03.A Report Development Impact Fee Study Session 2025-02-03 — Pismo Beach City Council, February 3, 2025

G\T Y OF

PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syo Bt Agenda Item #3.A
Meeting Date: February 3, 2025
TITLE:

Development Impact Fee Study Session
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Receive information on the overall basic methodology of the Development Impact Fee Update Study;

2. Provide direction on the amount of the proposed fees; and

3. Provide direction for staff to return to the City Council on February 18, 2025 with the fees as proposed, or any amount less than proposed.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Pismo Beach has a development impact fee (DIF) schedule that is charged to developers to mitigate the impacts of development upon public facilities and infrastructure. These fees were most recently updated in 2019. Since 2019, the fees have been updated annually based on various economic indicators. It is best practice to update the DIF schedule in a comprehensive review every five to ten years to review existing development and future growth and reflect the latest 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

DIFs are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within the city.

These fees have supported numerous projects to date, including: State Water Supply; the Public Safety Facility project; the Central Coast Blue project; parkland and park facilities; a proposed new parking garage; Price Street, Dolliver Street, and Shell Beach Road multi-use trail; and critical water and wastewater capital projects. These fees allow the City to reduce the need to subsidize the costly development impacts on the city from General Fund taxpayer dollars, water and wastewater rate payers, and other funds, and free up the City's other funds to be able to complete other projects.

The City selected Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to complete the DIF update based on past experience with the most recent study. Willdan worked with City staff to gather data about the city and determine various methods to update the DIF schedule. Based on Willdan's City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study (Study, Attachment 1), the DIFs are increasing to reflect an updated project list based on the current 10-Year CIP and changes in demand for facilities from the various types of development projects that may occur in the City. The majority of the increase is due to the updated cost of the Public Safety Facility and the recycled water project, Central Coast Blue. All other facility categories reflect a decrease in costs.

What are Development Impact Fees?
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are fees charged by local governments and imposed on new or re-development projects for the purpose of providing new or expanded public facilities required to serve that development. The primary policy objective of a DIF program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth.

Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-1

Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services.

Authority to Collect Development Impact Fees
The City collects development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

On January 1, 2022, California implemented new requirements for jurisdictions using impact fees under Assembly Bill (AB) 602, adding Section 66016.5 to the Government Code. The law outlines guidelines for nexus studies, which analyze the connection between fees and development impacts. Nexus studies must identify existing and proposed levels of service for public facilities and justify changes in service levels. If an existing fee is increased, the original fee's assumptions and collections must be reviewed.

Fees for housing developments must be calculated proportionately to unit square footage to ensure a reasonable relationship to development burdens. Studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must follow these guidelines, with large jurisdictions also required to include a capital improvement plan. These measures aim to standardize and justify impact fee assessments. This attached study provides compliance for these new requirements.

City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study The primary purpose of the Study is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The Study provides the necessary nexus between the cost of providing a facility or service and the needs created by the new development, in accordance with the City's General Plan Facilities and Services Element. In addition, the General Plan Growth Management Element states that: "All new development within Pismo Beach shall be required to pay its proportionate share for existing or proposed public facilities." The City's General Plan is available online at pismobeach.org/generalpla �.

How are Fees Developed?
The Study provides the methodology for how DIFs are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The Study breaks the methodology into six steps:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
Full URL: http://Pismobeach.org/109/General-Plan
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-2

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

Results: Maximum Justified Fees
Based on the Study, the maximum justified DIF schedule is shown in Table 1 below.

These fees would support all or a portion of the identified capital projects in the report from now until Fiscal Year (FY) 2050.

Table 1: Proposed Development Impact Fees
AcquisitionParks- Water
General Fire Land Park System State Recycled Recycled Government Police Protection
Land Use Facilities Facilities Facilities (Quimby) ments Facilities ments Supply (Water) (Wastewater) Facilities Total Residential(per Square Foot)
All Units $1.28 2.93 1.35 $6.88 2.97 0.51 0.5 $2.35 $2.19 $4.36 $2.63 $27.95 Single Family 1.29 2.96 1.37 6.95 3 0.59 0.65 3.13 2.92 5.81 3.36 32.03 Multifamily 1.89 4.33 2 10.17 4.39 1.01 0.76 3.72 3.47 6.9 4.3 42.94 Mobile Home 1.34 3.07 1.41 7.2 3.11 0.69 0.35 1.67 1.56 3.1 3.74 27.24 Nonresidential(Per 1,000 square feet,hotel room or RV Park Space) Retail/Service $1,423 $6,942 $7,373 NA NA $777 $989 $4,817 $4,488 $8,935 $11,660 $47,404 Office 2,188 10,674 11,337 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 14,694 58,899 Light Industrial 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 6,958 35,574 Self Storage 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 1,605 30,221 Self Storage(Indoor water use onlyl' 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,605 10,215 Hotel/Motel 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 777 1,039 5,010 4,668 9,292 5,231 38,935 RV Park Space 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 396 822 3,998 3,725 7,416 5,385 34,660 For Self Storage)Indoor water use only)a ny housing units in the facility a re charged at the single h mily rate)three bedrooms or more)or multifamily rate)two bedrooms or less)per unit Compared to the current fees, the change in proposed DIFs are largely due to updated costs of the Public Safety Facility and the recycled water project, Central Coast Blue. The Public Safety Facility reflects the current cost of the project, including the debt service schedule. The Central Coast Blue project reflects an updated cost due to the changes in partner agencies of the project, where the City of Pismo Beach is now the only agency supporting and benefiting from this project. Although the most recent version of this project reflects a smaller scale project, with no other partner agencies, the cost of the project for the City has increased. All other facilities have decreased based on changes in projects and facilities and their respective costs to required to serve new development Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-3

as well as updated growth demand factors. The explanations listed provide a high-level explanation of the change in fees from the current to the proposed fees. These explanations do not include all the changes detailed throughout the Study in the comprehensive fee update.

Comparison to Other Communities
A DIF survey was conducted for neighboring or similar communities to Pismo Beach.

