8. Three Corridors Specific Plan Table 6.2 Permitted Use Table for San Pablo Avenue [Amendment]
Pages 6.0-17 to 6.0-18 included.
Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.
Text to be added shown in bold and underline.
VI
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 6.2
Permitted Use TableLand uses for San Pablo Avenue
Permitted Use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:
P = Land Use permitted by right
CUP = Land Use permitted with approval of Conditional Use Permit N = Land Use not permitted
N/A = Not Applicable
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATIONS
Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area Mixed-Use Sub-Area
MDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI CMU OPMU OIMU PQI VHDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI Residential Use Listings
Adult Day Care Home P P P P N P P P N P P P P P
Child Day Care Facility CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
b
P
b N Pb
P
b
CUP N P P P
b
P
b N
Accessory Dwelling
Unit/ Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Dwelling, Second Unit
PCUP PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N Dwelling, Single-family P P N N N N N N N N N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family P
d
P
d
N
d N N N N N N N N N N N
Family Day Care
Home, Small (6
children or less)
P P P P P P
d
P
d
N PN P P P
d
P N
Family Day Care Home,
Large (7 – 24 children) P
a
P
a
P
a
P
a PN P P N P P P P PN N
Home Occupation P P P P N P
a
P
a
P
a P Pda
P
da
P
a P N
Live-Work Facility P P P P P P P P P N P P P P
Low Barrier
Navigation Center N P P P N P P P N N P P P N
Residential Care Home
Facility PCUP P P P PCUP PCUPb PCUPb PCUP PCUP PCUP P
a PCUPb PCUPb PN
Group Residential/
Home P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Emergency Shelter/
Temporary Home
N N N N N CUPb CUPb P CUP CUP N CUPb CUPb N
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
San Pablo Avenue
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATIONS
Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area Mixed-Use Sub-Area
MDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI CMU OPMU OIMU PQI VHDR RMU CMU OPMU PQI Community Service Use Listings
Clubs, Lodges, Private
Meeting Halls N P P P P P P P P N P P P P
Indoor Amusement/
Entertainment N CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP Indoor Fitness and
Sports Facilities N CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP Libraries and Museums P P P P P P P P P N N P P P
Outdoor Commercial
Recreation N N P P P P P P P N N P P P
Parks and Public Plazas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Public Safety Facility CUP P P P P P P P P CUP P P P P
Religious Institutions CUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP CUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP Schools – Public CUP P P P P P P P P CUP P P P P
Schools – Private,
Special/Studio N P P P P P P P P N P P P P
Theatres and
Auditoriums N P P P P P P P P N P P P P
Utility, Transportation, and Communication Use Listings Bus and Truck Terminal
Parking N N N N N N N CUP N N N N N N
Heliports N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Park and Ride Facility N N N CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP N N CUP CUP CUP Public Parking P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Telecommunications
Facility CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP Transit Stations
and Terminals CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
San Pablo Avenue
9. Three Corridors Specific Plan Table 6.8 Permitted Use Table for Pinole Valley Road [Amendment]
Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.
Text to be added shown in bold and underline.
VI
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 6.8
Permitted Use Table for Pinole Valley Road
Permitted Use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:
P = Land Use permitted by right
CUP = Land Use permitted with approval of Conditions Use Permit N = Land Use not permitted
N/A = Not Applicable
Old Town Sub-Area Service Sub-Area
Land Use Classifications
MDR HDR CMU PQI CMU OPMU PQI
Residential Use Listings
Adult Day Care Home P P P N P P N
Child Day Care Facility CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP N
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
b N Pb
P
b N
Accessory Dwelling Unit/ Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit Dwelling, Second Unit
PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N PN/Ae PN/Ae N
Dwelling, Single-family P N N N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family N/Ae
N/AeN/Ae N N/AeN/Ae N
Family Day Care Home, Small (6 children or
less)
PN P P P P
d
P
d PN
Family Day Care Home, Large (7 – 24 children) PCUPa PCUPa PCUPa PN P P P Home Occupation PN P P N P
a
P
a P
Low Barrier Navigation Center N N P N P P N
Live-Work Facility P P P P P P P
Residential Care HomeFacility PCUP P P PCUP PCUPb PCUPb PCUP Group Residential/Home P P P P P P P
Emergency Shelter/ Temporary Home N N N N CUPb CUPb CUP CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
33 Pinole Valley Road
10. Three Corridors Specific Plan Table 6.14 Permitted Use Table for Appian Way [Amendment]
Text to be removed shown in strikeout text.
Text to be added shown in bold and underline.
VI
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 6.14
Permitted Use Table for Appian Way
Permitted Use provisions are symbolized in the table as follows:
P = Land Use permitted by right
CUP = Land Use permitted with approval of Conditions Use Permit N = Land Use not permitted
N/A = Not Applicable
Service Sub-Area Mixed-Use Sub-Area
Land Use Classifications
RMU CMU OPMU PQI HDR RMU CMU PQI
Residential Use Listings
Adult Day Care Home P P P N P P P N
Child Day Care Facility CUP CUP CUP N CUP CUP CUP CUP
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P
b N P P Pb N
Accessory Dwelling Unit/ Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit Dwelling, Second Unit
PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N PN/Ae PN/Ae PN/Ae N
Dwelling, Single-family N N N N N N N N
Dwelling, Two-family N/Ae N/Ae N/Ae N N/Ae N/Ae N/Ae N
Family Day Care Home, Small (6 children or
less)
P
d Pd Pd N Pd Pd Pd PN
Family Day Care Home, Large (7 – 24 children) PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUP PN PCUP PCUP PCUP Home Occupation P
a Pa Pa P Pa Pa Pa P
Live-Work Facility P P P P P P P P
Low Barrier Navigation Center P P P N N P P N
Residential Care Home Facility PCUP PCUPb PCUPb PCUP PCUP PCUP PCUPb PCUP Group Residential/Home P P P P P P P P
Emergency Shelter/ Temporary Home N N N N N N N N
CITY OF PINOLE – THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN
Appian Way
Attachment B. Housing Element Programs Associated with
Proposed Revisions
[Highlighted text was addressed in the revisions]
Program 10. Senior Housing Incentives
The needs analysis identified a special need for the development of housing for seniors in Pinole. In response to this need, the City will develop a set of incentives to encourage the development of housing for seniors. Specific incentives include:
• Reducing parking requirements for senior housing development. • Permit fee waivers for elderly residents for adaptation and modifications of households to accommodate universal design and aging in place (per Program 9). • Enhanced rebate incentives for homeowners to make it financially feasible to undertake energy efficient and weatherization projects (per Program 19). • Promote home match shared housing programs (per Program 11), such as Front Porch’s Home Match, for homeowners to turn an available room into an opportunity to earn income, save money, age-in place, provide affordable housing and create new social connections.
• Participation in regional programs to provide assistance to seniors. Continue the partnership with the Contra Costa and Solano Food Bank to provide food resources to the community and seniors.
Additional incentives the City shall investigate include but are not limited to:
• Investigate Density Bonus beyond state law.
• Allow smaller senior units via an equivalent density unit Program 12. Zoning Amendments
The City is including a number of zoning amendments as identified in the constraints section to ensure compliance with state law and remove constraints to development. Amendments to the zoning ordinance are as follows.
• Amend the Emergency Shelter ordinance to comply with AB 139 and to ensure that standards for emergency shelters are subject to the same standards as other uses in the same zone and parking requirements are based on staffing levels only. • Amend the zoning ordinance pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 to allow for Low Barrier Navigation Centers by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses.
• Amend the zoning ordinance in RMU to permit manufactured homes on permanent foundations as if they were single-family homes.
• Amend the zoning ordinance to comply with SB 9 standards (California Government Code section 65852.21).
• Review and revise standards and definitions for both group homes and residential care facilities to ensure that they are fully compliant with all appropriate state laws
and that there are no constraints on group homes in the Zoning Code. This includes an amendment to allow group homes in the R zone as a permitted use by right as is allowed in all other residential zones and adding a definition of group residential to the Zoning Code.
• Review the definition of family and revise as appropriate to ensure that the definition does not require, or imply that it requires a single lease or rental agreement. • Amend the zoning ordinance to comply with state density bonus law (California Government Code section 65915). Specifically the update will increase the maximum density bonus from 35 to 50 percent, add student housing as a housing type that is eligible for density bonus incentives, reduce parking from 2 to 1.5 spaces for two and three bedroom units and from 2.5 to 2 spaces for four or more bedroom units. The City is complying with state density bonus law though the code is not yet updated. • The City will reduce the level of approval for a parking reduction or shared parking agreement from a conditional use permit to an administrative use permit, which approval by the Zoning Administrator. The City will review the four criteria for a parking reduction to evaluate additional criteria or/and reduce the minimum number of required criteria.
• The City will further study parking requirements and reduce them so they do not post a constraint on development. Specifically, the City will do one or more of the following:
remove or reduce guest parking, remove covered parking requirements, allow tandem parking, or reduce minimum parking requirements. The City is pursuing assistance with parking evaluation and reduction through MTC-ABAG’s parking policy technical assistance.
Program 15. Permit Streamlining
The City is including multiple efforts to expedite the permitting and review process through reducing the necessary levels of approval. This is a response to public outreach, constraints, and needs analyses.
Specifically, the City will:
• Lower the approval authority of entitlements for all Density Bonus projects from City Council to Planning Commission.
• Process lot consolidations ministerially.
• Adopt a priority permitting process for developments with affordable units beyond the inclusionary requirement (Program 8)
The City is in the process of implementing an electronic permitting application and tracking system. The online permitting process will help to expedite permitting procedures and will make permitting submittals and subsequent reviews easier for applicants, including allowing applicants to review items needed for submittals, check current project status, and digitally submit materials.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 24-05
WITH EXHIBIT A: MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.12, 17.20, 17.22, 17.38,
17.62, AND 17.98 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING CHAPTER 17.61 TO THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING TABLES 6.2, 6.8, AND 6.14 OF THE THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN.
WHEREAS, Pinole Municipal Code (“PMC”) Title 17 Zoning Code establishes general regulations on land uses and development standards within the City; and WHEREAS, The Three Corridors Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) establish specific regulations on land uses and development standards for defined areas within the City identified in the Specific Plan and supersede requirements in the Zoning Code where there is a conflict; and WHEREAS, the City of Pinole 2023-2031 Housing Element contains programs identifying various zoning ordinance amendments; and
WHEREAS, implementation of Housing Element programs requires amendments revising text in the PMC and Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Housing Element programs, other revisions to text in the PMC and Specific Plan are required to enhance clarity and update the text of local regulations to reflect and be consistent with current State and Federal regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to amend the Zoning Code and Specific Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing related to the proposed Zoning Code amendment on September 9, 2024; and WHEREAS, after close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by city staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed zoning code amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENT C
2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above recitals are true and correct and made part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapters 5.12, 17.20, 17.22, 17.38, 17.62, and 17.98 of the Pinole Municipal Code, adding Chapter 17.61 to the Pinole Municipal Code, and amending Tables 6.2, 6.8, and 6.14 of the three corridors specific plan, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pinole on this 9th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Bender, Huey, Lam-Julian, Sandoval, Uch, Martinez, Chairperson Menis NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
_____________________________
Rafael Menis, Chair, 2024-2025
ATTEST:
_____________________________
David Hanham, Planning Manager
CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12.A.
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2024
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAVID HANHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND RECOMMENDED FEE STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 1600
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study and recommended fee structure, and schedule a Public Hearing for adoption of the fees on January 21, 2025.
BACKGROUND
In December 2018, the City retained Michael Baker International (consultant) to prepare a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. The purpose of this study is to analyze the costs of public facilities required to support new development in Pinole and to calculate impact fees in accordance with State law. The DIF Study (Attachment A) and Wastewater Capacity Charge Report (Attachment B) outline the relationship between projected new development and the cost of facilities necessary to serve this growth through 2030. Additionally, the DIF study estimates these costs and calculates updated DIF rates for various land use types.
The City’s current DIF program was established in 2008. Since then, it has only been adjusted for Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate increases over the last several years. Like most California municipalities, Pinole requires new development to pay fees to fund necessary facilities and services. The passage of Proposition 13 and other state fiscal measures significantly reduced local revenue sources, including property and sales tax, which are now primarily used for operations and maintenance. As a result, reliable funding for capital improvements has been scarce, with federal and state assistance failing to make up the shortfall. This funding gap has contributed to declining facility standards, undercapacity, and increased deterioration and operating costs.
Given these financial constraints and ongoing growth, cities across California have adopted impact fee programs to fund required public facilities. Development Impact Fees are collected when certificates of occupancy are issued and are used to fund capital improvement projects and necessary equipment to accommodate new development. These fees ensure that new developments pay their proportional share for the impacts they impose on the City’s public facilities.
The DIF Study (Attachment A) and the Wastewater Capacity Charge Report (Attachment B) work together to ensure the City of Pinole has the necessary infrastructure funding in place to support anticipated growth. The DIF Study establishes impact fees for public services such as
police, fire protection, parks, transportation, and drainage, while the Wastewater Capacity Charge Report specifically addresses the cost of upgrading and expanding the wastewater system. Together, these documents ensure that new development contributes proportionally to the cost of maintaining and improving essential public infrastructure, aligning with state laws and helping maintain service standards for the existing and future population of Pinole.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Pinole’s authority to levy public facilities fees is grounded in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et seq.). The reports in Attachment A and Attachment B provide the documentation required for adopting updated impact fees, using methods consistent with State law. The consultant’s calculations align with the Mitigation Fee Act, reflecting the fees justified by the current service levels and costs to maintain those levels in proportion to new development impacts.
Table 1 below, and on page 3 of the DIF Study (Attachment A) summarizes the proposed and current fees for each facility category and land use type.
Table 2, below and on page 4 of the DIF Study in Attachment A, offers a comparison of fees charged in neighboring cities for single-family homes.
Key Factors in Fee Variation
While all California cities must follow similar principles for impact fee adoption, the fees vary widely. Factors contributing to these differences include:
• Calculation Methods: Cities use different methods to allocate impact fees to development types.
• Facility Coverage: The types of facilities funded by impact fees differ. • Service Standards: Each city adopts unique service standards, affecting fee calculations.
• Existing Deficiencies: Cities that have not kept up with public improvements may have service deficiencies, which cannot be addressed through impact fees. This may lower the fees.
• Update Cycles: State law mandates that nexus studies be updated every eight years.
Cities nearing the eighth year may have lower fees that do not reflect current costs.
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the DIF Study and recommended fee structure, and schedule a Public Hearing for adoption of the fees on January 21, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT
The updated Development Impact Fees will generate additional revenue that will support the City’s ability to fund essential public facilities and infrastructure projects required to accommodate growth. By aligning fees with the true cost of providing services, the City will
ensure that new development contributes fairly to the maintenance and improvement of critical infrastructure, such as police and fire protection, transportation, drainage, and parks.
This additional funding will reduce the City’s reliance on the General Fund for capital improvements, allowing General Fund resources to be allocated to other essential community services and operational needs. Furthermore, the updated fees will enhance the City’s financial stability and ability to deliver high-quality public services, ultimately benefiting residents and supporting the City’s long-term economic development goals.
