5. 0 Kf + 9a. 4- 3t tA TewIW tl,Np: 1. S9Frt Ift.O aCY 1. z2a6{'$` a e e "'., " . • h
t t. 1+ 0- i5 U7 M101' J1ri t U73i7i{ N f20. 6 AC! i f. 2C04t 4S+ Y V t. Vw10 F0. 9.+ W) , K+c. urk' s rS e+ XSi+ ES tfa. S 111. 2 O. b CTri i7f UIMGI' l6.0 KI ^ b!!+ 2CA. T Lit"Mql' WC II rJIIBTttp Itp.{ AC) itit. T^ C O 1. ATM lMt3#. C:ISBS'; Y tt9. S Kl ti1. 4tO. M I.AD q iM0 AC ut3Iti0N St2 t MCI 04• 2CA• 4 U' M 0 UJO ACOU23: t[p ItS AC) 19t-?= 6• 26 tATrN10r tt+4 t1YJiS7`; Ur f 9. 0 CI t# 1.?! 0- 1r1 LATMy tM1t t 173S' IfN ( it. 7 bGi A?• 1"CA• 25 U' M 01' WD h AJ: EnSCW 1. 5 AC7 ,, Ht. Mp. tO NYb MJO+ t CzZd". lC, E) f2. Iii kY1. 7t0• 40 UTMiSq' tN U i 1JS7T24r { 0. 7 M7t Y- YC0 27 tA' eN0 tN0 ACUIJSESTYQK 7. riC,) } 19f41C•! f S YMY4K CASA ttC ttQ. S LI V1. 1tQ. a U1 Mq tMD 9:JIRS SCA ftir. i Cf,° Of. 2CC. t! UTN UU IAVD+ k('J: S. xIM In. O. G)' 1Y. YlC. s7 1AYlK' YJR Ci%P tlC {. 0+ Ct IQI•? t0. 0 LATMq;. AFG iC# iIS: TlQlt ( f. ACI: eY'. 1LC.? D LA' MIO I.AIIG XAJ: SSTICk I6. 0. 4C) f. 19f. YJC• t! A%AYI' 7Jr il5*' l.lL (». Y N) ip1• T' Q tJ tAY lp;.. t a IS:- ION fb NCI ' A'-• xC' 40 tA+ l lJ L# MG. RSSTTCM t. 0! C , 19t. Z2C. t 0p5+£ 3 NMN 11 1 C'. e k1 t91• it0- St 11A1( i[;, W76ICD 9f 00t 015711ICT SH, ki; 9t- 2Cp• S1 iAT MiO. NC KSAJ752Ftp tl. K) ' f47. t2C. td Op RC: 1 MIICM 1 1 (.'! NC) t tit. YN. tr X t2. 4 KI '." 9. YCtl. 92 La' Mq Wtl KAJ35. 710K Il. r) D f9t.? 7q. Xt tAu N. S Cl i u. xio. raar n tn, a asr se. xcn. o u-++a uw nttu: s xza F. s, c , ia. no. s4 c rr ac un+ao to.+ ca 1Y1. 1] G•] il NWTfL1 UiifiEO! Ol7fA Oi3T11ICT ZS. S AG{ r44. 2C0. 3 U4# MO LIJ l: S Qf (' l. i AL) iitti• tM 30 GUT X Uk'1MIM f0. 1 CI t 17r4M• 0G MwttG WlvitYT lGni9l Ql tllltir fT{. Kt}`- A• 2C0• ri CA' MiO t.N10 A4+7U23Ixt0rt 6p) i» t. 224.'. l 1 Cctt P unM O. C2 Awl 141. YsC. 3G USttq f42. t K{'- v9t. 2CA.! UrMq WO ACf3J' aS: FtOry IId 4) 1f• 3 57 GfTY^ JF lAtSNt f. 0 AC1 tY1. 7M. 0 IM tt. T K) s4'. 2 O. J7 UF MG WYD+ O: Xt7; 6: tCd1 UA K) t4t. 11C-! d 41Tv tM' U*kNC1 tt. J Ki p' if1. 7N. N NYMqC1t CLE/ ttt H4t7{ S N*. ID Y C.! 4CI k 4t. 7CC•! tA; iNiP tJQU a^ pJ; b4Ttp I. i Jl3 197• Y1C- 58 Y% 33. 