Charts 1 through 3, respectively, compares the Pismo Beach Single-Family Residential fees assuming building size of 2,500 square feet, the Pismo Beach Multi-Family Unit fees assuming a 1,100 square foot unit, and the Pismo Beach Retail/Commercial fees assuming a 10,000 square foot building with those of neighboring communities. The survey includes DIF schedules in effect during January 2025. The Study's proposed DIFs are on the upper end of DIFs when comparing these fees with other communities' Single- Family Residential fees. Note that the timing of annual increases based on various indices occurs in July for the majority of communities on the chart, whereas Pismo Beach updates DIFs for inflators each January. As such, the City's proposed fees may end up in the upper-middle end of DIFs in the last half of the calendar year. The City of Pismo Beach has the highest property values in the County, has State Water supply costs, is moving forward with the Central Coast Blue recycled water project, and includes other improvements compared to other agencies in the comparison charts.

Chart 1: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per Single Family Unit (2,500 sq. feet)
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
ZV o a� �6 ��•�1 �0�1 °°ate �o\ ��•�� o,\o� '��o� or ��0
00 Q�o� ao•° `p� 0°
0 11
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-4

Chart 2: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per Multi-Family Unit (1,100 sq. feet)
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
�6° o�aoco °a°r `o�� G�� °5oa\ ��01 ��c1 ° o\ ��•�1 Qj
0 G� 0_1
Chart 3: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per
Retail/Commercial (10,000 sq. feet)
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
Q-°`p Q-op\ �� a�•° r��
Q Q 5� o
G� G``_°
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-5

Council Action
The methodology and resulting fees from the Study follow industry best practices, conform to the City's General Plan, and meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Staff recommends that the Council receive information on the overall basic methodology of the Study, then provide direction on the amount of the proposed fees. The Council may provide direction for staff to come back to the Council on February 18, 2025 with the fees as proposed, or any amount less than proposed. The Council could implement a phased- in approach over a period of time, three years for example, if so desired.

Timeline and Next Steps
February 3, 2025 Special Council Meeting Study Session: Staff presents proposed DIF schedule for the Council's consideration. Council to provide direction on the proposed fees, including providing direction regarding the proposed capital projects and direction to come back to the Council with the proposed or a letter amount of fees.

February 4, 2025 Community Workshop: Staff will hold a public workshop to receive feedback on the proposed DIF schedule on February 4, 2025.

February 18, 2025 Public Hearing: Based on the input from the Council and the public workshop, staff will bring the DIF schedule back to the Council for approval of creating the new DIF schedule as part of a public hearing on February 18, 2025. The Council will determine whether or not to adopt a resolution implementing the new rates.

Effective Date of New Rates: The proposed date of the amended rates would be effective on or around April 19, 2025, which would be 60 days after the adoption of the resolution.

Staff will update the fees every January thereafter based on various inflation factors.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of implementing the proposed DIF schedule is a proposed $87.75 million over 25 years from Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to FY 2050. These revenues are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within the city and would support the City's 10-year CIP. Some key capital projects included in the Study are: State Water Supply; the Public Safety Facility project; the Central Coast Blue project; parkland and park facilities; a proposed new parking garage; Price Street, Dolliver Street, and Shell Beach Road multi-use trail; and critical water and wastewater capital projects. These fees will only cover the portion of these projects that are attributable to growth and development. In addition, these fees are collected over a period of 25 years, where the projects will likely be paid for using other sources, then reimbursed over time from these fees as they are collected.

Since the most recent DIF Study in 2019, these fees have supported numerous projects to date, including: the State Water project costs; the Central Coast Blue project, Shell Beach Streetscape project; the energy efficient project, Downtown sidewalk pavers, several wastewater lift station projects, several water reservoir projects, several traffic improvements, and supporting the Housing in Lieu Fee Fund. These fees allow the City to reduce the need to subsidize the costly development impacts on the City from General Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-6

Fund taxpayer dollars, water and wastewater rate payers, and other funds, and frees up the City's other funds to be able to complete other projects.

In order to keep up with inflation as these fees are set based on today's dollar value, staff proposes that the proposed development impact fees be automatically adjusted effective January 1 of each year (starting with January 1, 2026) by the following:
• For State Water Supply costs, the cost per acre-foot per year (AFY) shall include a

5.0% increase to reflect the State Water Supply costs associated with the Central Coast Water Authorities' Series 2016A refunding revenue bonds with an interest rate of 5.0%
• For all other categories, percent change over 12 months in California Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), for the twelve months ended in October prior to January 1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study Submitted by: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director City Manager Approval:

Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-7

Attachment 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JANUARY 27, 2025
Wi LLDAN

FINANCIAL SERVICES
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 430 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (888) 326-6864 Washington, DC www.wilidan.com
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-8

Attachment 1
This page intentionally left blank.

Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-9

Attachment 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4
Facility Standards and Costs 4
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 7
1 . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8 Public Facilities Financing in California 8
Study Objectives 8
Fee Program Maintenance 9
Study Methodology 9
Types of Facility Standards 9
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 10
Organization of the Report 11

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12
Existing and Future Development 13
Occupant Densities 15

3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES............................................ 16 Service Population 16
Existing Facility Inventory 17
Planned Facilities 17
Cost Allocation 18
Existing Level of Service 18
Future Level of Service 19
Use of Fee Revenue 19
Fee Schedule 19

4. POLICE FACILITIES .................................................................... 21 Service Population 21
Existing Facility Inventory 22
Planned Facilities 22
Cost Allocation 23
Existing Level of Service 23
Future Level of Service 24
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Non-Fee Funding Required 25
Fee Schedule 25

5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 27 � I LLDAN
F I?J�1 NL AL S VlL
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-10

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Service Population 27
Existing Facility Inventory 28
Planned Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 29
Existing Level of Service 29
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 30
Non-Fee Funding Required 30
Fee Schedule 31

6. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................ 33 Service Population 33
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 33 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 35
Park Facility Standards 35
Quimby Act Standard 35
City of Pismo Beach Park Facilities Standards 36 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 36
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 37 Use of Fee Revenue 37
Fee Schedule 38

7. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 40 Wastewater Demand 40
EDU Generation by New Development 40
Facility Needs and Costs 41
Cost per EDU 42
Alternative Funding Sources 42
Fee Schedule 43

8. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS................................................ 44 Water Demand 44
EDU Generation by New Development 45
Facility Needs and Costs 45
Cost per EDU 46
Fee Schedule 46
State Water Supply Costs 47
State Water Supply Fee Schedule 48
Projected State Water Supply Fee Revenue 48

9. RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ................................................... 50 Recycled Water Demand 50
EDU Generation by New Development 51
Recycled Water Facility Cost Allocation 51
Fee Schedule 52

10. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION FACILITIES........................................ 55 �WILLDAN
FI?J�1NL AL S VlL
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-11

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Trip Demand 55
Trip Demand Growth 56
Project Costs and Cost Allocation 57
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 58
Fee Schedule 58
11 . AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 60 Compliance with AB 602 60
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 60
66016.5. (a) (4)— Review of Original Fee Assumptions 61 66016.5. (a) (5)— Residential Fees per Square Foot 61 66016.5. (a) (6)—Capital Improvement Plan 61

12. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 62 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 62
Inflation Adjustment 62
Reporting Requirements 62
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 62

13. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 63 Purpose of Fee 63
Use of Fee Revenues 63
Benefit Relationship 63
Burden Relationship 64
Proportionality 64
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 65 � I LLDAN
F I?J�1 NL AL-Vl-
Council Agenda 2-3-2025 3.A-12

Attachment 1
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Pismo Beach through 2050. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
■ General Government Facilities 0 Fire Protection Facilities ■ Wastewater Facilities ■ Recycled Water Facilities ■ Police Facilities N Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Water Facilities E Traffic and Circulation Facilities Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.

The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is used to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the general government facilities, wastewater facilities, water, recycled water and traffic and circulation facilities fees in this report.

VV'W I LLDAN 4
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-13

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. The system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used to calculate the police facilities and fire protection facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur within the planning horizon of this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates its CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table EA summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

VV'W I LLDAN 5
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-14

Attachment 1
g72 / @ / % ® RS
% =c
) § § \ � = r �\ \ \ \ \ \ \
CO
@R / \ j
\\ \ \aaw _ _ §
3a
kLL _ e
k 2 � k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) \ \
E � 0 £ 00 £ 3 ak
\ ) � �
k m e
] � � @ % 7 SSS $ ® @ \
= 3a & w � ± ± # # _ ®
(a ( � � « « 'IT CO
w � � m e
ate - / p \ wwww / c §
as ww - 7272 7 =
COM e / ¥ « « aw
) E0a \ Em \ \ \ \ ) \ j
� o � oaa
. � �
� £ E E _ \
kU) V) Q (D \ / \ § ) \ \ CU
■ g
6 � a
§ 2
/ Lsp
e
« AA / g � ) )
6 w \ \ 72 > / o = m m « _ z )
Council Agenda 2--025 3:-5

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Pismo Beach. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $228 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities will serve both existing and development new development.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to: existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Projected Additional
Net Project Impact Fee Funding
Fee Category Cost' Revenue Required
General Government Facilities $ 2,220,069 $ 2,220,069 $ - Police Facilities 45,557,968 7,033,344 38,524,624 Fire Protection Facilities 19,429,362 5,262,000 14,167,362 Parks - Land Acquisition (Quimby) 8,524,542 8,524,542 - Park Improvements 6,635,107 6,635,107 - Wastewater Facilities 9,722,021 1,522,589 8,199,432 Water System Improvements 11,106,211 1,808,600 9,297,611 State Water Supply 89,898,796 17,505,900 72,392,896 Recycled Water(Water) 11,443,245 8,179,600 3,263,645 Recycled Water(Wastewater) 23,233,255 16,284,400 6,948,855 Traffic Facilities 88,072,698 12,775,370 75,297,328 Total $315,843,274 $87,751,520 $228,091,753
Total project cost net of existing fund balances.

Sources: 3.3,4.6,5.6,6.5,7.3,8.3,8.6,8.8,9.3,9.5 and 10.3.

VV'W I LLDAN 7
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-16

Attachment 1
1 . Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Pismo Beach. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
■ Public Facilities Financing in California;
■ Study Objectives;
■ Fee Program Maintenance;
■ Study Methodology; and
■ Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years 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 adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy F-2 of the Facilities and Services Element states, "The City shall establish impact fee programs to the extent that a nexus can be demonstrated between the cost of providing a facility or service and the needs created by new development." Policy GM-2 of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan states: "All new development within Pismo Beach shall be required to pay its proportionate share for existing or proposed public facilities." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.

VV'W I LLDAN 8
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-17

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Pismo Beach is forecast to see moderate growth through this study's planning horizon of 2050.

This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Pismo Beach has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 12.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 12.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:

VV'W I LLDAN 9
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-18

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update ■ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity(V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ■ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
■ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.

This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand - $/unit of demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand - $/unit of demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the VV'W I LLDAN 10
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-19

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well.

Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the general government facilities, wastewater facilities, water, recycled water and traffic and circulation facilities fees in this report.

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used to calculate the police facilities and the fire protection facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 10 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
■ General Government Facilities E Fire Protection Facilities ■ Wastewater Facilities 0 Recycled Water Facilities ■ Police Facilities E Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Water Facilities 0 Traffic and Circulation Facilities Chapter 11 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 12 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 13. 11 VV'W I LLDAN
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-20

Attachment 1

2. G rowth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2024 base year and a planning horizon of 2050.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
■ The estimate of existing development in 2024 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ■ The estimate of total development at the 2050 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ■ Estimates of growth from 2024 through 2050 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ■ Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings (Includes single family homes and townhomes). Fees are calculated per square foot of living space. ■ Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space. ■ Mobile Home: All prefabricated mobile dwelling units. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space.
■ Retail/Service: All commercial, office, retail, educational, institutional and service development.
■ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. ■ Light Industrial: All business park, light manufacturing and other light industrial development.
■ Self-Storage: Facilities providing self-storage space. • Hotels: Commercial lodging facilities providing temporary accommodation. ■ RV Park Spaces: Facilities providing temporary accommodation for recreational vehicles
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the W"W I LLDAN 12
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-21

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Pismo Beach, both in 2024 and in 2050. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Projected residents in 2050 has been calculated based on the assumed increase in housing units identified in the 2020-28 Housing Element multiplied by the assumed density per unit type as calculated from data from the American Community Survey.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census' OnTheMap application and exclude 234 local government employees. Estimates of workers in 2050 are based on the SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast "Low" scenario, allocated to the land use categories based on the current proportion of workers. Retail/service employees are constrained to a 20% increase based on City expertise.