ATTACHMENTS
A. DIF Study - October 2024
B. Wastewater Capacity Charge Report October 2024
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY
Prepared for the
CITY OF PINOLE
Prepared by
3100 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 125
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(619) 218-9578
www.mbakerintl.com
Final DraftReport
October 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1 Background and Study Objectives.............................................................................................................1 Fee Schedules and Revenues.....................................................................................................................1 Fee Comparisons .......................................................................................................................................2 Funds Needed to Complement Fee Program.............................................................................................5 Additional Considerations .........................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................7 Public Facilities Financing in California .....................................................................................................7 Statutory Authority to Impose Impact Fees the Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings .....................7 Organization of the Report .......................................................................................................................9 Facility Standards....................................................................................................................................10
2. Growth Projections..................................................................................................................................11 Population, Housing, and Employment Estimates ..................................................................................11 Land Use Categories................................................................................................................................13 Service Population...................................................................................................................................13 Occupant Densities .................................................................................................................................14 AB-602 Compliance .................................................................................................................................14
3. Police Facilities ........................................................................................................................................16 Existing Police Facilities...........................................................................................................................16 Police Facilities Service Population..........................................................................................................16 Police Facilities Standards and Unit Costs...............................................................................................16 Police Facilities Cost for New Development ............................................................................................17 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................18
4. Fire Protection Facilities ..........................................................................................................................19 Fire Facilities Service Population .............................................................................................................19 Existing Fire Facilities ..............................................................................................................................19 Personal Protection Equipment ..........................................................................................................20 Fire Facilities Standards and Unit Costs ..................................................................................................20 Fire Facilities Cost for New Development................................................................................................21 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................21
5. Public Facilities and Equipment ...............................................................................................................23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
ii
Existing Municipal Facilities ....................................................................................................................23 Public Facilities Service Population .........................................................................................................24 Public Facilities Standards and Unit Costs...............................................................................................24 Per Capita Standards and Unit Costs...................................................................................................24 Public Facilities Cost for New Development ............................................................................................25 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................26
6. Parks and Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................................27 Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities ..................................................................................................27 Park Cost Estimate...............................................................................................................................29 Parks and Recreation Standards and Unit Costs .....................................................................................30 Per Capita Standards and Unit Costs...................................................................................................30 Parks and Recreation Cost for New Development ..................................................................................31 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................31
7. Transportation Facilities ..........................................................................................................................32 Transportation Facilities Standards ........................................................................................................32 Level of Service with New Development.............................................................................................32 Transportation Demand from New Development...................................................................................32 SB-743 Impact on Use of Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................35 Transportation Improvements Cost for New Development ....................................................................35 Planned Projects..................................................................................................................................35 Transportation Improvement Costs Per VMT..........................................................................................36 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................36
8. Drainage Facilities ...................................................................................................................................38 Drainage Impacts of Existing and New Development .............................................................................38 Planned Drainage Improvements............................................................................................................40 Drainage Facility Impact Costs Per Acre..................................................................................................40 Drainage Facilities Standards and Unit Costs .........................................................................................40 Fee Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................40
9. Implementation.......................................................................................................................................42 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process ...................................................................................................42 Programming Revenues and Projects with the Capital Improvement Plan.............................................42 Funds Needed to Complement Impact Fee Program ..............................................................................42 Inflation Adjustment ...............................................................................................................................42 Combining Fees .......................................................................................................................................43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
iii
Compliance Requirements ......................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................................45 Municipal Equipment and Vehicles .........................................................................................................45 Police Equipment and Vehicles................................................................................................................46 Police Equipment and Vehicles (continued) ............................................................................................47 Depreciated Replacement Value of City Buildings ..................................................................................48 Existing Land Use Acreages by General Plan Designation ......................................................................49 List of Tables
Table 1 – Proposed and Current Impact Fee Schedule.......................................................................................3 Table 2 – Fee Comparison .................................................................................................................................4 Table 3 – Total Impact Fee Revenues ................................................................................................................5 Table 4 – Three Corridors Specific Plan Land Use Projections..........................................................................11 Table 5 – Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ..........................................................................12 Table 6 – Household and Employee Occupancy Assumptions..........................................................................15 Table 7 – Police Facilities and Equipment........................................................................................................16 Table 8 – Police Service Population .................................................................................................................16 Table 9 – Police Facilities Standard Cost Per Capita.........................................................................................17 Table 10 – Equipment for Incremental Officers Needed for Growth................................................................17 Table 11 – Police Facilities Cost for New Development ...................................................................................18 Table 12 – Police Facilities Proposed Fee Schedule .........................................................................................18 Table 13 – Fire Protection Service Population .................................................................................................19 Table 14 – Fire Protection Inventory ...............................................................................................................19 Table 15 – Personal Fire Protection Equipment...............................................................................................20 Table 16 – Fire Protection Cost per Capita Standard .......................................................................................21 Table 17 – Fire Facilities Cost for New Development.......................................................................................21 Table 18 – Proposed Fire Facilities Impact Fee ................................................................................................22 Table 19 – Community Facilities Inventory......................................................................................................23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
iv
Table 20 – Municipal Facilities Inventory ........................................................................................................23 Table 21 – Public Facilities Service Population ................................................................................................24 Table 22 – Public Facilities Current Values per Capita .....................................................................................24 Table 23 – EV Charging Station Cost per Capita...............................................................................................25 Table 24 – Public Facilities Cost for New Development ...................................................................................25 Table 25 – Proposed Public Facilities Impact Fee.............................................................................................26 Table 26 – Existing Developed Park Facilities Inventory ..................................................................................28 Table 27 – Existing Open Space Inventory .......................................................................................................29 Table 28 – Other Recreation Improvements....................................................................................................29 Table 29 – Park Level of Service Standards......................................................................................................29 Table 30 – Cost Estimate for a Typical Park .....................................................................................................30 Table 31 – Park Facility Standards and Costs per Capita ..................................................................................30 Table 32 – Park Cost for New Development ....................................................................................................31 Table 33 – Proposed Park Impact Fee..............................................................................................................31 Table 34 – Transportation Demand 2024-2030 ...............................................................................................34 Table 35 – Transportation Improvements .......................................................................................................36 Table 36 – Transportation Improvements Cost per VMT .................................................................................36 Table 37 – Proposed Transportation Impact Fee .............................................................................................37 Table 38 – Drainage Impacts ...........................................................................................................................39 Table 39 – Drainage Improvements.................................................................................................................40 Table 40 – Drainage Improvements per Impervious Acre ................................................................................40 Table 41 – Proposed Drainage Impact Fee.......................................................................................................41
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the cost of public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Pinole. The report documents the justifiable impact fee that may be imposed on new development in the following facility categories:
• Police Facilities
• Fire Protection
• Public Facilities and Equipment
• Transportation Facilities
• Drainage Facilities
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
This study documents the relationship between new development in Pinole and the cost of public facilities to serve growth through the year 2030. The study also estimates the cost of facilities necessary for growth and calculates the updated impact fees by land use type that would generate revenues equal to these costs. The estimates of public facilities required to serve growth assume that new development will provide facilities that, at a minimum, ensure the City will maintain its current level of service standards for these facilities.
As do most municipalities in California, the City of Pinole requires new development to pay fees to fund the facilities necessary to provide those City services required by the new development. For the past several decades, since the passage of Proposition 13 and other state fiscal measures that have reduced local revenues, most of the local revenue sources, such as property tax and sales tax, are used primarily for operations and maintenance and have not been a reliable source for capital funding. Federal and state assistance has not replaced the decline in local revenue sources. These funding shortfalls have been a significant contributing factor in declining facility standards, including undercapacity of facilities relative to optimum use. This has led to an accelerated rate of physical deterioration and increased operating costs and reduced the efficiency of existing facilities and city departments. Given these funding difficulties and in the face of continued growth, most California cities and counties have adopted impact fee programs to provide the necessary funding for the capital facilities needed to serve growth.
The City of Pinole will rely on its authority to levy public facilities fees under the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code Section 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary documentation for the adoption of updated impact fees.
Fee Schedules and Revenues
Table 1 summarizes the schedule of proposed and current impact fees for each facility category and within each land use category based on the analysis in this report. For comparison, a survey of the fees charged in neighboring cities for single-family homes is summarized in Table 2.
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
2 Fee Comparisons
The fee comparison table is from a survey of fees charged for the equivalent facility categories in cities comparable to Pinole. Even though each city in California, to adopt impact fees, must follow the same general principles established by state law, as described in the Introduction section of this report, fees— even among neighboring jurisdictions—tend to vary widely due to several factors:
• The methods used to calculate the impact fees and allocate the fees to types of development differ from city to city.
• The types of facilities that are covered by impact fees vary. • Cities adopt different standards, or levels of service, for facilities, and may use different ways to calculate those standards.
• Cities may not have kept up with public improvements over the years and, consequently, have created deficiencies between adopted or desired levels of service and the levels currently provided. This factor may work to reduce the impact fee, since the costs to remedy the existing deficiencies cannot be passed on to new development.
• Cities may be at different points in the impact fee update cycle. State law requires that the nexus study be updated every eight years. Studies that are nearing the eighth year since the last update tend to reflect lower fees even as impact fees may have been increased by an annual inflation factor.
Furthermore, cities may allow alternatives to impact fees to finance public facilities. Assessment and Mello-Roos districts may be used for improvements that serve specific projects. District assessments and special taxes levied to provide public improvements sometimes replace impact fees that would otherwise be used for those improvements. For example, The City of Pinole is considering whether to conduct a feasibility study of establishing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) on one of the City’s specific plan areas. An EIFD would allow a portion of the property tax increment derived from increased land values in the district to finance public improvements needed for the development. If the EIFD were adopted the project’s development agreement could specify that the tax increment funding of a capital improvement would be used to offset an impact fee for the corresponding facility category.
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
3 Table 1 – Proposed and Current Impact Fee Schedule
Proposed Fees
Facility Category 3 bedrooms1 2 Bedrooms1 1 Bedroom Office Commercial Industrial Institutional Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1 Square Foot of Building Floor Area Police $1,329.15 $1,081.42 $833.69 $0.64 $0.37 $0.51 $0.17 Fire Protection $1,471.45 $1,197.20 $922.95 $0.71 $0.41 $0.57 $0.19 Public Facilities &
Equipment
$4,679.69 $3,807.49 $2,935.29 $2.26 $1.30 $1.81 $0.61
Transportation $658.37 $535.66 $412.96 $0.51 $1.33 $0.82 $1.08 Drainage2 $261.36 $149.33 N/A $0.10 $0.10 $0.19 $0.23
Parks and Recreation $10,560.37 $8,592.13 $6,623.89 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal $18,960.39 $15,363.23 $11,728.78 $5.30 $4.12 $4.77 $2.57 Administration 3% $568.81 $460.90 $351.86 $0.16 $0.12 $0.14 $0.08 Total $19,529.21 $15,824.13 $12,080.64 $4.37 $3.58 $3.64 $1.81 1 This study is written to conform to AB-602 (Grayson, 2021), which requires impact fees on residential development to be charged by floor area. For this study, the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit is used as an alternative basis to calculate the impact fee. A dwelling unit with 3 bedrooms is comparable to a single-family home and 2 bedrooms are compared to a multi-family home.
2The Drainage fee is per impervious area of the project not floor area, these fees are shown for comparison.
Current Fees
Facility Category Single-Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Institutional Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1 Square Foot of Building Floor Area Police $1,321.29 $1,000.98 $0.500 $0.160 $0.400 $0.040
Fire Protection $1,688.49 $1,279.16 $0.640 $0.205 $0.512 $0.051 Public Facilities &
Equipment
$2,278.48 $1,726.13 $0.863 $0.276 $0.690 $0.069
Transportation $477.05 $338.71 $0.639 $1.598 $0.420 $1.212 Drainage $1,270.54 $76.23 $0.187 $0.187 $0.369 $0.438
Parks and Recreation $9,215.85 $6,981.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal $16,251.70 $11,402.92 $2.829 $2.426 $2.392 $1.809 Administration 3% $487.55 $342.09 $0.849 $0.728 $0.718 $0.543 Total $16,739.25 $11,745.01 $2.91 $2.50 $2.46 $1.86
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
4 Table 2 – Fee Comparison
City Population Police Fire
Parks or
Park Land
Dedication
Public
Facilities
Transportation
/Traffic (local
share only) Drainage Total
Single-Family Home
Hercules1 26,317 $1,312 $1,344 $1,525 $741 $5,347 N/A $10,269 El Cerrito2 24,939 N/A N/A N/A N/A $3,322 N/A $3,322
Orinda3 19,199 N/A N/A $17,358 N/A $3,942 $4,230 $25,530 Albany4 19,053 N/A N/A $8,232 $975 N/A $150 $9,357
San Pablo 31,593 N/A N/A N/A N/A $5,439 N/A $5,439
Average Fee: $1,312 $1,344 $9,038 $858 $4,513 $2,190 $19,255* Pinole Fees**
Current (pop. 2024)
single family 18,192 $1,321 $1,688 $9,216 $2,278 $477 $1,271 $16,252 Proposed (pop. 2030)
3-bedroom house 19,292 $1,329 $1,471 $10,560 $4,680 $658 $261 $18,960 * Total of average fees in each category.
**Fees do not include the 3 percent administration charge. 1 The Hercules park fee in the table includes a $1,500 "Community Development Tax" to be used to fund park improvements and land acquisition, public facilities, and public safety related equipment. A "Public Benefit Fee" of $2,350 is charged to units in the Bayfront Project area. 2 El Cerrito has adopted only the transportation impact fee. The Stege Sanitary District, which serves El Cerrito, does charge a capacity fee of $218 per fixture unit. The fee given is based on 20 fixture units, a typical number for a single-family home. 3 The Orinda park dedication fee is based on $760,500 per acre per Orinda Municipal Code 3.28.080 (2005 appraisal report) and annually adjusted. 5 acres/1,000 & 2.69 single family occupancy. Drainage fee is $1.41 per square foot of impervious area greater than 100 sq. ft., amount in table for 1,000 sq. ft. of area. 4 The Albany capital facilities fee (applicable to all public facilities) is $0.65 per square feet for a new residential unit 1,001 sq. ft. or greater (the table assumes 1,500 sq. ft.). Drainage fee is $0.10 per sq. ft. (table assumes 1,500 sq. ft.). The Albany park dedication in-lieu fee based on fair market value (AMC 22-8.4 g). Parkland in-lieu fee in table is based on a dedication requirement for a single-family home of 392 sq. ft. (3 acres per 1,000 occupancy of 3 per unit), and a fair market value of $21 per sq. ft. 5
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
5 Funds Needed to Complement Fee Program
Government Code Section 66000 prohibits using impact fees to remedy an existing facility deficiency.
Impact fees imposed on new development may pay for: 1) additional facilities needed to maintain the current standard of service, or 2) an increase in the standard, if existing development also pays for its fair share of facilities needed to raise the standard. The analysis contained in this report indicates that in the Fire Protection, Public Facilities, Transportation and Drainage categories, existing development would benefit from the proposed facilities and additions to capital included in those categories. Therefore, existing development is obligated to pay for its fair share of those additions. The impact fee rates presented in this report for these four categories may be imposed on new development only if existing development provides the funding necessary to augment existing facilities from sources other than the impact fee revenues. These funds may come from grants, user fees, taxes, and assessments imposed on current residents. The level of funding required from existing development is listed in the General Fund/Other Sources column in Table 3.
Table 3 – Total Impact Fee Revenues
Facility Category
Projected
Revenues
from Proposed
Impact Fees
General
Fund/Other
Sources Program Total
Police $1,098,094 $0 $1,098,094
Fire Protection $1,215,657 $462,701 $1,678,358
Public Facilities & Equipment $3,866,200 $4,446,800 $8,313,000 Parks and Recreation $4,163,588 $0 $4,163,588
Transportation $1,079,207 $7,680,589 $8,759,796
Drainage $113,171 $3,101,927 $3,215,098
Total $11,535,918 $15,692,017 $27,227,935
If the entire fee program as presented herein is adopted, the City and its current residents would need to contribute approximately $15.7 million from sources other than fee revenues to provide facilities to existing residents at the same level of service proposed for new development.
Additional Considerations
The City, at its sole discretion, may reduce the impact fees or eliminate them entirely. By doing so, however, there will inevitably be a continued reduction in the levels of service provided by these public facilities, unless other funds are used to replace the fee revenues. Alternatively, the City may consider the following ways to reduce the effect the fees may have on land development in the City, while leaving the fee rates and standards of service intact:
• Phase in the fee increases over two or more years to allow time for real estate markets to adjust.
However, the loss of revenue during the phase-in period may not be passed on to future development.
• The impact fees may be deferred to a later date. For residential units, the fees are not payable until the date of the final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. The City may grant a further deferral of payment until units are sold or leased. With any
SUMMARY
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
6 deferral arrangement, the City should obtain suitable security for payment of the fee, through a surety bond, letter of credit, provisions in the escrow agreements, or a lien-hold as appropriate.
Fee Updates
This impact fee study and the recommended fees assume a given level of development activity over the study period. If different from the growth forecasted in this study, the development that occurs will result in both different impacts and fee revenues than those that are projected. For that reason, regular updates are recommended to adjust the impact fee to match the needs of actual development. Government Code 660016.5 requires that, beginning on January 1, 2022, impact fee nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years.
1. INTRODUCTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
7 1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of the need and related cost of public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Pinole. This chapter explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following sections:
• Public facilities financing in California.
• The Mitigation Fee Act.
• Organization of the report.