5 MRCN f3 Q htl 14A• 770• 43 14Yi YJY Cf. E ttC d4t6'f lYf. Ip} ( d. d ACI : tq- 7C0- 59 U{' MO CHq+ kAJT$ Itf.ryt ( p.{ fa") iqt. 7"c+:. a.t CCS af: S MACk 4 7 { YS. 7 ACI 4w- Y20• N ti uq. lr ItEfN tgi. iC. i 1 AC{ 9+-9Cb- s0 tA+ C K. D, C9u#3i td i. 0 tf sie+ cra: ea rl. rc5 tt,.' 3c. ar aru cv t, e. a re) ss,. x uar urw or w u kouss: zta i a. i. w rs. sc= .,: os, ra^ rv,. rsa ac ccrr aF un cr t+s. ci+ sn. x+ n- oe u+ acr i+uin cau: s; rca ru. r+ , a. r.o• sa csrr tr, na cP o., u ,, sr. r.o• x u* aar wn 4au. atstd ti. a, r ror c. t+ as. n rci to, x I se. a
1 SC bYqC, Y! 7J. bQ KI* JlC: C dtNkEtt
j
126. g x. ""' LR1 ' NIMMEI1t lt7IM![ YO1kM
YLtA , jN n 4"7,
2 .. tS..,,. :. R' fs M....; 5».
City of Lathr•op 14 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Exhibit 2— WS 2 and WS 4 Boundaries ( Continued)
ar,• c,.,,,• .:•, STORM DRAIN SY3TEM lhtPRO fEMENTS sregr2t s M.
m
ce t, c
s
1 w'," <t
x. r, c = i x. s+ cc
a
ut /
r x,-. a.
r r
1 1- l1i.-10
1 Y. '' — e w ..
w
1A' li,c SNCC#
g
k ...
lX l kAW:'
a.: A€ A
1 t4i. 2ibY# t'
r , r•=„
3`.A+t
i,+ Rt,A
t ,,'
t ,;
r' ' 1 ' St hG _ . "! ' f- 1tiATfP:rrKO s'
r,` tyt.
6 7
q,
y °. C`-° .., 9s. a a{
i ' _ ` , a1` 64TS ka:` ve
X i}ix.
r;° .,
e
rx.. . „-, W ' ,.
a..,., g ^°
P#'..,,''/!^" C _
191- 220- 14 .+
te ._ 4,,
r C...,. .° n;
v^-.. s...__.. _....._.._ ,..»_ ' ,
y' r+
v:'.
r ..',/ f8`. :,
g µy — °
y
1+9t, tzty, C e) '
a a ss
x
s ac
a a.
ta;.;
5 y
i
a , +
k
q 4 S::
dF;. ,
t,
p
a , y
s
ar
y 4
r d
t .,; .
t r
s .-
t s ' '
x S"#
za- o
ACKAYBcSIDmPS
p
a u e n R K R E N R r — T . A . 306 No: 252Ct. 00t7 D+ TE C6zo20 4 City of Lathr op
1 S CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
6. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS— WATER TANK# I CFF
This section of the report identifies the land acreage, costs, and the CFF rates required to fund the reimbursement of Water Tank# 1 costs.
WATER TANK# 1 FACILITIES AND COSTS
Water Tank # 1 was constructed by Saybrook and consists of the water tank, site improvements, and other equipment for Water Tank # L The total cost was $ 4, 774, 309 in 2021. This cost was inflated using the ENR 20- City CCI to $ 5, 071, 773 in 2022 dollars. Table 9 below shows a summary of Water Tank# 1 costs.