VV'W I LLDAN 13
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-22

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2024 2050 Increase
Residents 7,830 8,576 746
Dwelling Units 1
Single Family 4,131 4,350 219
Multifamily 1,031 1,238 207
Mobile Home 725 725 -
Total 5,887 6,313 426
Employment 2
Retail/Service 2,860 3,591 731
Office 319 501 182
Light Industrial 206 323 117
Total 3,385 4,415 1,030
Equivalent Building Square Feet (OOOS)3
Retail/Service 1,349 1,694 236
Office 98 154 56
Light Industrial 178 278 101
Total 1,625 2,126 393
Lodging
Hotel Rooms 1,921 2,800 879
RV Spaces 701 701 -
Total 2,622 3,501 879
Excludes"group quarters"resident populations.Existing residents and dwelling unit estimate from DOF data. Estimates of total residents and housing units in 2050 calculated based on existing density per unit type multiplied by the increase in housing units. Increase in housing units by type estimated based on inventory of realistic unit yield from 2020-28 Housing Bement.
2 Estimate of 3,628 total workers from US Census'OnTheMap.ces.census.gov. 243 local government w orkers are excluded from that figure. Estimates of w orkers in 2050 based w ith SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast"Low"scenario, allocated based on current proportions. Increase in retail/service employment reduced by 20% based on input from City staff.
3 Equivalent building square feet estimated by dividing w orkers by employment density assumptions in Table 2.2.

Sources:California Department of Finance(DOF)Table E-5,2024;OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County,SLOCOG,2017;City of Rsmo Beach 2020-2028 Housing Element;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 14
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-23

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Occupant Densities
Fees in this report are calculated to be charged per residential square feet, nonresidential building square feet or by commercial lodging units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Pismo Beach from the 2022 U.S. Census' American Community Survey.

The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 1.55 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 0.96 Residents per dwelling unit
Mobile Home 0.89 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Light Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet Self Storage 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel 1.30 Occupancy per room'
RV Park Space 1.30 Occupancy per space'
Assumes 65%occupancy,and two visitors per room or RV space.

Sources: U.S.Census Bureau,2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; FFE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed.;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 15
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-24

Attachment 1

3. General Government Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general government facilities. City facilities are generally defined as the administrative and public works facilities needed by the City to operate as a municipality. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing facilities standard of general government facilities in the City of Pismo Beach to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
City facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general government facilities.

Table 3.1: General Government Facilities Service Population A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746
Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 0.31 1,000
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 0.31 300 Total (2050) 4,415 1,300
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 8,830
New Development (2024-2050) 1,046
Total (2050) 9,876
Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour workweek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a week(40/128=0.31)
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 16
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-25

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
The general government facilities inventory is comprised of various facilities including a City Hall, library, Veteran's Hall, former City Hall, Corporation Yard and various vehicles and equipment. In total the City owns approximately $45.6 million worth of general government facilities. Table 3.2 displays the City's existing inventory of general government facilities. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule.

Table 3.2: Existing General Government Facilities Inventory Replacement
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Cost
Land(acres'
City Hall 0.98 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 3,415,768 Former City Hall 1.78 acres 3,485,477 6,204,149 City Corporate Yard 14.51 acres 563,758 8,180,134 Veterans'Hall 2.57 acres 563,758 1,448,070 Pismo Pier Parking Annex 1.26 acres 563,758 710,336 330 Main Street 0.14 acres 10,189,740 1,450,000 320 Main Street 0.07 acres 18,258,427 1,300,000 Shell Beach Library 0.19 acres 563,758 107,114 Subtotal -Land 21.50 $ 22,815,571
Buildings (square feet)
City Corporate Yard-Maintenance Building 9,672 sq. ft. $ 185 $ 2,138,000 City Corporate Yard-Paint Storage Building 256 sq. ft. 66 22,575 City Corporate Yard-Streets/Parks Building 2,720 sq. ft. 101 364,022 City Hall 15,747 sq. ft. 446 7,902,100
City Hall-Building A 4,718 sq. ft. 309 1,488,000 Former City Hall 13,335 sq. ft. 421 5,620,000
Veterans Hall -Bello Street 9,773 sq. ft. 285 2,879,000 Veterans'Hall -Leeward Ave2 4,047 sq. ft. 264 1,084,700 Shell Beach Library2 sq. ft. - -
Subtotal-Buildings 60,268 sq. ft. 21,498,397
Vehicles 25 vehicles $ 53,168 $ 1,329,200 Total Value-Existing Facilities $ 45,643,168 Value per acre based on an analysis of recently sold land w ithin City limits. 2 Shell beach library square footage included in Veteran's Hall-Leew and Ave. 3 Building Values include building and contents
Sources:City of Rsmo Beach,CBIZ Property Schedule,2024;Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned general government facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified in the City's CIP and IT Master Plan. The City plans to numerous upgrades to expand the capacity of existing general government facilities. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $2.2 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

VV'W I LLDAN 17
�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agel'6 -4-2025 3.A-26