• Facility standards; and
• Fee schedules
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California over the past few decades has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996. • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to shift the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers to new development. This funding shift has been partly accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also known as public facility fees or mitigation fees. A key advantage of this approach is that impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption and are thus exempt from the requirements of Proposition 218.
In most jurisdictions that have implemented impact fee programs, new development pays close to the full cost required to maintain existing level of service standards as growth occurs. If cities did not collect the full amount, the effect is often a decline in facility standards, though some communities are able to increase other revenue sources to compensate. Often the scenario is that a city’s current level of service for a particular facility category is less than the standard stated in its General Plan, creating a deficiency.
In that event, the city must remedy the deficiency using funds other than impact fee revenues; new development shall not be required to pay for an increase in the level of service for the benefit of existing development.
Statutory Authority to Impose Impact Fees the Mitigation Fee Act and Required Findings
In California, cities and counties rely on their authority to levy impact mitigation fees under the police powers granted by the California Constitution. As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the state legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act (Act), starting with Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 in
1. INTRODUCTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
8 1987. The Act, contained in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act went into effect in January 1989 and requires local governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee:
1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
2) Identify the use of fee revenues.
3) Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development paying the fee.
4) Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee; and
5) Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee.
AB 602 Findings
This bill (amending Government Code Sections 65490.1, 66016.5 and 66019) requires, on and after January 1, 2022, a local agency that conducts an impact fee nexus study to follow specific standards and practices, including, but not limited to:
1) That prior to the adoption of an associated development fee, an impact fee nexus study be adopted.
2) That the study identifies the existing level of service for each public facility, identifies the proposed new level of service, and includes an explanation of why the new level of service is necessary, and; 3) If the study is adopted after July 1, 2022, either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units or make specified findings explaining why it is not appropriate to calculate the fee based on square footage.
The law is intended to encourage public agencies conducting a nexus study to calculate a fee imposed on housing development projects by determining the square footage of the proposed housing units and developing a fee proportional to the square footage of those units. If public agencies do not use this approach to calculating fees imposed on housing development projects, they must do all the following:
1) Make findings that explain why square footage is not an appropriate metric; 2) Provide an alternative basis of calculating the fee that bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development; and 3) Ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
The fundamental premise of the Act is that the burden of the impact fees cannot total more than the actual cost of the public facility needed to serve the development paying the fee. Also, fee revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. In addition, the Act has specific accounting and reporting requirements annually and every five years for the use of fee revenues covered in Chapter 9 of this report.
In addition, the Act prohibits using impact fee revenues for staffing, operations, and maintenance of either existing or new facilities.
1. INTRODUCTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
9 This report complies with applicable California Government Code sections by providing the required documentation for the above findings and determinations that establish the basis for imposition of the recommended fees contained herein.
Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 presents the population and employment assumptions used for the public facilities fee analysis.
Chapters 3 through 8 are devoted to documenting the justifiable impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
● Police Facilities
● Fire Protection Facilities
● Public Facilities and Equipment
● Parks and Recreation Facilities
● Transportation Facilities
● Drainage Facilities
Each chapter is generally organized using the following sections to clearly document the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, discussed above:
• The chapter begins by identifying the purpose of the fee by stating the types of facilities that would be funded.
• The Existing and Future Planned Facilities Inventory (if applicable) summarizes the investment of existing development in this type of facility to date and identifies future planned facilities, if any.
• The Service Population defines what type of development requires this type of facility, whether (1) only residents or (2) residents and businesses (measured by employment). It also projects the service population growth or demand for facility capacity anticipated to occur over the planning horizon.
• The Facility Standards and Unit Costs establishes a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee. This section also estimates the cost per capita for facilities to accommodate growth.
• The Facility Costs for New Development establishes a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee. This section estimates the total facilities costs associated with new development over the planning horizon, equal to the revenues that would be collected through the impact fee.
1. INTRODUCTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
10 • The Fee Schedule establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common factor for facilities’ cost per capita, the fee schedule ensures that each development project pays its fair share of total cost of facilities.
Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the fee implementation procedures and recommendations for the ongoing administration of the fee. The recommendations are provided to ensure compliance with the Act, and to ensure that fees are updated in the future for construction cost inflation, a change in the standards, or changes in development assumptions.
Facility Standards
New development alone cannot be asked to improve facility standards that benefit both new and existing development. Additionally, new development alone cannot correct an existing facility deficiency. Either way, facility standards cannot be increased compared to existing standards solely by imposing impact fees on new development.
By policy, Pinole can adopt its own reasonable facility standards to reduce, maintain, or increase the existing facility standards. However, basing an impact fee on a standard that is higher than the existing standard is fair to new development only if Pinole were to use alternative funds to raise the standard of facilities that benefit existing development. This extra funding is needed to correct the "existing deficiency."
This study uses two approaches for establishing facility standards:
• The existing standard method uses a standard based on the ratio of existing facilities to the current service population. Under this approach, new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is used for police, parks and recreation, and drainage public facilities, vehicles, and equipment associated with general government services.
• The engineering method uses standards adopted by the City and/or found in standard engineering or planning criteria. This method is used for the transportation and drainage facilities. The standard aims to maintain the appropriate capacity for all roadway segments/intersections and drainage infrastructure to ensure public health and safety. Any costs related to existing deficiencies are not passed on to new development.
Use of these standards is not meant to label them as City policy. Indeed, many jurisdictions consider their existing standards to be deficient compared to the policies stated in their General Plans. The City of Pinole may, as a policy decision, raise any facility standard, and in doing so, possibly create a deficiency relative to the stated level of service. The premise of this study is that such de facto deficiencies shall be avoided by basing the fees on existing standards were possible.
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
11 2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Population, Housing, and Employment Estimates
Estimates of existing development (number and type of housing and commercial floor area) and projections of growth are critical assumptions used throughout the public facility fee chapters in this report. Current residential population estimates are based on the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates released in January 2024. Future employment (jobs within the city as opposed to employed residents who live in the city but may work elsewhere) are based on estimates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s On the Map tool. Housing and nonresidential development in the city will largely be the result of implementation of the Three Corridors Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which is a priority development area identified in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Area Plan. The projected land uses in the Specific Plan are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 – Three Corridors Specific Plan Land Use Projections Corridor
Residential
Units Retail (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) San Pablo Ave. 885 322,172 336,253 426,692
Pinole Valley Road 141 238,708 105,038 1,239
Appian Way 244 561,260 468,449 48,352
Existing Total 1,270 1,122,140 909,740 476,283
San Pablo Ave. 1,119 552,927 307,233 472,578
Pinole Valley Road 351 192,603 386,843 0
Appian Way 877 807,698 728,129 0
Proposed Total 2,346 1,553,228 1,422,205 472,578
Difference 1,076 431,088 512,465 (3,705)
Source Appendix A: Development Projections “Three Corridors Specific Plan” updated in 2020.
The current (2024) and projected 2030 population, housing, and employment estimates are summarized in Table 5. An annual population growth rate of 1.00 percent was used to project population growth for the analysis period 2024-2030. This results in a population increase of 1,100. As have many cities in California, Pinole has experienced negative population growth since the 2020 decennial census reported the city’s population to be 19,022. The 2024 DOF estimate placed the population at 18,192, a 4 percent drop since 2020 and a drop of 0.3 percent from DOF’s 2023 estimate. Positive population growth is resuming in California, but it is a slow process largely dependent on the availability of affordable homes.
While the Specific Plan may provide housing opportunities in the future, it is not reasonable to expect its build out to occur over the next 5 or 6 years. Therefore, a more modest assumption of 375 new multifamily units and 30 new single-family units is projected by the year 2030. The construction of single-family units is assumed to take place on vacant R-1 and Rural Residential parcels, all of which are located outside the Specific Plan area. Land use data compiled for the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicates approximately 193 acres of vacant R-1 and R-R parcels. An average density of 5 units per acres assumed for the projection of 30 new single-family units.
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
12 Table 5 – Population, Housing, and Employment Projections 2024 2030
Net
Growth2
Average
Annual
Rate
Population1 18,192 19,292 1,100 1.00%
Employment3
Retail/Commercial 1,315 1,795 480
Office/Service 328 658 330
Industrial, including transportation,
construction, agriculture, manufacturing,
wholesale 519 512 (7)
Accommodations 32 36 4
Food Service 1,022 1,496 474
Health Care and Social Services 945 1,896 951
Public/Institutional/Educational Services 724 724 0
Other 6 6 0
Total Employment 4,891 7,123 2,232 5.5%
Housing4
Single-Family Units5 5,456 5,486 30
Multifamily Units6 1,383 1,758 375
Mobile Homes/ADU7 34 64 30
Total Occupied Units 6,873 7,308 435 1.03%
Overall Occupancy 2.65 2.64 2.53
1 Current population for City of Pinole is the California Department of Finance (DOF) Estimate, Table E-5 as of 1/1/2024.
2 Population growth is based on a 1 percent average annual growth rate. It is noted that the population growth projections in Table 5 of the Housing Element Update shows a 0.6 percent annual growth rate between 2010 and 2020. The assumption of 1 percent growth over the next 5 -6 years during a period of recovery from historically low growth is reasonable. 3 Current employment estimates from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, US Census Bureau 2020. 2030 employment based on Three Corridors Specific Plan floor area growth and employment density factors.
4 Source of current housing estimates is DOF Table E-5 as of 1/1/2024, occupied units. 5 Estimate of occupied detached and attached single-family dwelling units. 6 Estimates of occupied units, including duplex, townhomes, and apartments. 7 The 30 units added in this category by 2030 are assumed to be Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Sources: CA-DOF Demographics Unit; City of Pinole
These estimates are used as follows:
• Estimates of future growth are used to aid in the planning of future public facilities required to accommodate growth over the planning horizon.
• Estimates of existing population and land development are used to determine current facility standards—for example, square feet of public buildings per capita or average daily trips per household to correlate with traffic level of service.
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
13 Land Use Categories
Measuring the impact of growth requires land use types for summarizing different categories of new development. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below. • Single-family: Detached and attached (townhomes) one-family dwelling units. • Multifamily: All multifamily dwellings such as duplexes and condominiums (unless considered attached “townhomes”), apartments, and dormitories.
• Accessory Dwelling Units: ADUs are independent living facilities that may be within, attached to or detached from the primary dwelling. ADUs are permitted under Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 17.70. According to PMC 17.70.040 ADU may not exceed 800 square feet. The Municipal Code also provides that ADUs 750 square feet or less floor area shall not be charged an impact fee. Impact fees on ADUs greater than 750 square feet shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling with which it is associated. • Commercial/Office: All commercial, retail, and educational as well as all general, professional, and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. • Institutional: Educational institutions, hospitals, etc.
Some developments may include more than one land use category, such as an educational institution with dormitories, or a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. In these cases, the impact fee would be calculated separately for each land use category.
The City may levy the impact fee based on the land use category that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development. The City may use its discretion to calculate the fee that is levied on a development project based on either the number of dwelling units per acre, workers per floor area, or both, or the number of peak-period vehicle trips expected to be generated by the project.
Service Population
Different types of development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other, depending on the services provided. In each chapter, a specific service population is identified for each facility type to reflect this. Different service populations are used to estimate impacts for different types of facilities. • Citywide residents and workers for public facilities such as those used by city administration, fire protection and police facilities.
• Citywide residents for parks and recreation facilities. • Dwelling units and building square feet to estimate vehicle trips for transportation facilities and drainage impacts.
Each land use imposes demands on facilities in proportion to the service population they generate. By using the service population to calculate fees, the fees are directly related to the impact of the land use based on number of units or floor area. The specific service population for each facility category is shown separately in each chapter. When residents and workers are part of the same service population, it is
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
14 reasonable to assume that one resident would place a greater demand on public services and associated facilities than one worker. The method used in this study for calculating the demand of one worker relative to one resident is to compare the length of the typical work week (45 hours, which includes lunch break) to the average total daylight hours in a seven-day week (84 hours). Based upon this method, one worker is assumed to generate roughly 54 percent of the demand for facilities as a resident (45/84 = 0.54); this factor is used for police, fire, and public facilities.
These measures are reasonable indicators of the level of demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities primarily to serve these populations and, typically, the greater the population, the larger the facility required to provide a given level of service.
Occupant Densities
Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population and amount of the fee. To do this, the fee must vary by the estimated service population generated by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the capacity the new development to house residents or workers, so the fee analysis must convert service population estimates to suitable measures of project size to arrive at a fee per unit of development. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors for residential and for commercial and industrial land use categories, as shown in Table 6.
AB-602 Compliance
As discussed in the Introduction, AB-602 (Grayson 2021) requires that cities adopting new or increased fees after January 1, 2022, should charge impact fees on residential development based on the floor area of development or make a finding that charging the fees based on floor area is not an appropriate method.
Residential projects in Pinole are currently charged a flat rate per unit for either single family homes (including detached condominiums) or individual units within multi-family apartment projects. The intent of AB 602 was to incentivize smaller units by charging higher fees on larger units and thus encourage the construction of more affordable housing in California.
However, charging residential development based on floor area presents a problem since development impacts on most facilities are measured based on the project’s projected service population (residential or employment population) and while there is data that correlates floor area with the number of employees for many industries, which allows the use of employee density factors in terms of square feet per employee as shown in Table 6, there is not data currently available that may be used to estimate household occupancy per square foot of floor area. The recommended solution that is in keeping with the intent of AB-602—to incentivize smaller units--is charging by the bedroom without regard to whether the project contains single or multi-family units. The US Census provides data on occupancy per bedroom for major statistical areas. An analysis of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA indicates residential occupancies per unit based on the number of bedrooms as shown in Table 6.
2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
15 Table 6 – Household and Employee Occupancy Assumptions Residential, Number of
Bedrooms in Unit
Occupants per Unit Occupants per Bedroom
0 (studio) 1.23 N/A
1 1.75 1.75
2 2.27 1.14
3 2.79 0.93
4 3.30 0.83
5 3.82 0.76
Occupants for each additional bedroom1 0.52
Nonresidential Building Floor Area per Employee2
Employees Density
per 1,000 square
feet or room
Office 400 building square feet
per worker
2.50 Retail/Commercial 700 building square feet
per worker
1.43 Hotel Rooms 3.33 rooms per worker 0.30
Food Service 200 building square feet
per worker
5.00 Health Care 400 building square feet
per worker
2.50 Industrial 500 building square feet
per worker
2.00 Institutional 1,500 building square feet
per worker
0.67 1For units with 6 bedrooms and above, each bedroom would add 0.52 occupants. For example, a unit with 6 bedrooms would be projected to house 4.34 occupants. 2Building area per worker factors are based on the Employment Density Study for Southern California Association of Governments, by the Natelson Company, 2001.
The impact fee for a project is determined by multiplying the projected occupants of the project by the cost per capita of the facility category, which is estimated based on the overall service population and the cost of new facilities required to serve new development. For example, in the next section the police facilities cost per capita is estimated at $476.40, therefore the police facilities impact fee for a 3-bedroom unit would be $1,329.16 (2.79 x $476.40). Note: this fee would be charged to any 3-bedroom unit regardless of whether it is considered a single-family house or a unit within an apartment building.
3. POLICE FACILITIES
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
16 3. POLICE FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for police facilities, vehicles, and equipment to accommodate new development. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact fee for the funding of such facilities and vehicles.
Existing Police Facilities
The City of Pinole owns the Public Safety Building property described in Table 7. The Public Safety Building, at 880 Tennent Avenue. The Pinole Police Department provides law enforcement services to residents and workers of Pinole. Police vehicles and equipment are listed in the appendix.
Table 7 – Police Facilities and Equipment
Facility/Equipment Location
Floor/Lot
Area
Square
Feet
Current
Value1
Cost per SF
(appraisal)
Public Safety Building (Police portion) 880 Tennent Ave. 13,250 $7,727,238 $583 Police Station Parcel (portion) 10,900 $60,000
Vehicles and Equipment $516,100
1 One-half depreciated replacement value for Public Safety Building.
Source: City of Pinole City Property Report, 2019.
Police Facilities Service Population
The police facilities serve both residents and workers in the City of Pinole. Table 8 shows the estimated existing and projected service populations for 2024 and 2030, respectively. In calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.54 to reflect lower per capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand of services is less than average per-resident demand.