Table 9
Summary of Water Tank# 1 Costs
Item Cost
A. SITEWORK/ GRADING/ PAVING 1, 089, 500
B. YARD PIPING 455, 000
C. 1. 6 MG STEEL RESERVOIR 859, 000
D. CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS 297, 000
E. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 483, 000
F. MECHANICAL WORK 545, 000
G. HYllROPNUEMATIC TANK SYSTEM 150, 000
H. CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM 23, 000
I. OWNER SUPPLIED GENERATOR 17, 000
JL INSTRUMENTS/ POWER/ CONTROL 409, 000
J2. ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION 250,000
K. CHANGE ORDERS 196, 809
TOTAL WATER TANK# 1 COSTS ( 2021 Dollars) ( A-K) 4,774, 309 TOTAL WATER TANK# 1 COSTS ( 2022 Dollars) 5, 071, 773
TOTAL WATER TANK# 1: 5, 071, 773
Source: MacKay& Somps; Goodwin Consulting Group
City ofLaihrop 16 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Stzrdy
WATER TANK# 1 SERVICE AREA
The Water Tank# 1 service area covers approximately 500 acres within the CLSP area. The Water Tank # 1 service area is planned for variable density residential, mixed- use residential, neighborhood cominercial, and office/ commercial. More specifically, the development plan includes 1, 610 single- family units, 274 multi-family units, and 133. 7 net acres of land for nonresidential uses.
WATER TANK# 1 FEE
The Water Tank # 1 Fee was calculated on a per- unit and per- developable acre basis by dividing the total cost of Water Tank# 1, ($ 5, 071, 773), by the total expected average water demand in the area, 938, 720 gallons per day. This produces a total cost which is then allocated to the various land use types in the area based on their relative average demand for water. This calculation results in a fee of $2, 323 per single- family unit, $], 432 per multi- family unit, and $ 7, 024 per nonresidential net acre. Table ] 0 below shows the calculation of the Water Tank# 1 Fee.
Table 10
Water Tank# 1 Fee
Tank# 1 Total Cost( 2022$) 5, 071, 773
Average Day
Estimated Demand Total Est. of
Number of Factor Demand Total Allocated Fee per
Land Use Units/ Acres ( Gallons/ Day) ( GallonslDay)
e
Demand Cost UniUAcre
r Unit e r Unit
r Unit
Single- Family 1, 610 430 692, 300 73. 75% $ 3, 740, 400 2, 323 Multi- Family 274 265 72, 610 7. 74% $ 392, 302 1, 432
per Acre per Acre per Acre
Non- Residential 133. 7 1300 173, 810 18. 52% $ 939, 071 7, 024 Total 938, 720 100. 00% $ 5, 071, 773
1. As shown on Stanford Crossing - Water Tank# 1 - Development Area Exhibit dated 4/ 20/ 2018. Single- Family category includes LDR and MDR zoning desigations.
Sources: MacKay& Somps; City ofLathrop
City ofGathrop 17 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Stvdy
WATER TANK# 1 AREA BOUNDARIES
The colored areas shown in Exhibit 3 below identify the parcels, and their expected land L ses, in the Water Tank# 1 service area as well as the boundaries of the service area.
Exhibit 3 — Water Tank# 1 Service Area Boundaries
STANFORD CROSSING- WATER TANK# 1- DEVELOPMENT AREA EXHIBIT O Fi 1
oa2o
p-^ t P
i
j
na
R
ROM
r
F-,. .. ._ T . T .. _ 1
QE IIhIA_ _
t,
u. T )
L
w.
i
t
J ,
e= ---- „
a..
g .. obs Rets Aono
t '
Y
9 f
i
s
x
a,;,,
n....., ».
x rv.,
PROPQSFD TANK SITE '* '"`" Q
9 IATN ON ROAD ... __..__
y.:
i ' W ,
4.' i:
e
r
E {
S
n'' Pf '.