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 3.3: Planned General Government Facilities and Equipment Project Name Description Estimated Cost
Upgrade of the capacity of the City's digital video storage to meet new Digital Video Storage state standards $ 220,000 Construct additional driveway to the Addie Street Parking allowing for additional on street parking on Addie Street past where the bollards Addie Street Parking&Access Improvements are currently located 100,000 Finance Records Retention Compliance for General Ledger and Finance Records GL Payroll Payroll 30,000
Equipment to make the electronic plan check process more efficient Electronic Plan Check Equip and provide increased customer service 60,000 Financial Management System Impementation of electronic timecards 77,574 Permitting software upgrade Replacement or enchancement of the City's permitting software 175,000 Upgrading the operating systems of the City's virtual servers to provide Server Upgrades the latest cybersecurity patches and support 15,200 IT Room Improvements City Hall IT Room improvements 40,000 Financial Mgmt System Electronic travel forms and reimbursement process 25,000 Focuses on process review and plan to improve the budget creation Budget Process Improvements process. 15,000
Downtown wireless network for public safety,smart city initiatives and Downtown Public and Staff Wireless possible public use. 200,000 Conduct a needs assessment and work with vendor to
develop/implement an improvement plan that closes functionality Enterprise Asset Management System Improvements gaps. 100,000 Improvements to internal/inter-departmental online communications Intranet and resources 40,000
Close functional gaps,implement new modules,integrations and end Human Resources System user training 75,000 Kiosks Automated citizen service kiosks 25,000 Install state of the art data storage systems to improve reliability and resiliency of the City's IT systems.System improvements are also City Data Storage Systems needed to meet and enforce new records management policies. 101,686 Kiosks Automated citizen service kiosks 25,000 Land Management System Gap Analysis and
Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 175,000 Fleet Management System Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 Electronic Content Management System(ECMS)
Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 150,000 Time and Attendance System Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 ERP Gap Analysis and Utilization Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 125,000 Smart Parking(Meter and Management) Identified in Technology Master Plan 100,000 GIS Assessment and Plan Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 Internet Bandwidth Identified in Technology Master Plan 100,000 Energy Efficiency Project New CREBs See Appendix Table A.1 329.128 Total $ 2,453,588
Less Existing Fund Balance 233,519
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 2,220,069 Source:City of Rsmo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Ran And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033;rr Master Ran;Appendix Table A.1;Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 expresses the City's current general government facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
�O/W I LLDAN 18
CIACouncil Agenda` =v -2025 3.A-27

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 3.4: General Government Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 45,643,168
Existing Service Population 8,830
Cost per Capita $ 5,169
Facility Standard per Resident $ 5,169
Facility Standard per Worker 1,602
Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1,3.2 and 3.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 3.5 shows the cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities by new development. The level of service indicated by the planned facilities is lower than the existing standard level of service. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the net cost of planned facilities by the increase in population.

Table 3.5: General Government Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 2,220,069 Growth in Service Population (2024 to 2050) 1,046
Cost per Capita $ 2,122
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 2,122
Cost Allocation per Worker 658
Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1,3.2 and 3.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use general government facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of general government facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3 Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified general government facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized VV'W I LLDAN 19
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-28

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.

The total fee includes a two-percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 3.6: General Government Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee' Charge',2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 2,122 1.55 $ 3,290 $ 66 $ 3,356 $ 1.29 Multifamily 2,122 0.96 2,038 41 2,079 1.89 Mobile Home 2,122 0.89 1,889 38 1,927 1.34 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 658 2.12 $ 1,395 $ 28 $ 1,423 1.42 Office 658 3.26 2,145 43 2,188 2.19
Light Industrial 658 1.16 763 15 778 0.78 Self Storage 658 1.16 763 15 778 0.78 Hotel/Motel 658 1.30 855 17 872 0.87 RV Park Space 658 1.30 855 17 872 0.87 Fee per dw elling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per room for hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.5.
�W I LLDAN 20
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-29

Attachment 1

4. Police Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police facilities.

A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of police facilities in the City of Pismo Beach to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. To calculate the service population for police facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The use of a worker demand factor of 0.66 for workers in Pismo Beach is based on an analysis of police department call data, categorized by land use, in the City from between August 2023 and 2024.

Annual calls for service at residential land uses were divided by the residential population to yield an annual calls-per-capita factor. Dividing annual calls for service at nonresidential areas by annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor. The ratio of the worker per capita factor to the resident per capita factor is the worker demand factor used in the analysis.

Table 4.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746
Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 0.66 2,200
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 0.66 700 Total (2050) 4,415 2,900
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 10,030
New Development (2024-2050) 1,446
Total (2050) 11,476
Workers are weighted at 0.66 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service w ithin the City between August 2023 and August 2024.

Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 21
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-30

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
The City's police facilities inventory is comprised of the police station and various vehicles and equipment. In total the City owns approximately $10.3 million worth of police facilities. Table 4.2 displays the City's existing police facility inventory. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule.

Table 4.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Value
Police Station
Land' 0.89 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 3,102,000
Police Station 7,947 sq. ft. 707 5,616,700
Police Carport 2,900 sq. ft. 109 315,486
Vehicles 22 vehicles 55,800 1,227,600
Total Existing Facilities $10,261,786
Land values provided by the City of Rsmo Beach.

Sources:City of Rsmo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned police facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified by the City. The City plans to build a new public safety center and make various upgrades to its existing law enforcement technology systems. The public safety facility will be jointly shared by the police and fire departments. The portion of the facility costs associated with the police department are shown below. The City estimates that 69.7% of the facility will be used for police purposes. The cost of the public safety center also includes financing costs and the discounted value of future interest payments, in order to reflect the true cost that the City will incur to build the facility. In total, planned police facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $45.6 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances.

VV'W I LLDAN 22
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-31

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.3: Planned Police Facilities and Equipment
Project Name Estimated Cost
Security Camera System $ 340,000
Police Scheduling and Time Tracking System 80,000 Evidence Management System 30,000
Electronic Ticketing/Citation System 50,000
Drone Programs 20,000
Radio System Upgrades 245,000
Subtotal $ 765,000
Public Safety Center $ 39,475,000
Financing Costs 1,830,407
Discounted Value of Future Interest Payments 23,096,358 Total Cost - Public Safety Center $ 64,401,765 Allocation to Police Facilities 69.7%
Subtotal - Public Safety Center Police Allocation $ 44,888,031 Subtotal - Project Costs $ 45,653,031
Less Exsting Fund Balance 95,062
Net Cost of Planned Police Facilities $ 45,557,968 Source:City of Rsmo Beach.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.

VV'W I LLDAN 23
�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Aget'6 -4-2025 3.A-32

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 10,261,786
Existing Service Population 10,030
Cost per Capita $ 1,023
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,023
Facility Standard per Worker' 675
Based on a weighing factor of 0.66.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2;Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.66 to determine the value per worker.

Table 4.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 10,261,786
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 45,557,968
Total System Value (2050) $ 55,819,754
Future Service Population (2050) 11,476
Cost per Capita $ 4,864
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 4,864
Facility Standard per Worker' 3,210
Based on a w eighing factor of 0.66.