Table 8 – Police Service Population
Residents Workers
Factored
Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2030) 18,192 4,891 2,641 20,833
New Development (2024-2030) 1,100 2,232 1,205 2,305
Projected Total (2030) 19,292 7,123 3,846 23,138
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.54
Police Facilities Standards and Unit Costs
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for police facilities. To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities for which new development may be required to fund, a per capita facility standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 9, is based on the existing standard method, which assumes that police facilities and vehicles will be needed to serve new development at the current ratio of police facilities to the resident and worker
3. POLICE FACILITIES
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
17 populations. This method is appropriate when the current facilities are deemed adequate to serve the current population. Use of the existing standard to calculate the impact fee ensures that new development pays only for the facilities that are equivalent to those provided to existing development. The police facilities standard is calculated in terms of the current value of the police station, vehicles, and equipment described in Table 7. The cost per capita represents the existing population’s investment in the facilities; charging this amount to new development ensures that there is equity between the existing and new populations.
Table 9 – Police Facilities Standard Cost Per Capita
Current
Value
2024
Service
Population
Facility
Standard Cost
per Capita
Police Station $7,727,238 20,833 $370.91
Police Station Land $60,000 20,833 $2.88
Current Vehicles & Equipment $516,100 20,833 $24.77
Total Facilities Cost per Capita: $398.57
Police Facilities Cost for New Development
Table 10 – Equipment for Incremental Officers Needed for Growth Officer Equipment, 1 set per officer $7,000
Patrol Vehicles, 3/5 per each officer $52,800
Total Cost $59,800
Additional officers for growth (see analysis below) 3
Incremental cost for new equipment $179,400
Projected Growth in Service Population 2,305
Per Capita Cost for Incremental Equipment $77.83
Current sworn officers (including sergeants and
commanders 29
Current Service Population (Residents + Factored Workers) 20,833 Officers per 1,000 service population (current standard) 1.392 Projected Growth in Service Population 2,305
Additional officers for growth 3
While no new police facilities are planned for the City of Pinole new development can be required to pay for existing facilities at a rate that is equivalent to the current population’s per capita share of investment in the existing facilities. In addition, new growth should cover the cost of adding new sworn officers to the Department that is needs to maintain the current level of service level for patrol and response, which is approximately 1.4 officers per 1,000 service population. Table 10 itemizes these costs and calculates the cost per capita for new development. Since the new officers are needed only serve the new population, the incremental cost is divided by the 2024-2030 service population growth to calculate the cost per capita attributed to growth.
Table 11 shows the allocation of citywide police facility costs to new development. Future development is contributing at the same level per capita as existing development. This level of funding could be used to upgrade existing facilities, purchase vehicles, enhance communication
3. POLICE FACILITIES
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
18 systems, and/or perform facility refurbishment within the parameters allowed by Government Code 66000.
Table 11 – Police Facilities Cost for New Development
Cost per Capita, current assets $398.57
Cost per Capita, incremental equipment $77.83
Total Cost per capita $476.40
Service Population Growth (2024-2030) 2,305
Total Cost to Serve Development $1,098,094
Fee Schedule
Table 12 shows the police facilities impact fee for new development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 11. The fee represents the amount required to fully fund all facilities needed to accommodate growth based on the existing standard. Citywide residential and nonresidential development would pay the fee based on the service population estimated to be occupied by the land uses.
Table 12 – Police Facilities Proposed Fee Schedule
Land Use1
Weighting
factor
Costs per
Resident
or Worker Occupancy
Proposed
Fee
Current
Fee2
Residential, fee per number of bedrooms in unit
0 1.00 $476.40 1.23 $585.97 N/A
1 1.00 $476.40 1.75 $833.69 N/A
2 1.00 $476.40 2.27 $1,081.42 $1,000.98
3 1.00 $476.40 2.79 $1,329.15 $1,321.29
ADU1 1.00 $476.40 1.50 $714.59 N/A
Nonresidential, fee per square foot of floor area3
Office 0.54 $257.25 2.50 $0.64 $0.50
Commercial 0.54 $257.25 1.43 $0.37 $0.16
Industrial 0.54 $257.25 2.00 $0.51 $0.40
Institutional 0.54 $257.25 0.67 $0.17 $0.04
1 Throughout this report, for the purpose of comparison and reporting the projected revenues of the fee, the impact fee per ADU is calculated based on an occupancy of 1.50 persons per household.
The actual fee charged to an ADU will depend on the floor area of the permitted ADU, the impact fee may be zero or a proportion of impact fee charged to the primary dwelling unit in accordance with PMC 17.70.040
2 The proposed fee for a 2-bedroom unit is compared to the current multi-family fee, and the proposed fee for a 3-bedroom unit is compared to the current single-family fee. 3Occupancy factors for nonresidential are given per 1,000 square feet of floor area; the proposed fee is further divided by 1,000 to arrive at the fee per one square foot.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
19 4. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for fire facilities to accommodate new development. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
Fire Facilities Service Population
The Pinole fire protection facilities serve both residents and workers within the City of Pinole and the unincorporated areas of Tara Hills and Bayview. Table 13 shows the estimated existing and projected service populations for 2024 and 2030, respectively. In calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.54 to reflect lower per capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units are, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand for services is less than average per-resident demand.
Table 13 – Fire Protection Service Population
2024
Residents Workers
Factored
Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2024) 18,192 4,891 2,641 20,833
New Development (2024-2030) 1,100 2,232 1,205 2,305
Projected Total (2030) 19,292 7,123 3,846 23,138
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.54
Existing Fire Facilities
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) provides fire protection services to the residents and business of Pinole through a service agreement with the City. However, the City owns the facility and equipment listed in Table 14. Con Fire provides fire protection services, emergency medical services, rescue services, and fire prevention services to the City out of Fire Station 73 in a portion of the Public Safety Building shared with the Police Department and also Pinole Valley Response Station 74.
The fire stations and equipment included in the impact fees because they represent the integral capital investments needed to provide fire protection services to Pinole.
Table 14 – Fire Protection Inventory
Facility/Equipment
Current
Value
Public Safety Building (Fire Station No. 73 portion)1 $7,727,238 Pinole Valley Response Station (No. 74, 3700 Pinole Valley Road)1 $2,329,949 Land Area $108,000
Total Facilities: $10,165,187
Equipment 2024 Value
2015 Ford Explorer $9,843
Fire Apparatus $136,443
Type 1 Fire Engine $52,616
Equipment on-board $61,171
Total Equipment: $260,074
1 Depreciated replacement values; one-half of Public Safety Building Source: City of Pinole, City Property Report, 8/6/2018; Contra Costa County Assessor.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
20 Personal Protection Equipment
The projected growth in the service population will result in the need for two additional firefighters if the current ratio of firefighters to population is maintained. These additional personnel will require personal protection and communication equipment as estimated in Table 15.
Table 15 – Personal Fire Protection Equipment
Communications Equipment per Firefighter $2,500
Personal Protective Equipment per Firefighter $3,000
Total Cost per Firefighter $5,500
Additional Firefighters for Growth (see analysis below) 2 Incremental Cost for PPE $11,000
Projected Growth in Service Population 2,305
Cost per Capita $4.77
Current staffing: 6 Captains, 6 Engineers and 6 Firefighters 18 Current Service Population (Residents + Factored Workers) 20,833 Firefighters per 1,000 Service Population (current standard) 0.864 Projected Growth in Service Population 2,305
Additional Firefighters for Growth to 2030 2
Source: Cooperative Fire Service Agreement with CCCFPD, Contra Costa County LAFCO Report 22-07.
Fire Facilities Standards and Unit Costs
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future needs for fire facilities.
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 16, with two exceptions is, based on the existing standard method, which assumes that fire protection facilities and equipment will be needed to serve new development at the current ratio of fire facilities to the resident and worker populations. One exception is the construction of Fire Station 94 in Brentwood and the addition of a new tiller (ladder) truck to the facilities on which the impact fee is based.
These additions are estimated to cost about $17.1 million and will serve the entire Con Fire service population of approximately 771,2001 for a per capita cost of $22.21.
Use of the existing standard to calculate the impact fee ensures that new development pays only for the facilities that are equivalent to those provided to existing development.
The value per capita for buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment are the current value of these assets per the existing population. For the personal protection equipment, the incremental cost is given for new equipment.
1 2022 Annual Report Contra Costa County Fire Protection District plus Pinole 2024 population.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
21 Table 16 – Fire Protection Cost per Capita Standard
Current
Value/Cost
for New
Development
2024 Service
Population/Growth
in Service
Population
Value/Cost
per Capita
Fire Stations Buildings and Land $10,165,187 20,833 $487.94 Fire Station 94 New Construction* $14,025,000 771,200 $18.19 New Tiller Truck* $3,100,000 771,200 $4.02
Current Vehicles & Equipment $260,074 20,833 $12.48
Personal Protection $11,000 2,305 $4.77
Total per Capita: $527.40
*
The new tiller truck was a recent purchase by Con Fire and, along with Station 94, serves the entire Con Fire service area, the cost of these items are therefore divided by the Con Fire service population Fire Facilities Cost for New Development
The City and Con Fire have agreed to begin planning for and participation in funding for Fire Station No. 94 and for Con Fire’s recent purchase of the new tiller truck, that will be needed for expected new multi-story development throughout the Con Fire service area but will also serve existing development in equal proportion. In addition to new facilities future development can be required to pay for existing facilities at a rate that is equivalent to the current population’s per capita investment in the existing fire facilities and equipment. Table 17 shows the allocation of citywide fire protection facility costs to new development. Future development is contributing at the same level per capita as existing development. This level of funding could be used to upgrade existing facilities, purchase equipment and vehicles, enhance communication systems, and/or perform refurbishment within the parameters allowed by Government Code 66000.
Table 17 – Fire Facilities Cost for New Development
Service Population Growth (2024-2030) 2,305
Total Cost per Capita $527.40
Total Cost to Serve New Development $1,215,657
Funding from other sources* $462,701
*Existing development’s share of Fire Station 94 and Con Fire’s new Tiller Truck Fee Schedule
Table 18 shows the proposed fire protection facilities impact fee for new development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 16. The fee represents the amount required to fully fund all facilities needed to accommodate growth based on the existing standard.
4. FIRE PROTECTION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
22 Table 18 – Proposed Fire Facilities Impact Fee
Land Use
Weighting
Factor
Cost per
Resident or
Worker
Occupancy
Factor
Proposed
Fee
Current
Fee1
Residential, fee per number of bedrooms in unit
0 1.00 $527.40 1.23 $648.70 N/A
1 1.00 $527.40 1.75 $922.95 N/A
2 1.00 $527.40 2.27 $1,197.20 $1,279.16
3 1.00 $527.40 2.79 $1,471.45 $1,688.49
ADU 1.00 $527.40 1.50 $791.10 N/A
Nonresidential, fee per square foot of floor
area
Office 0.54 $284.80 2.50 $0.71 $0.640
Commercial 0.54 $284.80 1.43 $0.41 $0.20
Industrial 0.54 $284.80 2.00 $0.57 $0.51
Institutional 0.54 $284.80 0.67 $0.19 $0.05
1The proposed fee for a 2-bedroom unit is compared to the current multi-family fee, and the proposed fee for a 3-bedroom unit is compared to the current singlefamily fee. The apparent reduction in fee is due to the lower occupancy factor for the bedroom analysis compared to the occupancy by unit type used in previous nexus study.
5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
23 5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and equipment to accommodate new development. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
Existing Municipal Facilities
The City of Pinole owns and operates the facilities listed in Tables 19 and 20. The public facilities service population is shown in Table 20. The current value of these buildings is determined by depreciating the estimated replacement cost, based on the year of construction or the last appraisal and a 50-year useful life. The complete calculations of current value are shown in the appendix.
Table 19 – Community Facilities Inventory
Facility Location
Building
Floor
Area
Square
Feet
Appraised
Building
Value
Land
Value
Youth, Recreational and Cultural Facilities
Memorial Hall/ Youth Center) 601-635 Tennent Ave. 9,553 $3,893,975 $1,146,276 Pinole Senior Center 2572 Charles Ave. 14,320 $5,283,367 $1,008,850 Pinole Swim Center/Tiny Tots
Day Care 2450 Simas Ave. 3,848 $1,461,065 $164,914
Totals: 27,721 $10,638,407 $2,320,040
Table 19 continued
Facility
Year Built/
Appraised
Useful
Life
Replacement
Cost
Accumulated
Depreciation
Current
Value
Memorial Hall/Youth Center 2019 50 $5,401,797 ($432,144) $4,969,653 Pinole Senior Center 2019 50 $7,329,188 ($586,335) $6,742,853 Pinole Swim Center/Tiny Tots
Day Care 2019 50 $2,026,817 ($162,145) $1,864,672
Total $13,557,178
Table 20 – Municipal Facilities Inventory
Facility Location
Floor Area
Square Feet
Appraised
Value
Land
Value
City Hall 2131 Pear Street 17,593 $7,786,125 $55,000
Post Office1 2101 Pear Street 4,560 $1,399,462 $309,810 Totals: 22,153 $9,185,587 $364,810
Table 20 continued
Facility
Year Built/
Appraised
Useful
Life
Replacement
Cost
Accumulated
Depreciation
Current
Value
City Hall 2017 50 $11,442,114 ($1,373,054) $10,069,060
Post Office1 2019 50 $1,941,360 ($155,309) $1,786,052
Total: $11,855,112
1 The post office building is owned by the City and leased to the US Postal Service.
5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
24 Public Facilities Service Population
The public facilities serve both residents and workers in the City of Pinole. Table 21 shows the estimated existing and projected service populations for 2024 and 2030, respectively. In calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.54 to reflect lower per capita service demand. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units are, so it is reasonable to assume that average per-worker demand of services is less than average perresident demand.
Table 21 – Public Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Factored
Workers
Service
Population1
Existing (2024) 18,192 4,891 2,641 20,833
New Development (2024-2030) 1,100 2,232 1,205 2305
Projected Total (2030) 19,292 7,123 3,846 23,138
Weighting Factor 1.00 0.54
Public Facilities Standards and Unit Costs
This section discusses the standard used to determine the future developments’ share of the costs of facilities for services related to the public facilities.
Per Capita Standards and Unit Costs
To ensure equity between the level of existing facilities and the facilities that new development should be responsible for, a per capita facility standard is used. The standard, as shown in Table 22, is based on the existing standard method, which assumes that public facilities, equipment, and vehicles will be needed to serve new development at the current ratio of the value of public facilities to the resident and worker populations. This method is appropriate when the current facilities are deemed adequate to serve the current population. Use of the existing standard to calculate the impact fee ensures that new development pays only for the facilities that are equivalent to those provided to existing development.
The current value of equipment and vehicles with a useful life of five years or more used by City departments, other than police, are listed in the appendix.
Table 22 – Public Facilities Current Values per Capita
Current Value
2024
Service
Population
Cost per
Capita at
Current Facility
Standard
Community & Municipal Buildings $25,432,289 20,833 $1,220.77 Land Value $2,684,850 20,833 $128.87
Equipment & Vehicles $1,826,479 20,833 $87.67
Total Facilities Cost per Capita: $1,437.31
5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
25 Public Facilities Cost for New Development
The City of Pinole, in its adopted Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), calls for the installation of up to 270 electric vehicle charging stations by 2030 on city property and in public areas. This a CAAP transportation measure (TR-4) designed to help meet the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. The cost per connection for purchase and installation of DC fast chargers (DCFC) can be up to $150,000.1 The cost in Table 23 assumes 50 connections at an average cost of $100,000 per connection. The EV charging station installation cost could also be included with the Transportation impact fee since it meets the definition of a measure that will offset the carbon emissions of the vehicle miles traveled by new development. The inclusion in the Public Facilities chapter results in slightly lower per capita fee rate due to the different ways the percentage of cost allocated to growth is calculated (growth in vehicle trips vs. growth in service population). At the cost per capita given in Table 23, the fees from the new service population will generate approximately $550,000 to be used for EV Charging Stations, or about 11 percent of the cost of 50 connections, the other approximately $4,450,000 must be provided by sources other than the impact fee.
Table 23 – EV Charging Station Cost per Capita
New Facilities Units Per unit
Cost Total Cost Service Population1 Cost per Capita
EV Charging Stations 50 $100,000 $5,000,000 20,833 $240.00 1The cost of the charging stations is spread over the entire service population since the stations will benefit everyone.
Other than the EV charging stations, the City of Pinole has no current plans to add municipal or community facilities. However, new development can be required to pay for existing public facilities at a rate that is equivalent to the current population’s per capita share of investment in the existing facilities. Table 24 shows the total public facility costs to new development. Future development is contributing at the same level per capita as existing development. This level of funding could be used to upgrade existing facilities, purchase vehicles, enhance communication systems, and/or perform refurbishment within the parameters allowed by Government Code 66000.