8,. z
i
y Y. t5 r
r`$P,
e ae
kL
y'' y..'x'" q
4 Aty3
i
F
i
1 Y
q
vn.
r ri. e
S
C
i. / d
E ENo a r
A? N& OWNER v" ti a .,
CLSPBOlINOARY i ,_" c :
EX FtIGHT-OFWAY( GISPp i.. ".
EX. RIGHT-0E- WAY j
1 a .
v x a°'
MANTHBYROADEASEMENT w „ r .
OFRtiE l COMMERICIAL l
LOWDENSITYRESIDENTIRL
rtIVER IBLANoS PiSun
P`".....' MEDWMDENSIIYRESfDEN? IAL T : M ,^, y.w-..,
iucri oeHsm ftesioErvTu, r u,, _ W•++, Y
P.4RK5 F " .
n
STREET9CAPE AND OPEN SPACE PARGELS t
5' E(.' IALTYCOh^.MERCIAL e Yf PR, t ._ . F a f ", : .+ CLSP Say6rook Developmen[ 6rea cdown G SP-$ dybr00k WaY2r Demend Trae 364] Te rcative Map,_.,_ _ __ Land Usr # ot DU OR ' A erage Day Demand Average Day Demand
pq - - e01DU n< res
facror gpd/ duorWd/ AC iGailons)
M R
Z
LOR 1371 DU 430 589530 GPD
Tran3789TeMaNveMap MDR 239DU 330 73870 GPD
jjq n) 3oU
HDR 274DU 265 72610 GPO
Gut reHOR 191- 210- 17 Offlcefommertlal 133.] AC 1300 1] 3Ri0 GP HDR_ 274
Pa kS 56. 8 AC 3500 1YN800 GP
Assumes2pdu/ aco e 1}" lac ...... ......
Tract 396] Former K8) 0 h Tenroenre Map
Streetscape.. . 23. 8 AC 3500 _... & 3300 GPD
1196920 GPD
L R 103DU T TA
1. 19692 MGO
SPC 191 21630
Pru seE LDR 4a OU ' Note: Average Day DemaM per EKI" Water System Master Plan" dated lanuary 2018 Table A- 4 assumes 5. du ac ouer 7. 8ac
TT'f,T
o z o mac u Y somps
ENGMEER9 PUNNER9 SURVEYORS
v I ',:. i:.:. ---' . a. .,: a•:.. nn... +.. . .. . . , ...
JD6,N0- 25201. 000 DATE. 04. 20. 2018
Ciry ofLathrop 18 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
7. NEXUS FINDINGS
Development in the CLSP wi(I create a need for public facilities. The CFF program wil( provide funding for public facilities in accordance with the policies and goals set forth by the City. As required pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the CFFs calculated in this Fee Study meet the nexus requirements of the law, as outlined below.
NEXUS TEST
Purpose of the Fees
The purpose of the CFF fees is to provide funding for the storm drainage system and water system infrastructure identified in this Fee Study.
Use of Fee
CFF revenue will be used to fund storm drainage infrastructure and water storage infrastructure that has been identified by the City as necessary to serve new development in the CLSP.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Residential and non-residential developmeiit will generate additional demand for the infrastructure and facilities identified in this Fee Study. The facilities, infrastructure improvements, and capacity enhancements included in this Fee Study will ensure that the City will maintain the desired level of service standards that are identified for the facility categories included in this Fee Study.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee' s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
CFF revenue collected will rei nburse the Developer for the storm drainage and water storage facilities that have already been constructed and oversized for other development. These facilities will serve development in the CLSP and the proposed fees in this Fee Study are a fair share cost allocation based on the impact that futui-e development will have on these facilities ai d improvements. Separate CFF accounts will be established to ensure that fee revenue is applied to the infrastructure and facilities for which it is collected.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
City ofLathrop 19 CLSP Capital F'acilities F'ee Study
A reasonable relationship between the amount of each CFF and the cost of the public facility, or portion thereof, is established in this Fee Study through the proportionate allocation of costs based on the amount of developable acreage. As a result, each property is allocated its fair share of the cost based on its impact.