Sources: Tables 4.1,4.2 and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3
VV'W I LLDAN 24
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-33

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Pismo Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned police facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $38.5 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned police facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 4.6: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Cost per Capita $ 4,864
Growth in Service Population (2024-2050) 1,446
Fee Revenue $ 7,033,344
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 45,557,968
Additional Funding Required $ 38,524,624
Sources:Tables 4.1 and 4.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.

VV'W I LLDAN 25
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-34

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Feel Charge',2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 4,864 1.55 $ 7,539 $ 151 $ 7,690 2.96 Multifamily 4,864 0.96 4,669 93 4,762 4.33 Mobile Home 4,864 0.89 4,329 87 4,416 3.07 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 3,210 2.12 $ 6,806 $ 136 $ 6,942 6.94 Office 3,210 3.26 10,465 209 10,674 10.67 Light Industrial 3,210 1.16 3,724 74 3,798 3.80 Self Storage 3,210 1.16 3,724 74 3,798 3.80 Hotel/Motel 3,210 1.30 4,173 83 4,256 4.26 RV Park Space 3,210 1.30 4,173 83 4,256 4.26 Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per roomfor hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.

Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.

VV'W I LLDAN 26
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-35

Attachment 1

5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire protection facilities needed to serve new development. An impact fee is presented based on the planned facilities standard of fire protection facilities per capita.

Service Population
Fire protection facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses in the City of Pismo Beach. The service population used to determine the demand for fire protection facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 5.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire protection facilities. To calculate the service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The use of a worker demand factor of 1.52 for workers in Pismo Beach is based on an analysis of police department call data, categorized by land use, in the City in 2022 and 2023. Annual calls for service at residential land uses were divided by the residential population to yield an annual calls-per-capita factor. Dividing annual calls for service at nonresidential areas by annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor.

The ratio of the worker per capita factor to the resident per capita factor is the worker demand factor used in the analysis.

Table 5.1: Fire Protection Facilities Service Population A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor' Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746
Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 1.52 5,100
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 1.52 1,600 Total (2050) 4,415 6,700
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 12,930
New Development (2024-2050) 2,346
Total (2050) 15,276
Workers are weighted at 1.52 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service w ithin the City between January 2022 and December 2023.

Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
)W I LLDAN 27
Council AgehftL2-3=2025 3.A-36

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
Table 5.2 presents an inventory of existing fire protection facilities, including land, two station buildings, vehicles and apparatus in Pismo Beach. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule. In total, the replacement cost of the City's existing fire protection facilities is $14.8 million.

Table 5.2: Existing Fire Protection Facilities Inventory Replacement
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 63
Land 0.22 acres $ 7,521,964 $ 1,655,000
Building 288 sq. ft. 48 13,796
Subtotal $ 1,668,796
Fire Station 64
Land' 2.44 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 8,505,000
Building 3,848 sq. ft. 503 1,933,899 Subtotal $ 10,438,899
Vehicles and Apparatus $ 2,731,200
Total Value, Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Sources:City of Rsmo Beach,CBIZ Property Schedule,2024;Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned public facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified by the City. The City plans to construct a new public safety center. The facility will be jointly shared by the police and fire departments. The portion of the facility costs associated with the police department are shown below. The City estimates that 30.3% of the facility will be used for fire department purposes. The cost of the public safety center also includes financing costs and the discounted value of future interest payments, in order to reflect the true cost that the City will incur to build the facility. In total, planned fire protection facilities costs are estimated to total approximately$19.4 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances. )W I LLDAN 28
Council AgehftL2-3=2025 3.A-37

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Protection Facilities
Project Name Estimated Cost
Public Safety Center $ 39,475,000
Financing Costs 1,830,407
Discounted Value of Future Interest Payments 23,096,358 Total Cost - Public Safety Center $ 64,401,765
Allocation to Fire Facilities 30.3%
Total Cost of Planned Facilities 19,513,735
Less Existing Fund Balance 84,373
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 19,429,362
Source:City of Bsmo Beach.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 expresses the City's current fire protection facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.

Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Existing Service Population 12,930
Cost per Capita $ 1,148
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,148
Facility Standard per Worker' 1,745
Based on a weighing factor of 1.52.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. ,W I LLDAN 29
Council AgehftL2-3=2025 3.A-38

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 1.52 to determine the value per worker.

Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Value of Planned Facilities 19,429,362
Total System Value (2050) $ 34,268,257
Future Service Population (2050) 15,276
Cost per Capita $ 2,243
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 2,243
Facility Standard per Worker 3,409
Based on a w eighing factor of 1.52.

Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire protection facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of fire protection facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Pismo Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $14.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned fire protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. )W I LLDAN 30
Council Aged MfL2-3=2025 3.A-39

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.6: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Cost per Capita $ 2,243
Growth in Service Population (2024-2050) 2,346
Fee Revenue $ 5,262,000
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 19,429,362
Additional Funding Required $(14,167,362)
Sources:Tables 5.1 and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Feel Charge,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 2,243 1.55 $ 3,477 $ 70 $ 3,547 1.37 Multifamily 2,243 0.96 2,153 43 2,196 2.00 Mobile Home 2,243 0.89 1,996 40 2,036 1.41
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 3,409 2.12 $ 7,228 $ 145 $ 7,373 7.37 Office 3,409 3.26 11,115 222 11,337 11.34
Light Industrial 3,409 1.16 3,955 79 4,034 4.03 Self Storage 3,409 1.16 3,955 79 4,034 4.03 Hotel/Motel 3,409 1.30 4,432 89 4,521 4.52 RV Park Space 3,409 1.30 4,432 89 4,521 4.52 Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per room for hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.
1W I LLDAN 32
Council AgehftL2-3=2025 3.A-41

Attachment 1

6. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park and recreation facilities per capita.

Service Population
Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities. Fees in-lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act, can only be charged to residential development. Fees for the improvement of parkland, charged under the Mitigation Fee Act can also be charged to nonresidential development. In this case, the City's existing fee program charges park improvement fees to residential development and to hotels and RV park spaces. This analysis weights demand for guests at 50%that of demand of a resident.