Table 24 – Public Facilities Cost for New Development
Total Current Facilities Cost per Capita $1,437.31
EV Charging Stations $240.00
Total Cost per Capita $1,677.31
Service Population Growth, 2024-2030 2,305
Total Cost to Serve Growth $3,866,200
1 “Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States”, Joule Vol 4, Issue 7 July 15,2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s2542435120302312
5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
26 Fee Schedule
Table 25 shows the proposed public facilities impact fee for new development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 24. The fee represents the amount required to fully fund all facilities needed to accommodate growth based on the existing standard.
Table 25 – Proposed Public Facilities Impact Fee
Land Use1
Weighting
factor
Costs
per
Resident
& Worker Density2
Proposed
Fee
Current
Fee1
Residential, fee per number of bedrooms in unit
0 (studio) 1.00 $1,677.31 1.23 $2,063.09 N/A
1 1.00 $1,677.31 1.75 $2,935.29 N/A
2 1.00 $1,677.31 2.27 $3,807.49 $1,726.13
3 1.00 $1,677.31 2.79 $4,679.69 $2,278.48
ADU 1.00 $1,677.31 1.50 $2,515.97 N/A
Nonresidential, fee per square foot of floor area
Office 0.54 $905.75 2.50 $2.264 $0.863
Commercial 0.54 $905.75 1.43 $1.295 $0.276
Industrial 0.54 $905.75 2.00 $1.811 $0.690
Institutional 0.54 $905.75 0.67 $0.607 $0.069
1The proposed fee for a 2-bedroom unit is compared to the current multi-family fee, and the proposed fee for a 3-bedroom unit is compared to the current single-family fee.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
27 6. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for parks and recreational facilities to accommodate new development. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the maximum justified impact fee for funding of such facilities.
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City of Pinole maintains neighborhood and community parks varying in size and distributed generally throughout the community. Most of the parks in the City are located within walking or biking distance of residential neighborhoods.
Neighborhood parks usually abut residential areas and include play areas, picnic areas, gathering areas, and open turf suitable for informal play, practices, or scrimmages. Community parks are generally designed to serve the needs of several neighborhoods or the whole community.
The City has 12 neighborhood and community parks in addition to a youth and senior center located at Fernandez Park. The City’s parks and their sizes and facilities are identified in Table 26. Total ground area of these facilities is approximately 54.2 acres. Bayfront Park is the largest park at nearly 20 acres.
The City also has extensive holdings of undeveloped, usable open space totaling over 227 acres. This acreage may be developed into active neighborhood or community parks or may be left in their current state, thereby providing a valuable resource amenity for residents. Table 27 lists the open space inventory. The value of open space acreage is assumed to be the land value listed for the parcel by the Contra Costa County Assessor.
Table 28 summarizes the value of stand-alone recreation facilities, which are included in calculating the per capita cost of current park and recreation facilities. These additional facilities are amenities not included in the park inventory, but which provide benefits to current and future residents.
6. PARKS AND RECREATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
28 Table 26 – Existing Developed Park Facilities Inventory Park Site Location
Net
Active
Park Area
(acres) Park Facilities
Bayfront Park 1 Tennent Ave. 19.42 Walking paths and trails along shoreline and Pinole Creek, two picnic tables,
benches, BBQ facilities, drinking fountain
and restroom facilities.
Fernandez Park 595 Tennent Ave. 4.62 Large playground, gazebo area, horseshoe pit, garden, tot lot, picnic
tables, two parking lots, BBQ facilities,
play area, restroom facilities, drinking
fountains, baseball field and basketball
court.
Pinole Valley Park 3790 Pinole Valley
Road
12.5 Two parking lots, one playground,
concession stand, restroom facilities,
drinking fountains, two soccer fields, one
baseball field, skate park, and one
basketball court. Hazel Downer-Thornton
Picnic Grove (1267 Adobe Road) has 4
picnic areas with tables and restrooms,
BBQ facilities, and drinking fountains with
a hiking trail that connects to the
Sobrante Ridge Regional Preserve. Large
and small dog parks.
Amber Swartz Park 3450 Savage
Avenue
3.95 Gazebo, walking path to Pinole Valley
Park and two benches located in the
gazebo.
Louis Francis Park 596 Marlesta
Drive
7.8 Picnic tables, 1 small BBQ pit, benches,
drinking fountain, playground, and sand
pad.
Meadow Park 1095 Nob Hill
Avenue
1.2 Public art, mosaic mural, new
playground, benches and basketball
courts.
Pinon Park 1600 Primrose
Lane
0.37 Picnic tables, benches, BBQ facilities,
and new play area.
Dog Park 1263 Adobe
Road
1.17 Parking, fencing and benches
Pinon Valley Tennis
Courts
2955 Pinole Valley
Road
0.76 Improvements listed in Table 27
Pinole Swim Center
& Tiny Tots Center
2450 Simas Ave. 1.7 Improvements listed in Table 18
Canyon Drive Park 1822 Canyon
Drive
0.47 Play area, picnic tables and benches
Pinole Valley Picnic
Grove
3790 Pinole Valley
Road
0.2 Picnic tables and benches
Total 54.16
6. PARKS AND RECREATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
29 Table 27 – Existing Open Space Inventory
Location
Open Space
Acres
Assessor's
Parcel Number
Assessor’s
Land Value,
2024
Pinole Valley Park (parcel 1) 34.83 360-210-001 $75,079 Pinole Valley Park (parcel 2) 134.92 360-210-006 $293,891 Pinole Valley Park (parcel 3) 34.04 360-210-002 $73,991 Hugh Young Park 7.92 360-392-010 $72,049
Henry Ave. Public Open Space 10.82 401-230-016 $1,756
View Park, 2021 Henry Ave. 2.73 401-461-053 $469
Sarah Drive Park 1.75 430-330-014 $188,499
Totals: 227.01 $705,734
Current Residential Population 18,192
Open Space Land Value per Capita $38.79
Source: Contra Costa County Tax Assessor
Table 28 – Other Recreation Improvements
Swim Center Pool Complex (land value included in
Community Facilities) $1,863,939
Pinole Valley Park caretakers building (1270 Adobe) $1,156,548 Pinole Valley Road restroom, bleachers & concessions $380,513 Pinole Valley Tennis Center, 2955 Pinole Valley Road $400,000 Total Other Recreation Improvements: $3,801,000
Current Residential Population 18,192
Open Space Land Value per Capita $208.94
Source: 2023 City Property List-Appraised Values
Table 29 summarizes the current park standard in the City of Pinole Table 29 – Park Level of Service Standards
Park Inventory
Active
Park Acres
Developed Park Acreage 54.16
2024 Population: 18,192
Active park acres per 1,000 population: 2.98
Park Cost Estimate
To establish the value of one acre of developed park, a park cost estimate is used based on a typical 5- acre neighborhood park, including land acquisition. The estimate is provided in Table 30. The amenities included in this typical park are equivalent to those found in the City’s existing parks.
6. PARKS AND RECREATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
30 Table 30 – Cost Estimate for a Typical Park
Item Description Quantity Unit
Unit
Cost Item Cost
Mobilization 1.00 Lump Sum $50,000 $50,000
Off-site Improvements (curb & gutter 1/2 street
width) 500 Lineal Feet $250 $125,000
Site Prep, Drainage, Utilities, Irrigation & Turf, Shade Trees 5.00 Acres $300,000 $1,500,000
Multipurpose Fields 1 Each $120,000 $120,000
Basketball Court (1 Concrete) 1 Each $60,000 $60,000
Concrete Walkways (4' x 6' wide, perimeter of site) 1,900 Lineal Feet $35 $66,500 Play Apparatus $90,000 $90,000
Open Field Play Area 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $25,000
Group Picnic Shelter and Barbecue Facilities 1 Lump Sum $75,000 $75,000 Permanent Restrooms (one each male and
female) 2 Each $250,000 $500,000
Parking Lot (3" AC/4" AB) 0.5 Acres $400,000 $200,000
Total Construction $2,811,500
Land Acquisition (cost per acre based on $8 per
square foot in accordance with Municipal Code
Sec.16.28.060, fee in-lieu of park land dedication) 5 Acres $348,480 $1,742,400 Contingency @ 20% $562,300
Engineering @ 12% $337,380
CM & Inspection @ 10% $281,150
City Administration @ 4% (1% design, 1% construction, 2% overhead) $112,460 Environmental @3% $84,345
Total Non-Construction $1,377,635
Project Total w/Land Acquisition $5,939,135
Total Cost per Acre $1,186,307
Parks and Recreation Standards and Unit Costs
This section discusses the standard used to determine the standard for parks and recreation facilities.
Per Capita Standards and Unit Costs
Park standards are typically stated in terms of parkland per 1,000 population. The standard for Pinole, shown in Table 31, is based on total developed parks. This table also shows the asset value per capita for other existing recreation facilities and open space.
Table 31 – Park Facility Standards and Costs per Capita Current Population 18,192
Current Active Park Acreage 54.16
Park Standard Acres per 1,000 Residents 2.98
Service Population Growth, 2024-2030 1,100
Park Acreage Required for Growth (1,100 x 2.98) 3.28
Cost per Acre $1,186,307
New Park Cost to Serve Growth $3,891,087
Park per Capita Cost (New Park Costs/Population Growth) $3,537.35 Open Space Cost per Capita $38.79
Other Recreation Facilities $208.94
Total Cost per Capita for Parks, Open Space and Recreation $3,785.08
6. PARKS AND RECREATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
31 Parks and Recreation Cost for New Development
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of facilities related to new development at the existing rate per 1,000 population. Table 32 shows the citywide parks and recreation facility cost for new development.
Table 32 – Park Cost for New Development
Residential Population Growth (2024-2030) 1,100
Cost per Capita $3,7895.08
Total Cost for New Development $4,163,588
Fee Schedule
Table 33 shows the parks and recreation impact fee for new development based on the facilities cost per capita shown in Table 31. The fee represents the amount required to fully fund all new park and recreation facilities needed to accommodate growth based on the existing facility standard.
Table 33 – Proposed Park Impact Fee
Land Use
Cost per
Capita
Occupants
per Unit
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
Current
Fee
Residential, fee per number of bedrooms in Unit
0 (studio) $3,785.08 1.23 $4,655.65 N/A
1 $3,785.08 1.75 $6,623.89 N/A
2 $3,785.08 2.27 $8,592.13 $6,981.71
3 $3,785.08 2.79 10,560.37 $9,215.85
ADU $3,785.08 1.50 $5,677.62 N/A
1The proposed fee for a 2-bedroom unit is compared to the current multifamily fee, and the proposed fee for a 3-bedroom unit is compared to the current single-family fee.
Dedication of Park Land and Park Impact Fees
The City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) (Municipal Code Section 16.28) requires, as a condition of approval for the subdivision of land, the dedication of parkland or payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 (the Quimby Act). The Quimby Act allows the City to require the dedication of land for park purposes up to the rate of 3 acres per 1,000 expected occupants.
The City may collect the full AB 1600 park impact fees for park acquisition and development at the issuance of building permits but may not impose the land dedication requirement at the subdivision stage.
The City may collect on either the PDO or the impact fee, but not both.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
32 7. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for transportation facilities, which include arterial roadway and intersection improvements, to serve new development through 2030. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.
Transportation Facilities Standards
Level of Service with New Development
The level of service (LOS) provided by the current road network under the land use conditions projected at General Plan buildout was estimated using the Contra County Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) regional traffic model.
The definitions of the LOS measures are:
A. Traffic flowing freely (volume to capacity ratio (v/c =0.50 to 0.59) B. Generally unimpeded traffic flow (v/c = 0.60 to 0.69) C. Slower but stable flow with minor delays (v/c = 0.70 to 0.79) D. Reduced speeds and increased delays (v/c = 0.80 to 0.89) E. Slow speeds and significant delays (v/c = 0.90 to 0.99) F. Stop-and-go traffic, high level of delay (v/c > 1.00) The CCTA model shows that intersections along key corridors serving Pinole, such as San Pablo Avenue, Appian Way, and Pinole Valley Road, would fall to LOS E or F. Nine intersections would fall to LOS F and one to LOS E by 2030. In addition to Pinole’s expected growth, these intersections are also impacted by the projected growth in the surrounding jurisdictions.
Transportation Demand from New Development
Table 34 shows transportation demand that would be generated by new development from 2024 to 2030.
The total demand for new facilities across all land use types, is based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for all types of residential development and the major categories of nonresidential development. For residential development, a VMT per person of 18.61 is used. This value was determined by dividing the total home-based VMT for Contra Costa County in 2023 by the County’s household population in 2023.1 To make the Transportation fee schedule consistent with the other facilities in this study, the VMT per person is used to calculate the VMT per unit using occupancy by number of bedrooms as shown in Table
6. AB-602 Compliance
The transportation demand generated by existing and new residential development is estimated by using bedrooms per unit and not floor area as would be required to be in strict compliance with AB-602. This is 1 Fehr & Peers, 2023; Contra Costa Travel Model, 2023, Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
7. TRANSPORTATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
33 another situation where, due to the available data, the analysis is not conducive to a fee per square foot of floor area. The Institute of Transportation Engineering, which is the primary source of trip generation estimates for land use, only reports residential trip rates by type of development—i.e. single family, apartments, condominiums etc. Therefore, the VMT-based method is used to calculate the fee for both residential and commercial development. This method also conforms to SB-743 by using VMT as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts. This study adapts the ITE nonresidential trip generation rates by applying a standard miles per trip factor depending on the land use, as shown in Table 34.
For purposes of this fee study, all current and future trips on City of Pinole streets are treated as if they are generated from either a city residence or place of business. New development outside of Pinole that generates trips on Pinole streets cannot be charged the impact fee. Therefore, those trips that originate and/or end outside the City of Pinole are considered a part of “existing development” whose share of roadway capital improvements must be borne by the City or be funded by sources other than the impact fee.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
34 Table 34 – Transportation Demand 2024-2030
Land Use1
2024
Existing
Growth
2024-
2030 Total
VMT per
Occupant
or per 1,000
sq. ft.
Pass-by
Factor
2024
VMT VMT Growth
2030
VMT
Residential (dwelling units)
Total Units 6,873 435 7308
Household Occupancy Rate 2.647 2.529 2.640
Residential Population 18,192 1,100 19,292 18.61 1.00 338,556 20,471 359,027 Nonresidential (in square feet)4
Office 909,740 512,466 1,422,206 80 0.50 36,390 20,499 56,888 Commercial/Retail 1,009,926 431,088 1,441,014 210 0.50 106,042 45,264 151,306 Industrial 476,283 -4 476,279 100 0.65 30,958 0 30,958
Institutional 1,086,000 0 1,086,000 90 0.95 92,853 0 92,853 266,243 65,763 332,006
Total 604,799 86,234 691,033
Percentage 2030 VMT from Growth 12.48%
1Nonresidential trip generation rates per the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation 7th Edition 2008:
General office building/Office Park: 10 trips per 1,000 sq. ft x 8 miles per trip Commercial: 35 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. (as typical shopping center) x 6 miles per trip General Light Industrial: 10 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. x 10 miles per trip Institutional (government office complex): 9 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. x 10 miles per trip VMT rates are further adjusted with pass-by factors, which adjust for original trips stopping at interim destinations.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
35 SB-743 Impact on Use of Intersection Level of Service Passed by the California legislature in September 2013, SB-743 removed LOS as a standard of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The legislation called for the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to revise the CEQA Guidelines and provide an alternative measure for determining the impact of new development and transportation improvements. The rationale for the change in traffic impact analysis under CEQA is that with land development such as redevelopment or within infill locations, LOS standards, due to the incremental nature of cumulative impacts, primarily impact the “last in” or the latest development to occur in these locations and exaggerated their relative impact, while earlier developments, because of their comparatively small size, typically do not exceed the LOS threshold standard. As part of its initial discussion paper on the change in CEQA guidelines issued in July 2014, OPR recommended the use of VMT as the new measure that would serve as the replacement for LOS. VMT could be measured on a per capita basis (in this study the per capita VMT is given as 18.61) or is calculated for the entire project. SB-743 encourages transportation improvement projects that reduce overall VMT on the local network and would provide mitigation for the VMT projected to be added by land development projects. By the nature of the land development proposed in Pinole, particularly in the Three Corridors Specific Plans, VMT is expected to be lower than the more extensive suburban alternatives. Therefore, the transportation improvement projects included in this study are a combination of measures designed to reduce VMT and improve LOS. The City of Pinole adopted “Walk and Roll PinoleActive Transportation Plan” (ATP) in December 2023. The ATP includes measures designed to reduce VMT.