By assigning the demand for infrastructure and facilities based on the developable acreage of each parcel and quantifying that demand in the calculation of the CFFs, a reasonable relationship is established between the amount ofthe fee and the cost of the facilities attributable to properties in the CLSP area.
AB 6O2 AND RESIDENTIAL CFF RATES
WS2andWS4CFF
The City' s current residential WS 2 and WS 4 CFFs, as well as the proposed CFFs in this Fee Study, are based on the size of the parcels of single family and multifamily lots. By linking the parcel size of future residential development and the cost of the future drainage facilities needed, a reasonable relationship can be established between the impact of each type of development and the portion ofthe cost offuture drainage facilities attributed to each development type. The portion of the cost of the future drainage facilities attributed to each residential unit of deve( opment can then be used to determine the fee per single family and nultifamily unit. However, AB 602, Section 66016. 5( a)( 5)( A) of the Government Code ( GC), states that, A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development..."
The AB 602 goes on to further state that a nexus study does not need to comply with Section ( A) above if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
i) An explanation as to why the square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development.
ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
City of Lathr•op 20 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
The City' s engineering staff has concluded that using the parcel size of residential land uses to allocate storm drainage facilities costs provides a sound methodology of establishing a reasonable relationship between the WS 2 and WS 4 CFFs and the burden posed by development because storm water runoff is directly related to the size of the property. For example, the larger the land area of a parcel, the more storm water runoff will be created by the parcel and visa versa. However, the residential building sc uare footage does not have a direct relationship to the amount of runoff that is created and therefore it is not an appropriate metric to calculate the WS 2 and WS 4 CFFs.
To address item( iii) above, the CFFs proposed in this Fee Study ensures that smaller developments will pay their proportionate fair share of fees since the CFFs are based on the size of the land area.
As a result, smaller developments will have less land area and therefore pay proportionately less in fees.
Water Tank# 1 CFF
The proposed Water Tank# 1 CFFs are based on the estimated water demand, in terms of average gallons per day, of single family and multifamily lots. By linking the water demand of future residential development and the cost of the water facility needed, a reasonable relationship can be established between the impact of each type of development and the portion of the cost of future water tank facility attributed to each development type. The portion of the cost of the water tank facility attributed to each residential unit of development can then be used to determine the fee per single fami( y and multifamily unit.
However, AB 602 states that the fees must be proportionate to the square footage of the residential units of the development unless an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
The City' s engineering staff has concluded that using the water demand of residential uses, as determined in technical engineering studies, to allocate water facilities costs provides a sound methodology for establishing a reasonable relationship between the water CFFs and the burden posed by residential development because tl e water usage of various develop nent types determines the size of water facilities. However, the residential building square footage does not have a direct relationship to the amount of water demand for residential buildings and therefore is not an appropriate metric to calculate the Water Tank# 1 CFF.
The Water Tank # 1 CFFs proposed in this Fee Study ensure that smaller developments will pay their proportionate fair share of fees since the CFFs are based on the water demand. Smaller developments will have a smaller water demand and therefore pay proportionately less in fees.
City ofLathrop 21 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
8. FEE SUMMARY
FEE SCHEDULE
Table l 1 below summarizes the proposed CLSP Fees and identifies the areas that will be subject to the fees.
The WS 2 Fee is $ 9, 655 per single- family unit ( including both LDR and MDR zoning designations), $ 3, 361 per multi- family unit( including the HDR zoning designation), and $ 60, 579 per non- residential net acre. The WS 2 Fee will be levied only in the Watershed 2 area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook will receive its choice of fee credits or reimbursement for its development in the WS 2 area.
The WS 4 Fee is $ 45, 322 per net acre of development and will be levied only in the Watershed 4 area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook will receive its choice of fee credits or reimbursement for its development in the WS 4 area.