Table 6.1: Parks and Recreation Facilities Service Po ulation A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor' Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746 Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Guests 2
Existing (2024) 3,409 0.50 1,700
New Development (2024-2050) 1,143 0.50 600 Total (2050) 4,552 2,300
Combined
Existing (2024) 9,530
New Development (2024-2050) 1,346
Total (2050) 10,876
Hotel and RV guests assumed to create half the demand for parks and recreation facilities compared to residents.
2 Rooms and RV sites multiplied by occupancy factors from Table 2.2.

Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Pismo Beach owns and maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 6.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2024. All facilities are located within the City limits. The inventory also includes open space land and distinguishes the acreage accordingly. In total, the inventory includes a total of 89.65 acres of parkland and open space.

VV'W I LLDAN 33
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-42

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.2: Existing Parkland Inventory
Open
Assessor's Developed Space
Description Parcel No. Park Acres Acres Total Acres Boosinger Park 005-018-006 0.34 - 0.34 Boosinger Park 005-018-018 0.13 - 0.13 Boosinger Park 005-018-017 0.13 - 0.13 Boosinger Park 005-018-016 0.13 - 0.13 Boosinger Park 005-018-019 0.12 - 0.12 Chumash Park 005-281-024 37.05 - 37.05
Dinosaur Caves Park 005-251-007 10.00 - 10.00 Highland Park 005-385-055 2.85 - 2.85 Ira Lease Park 005-143-006 0.56 - 0.56 Mary Harrington Park 005-145-001 0.98 - 0.98 Ocean Park 010-243-037 0.57 - 0.57
Palisades Park 010-551-048 2.10 - 2.10 South Palisades Park 010-142-025 0.36 - 0.36 South Palisades Park 010-142-012 0.48 - 0.48 Ira Lease Park 005-143-008 0.24 - 0.24 Bluff(Ocean between Capistrano/Placentia) 010-302-001 0.08 - 0.08 Ebb Tide Park 010-143-015 0.72 - 0.72 Memory Park 010-505-017 0.15 - 0.15 South Palisades Park 010-141-051 0.65 - 0.65 South Palisades Park 010-141-028 0.41 - 0.41 Price Historical Park 005-271-019 4.10 - 4.10 Shell Beach Park 010-144-024 1.04 - 1.04 Sports Complex 005-271-003 4.47 - 4.47 Sports Complex 005-271-003 1.64 - 1.64 Spyglass Park 010-051-002 1.22 - 1.22 Spyglass Park 010-051-001 1.60 - 1.60 Tennis Courts 005-036-008 0.30 - 0.30 Tennis Courts 010-551-049 2.45 - 2.45 Open Space 005-282-062 - 4.64 4.64
Open Space 005-242-027 - 1.13 1.13
Open Space 005-381-081 - 0.77 0.77
Open Space 005-031-023 - 0.51 0.51
Open Space 010-043-009 - 1.14 1.14
Open Space 010-051-011 - 1.55 1.55
Open Space 010-144-023 - 0.74 0.74
Open Space 010-141-044 - 0.46 0.46
Open Space 010-141-041 - 0.10 0.10
Open Space Ventana 005-281-025 - 3.77 3.77 Grand Total 74.85 14.80 89.65
Source:City of Bsmo Beach.

VV'W I LLDAN 34
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-43

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Pismo Beach. Land acquisition is estimated at $2.3 million per acre based on an analysis of sold land within the City in the previous ten years, as reported by Costar. An estimate of $985,900 per acre for standard parkland improvements was used based on the assumption for park improvement costs from the prior fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2024 dollars. In total, this analysis assumes a cost of $3.3 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Pismo Beach.

Table 6.3: Parkland Unit Costs
Share of
Cost per Parkland
Acre Costs
Standard Park Improvements' $ 985,900 30%
Land Acquisition 2,285,400 70%
Total Cost per Acre $3,271,300 100%
Note:Figures have been rounded.

Based on assumed park improvement costs from 2018 impact fee study,adjusted for inflaltion to 2024 based on ENR's Construction Cost Index. 2 Value per acre based on an analysis of recently sold land within City limits.

Sources:Willdan Financial Services.

Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction's existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.1
Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
1 California Government Code§66477.

VV'W I LLDAN 35
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-44

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities.

City of Pismo Beach Park Facilities Standards
To calculate new development's need for new parks, municipalities commonly use a ratio expressed in terms of developed park acres per 1,000 residents. Table 6.4 documents the City's Quimby Act standard. Because the City's standard is over five acres per 1,000 residents, the applicable standard is the maximum allowed under the Quimby Act of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Fees for development not occurring in subdivisions charged under the Mitigation Fee Act will also be calculated at the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard for consistency, but will also include weighted overnight guests in the service population.

Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
Mitigation Fee Act
Quimby Act' (Improvements)2
Improved Park Acreage 74.85 74.85
Service Population 8,072 9,530
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Capita) 9.27 7.85 Policy Standard (Quimby Act)3 5.00 5.00
Service population consists of residents only as of the last Federal Census(2020). 2 Service population consists of residents plus weighted guests. 3 A maximum standard of 5 acres per 1,000 capita is allowed under the Quimby Act. The standard under the Mitigation Fee Act is capped at the same figure to be consistent.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the standard of

5.0 acres per 1,000 capita. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition of 3.73 acres and the improvement of the equivalent of 6.73 parkland acres, at a total cost of approximately$15.2 million.

VV'W I LLDAN 36
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-45

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Parkland(Quimby Act), Improvements(Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard(acres/1,000 capita) A 5.00 5.00 Service Population Growth(2024-2050)' B 746 1,346 Facility Needs (acres) C=(B/1,000)x A 3.73 6.73 Average Unit Cost(per acre) D $ 2,285,400 $ 985,900 Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E=Cx D $ 8,524,542 $ 6,635,107 $15,159,649 Service population growth for the Quimby Act only includes residential development in subdivisions. Service population growth for the park improvement fee includes residents and weighted guests.

Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.3.

Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 6.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the 5.0-acre facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. First, the per acre unit costs are multiplied by the acreage standards to determine the total amount of costs needed to serve 1,000 residents for land and improvements. Then, those costs are divided by 1,000 to determine the cost needed to serve one resident. Finally, the improvement costs per resident are weighted at 0.50 to represent the cost to serve one overnight guest.