Table 35 includes the following projects referenced in the ATP has relevant to the goal of reducing VMT. • Arterial Rehabilitation
• Tennent Ave Rehabilitation
• Appian Way Complete Streets
• Pedestrian Improvements at Tennent
Ave near railroad tracks
• Hazel Street Gap Closure
• Safety Improvements at Appian Way &
Marlesta Road
• Smart Signals
Transportation Improvements Cost for New Development
Planned Projects
Improvements on circulation element streets were identified in the City’s 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan and are listed in Table 35. These improvements provide for a complete range of mobility enhancements that would benefit existing and new development. New development’s share of the cost of these improvements is limited to the 12.48 percent of the 2030 VMTs that are attributable to growth estimated to occur during the period 2024-2030.
7. TRANSPORTATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
36 Table 35 – Transportation Improvements
Capital Improvements
Project Cost
(2024)
Other
Designated
Funding1
Local
Funding
San Pablo Avenue Bridge over BNSF2 $30,774,162 $1,974,162 $3,692,899 San Pablo Avenue Rehabilitation $662,000 $586,000 $76,000 Safety Improvement at Appian Way and
Marlesta $679,429 $129,000 $550,429
Safety Improvements on Arterial Roadways $275,000 $275,000 Tennant Avenue Rehabilitation $682,805 $488,493 $194,312 Arterial Rehabilitation $1,686,845 $896,963 $789,882
Hazel Street Gap Closure $200,000 $200,000
Pedestrian Improvements on Tennent Ave.
near Railroad $1,406,672 $44,700 $1,361,972
Street Paving Equipment $395,000 $395,000
Smart Signals $154,302 $154,302
Appian Way Complete Street $1,070,000 $1,070,000
Total Local Funding for Planned Improvements: $8,759,796 1 Includes Gas Tax, grant funds, measure funds, etc.
2 Local funding for the San Pablo Avenue Bridge is capped at 12% as local match for grant funding Source: City of Pinole, 5-year CIP 2024-2028
Transportation Improvement Costs Per VMT
The total cost per VMT for the transportation improvement projects is shown in Table 36.
Table 36 – Transportation Improvements Cost per VMT
Roadway Capital Improvement Costs (Local Share) $8,759,796 2024 VMT’s 604,799
2024 - 2030 VMT's 86,234
2030 VMT’s 691,033
Percentage 2030 VMT from Growth 12.48%
Local Share Allocated to Growth $1,093,223
Cost per 2024-2030 VMT $12.68
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of transportation improvements that enhance mobility within the city and reduce VMT. Table 36 shows the allocation of citywide transportation system costs to new development. Future development is contributing at the same rate as existing development, at $12.68 per VMT. In this case, existing and future development would include traffic impacts outside the City of Pinole. Therefore, the City will need to seek regional funds from sources such as the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, Congestion Management, Measure J, or a regional impact fee program to meet the demands placed on local arterials by development growth outside the City.
Fee Schedule
Table 37 shows the Transportation facilities impact fee for new development based on the road improvements cost per VMT shown in Table 36. The fee represents the amount required to fully fund
7. TRANSPORTATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
37 roadway improvements needed to accommodate growth. Citywide residential and nonresidential developments in the City would pay the fee based on the VMT for the improvements identified.
Table 37 – Proposed Transportation Impact Fee
Land Use1
Cost
per
VMT
Average VMTs
per Occupant
or per 1,000 sq.
ft.
Occupants
per Unit
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
Current
Fee1
Residential, fee per bedrooms in units
0 $12.68 18.61 1.23 $290.25 N/A
1 $12.68 18.61 1.75 $412.96 N/A
2 $12.68 18.61 2.27 $535.66 $338.71
3 $12.68 18.61 2.79 $658.37 $477.05
ADU $12.68 18.61 1.50 $353.96 N/A
Nonresidential, fee per square feet of floor area
Office $12.68 40.00 N/A $0.51 $0.64
Commercial $12.68 105.00 N/A $1.33 $1.60
Industrial $12.68 65.00 N/A $0.82 $0.42
Institutional $12.68 85.50 N/A $1.08 $1.21
1The proposed fee for a 2-bedroom unit is compared to the current multi-family fee, and the proposed fee for a 3-bedroom unit is compared to the current singlefamily fee. The proposed nonresidential fees per square foot are less than the current fee rates due to the way VMT’s are calculated for nonresidential uses.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
38 8. DRAINAGE FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the analysis of the need for drainage facilities to accommodate new development. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of such facilities.
Drainage facilities serve both residential and nonresidential development. Table 38 summarizes the impacts of existing and new development on the City’s drainage system in terms of the increase in impervious land area that is tributary to the system due to new development.
Drainage Impacts of Existing and New Development
Table 38 analyses existing and new development in terms of the change in developed acreage since land use is generally stated in terms of acres. To link acreage with drainage impacts, the acreage values are adjusted by an impervious land factor for each land use type. This factor represents the portion of land that does not allow for infiltration of rainfall. For example, the 0.50 factor for single-family homes includes the roof, patio covers, driveway, other hardscaped areas, indicating that a typical single-family parcel is covered by 50 percent impervious area. The higher the percentage of impervious land in an area the more runoff will occur which results in the need for more drainage infrastructure.
Table 38 shows the General Plan land use types consolidated into a few major categories: single and multifamily in residential land use and office, commercial industrial and public/institutional in the nonresidential categories. This consolidation is done to forecast the change in developed acreage more easily with the fewest number of assumptions. In addition, to there being many other types of land use, development projects may include a mix of uses—for example commercial and/or retail businesses plus some multi-family units. But whether a parcel develops with a mix of uses does not factor into the analysis since it is the impervious area of the project that is key to the calculation of the fee. A relatively large parcel may include many buildings with multiple floors, parking areas, landscaping, and hardscape, which all must be evaluated to determine the total impervious area on which to apply the fee.
Note that in this study the assumption is made that most of the growth in multifamily housing will, by necessity, come about via redevelopment to multi-story construction on currently developed "opportunity" sites, primarily within the Three Corridors Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the projected overall increase in developed land area is relatively small, only about 3.5 percent of the total development footprint in 2030 to accommodate over 400 new dwelling units and about 560,000 square feet of nonresident floor area.
AB-602 Compliance
In Table 38 converts the impervious developed acreage to impervious square feet by multiplying acreage by 43,560. In this way the drainage fee may be charged per square foot of project area as required by AB602.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
39 Table 38 – Drainage Impacts
Land Use1
Existing
Developed
Acres
Projected
Growth of
Developed
Acreage
2024-20301
Total
2030
Impervious
Factor2
Impervious
Area
(acres)
2024
Total
Impervious
(acres)
2030
Growth in
Impervious
Area (acres)
2024-2030
Growth in
Impervious
Area (sq. ft.)
2024-2030
Residential (in acres)
Single Family3 1,477 6 1,483 0.50 739 742 3 108,900
Multi-family3 211 27 238 0.80 169 190 21 914,760
1,688 33 1,721 908 932 24 1,023,660
Non-residential (in acres)4
Office5 35 6 41 0.80 28 33 5 217,800
Retail/Commercial/
Food Service
230 20 250 0.80 184 200 16 696,960
Industrial 17 0 17 0.95 16 16 0 0
Public/Institutional 110 0 110 0.75 83 83 0 0
392 26 418 311 332 21 914,760
Total Acres 2,080 59 2,139 1,219 1,263 45
Total Square Feet 53,099,640 55,038,060 1,938,420
2024-2030 growth as a percentage 2030 impervious area 3.52% 1 This analysis assumes the availability of vacant land that is identified in the land use data compiled for the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Redevelopment of currently developed parcels is assumed to occur at generally higher densities than current development. Details of the land use acreage assumptions are in the Appendix.
2 Impervious factors are related to the C coefficient in the rational runoff formula: Q=CIA, for the respective land uses. 3 Single family acreage increase is based on 30 single family homes at an assumed average density of 5 units per acre. 4The growth shown for multi-family is based on an average density of 14 units per acre or 27 acres to accommodate 375 new units shown in Table 6. Most of the growth in multi-family housing will, by necessity, come via development on currently developed "opportunity" sites and multi-story construction.
*
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
40 Planned Drainage Improvements
The City’s Capital Improvement Plan lists drainage projects for the fiscal years 2024-2028, as shown on Table 39. These projects will serve existing and new development.
Table 39 – Drainage Improvements
Storm Drain Improvements 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 Total Storm Drain Master Plan $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Hazel Street Drainage $440,098 $440,098
Roble Road Drainage $700,000 $700,000
Stormwater System Rehabilitation $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,200,000 $1,950,000 Total Cost $3,215,098
Drainage Facility Impact Costs Per Acre
The total cost per impervious acre for the drainage improvement projects is shown in Table 40.
Table 40 – Drainage Improvements per Impervious Acre
Drainage Capital Improvement Costs $3,215,098
Total Impervious Square Feet 2024 53,099,640
2024-2030 Growth in Impervious Square Feet 1,938,420
Total Impervious Square Feet 2030 55,038,060
Percentage of 2030 Square Feet from Growth 3.52%
Cost for New Development $113,171.45
Cost per Impervious Square Foot $0.06
Cost to Existing Development $3,101,927
Drainage Facilities Standards and Unit Costs
New development can be required to provide its proportionate share of drainage facilities related to new development. Table 40 shows the allocation of citywide drainage facilities costs to new development.
Future development is contributing at the same rate per impervious acre as existing development.
Fee Schedule
Table 41 shows the proposed drainage facilities impact fee schedule for new development based on the facilities cost per impervious square foot shown in Table 40. Residential “example” fees are shown for comparison with the current fees charged to residential units. These examples are based on the density and impervious area assumptions for typical single and multi-family homes, 5 and 14 aces per unit, respectively. In keeping with AB-602, an actual project would be charged the fee based on the impervious area of the project.
8. DRAINAGE
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
41 Table 41 – Proposed Drainage Impact Fee
Land Use
Parcel
area per
Unit in
Square
Feet1
Impervious
Factor
Drainage
Improvement
Cost per
Impervious
Square Foot
Example
Fees for
Typical
Project
Current
Fee
Residential, example fee per dwelling unit
Single Family2 8,712 0.50 $0.06 $261.36 $1,270.54
Multifamily 3 3,111 0.80 $0.06 $149.33 $76.23
Nonresidential, example fee per square foot of floor area 4 Office 2,000 0.80 $0.06 $0.10 $0.19
Commercial 2,000 0.80 $0.06 $0.10 $0.19
Industrial 3,333 0.95 $0.06 $0.19 $0.37
Public/Institutional 5,000 0.75 $0.06 $0.23 $0.44
1 Parcel area is the entire ground area on which the development is constructed. It is given as square feet per dwelling unit for residential and for 1,000 square feet of constructed enclosed floor area for nonresidential.
2Single family parcel area per unit is based on an assumed average density of 5 units per acre (43,560/5).
2Multi-family parcel area per unit is based on an average density of 14 units per acre. 4Nonresidential parcel area per 1000 square feet of nonresidential floor area is based on assumed floor area ratios of 0.5 for office and commercial, 0.30 for industrial, and 0.2 for public/institutional.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
42 9. IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee program, including adoption of increased fees.
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. Adoption of an impact fee program and increasing impact fees both require the City Council to follow certain procedures, including holding a public hearing. Mailed notice 14 days prior to the public hearing is required only for those individuals who request such notification. Data, such as this impact fee report, and referenced material must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should inform the City of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption, there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees and increased fee may go into effect, unless an urgency ordinance, valid for 30 days, is adopted making certain findings regarding the urgency being claimed. In this case, the ordinance must be readopted at the end of the first period (and possibly at the end of the second period depending on City Council meeting dates) to cover the next 30 days and therefore the entire 60-day waiting period. Fees adopted by urgency go into effect immediately. This procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the Capital Improvement Plan Section 66002 states that a local agency may adopt a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that indicates the approximate location, size, date of construction, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the impact fees. If a CIP is referenced in this manner and used to identify specific projects and program fee revenues to be applied to those projects, the City must annually update and adopt the CIP by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances and projected fee revenue to facilities projects. The City can hold funds in a project account for longer than five years, if necessary, to collect sufficient funds to complete a project.
Funds Needed to Complement Impact Fee Program
In adopting the fees as presented in this report, additional funds will need to be identified to fund the share of costs not related to new development. Table 3 identifies the facilities studied in this report and the funding sources for the facilities. The “General Fund/Other Sources” column identifies the additional funding that the City needs to obtain for the facilities shown to cover the City’s share related to existing development.
Inflation Adjustment
The costs in this report are shown in 2024 dollars based on construction cost estimates. To ensure that the fee program stays current with costs, the City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and include an automatic annual inflation adjustment in the fee ordinance for those facilities
9. IMPLEMENTATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
43 or systems that have not been completed. In addition, for those facilities for which the City is recouping funds for building excess capacity, no annual adjustment factor is recommended. For these projects, the annual adjustment factor is not necessary because the facilities have been constructed and the costs determined.
A construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News-Record.
Combining Fees
Each facility category has been presented separately for the purpose of analysis and reporting. However, fees may be combined into two or more fee categories at the City’s discretion, to facilitate administration.
Compliance Requirements
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection, accounting, refunds, updates, and reporting.
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. The City’s compliance obligations vis-à-vis the Act include but are not limited to the following specific requirements:
Collection of fees. Section 66007 provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. In a residential development of more than one dwelling unit, the City may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit when it is completed.
Fee exemptions, reductions, and waivers. If a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that indicate its impacts on a public facility or infrastructure system will be significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.
In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased costs to other development projects and are allowable only if the City offsets the lost revenue from other fund sources.
Credit for improvements by developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been or will be charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of facilities or improvements constructed by the developer. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the development for that type of facility, the City may seek to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer.
9. IMPLEMENTATION
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
44 Earmarking of fee revenues. Section 66006 mandates that the City shall “deposit …. fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, except for temporary investments.” Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The Act is not clear as to whether depositing fees “for the improvements” refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., park facilities). Recommended practice for the City is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category, but not necessarily for individual projects.
Reporting. Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. The amount of the fee.
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
3. The amount of the fees collected, and interest earned.
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues.
5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement.
6. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on which the transfer or loan will be expended.
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).
The above information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and refunds. Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all the following findings for any fee revenues that remain unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put.
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used.
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account of fund.