The Water Tank # 1 Fee is $ 2, 323 per single- family unit ( including both LDR and MDR zoning designations), $ 1, 432 per multi- family unit ( including the HDR zoning designation), and $ 7, 024 per non- residential net acre. The Water Tank# 1 Fee will be levied only in the Water Tank# 1 CFF area. Because Saybrook and/ or the Prior Developer funded these costs, Saybrook will receive its choice of fee credits or reimbursement for its development in the Water Tank# 1 area.
Table 11 - CLSP Fee Summary
Fee Per Fee Per
Single- Multi- Fee Per
Reimbursable Family Family Non- Residential
Item Unit Unit Acre
1 Storm Drain System Impro4ements - Watershed# 2 Fee 9, 655 3, 361 60, 579 2 Storm Drain System Impro, ements - Watershed# 4 Fee na na 45, 322 3 Water Tank# 1 Fee 2, 323 1, 432 7, 024
Tota I
City ofLathrop 22 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
AB 602
Table 11 shows that the proposed WS 2 and WS 4 CFFs shown in Table 11 are higher than the City' s current WS 2 and WS 4 CFFs. Pursuant to AB 602, if a fee study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the fee study supporting the original fee and eva( uate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
This Fee Study and City staff support increasing the original WS 2 and WS 4 Fees that were adopted by the Lathrop City Council in June 2019 because additional stonn drainage pipes and related pipe facilities were required to complete the storm drainage systems in these two water sheds. The City identified these additional storm drainage pipes based on improvement and grading plans prepared in 2021 by its engineering consultant Mackay and Somps. The additional CFF revenues resulting from these proposed CFFs will allow the City to reimburse the developer that constructed these facilities.
City ofLathrop 23 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
9. FEEPROGRAMADMINISTRATION
FEE IMPLEMENTATION
According to the California Government Code, prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee, a public agency must hold at least one open and public meeting; a public notice for this meeting must be posted at least 30 days prior to the meeting. At least 10 days prior to this meeting, the agency must make data on facility costs and funding sources available to the public. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, and a general explanation of the matter, are to be published in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code. The Fee Study and fees established herein will be adopted througl a City ordinance and resolution. Once the fee program is adopted by the Lathrop City Council, it shall become effective no sooner than sixty days after the final legislative action.
FEE ADJUSTMENTS
The CLSP Fees will be adjusted in future years to reflect revised facility standards, receipt of fu lding from alternative sources ( i. e., state or federal grants), revised costs, or changes in land uses or development plans . In addition to such adjustments, each year the CLSP Fees will be adjusted by the change in the Engineering News Record 20- City CCI over the prior calendar year.
This Fee Study adjusted costs in this report based on the ENR 20- City CCI value of 12, 481. 8 for December 2021.
ASSEMBLY B1LL 602
On September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 was signed into law and became effective starting January 1, 2022. The law establishes additional procedural and transparency requirements on public agencies when establishing new fees or increasing existing development impact fees. AB 602 amends Government Code Sections 65940. 1 and 66019 and adds Government Code Section 66016. 5 and Health and Safety Code Section 50466. 5. following are some of the most significant requirements imposed by AB 602:
New Requirements For Nexus Studies
When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service ( LOS) for the public facility; identify the proposed new level of service, and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
City ofLathrop 24 CLSP Capital Faeilities Fee Study
If a nexus study supports an increase to existing fee, the public agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fee revenue collected under the original fee
Large jurisdictions, for example, counties that have a population greater than 250,000 residents, must adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study Nexus studies adopted after 07/ O1/ 22, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development that is proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development or the nexus study must make frndings that an alternative fee calculation methodology creates a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development