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
45 APPENDIX
Municipal Equipment and Vehicles
Division Item Asset Value
Cable TV 1995 GMC Van $9,890
Parks 1991 BRUSH BANDIT Chipper $7,310
2001 CHEVROLET 1500 4x4 $15,390
1994 FORD F-350 $14,620
Public Works 1980 KUBOTA Tractor $2,185
1984 KUBOTA Tractor $5,280
2005 KUBOTA F2560-R 4WD w/front mount mower $17,800
2020 Kubota Track Loader K94250 $60,000
DITCHWITCH Trencher $2,910
1992 STANLEY HYD. Trailer $7,310
1993 XHL-Double Trailer $3,295
UT-912 TRIPLE L Trailer $6,935
2006 CHEVROLET $13,880
1999 FORD E350 Step Van $16,344
2006 FORD F250 $16,800
2008 FORD F250 $18,000
2008 FORD F250 4x4 $18,500
2016 FORD F250 $20,000
2016 FORD F250 $20,000
2004 CHEVROLET C3500 2/3 yd dump body $20,360
2006 STERLING Hydro-flusher $131,160
2000 DODGE Cab & Chassis $13,395
2022 CASE 580 4WD Loader w/Bucket $45,030
2022 Kenworth Dump Truck $75,000
1983 Zieman Trailer $2,000
1994 BIG Trailer $3,000
2006 Carson Carrier Trailer $6,000
2019 ALTEC F550 Chipper Dump Truck $25,000
2019 Elgin Whirlwind Sweeper $120,000
2020 Toyota Prius Code Enforcement $20,000
2021 Freightliner M2 106 Patch Paving Truck $250,000
2022 Freightliner Vac-Con $290,000
2021 Ford Super Duty $35,000
2022 Ford Super Duty $38,000
2019 Craftco Crack Seal Trailer $18,000
1991 FORD F700 $26,390
Wastewater Treatment 2002 FORD F250 $15,390
HYSTER H60XM Forklift $16,370
2005 FORD F250 $19,745
2006 FORD F250 $24,845
1997 FORD Truck/Crane $40,900
2005 Ford Taurus $5,000
2022 Kenworth 3-Axel Truck $120,000
2022 Kenworth 3-Axel Truck $120,000
Total equipment: $1,757,034
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
46 Police Equipment and Vehicles
Asset ID
Unit
No. Year Make Model Color Status Plate VIN Asset Value
8008110344 801 2016 Ford Explorer 1355277 1FM5K8AR6GGB81291 $15,000 8008110326 802 2014 Ford Taurus Blk/Wht Patrol E1325641 1FAHP2MK3EG170458 $8,000 8008110324 803 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Blk/Wht Patrol E1301237 2FABP7BV7BX185891 $11,000 8008110323 804 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Blk/Wht Patrol E1301235 2FABP7BV9BX185892 $11,000 8008110358 805 2017 Ford Explorer Black K9 TBD 1FM5K8AR1HGB93026 $17,000 8008110325 806 2013 Ford Explorer Blk/Wht Patrol-Sgts. E1301236 1FM5K8AR6DGC21090 $14,500 8008110330 807 2015 Ford Taurus Black Patrol-MDC 1325722 1FAHP2MKXFG115152 $8,500 8008110322 808 2010 Ford Crown Victoria Blk/Wht Patrol-MDC E1329148 2FABP7BV3AX107199 $10,500 8008110329 810 2014 Ford Explorer Black Patrol-Sgts. 1325721 1FM5K8AR8EGC15261 $15,000 00000004 811 2017 Ford Explorer Black Patrol E1340001 1FM5K8ARXHGE14803 $17,000 8008110357 812 2017 Ford Explorer Black Patrol E1355300 1FM5K8AR3HGB54633 $17,000 8008110321 813 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Blk/Wht Patrol Canine Reserve
E1316352 2FAHP71V89X142425 $6,500
8008110216 820 1997 Ford Expedition White Traffic E339231 1FMFU18L5VLC08816 $3,000 8008110317 821 2009 Harley
Davidson
FLHP Motorcycle Black Patrol E3000601 1HD1FHM1X9Y617729 $7,250 00000006 822 2017 Zero Motorcycle DSRP 13.0 Black
Traffic
E3008908 538SDBZ9HC08636 $11,000
00000015 831 2018 Ford Explorer Black Police Chief 8BUZ966 1FM5K8AR8JGA83600 $18,000 8008110255 851 2003 Ford Crown Victoria Blue Pool 4XJC312 2FAFP71W83X136471 $3,500 8008110300 852 2007 Pontiac Grand Prix Gray Investigations 5ZUX652 2G2WP552071127234 $5,000 8008110286 857 2006 Dodge Charger Grey H.I.T.E. 5MOZ689 2B3KA53H16H255170 $5,000 8008110308 858 2008 Dodge Charger Black Police Chief 6DDX996 2B3LA43H48H252300 $6,500 8008110284 859 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Blk/Wht Patrol-MDC E1218072 2FAFP71W56X116862 $4,500
APPENDIX
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
47 Police Equipment and Vehicles (continued)
Asset ID
Unit
No. Year Make Model Color Status Plate VIN Asset Value
8008110267 860 2003 Ford Ranger PU White Traffic/Other E1203497 1FTYR14VX3PB06858 $7,500 8008110277 861 2005 Chrysler Town & Country Van Black Crime Prev. /Pool Car
E1203767 2C4GP44R35R309307 $7,500
8008110292 862 2006 Ford Ranger PU White Traffic E1227521 1FTYR14U06PA18591 $8,200 8008110306 863 2008 Ford Ranger PU White Support Svs E1264691 1FTYR44U88PA05642 $8,900 8008110314
864 2008 Dodge Charger
Steel
Blue Lieutenant 6DHB188 2B3KA53H28H267170 $6,500
8008110347 872 2016 Universal DUI Trailer Black DUI 1488012 1U9EV212XGR078288 $27,000 00000022 890 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Patrol 1193310 2FAHP71W66X121335 $4,500 00000023 891 2007 Ford Crown Victoria Patrol 1081726 2FAHP71W47X111002 $4,750 8008110311 809 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Pool Car 1289886 2FAFP71V48X160149 $5,500 00000016 833 2018 Ford Fusion Lieutenant 8ABK089 3FA6P0G78JF207672 $15,000 00000017 835 2018 Ford Fusion Investigations 8CQT867 3FA6P0G7XJR207673 $15,000 00000018 834 2018 Ford Fusion InvestigationsSgt
8ASK722 3FA6P0G71JR207674 $15,000
00000019 836 2018 Ford Fusion Investigations 7ZVZ982 3FA6P0G73JR207675 $15,000 00000021 837 2018 Ford Fusion Operations
Sgt.
E1355431 3FA6P0G75JR207676 $15,000
00000020 832 2018 Ford Fusion Lieutenant 7ZWX428 3FA6P0G77JR207677 $15,000 00000005 2017 RU2 FAST 3450 1R9BR101XHJ482166 $16,000
00000057 2019 Ford Explorer Patrol 1340015 1FM5K8ARXKGA62376 $25,000 00000060 843 2019 Ford Escape SE 4WD C.O.U. 1340017 1FMCU9GD1KUB64783 $25,000 00000068 804 2020 Ford Explorer Special
Olympics
1355448 1FM5K8AB1LGC13240 $30,000
00000081 803 2021 Ford Explorer 1FM5K8ABXMGA42456 $35,000 Total Asset Value $516,100
APPENDIX
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
48 Depreciated Replacement Value of City Buildings
Public
Safety
Building
Fire
Station 74 City Hall
Post
Office
Memorial
Hall/Youth
Center
Appraised Value $11,950,518 $1,825,633 $7,786,125 $1,399,462 $3,893,975 Useful Life 50 50 50 50 50
years since appraisal 6 4 6 4 4
year of appraisal 2017 2019 2017 2019 2019
CCCI Year of
Appraisal1 6470 6854 6470 6854 6854
CCCI 20232 9508 9508 9508 9508 9508
Inflation 47% 39% 47% 39% 39%
Replacement Cost $17,561,905 $2,532,553 $11,442,114 $1,941,360 $5,401,797 Annual Depreciation $351,238 $50,651 $228,842 $38,827 $108,036 Accum. Depreciation $2,107,429 $202,604 $1,373,054 $155,309 $432,144 Current Value $15,454,476 $2,329,949 $10,069,060 $1,786,052 $4,969,653 Pinole
Senior
Center
Tiny Tots
Cay Care
Pinole
Swim
Center
PV
caretakers
building
PV Road
Restrooms and
Concessions
Appraised Value $5,283,367 $1,461,065 $1,460,491 $906,214 $298,151 Useful Life 50 50 50 50 50
years since appraisal 4 4 4 4 4
year of appraisal 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
CCCI Year of Appraisal 6854 6854 6854 6854 6854
CCCI 2023 9508 9508 9508 9508 9508
inflation 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%
Replacement Cost $7,329,188 $2,026,817 $2,026,021 $1,257,117 $413,601 Annual Depreciation $146,584 $40,536 $40,520 $25,142 $8,272 Accum. Depreciation $586,335 $162,145 $162,082 $100,569 $33,088 Current Value $6,742,853 $1,864,672 $1,863,939 $1,156,548 $380,513 1Base Index: California Construction Cost Index 2016-2020, June 2019 or June 2017 as applicable 2Current index: June 2023
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-ListFolder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI
APPENDIX
City of Pinole Development Impact Mitigation Fee Feasibility/Nexus Study October 2024
49 Existing Land Use Acreages by General Plan Designation Mixed Use - Low Density Residential/Downtown Commercial 2.14 Mixed Use - Medium Density Residential/Downtown Commercial 0 Mixed Use - Medium Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial 8.98 Mixed Use - Medium Density Residential/Light Industrial Service Commercial 13.58 Mixed Use - High Density Residential/Downtown Commercial 6.97 Mixed Use - High Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial 27.07 Mixed Use - High Density Residential/Light Industrial Service Commercial 1.2 Subtotal 59.94
Suburban/Rural Residential 252.03
Low Density Residential 1,091.88
Medium Density Residential 133.09
High Density Residential 17.76
Subtotal 1,494.76
Neighborhood Commercial 53.29
Downtown Commercial 5.58
Regional Commercial 156.5
Subtotal 215.37
Light Industrial/Service Commercial 17.24
Industrial/Office Park 14.84
Subtotal 32.08
Public Facilities 92.72
Major Institution/Medical 17.73
Parks and Recreation 285.69
Open Space 527.44
San Pablo Bay Conservation Area 248.4
Total 2,974.13
Source: City of Pinole General Plan Background Report, 2007
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
Prepared for the
CITY OF PINOLE
Prepared by
3100 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 125
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(619) 218-9578
www.mbakerintl.com
October 2024
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
i
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1 Authority to Impose Capacity Charges ...............................................................................................1 Growth Projections .....................................................................................................................................1 Wastewater Demand From Existing and New Development............................................................2 Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Units..................................................................................................3 Treatment and Disposal Improvements ...................................................................................................6 Wastewater Collection System Capital Improvements......................................................................6 Wastewater Facilities Costs Per Unit .........................................................................................................8 Wastewater Facilities for New Development.....................................................................................10 Schedule of Wastewater Capacity Charges........................................................................................10 Alternate Schedule for Nonresidential ...............................................................................................12 Compliance Requirements for Capacity Charges, Audit Provisions..................................................12 List of Tables
Table 1: Housing, Population and Employment Projections ..................................................................2 Table 2: Estimated Current and Projected Wastewater Flow.................................................................4 Table 3: Wastewater Flow Rate Assumptions...........................................................................................4 Table 4: Existing Housing Units and Nonresidential Floor Area WPCP Service Area ...........................5 Table 5: Estimated Current and Projected Flows to WPCP .....................................................................5 Table 6: Wastewater Capital Improvements ...........................................................................................7 Table 7: Fair-Share Cost of Wastewater System CIP Improvements .....................................................9 Table 8: Wastewater System Capital Assets Distribution ........................................................................9 Table 9: Wastewater Capacity Charges ................................................................................................11 Table 10: Alternate Water Meter Charges for Nonresidential..............................................................12
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of the cost of wastewater facilities needed to accommodate new development in the City of Pinole. This report documents fully justified capacity charges that may be imposed on new or upgraded wastewater service connections that are typically associated with new land development in accordance with state law.
This report describes and analyzes the upgraded and expanded wastewater collection and treatment facilities necessary to provide capacity to serve the projected new wastewater service population to the year 2030.
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CAPACITY CHARGES
The City relies on its authority to impose the capacity charge under the police powers granted by the California Constitution pursuant to Government Code Section (GCS) 66013. Capacity charges are treated differently than impact fees that are authorized under GCS 66000-66009. The charges to be collected for capacity in the wastewater system are not subject to the findings and accounting requirements contained in GCS 66000–66009 but are subject to the provisions of Sections 66013 (limitations and establishment of fund accounts) 66016 (notice requirements), 66022 (legal challenge), and 66023 (audit provisions).
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66013, the City may impose a charge on new or upsized connections to the wastewater system for such connections’ proportional share of existing and/or future wastewater capacity needed for the new connections. These charges may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service, unless a popular vote is conducted, and two-thirds of the electors vote to charge more than the reasonable cost of the needed capacity.
This study provides the necessary documentation for the adoption of wastewater capacity charges.
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
Projections for population, employment, and housing growth to the year 2030 have been estimated for this study. The projections have three purposes: 1) to provide a basis for allocating the cost of capacity in the wastewater collection and treatment systems to customer groups—residential and nonresidential businesses; 2) to verify whether the existing and/or planned capacity of the system is adequate for the projected growth, using standard flow rates for the types of customers; and, 3) to determine the fair share of the value of existing capacity that should be allocated to new development, the cost of new capacity, and the capital improvements needed to ensure that the wastewater system is operating in accordance with waste discharge permits.
The current estimates of population and employment and the projections to the year 2030 used in this analysis are summarized in Table 1.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
2 Table 1: Housing, Population and Employment Projections 2024 2030
Net
Growth2
Average
Annual Rate
Population1 18,192 19,292 1,100 1.00%
Employment3
Retail/Commercial 1,315 1,795 480
Office/Service 328 658 330
Industrial, including transportation,
construction, agriculture, manufacturing,
wholesale 519 512 (7)
Accommodations 32 36 4
Food Service 1,022 1,496 474
Health Care and Social Services 945 1,896 951
Public/Institutional/Educational Services 724 724 0
Other 6 6
Total Employment 4,891 7,123 2,232 1.8%
Housing4
Single-Family Units5 5,456 5,486 30
Multi-Family Units6 1,383 1,758 375
Mobile Homes/ADU 34 64 30
Total Occupied Units 6,873 7,308 435 1.03%
Overall Occupancy 2.65 2.64 2.53
1 Current population for City of Pinole is the California Department of Finance (DOF) Estimate, Table E-5 as of 1/1/2024
2 Population growth is based on a 1 percent average annual growth rate. It is noted that the population growth projections in Table 5 of the 2010 General Plan imply a 0.5 percent annual growth rate between 2020 and 2030, although the 2020 population estimated in Table 5 of the GP is substantially lower than the 2020 decennial census.
3 Current employment estimates from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, US Census Bureau 2020. 2030 employment based on Three Corridors Specific Plan floor area growth and employment density factors.
4 Source of current housing estimates is DOF Table E-5 as of 1/1/2024, occupied units. 5 Estimate of occupied detached and attached single-family dwelling units. 6 Estimates of occupied units, including duplex, townhomes, and apartments.
Sources: CA-DOF Demographics Unit; City of Pinole
WASTEWATER DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT
The City of Pinole currently manages and maintains sewage collection mains, trunk lines, and pump stations that transport wastewater to either the Pinole/Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) at the foot of Tennent Avenue or the point of connection to the West County Wastewater District (WCWD) system for treatment by the WCWD. Based on population, approximately 33 percent of the volume treated by the WPCP is from Pinole (areas outside of the WCWD service area) and 67 percent from Hercules, a combined total population of approximately 44,000. The average dry weather flow (ADWF) of the WPCP for the years is between 3 and 3.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
3 WASTEWATER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
Total wastewater generated by all land uses in Pinole--flowing to the WPCP and to WCWD--is estimated to be approximately 1.125 mgd.1 This daily flow rate is used to calculate the allocation of total flow among all land uses and the equivalent dwelling units (EDU) in Table 2. To estimate the demand on wastewater facilities across all land use types, an EDU factor is calculated based on the demand of an equivalent singlefamily dwelling unit with an estimated daily flow of 163 gallons per day2 (1.0 EDU at 60 gallons per person per day and 2.70 persons per single family household). Average daily flow rates are given for each land use type in Table 3. Land development growth in the Pinole between 2024 and 2030 would increase the total Pinole flow by approximately 71,000 gallons to approximately 1.2 mgd ADWF. The total wastewater flow at buildout of the Pinole General Plan is estimated at approximately 1.47 mgd in the Sewer System Master Plan. After the recently completed improvements to the WPCP, in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order, the WCPC’s treatment capacity is rated at 4.06 mgd.3 Capacity in the WCPC is allocated 44%/56% to Pinole and Hercules, respectively.4 Pinole’s and Hercules’s share of the WCPC’s capacity is therefore approximately 1.8 and 2.3 mgd, respectively. Note that this study does not consider growth in Hercules. However, the Municipal Service Review for Hercules by the Contra Costa LAFCO projects a residential population of 28,700 for Hercules by 2040, which would require a minimum 1.72 mgd (assuming 60 gallons per day per capita) of ADWF capacity, not counting nonresidential growth.
1 Based on approximately 550,000 hundred cubic feet of total Test Year flow (2025) assumed in Pinole Sewer Rate Study May 2024, Willdan Associates.
2 Based on approximately 434,700 hundred cubic feet annual flow from single-family homes, Pinole Sewer Rate Study.
3 RWQCB Tentative Order R2-2018-00XX effective date April 1, 2018 4 Municipal Service Reviews for Pinole and Hercules Contra Costa LAFCO, 2008
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
4 Table 2: Estimated Current and Projected Wastewater Flow Land Use
Existing
Residential,
Units/Nonresidential,
1,000 square
feet
Growth
2024-2030
Residential,
Units/Nonresidential Total
EDU Factor
Residential,
per unit/
Nonresidential
unit
EDU
2024
EDU
Growth
EDU
2030
Estimated
Current
Gallons per
Day (average
dry weather
flow)
Gallons
per Day
Growth
(based
on EDU's)
Gallons per
Day 2030
Residential (in units)
Single-family 5,456 30 5,486 1.00 5,456 30 5,486 889,328 5,080 894,398 Multi-family 1,383 375 1,758 0.58 802 218 1,020 130,726 36,842 167,568 Mobile homes/ADU 34 30 64 0.50 17 15 32 2,771 2,535 5,311 Subtotal 6,873 435 7,308 6,275 263 6,538 1,022,825 44,447 1,067,272 Nonresidential (in thousand square feet, except where noted) Office 910 132 1,042 0.14 127 18 145 20,701 3,042 23,743 Retail/Commercial 1,010 336 1,346 0.070 71 24 95 11,573 4,056 15,629 Food Service 112 95 207 1.18 132 112 244 21,516 18,928 40,444 Industrial 476 0 476 0.37 176 0 176 28,688 0 28,688
Motel Rooms 150 12 162 0.24 36 3 39 5,868 507 6,375
Institutional 1,086 0 1,086 0.08 87 0 87 14,181 0 14,181 Subtotal 3,744 575 4,319 629 157 786 102,527 26,533 129,060 Total 6,904 420 7,324 1,125,352 70,980 1196,332
Growth Percentage 5.93%
Table 3: Wastewater Flow Rate Assumptions
Residential Flow Rate Current Flow Rate Growth
Single-family (1 EDU)*
163 gpd/du 169 gpd/du
Multi-family 95 gpd/du 98 gpd/du
Mobile Home/ADU 84 gpd/du 84 gpd/du
*
Calibrated flow rates based on Sewer Rate Study flow rates for residential
Nonresidential: Applied Flow rate1 Flow/unit
Office 24 gpd/1,000 sf 9.5 gpd/emp
Commercial/Retail 11.4 gpd/1,000 sf 8.0 gpd/emp
Food Service 200.0 gpd/1,000 sf 40.0 gpd/emp
Industrial/Warehouse 63 gpd/1,000 sf 12.5 gpd/emp
Hotel/Room 40.0 gpd/room 133 gpd/emp
Institution 13.4 gpd/1,000 sf 20.0 gpd/emp
1Sewage Flow Rate Estimating Guide, Pollution Control Systems
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
5 Growth in WPCP Service Area
Approximately 0.4 square miles in the northwest part of Pinole lie within the WCWD service area, which handles the wastewater flow from approximately 565 dwelling units and 1.8 million square feet of nonresidential floor area located in Pinole. The area within the WCWD is included in the projections for the collection system, but this area does not figure into the costs and demand for WPCP treatment capacity. The assumptions used to project the number of new dwelling units in all of Pinole between 2024 and 2030 were stated in the Growth Projections section and Table 1 above.
The estimated existing development and assumptions for projected development within Pinole’s WPCP service area are given in Table 4. In this study it is assumed that all new development in Pinole will occur within the WPCD service area. This information is provided to properly allocate WPCP costs to the appropriate service area. It is roughly estimated that 90 percent of Pinole’s total population is connected to the WPCP.5
Table 4: Existing Housing Units and Nonresidential Floor Area WPCP Service Area
Total 2024 Units
for WPCP only Growth
Total
2030
Single-Family Units 5,009 30 5,039
Multi-Family Units 1,270 375 1,645
Mobile Homes/ADU 29 30 59
Nonresidential Land Use (1,000’s of square feet)
Office 836 132 968
Commercial/Retail 212 336 548
Food Service 69 95 164
Industrial 399 0 399
Hotel (rooms) 22 12 34
Public/Institutional 1,086 0 1,086
The estimates of current and projected future wastewater EDUs that flow to the WPCP are shown in Table
5. 5 As indicated in Table 2.5 of the Sewer System Master Plan (Carollo, 2022) the population connected to the WPCP is approximately 90 percent of the total population of Pinole.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
5 Table 5: Estimated Current and Projected Flows to WPCP Land Use
Existing
Residential,
Units/Nonresidential, 1,000
square feet
Growth
2024-2030
Residential,
Units/Nonresidential Total
EDU Factor
Residential,
per unit/
Nonresidential
unit
EDU
2024
EDU
Growth
EDU
2030
Estimated
Current
Gallons
per Day
(average
dry
weather
flow)
Gallons per
Day Growth
(based on
EDU's)
Gallons
per Day
2030
Residential (in units)
Single-family 5,009 30 5,039 1.00 5,009 30 5,039 816,467 5,070 851,591 Multi-family 1,270 375 1,645 0.58 737 218 955 120,131 36,842 161,395 Mobile homes/ADU 29 30 59 0.50 15 15 30 2,445 2,535 5,070 Subtotal 6,308 435 6,743 5,761 263 6,024 939,043 44,447 1,018,056 Nonresidential (in thousand square feet, except where noted) Office 836 132 968 0.14 117 18 135 19,071 3,042 22,815
Retail/Commercial 212 336 548 0.070 15 24 39 2,445 4,056 6,591 Food Service 69 95 164 1.18 81 112 193 13,203 18,928 32,617 Industrial 399 0 399 0.37 148 0 148 24,124 0 25,012
Motel Rooms 22 12 34 0.24 5 3 8 815 507 1,352
Institutional 1,086 0 1,086 0.08 87 0 87 14,181 0 14,703 Subtotal 575 3,199 453 157 610 73,839 26,533 103,090
Total 6,214 420 6,634 1,012,882 70,980 1,121,146
Growth percentage 6.33%
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
6 TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IMPROVEMENTS
In 2007, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued waste discharge requirements for the WPCP, which were subsequently updated in 2012 and again in 2018, requiring improvements to be made to the WPCP to provide secondary treatment up to 20 mgd and that up to 14.6 mgd of treated effluent be discharged to the Rodeo deep water outfall. The RWQCB order also required that the WPCP shallow water outfall shall be limited to flows that exceed 14.6 mgd. The WPCP’s current design ADWF capacity of 4.06 mgd was achieved with the recent completion of the required improvements. The City obtained a State Revolving Fund loan, estimated at approximately $26.7 million, to fund its share of the improvements.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The City’s FY 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Program outlines a five-year program of wastewater system upgrades, and rehabilitation that will benefit both existing and future development. Table 6 lists the City’s planned wastewater system improvements projects, the schedule, and estimated costs for completion.
Approximately $15.2 million in capital improvement costs are required to upgrade facilities that benefit current and future development in Pinole. While the Sewer Enterprise Fund is expected to cover much of this cost, new development may be charged a proportional share of the cost based on the percentage of 2030 flow volume that is contributed by new development.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
7 Table 6: Wastewater Capital Improvements
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Total
SEWER SYSTEM CIP Projects
Increase effluent outfall (Rodeo Outfall) and
pumping capacity at treatment plant1
$150,000 $3,000,000 $3,150,000
Sewer Collection System Rehabilitation $1,500,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $4,700,000 Secondary clarifier center column
rehabilitation1 $425,000 $425,000
Air valve release replacements $50,000 $50,000
Sewer Pump Station Rehabilitation $1,200,000 $2,254,000 $3,329,000 $1,200,000 $6,783,000 WPCP lab remodel $100,000 $100,000
Total Wastewater System: $15,208,000
1 50 percent of total cost is shared by Hercules.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
8 WASTEWATER FACILITIES COSTS PER UNIT
This section discusses the calculation of wastewater facilities cost per EDU, which is the standard used to determine the fair-share cost of wastewater facilities for new residential and nonresidential development.
To ensure equity between existing and new development in terms of the allocation of capital costs associated with serving those groups, a cost per EDU is determined for all capital improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment systems. These improvements are needed to serve both existing and anticipated new development.
In determining the cost per EDU, the wastewater system capital improvement costs from Table 6 are allocated to new development in Table 7. In addition to the capital improvements, this study also considers the current value of the City’s wastewater system, both treatment and collection facilities. This component of the wastewater capacity charge represents the City’s capital investment in the wastewater system and the value of the capacity currently available to serve new development. The capital asset values shown in Table 8 are the depreciated values from the City’s 2023 Consolidated Financial Report— Capital Assets-at Year End--Business-Type Activities, including buildings, sewer lines, vehicles, and equipment. The recent investment in the WPCP upgrades is reflected in these asset values.
The costs per EDU are also based on the percentage that new development’s volume of flow contributes to the total volume in 2030. The improvements and capital assets are assigned either the 5.93 percent factor from Table 2--city wide EDUs for the collection system, or 6.33 percent from Table 5—WPCP EDUs for the WPCP-related treatment system cost and values. Since all new development is expected to be within the WPCP service area, the percentage from Table 5 accurately captures the true fair share costs to new development for the treatment system. The fair-share cost of the improvements charged to new development is $916,734, while the value of current assets to be charged to new development is approximately $3.1 million.
The cost per EDU is derived from two factors: the typical daily flow rate in gallons per day and the sewage strength factors, including total suspended solids (TSS), oxygen demand (OD), and fats, oils, and grease (FOG). This study uses the sewage strength factors from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
The cost to collect, treat, and dispose of sewage is related to both the volume of flow and the sewer strength factors. Each component of the wastewater system is affected by these factors to varying degrees. For example, 95 percent of the cost of collecting sewage is due to the volume of sewage and 5 percent to amount of FOG in the system. Wastewater mains and pump stations must be sized to handle the expected peak flows, while FOG contribute to the need to have specialized equipment to remove these materials, which clog the wastewater mains and cause backup and overflows. The cost factors for the wastewater strength characteristics are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
9 Table 7: Fair-Share Cost of Wastewater System CIP Improvements Wastewater System CIP
Improvements Costs
Percentage
Allocated
to Growth
Cost
Allocation
to Growth Sewer Strength Cost Factors1
Increase effluent outfall capacity $3,150,000 6.33% $199,395 50% 22.5% 22.5% 5% Collection System Rehabilitation $4,700,000 5.93% $278,710 95% 0% 0% 5% Secondary column rehabilitation $425,000 6.33% $26,903 50% 22.5% 22.5% 5% Air valve release replacements $50,000 6.33% $3,165 50% 22.5% 22.5% 5% Pump Station Rehabilitation $6,783,000 5.93% $402,232 95% 0% 0% 5% WPCP lab remodel $100,000 6.33% $6,330 34% 33% 33% 0%
$15,208,000 $916,734
Cost of improvements attributable to constituents $763,778 $53,718 $53,718 $45,520 2024-2030 Cost per EDU Growth 420 $1,818.52 $127.90 $127.90 $108.38 1 Cost factors recommended by Black & Veatch consultants in San Francisco PUC Clean Water Enterprise Wastewater Rate Study, 2003 Table 8: Wastewater System Capital Assets Distribution
Capital Assets Value
Percentage
Allocated
to Growth
Cost
Allocation to
Growth Sewer Strength Cost Factors1
Depreciated Costs (2020) Flow BOD TSS FOG
Buildings and Improvements $40,059,940 6.33% $2,535,794 34% 33% 33% 0% Treatment Equipment $1,205,935 6.33% $76,336 50% 22.5% 22.5% 5% Collection System $7,328,511 5.93% $434,581 95% 0% 0% 5% Vehicles $902,406 5.93% $53,513 95% 0% 0% 5%
Total Current Asset Value $49,496,791 $3,100,224
Value of assets attributable to constituents $1,364,027 $853,988 $853,988 $28,222 2024-2030 New EDUs 420
Fair-Share capital asset value per EDU
per constituents $3,247.68 $2,033.30 $2,033.30 $67.19
Total Parameter Cost per EDU $5,066.20 $2,161.20 $2,161.20 $175.58 Overall Total Cost per EDU $9,564.18
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
10 WASTEWATER FACILITIES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
The wastewater capacity charge includes the proportionate share of the improvements to the wastewater system necessary to serve new development. The cost of the CIP improvements listed in Table 6 and the asset values in Table 8 are allocated to new development using the percentage EDU growth between 2024 and 2030 calculated in Tables 2 and 5, wastewater flows citywide and flows to WPCP only, respectively.
The improvements will benefit both existing and new development; using the percentage growth to calculate the capacity charge ensures that new development pays for only the improvements needed to accommodate the additional demands placed on the system by the new development.
SCHEDULE OF WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGES
In Table 9 the total cost for each unit of land development is calculated by multiplying the EDU factors in Table 2 by the total cost per EDU for each wastewater characteristic in. The wastewater capacity charge per unit of new development is based on the capital asset values and the new development’s share of the cost per EDU of improvements to the treatment and collection systems. The charge represents the amount required to fully fund all facilities needed to accommodate growth.
The charges in Table 9 may be imposed on permits to make new or upsized connections to the wastewater system. Reconstruction, replacement, or expansion of existing development on a parcel of land that will result in a larger floor area or more intensive use of the parcel may be charged based on a prorated charge per square foot with a credit given for the floor area and use of the existing development.
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
11 Table 9: Wastewater Capacity Charges
Costs per EDU
Current
Fees
Land Use1 EDU Flow OD TSS FOG Total
Current
Fee
Increase
(Decrease)
Residential, per unit
Single Family 1.00 $5,066.20 $2,161.20 $2,161.20 $175.58 $9,564.19 $5,684.45 68% Multi-family 0.58 $2,938.40 $1,253.50 $1,253.50 $101.83 $5,547.23 $4,263.05 30% ADU 0.50 $2,533.10 $1,080.60 $1,080.60 $87.79 $4,782.09 N/A Nonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft., except where noted
Office 0.14 $709.27 $302.57 $302.57 $24.58 $1,338.99 $2,640.40 (49%) Retail/Commercial 0.07 $354.63 $151.28 $151.28 $12.29 $669.49 $2,640.40 (75%) Food Service 1.18 $5,978.12 $2,550.22 $2,550.22 $207.18 $11,285.74 N/A N/A Industrial 0.37 $1,874.50 $799.65 $799.65 $64.96 $3,538.75 $2,160.85 64% Hotel, per room 0.24 $1,215.89 $518.69 $518.69 $42.14 $2,295.40 N/A N/A Institutional 0.08 $405.30 $172.90 $172.90 $14.05 $765.13 $1,439.80 (47%)
WASTEWATER CAPACITY CHARGE
City of Pinole Wastewater Capacity Charge
October 2024 Final Draft Report
12 ALTERNATE SCHEDULE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
The wastewater capacity charge may alternatively be based on the size of new or upsized water meters installed for interior fixtures, which drain only to the wastewater system (i.e. meters which do not serve irrigation or fire suppression systems). Table 10 gives the charge for meters based on the EDU charge of $9,564.19 for a 1-inch meter which is standard for a single-family home. The charge for a meter of given size is the EDU charge multiplied by the equivalency factor for that meter, which is the meter’s factor divided by 2.5, the factor for a 1-inch meter.
Table 10: Alternate Water Meter Charges for Nonresidential Size of Meter Factor
Equivalency
Factor1 Charge per Meter Size
5/8 inch 1 0.4 $3,825.67
1 inch1 2.5 1 $9,564.19
1-1/2" 5 2 $19,128.37
2" 8 3.2 $30,605.40
3" 16 6.4 $61,210.79
4" 25 10 $95,641.87
6" 50 20 $191,283.73
8" 80 32 $306,053.97
10" 115 46 $439,952.59
12" 215 86 $822,520.05
Source: American Water Works Association; Tables 11.4a and 11.4b
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPACITY CHARGES, AUDIT PROVISIONS Capacity charges collected pursuant to Government Code Section 66013 must meet similar accounting, reporting, and public notice requirements as impact fees adopted pursuant to Section 66001 (refer to the annual reporting requirements described in Government Code Section 66006). Legal challenges to capacity charges must be brought pursuant to Section 66022. Pursuant to Section 60023, any person may request an audit to determine whether the capacity charge exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of the public facility for which the charge is imposed. If a person makes that request, the City may retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to determine whether the charge is reasonable but is not required to conduct the audit if an audit has been performed for the same charge within the previous 12 months. To the extent that the audit determines that the amount of the charge does not meet the requirement that the charge not exceed the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of the public facility, the City shall adjust the charge accordingly.