This section of the impact fee requirements does not apply to any fees or charges pursuant to Government Code Section 60013, which includes water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges
New Transparency Requirements For Public Agencies
Fees must be posted to the public agency' s website within 30 days of any change in the fees
Public agencies must post to their website the current and five previous annual impact fee accounting reports that are rec uired pursuant to Government Code Secfion 66006 Public agencies must post to their website all nexus studies, cost of service studies, or equivalent studies that were conducted on or after January 1, 2018 New Nexus Study Procedural Requirements
Nexus studies must be updated at least evei-y 8 yeacs, from the period beginning on Janua y 1, 2022
Nexus studies and impact fees must be adopted at a public hearing with at least a 30 day notice ( this is an increase from the current l0 days)
Members of the public may sub nit evidence that the nexus findings in the nexus study are insufficient; the public agency must consider all such evidence City ofLathf op 25 CLSP Capital Facalities Fee Study
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES
The Government Code requires a public agency to report, every year and every fifth year, certain financial information regarding their impact fees. Within 180 days after the] ast day of each fiscal year the public agency must make the following information available for the past fiscal year:
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund b) The amount of fee revenue
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund d) The amount of fee revenue collected and interest earned e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of public improvement that was funded with fees An identification of an approximate date by which time construction on the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement g) A description of each intei•fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, when it will be repaid and at what interest rate
h) The amount of any refunds made once it is determined that sufficient monies have been collected to fund all projects
The public agency must make this information available for public review and must also present it at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public.
FIFTH- YEAR ADM[ NISTRATIVE DUTIES
For the fifth year following the first deposit into the fee account and every five years thereafter, the public agency must mal<e the following findings with respect to any remaining funds in the fee accounts:
a) [ dentify the purpose to which the fee is to be put
b) Demonsti-ate a reasonab( e relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to coinplete financing incomplete improvements
d) Designate the approximate dates on which funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate accounts or funds
City ofLathi• op 26 CLSP Capital Facililies Fee Study
As with the annual report, the five- year report must be made public within 180 days after the end of the public agency' s fiscal year and must be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled public meeting. The public agency must make these findings; otherwise, the law states that the City must refund the fee revenue to the then current owners of the development project.
Ciry ofLathrop 27 CLSP Capital Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
Developable Acreage in CLSP
Storm Drainage System Watershed Areas 2 and 4
Table A- 1
Developable Acreage in CLSP Storm Drainage System Watershed Areas 2& 4 NetAcreage
Parcel Single- Multi- Total Net
APN Watershed Owner Acrea e Famil Famil Non- Res. Excluded Acrea e 192- 030- 170- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 13. 65 - 13. 65 13. 65 192- 040- 040- 000 WS2 Cotton 0. 99 - - 0. 99 0. 99
192- 040- 100- 000 WS2 Alamanor Shores 3. 02 - - 3. 02 3. 02 192- 040- 110- 000 WS2 Alamanor Shores 2. 57 - - 2. 57 2. 57 192- 040- 140- 000 WS2 Alamanor Shores 1. 53 - - 1. 53 1. 53 192- 040- 150- 000 WS2 Alamanor Shores 0. 01 - - 0. 01
192- 040- 190- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 8. 39 - - 8. 39 8. 39 192- 040- 200- 000 WS2 City of Lathrop 0. 85 - - 0. 85
192- 040- 210- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 17. 02 17. 02 - 17. 02 192- 040- 220- 000 WS2 City of Lathrop 0. 86 - - 0. 86
192- 040- 230- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 10. 84 10. 84 - 10. 84 192- 040- 240- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisilion 15. 33 15. 33 - 15. 33 192- 040- 250- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 4. 51 - - 4. 51 2 192- 040- 310- 000 WS2 Lalhrop Land Acquisition 1. 80 - - 1. 80 1. 80 192- 040- 320- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 70 - - 1. 70 1. 70 192- 040330- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 47 - - 1. 47 1. 47 192- 040350- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 8. 86 - - 8. 86 8. 86 192- 040- 410- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 3. 25 - - 3. 25 3. 25 192- 040- 420- 000 WS2 Westpark Storage 7. 83 - - 7. 83 7. 83 192- 040- 430- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 729 - - 7. 29 7. z9 192- 040- 440- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 0. 93 - - 0. 93 0. 93 192- 040- 470- 000 WS2 Bilal 1. 41 - - 1. 41 1. 41
192- 040- 480- 000 WS2 Bilal 1. 01 - - 1. 01 1. 01
192- 040- 490- 000 WS2 Evergreen Golden Valley& River Islands LLC 0. 65 - - 0. 65 0. 65 192- 040- 500- 000 WS2 Evergreen Golden Valley& River Islands LLC 0. 80 - - 0. 80 0. 80 192- 040- 510- 000 WS2 Khan 2. 78 - - 2. 78 2. 7$
192- 040- 520- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 3. 05 - - 3. 05 3. 05 192- 040- 530- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 2. 77 - - 2. 77 2. 77 192- 040- 540- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 0. 94 - - 0. 94 0. 94 192- 040- 550- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 6. 35 - - 6. 35 6. 35 192- 040- 560- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 45 - - 1. 45 1. 45 192- 240- 030- 000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 14. 41 - - 14. 41 14. 41 192- 240- 040-000 WS2 Lathrop Land Acquisition 18. 65 - - 18. 65 18. 65 192- 020- 140- 000 WS4 Dos Reis Ranch 89. 82 49. 60 - 4. 50 35. 72 54. 10 34 192- 020- 320- 000 WS4 Romulo& Purita TAA 24. 36 6. 09 - 1827 24. 36 3 192- 020- 540- 000 WS4 City of Lathrop 0. 72 - - 0. 72
192- D20- 550- 000 WS4 City of Lalhrop 0. 10 - - 0. 10
192- 020- 560- 000 WS4 City of Lathrop 0. 02 - - 0. 02
192-020- 570- 000 WS4 City of Lathrop 0. 98 - - p gg
s
192-020- 580- 000 WS4 Ciry of Lathrop 1. 67 - - 1. 67
5 192- 020- 590- 000 WS4 Dos Reis Ranch 2. 81 - -
192- 020- 600- 000 WS4 Dos Reis Ranch 33. 86 33. 86 33. 86 192- 020- 650- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 29. 17 27. 70 - q7 z s
192- 100- 900- 000 WS4 City of Lathrop 0. 48 - - 4$
192- 240- 050- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 19. 49 - - 19. 49 19. 49 192- 240- 060- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 0. 82 - - O. S2 0. 82 192- 240- 070- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 122 - - 122 122 192- 240- 080- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 10 - - 1. 10 1. 10 192- 240- 090- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 47 - - 1. 47 1. 47 192- 240- 100- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 09 - - 1. 09 1. 09 192- 240- 110- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 0. 53 - - 0. 53 0. 53 192- 240- 120-000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 1. 40 - - 1. 40 1. 40 192- 240- 130- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 3. 70 - - 3. 70 3. 70 192- 240- 140- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 3. 00 - - 3. 00 3. 00 192- 240- 150- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 2. 16 - - 2. 16 2. 16 192- 240- 160- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 121 - - 121 121 192- 240- 170- 000 WS4 Lathrop Land Acquisition 129 - - 129 129 Total 389. 44 126. 58 13. 65 199. 01 47. 39 339. 24
Total WS2 166. 97 43. 19 13. 65 103. 90 6. 23 160. 74
Total WS4 222. 47 83. 39 - 95. 11 41. 16 178. 50
1. Exempt landscaping/ easements.
2. Exempl area planned for a fulure park.
3. Breakdown of expected land uses is estimated based on plan maps and does not affect the calculation of fees.
4. Exempt acreage includes approx. 5 acres planned for a future park, plus future roads and area within the parcel but outside of the Watershed# 4 area.
5. Exempt area owned by the City of Lathrop.
6. Exempt acreage includes area within the parcel but outside of ihe Watershed# 4 area.
Source: MacKay and Somps; San Joaquin County Assessor' s Office; Goodwin Consu/ ting Group