Table 6.6: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Land Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 2,285,400 $ 2,285,400 $ 985,900 Facility Standard (acres per
1,000 service pop.) B 5.00 5.00 5.00
Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=AxB $ 11,427,000 $ 11,427,000 $ 4,930,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Cost per Resident D=C/1,000 $ 11,427 $ 11,427 $ 4,930 Cost per Guest E=D x 0.50 $ 2,465
Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.5.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park and recreation facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

VV'W I LLDAN 37
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-46

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. This investment factor (shown in Table

6.7) is the investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.

Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the policy standard of 5.0 acres per capita under the Quimby Act and under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

VV'W I LLDAN 38
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-47

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.7: Park Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee' Charge''z Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3 Quimby Act-Subdivisions
Residential-Single Family
Parkland $ 11,427 1.55 $ 17,712 $ 354 $ 18,066 $ 6.95 Improvements 4,930 1.55 7,642 153 7,794 3.00 Total $ 25,860 $ 9.95
Residential-Multifamily
Parkland $ 11,427 0.96 $ 10,970 $ 219 $ 11,189 $ 10.17 Improvements 4,930 0.96 4,733 95 4,827 4.39 Total $ 16,017 $ 14.56
Residential-Mobile Homes
Parkland $ 11,427 0.89 $ 10,170 $ 203 $ 10,373 $ 7.20 Improvements 4,930 0.89 4,388 88 4,475 3.11 Total $ 14,849 $ 10.31
Mitigation Fee Act-Infill
Residential-Sinole Family
Parkland $ 11,427 1.55 $ 17,712 $ 354 $ 18,066 $ 7.01 Improvements 4,930 1.55 7,642 153 7,794 3.03 Total $ 25,860 $ 10.04
Residential-Multifamily -
Parkland $ 11,427 0.96 $ 10,970 $ 219 $ 11,189 $ 4.34 Improvements 4,930 0.96 4,733 95 4,827 1.87 Total $ 16,017 $ 6.21
Residential-Mobile Homes
Parkland $ 11,427 0.89 $ 10,170 $ 203 $ 10,373 $ 4.03 Improvements 4,930 0.89 4,388 88 4,475 1.74 Total $ 14,849 $ 5.77
Hotel Room or RV Park Space
Improvements 2,465 1.30 3,205 64 $ 3,269
Total $ 3,269
Fee per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space,hotel room or RV Park Space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6.

W"W I LLDAN 39
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-48

Attachment 1

7. Wastewater Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for wastewater related facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a wastewater fee to fund wastewater facilities that serve new development.

Wastewater Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased wastewater demand provide the basis for calculating the wastewater facilities fee. The need for wastewater facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies. EDU factors express demand for wastewater facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 7.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Average
Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 196 1.00
Multifamily 144 0.73
Mobile Home 128 0.65
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.51
Office 100 0.51
Light Industrial 100 0.51
Self Storage 100 0.51
Hotel/Motel 100 0.51
RV Park Space 50 0.26
Gallons per day per dwelling unit(DU),thousand square feet(KSF), hotel/motel room or RV park space.

Sources:City of Rsmo Beach,Development Impact Fee Update Study, MAXIMUS,2004;Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,019 new EDUs inside the city limits, representing

12.2-percent of total wastewater demand in 2050.

VV'W I LLDAN 40
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-49

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 7.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in Factor DU/KSF DU/KSF EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.73 1,031 207 753 151 904 Mobile Home 0.65 725 - 471 - 471
Subtotal 5,887 426 5,355 370 5,725
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.51 1,349 236 688 120 808
Office 0.51 98 56 50 29 79
Light Industrial 0.51 178 101 91 52 143 Hotel Rooms 0.51 1,921 879 980 448 1,428 RV Spaces 0.26 701 - 182 - 182
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 1,991 649 2,640
Total 7,346 1,019 8,365
Percent of Total 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential)or hotel room.

Sources:Tables 2.1 and 7.1,Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 7.3 identifies the planned wastewater facilities to be funded by the fee. Some projects benefit both existing and new development, and others only benefit existing development.

Projects that do not benefit new development are not allocated to the impact fee. All other project costs are allocated to the impact fee based on new development's proportional share of demand in 2050.

In addition to project costs, the present value of the cost of existing and future debt service is also funded partially through this fee. For future debt service, since the project costs are listed in the CIP, a share of the interest costs is included in the calculation. For existing debt service where the projects are not listed in the CIP, a share of the present value of future debt service payments (including interest and principal)are allocated to the impact fee.

In total, over $1.5 million worth of wastewater facilities projects is allocated to new development through this methodology.

VV'W I LLDAN 41
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-50

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 7.3: Planned Wastewater Facilities
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
Total New New
Project Cost Development Development
Capital Improvement Proiects
Addie Street Force Main $ 200,000 12.2% $ 24,400 Advanced Metering Infrastructure 2,500,000 12.2% 305,000 Sea Ridge Court Force Main location 600,000 12.2% 73,200 Update Sewer System ManagementPlant (SSMP) 250,000 12.2% 30,500 Sunset and Pismo Oaks Lift Station 2,000,000 12.2% 244,000 Infiltration Inflow 81,380 12.2% 9,900
Wastewater Master Plan 150,000 12.2% 18,300 Sludge Dewatering 2,047,136 12.2% 249,800 Subtotal $ 7,828,516 $ 955,100
Debt Service Costs
Five Cities Lift Station' $ 1,482,831 12.2% $ 180,905 Pismo Oaks Lift Station' 191,917 12.2% 23,414 Park Cypress Interceptor 14,646 12.2% 1,787 Energy Efficiency Project 2,962,154 12.2% 361,383 Subtotal $ 4,651,548 $ 567,489
Total Cost $12,480,064 $ 1,522,589
Discounted to 2024 dollars. See Appendix Table A.S. Principal and interest costs are included because project costs are not included in the CIP.

Source:City of Pismo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 7.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine the cost per EDU. Table 7.4 details the results of this calculation.

Table 7.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,522,589
Growth in EDUs 1,019
Cost per EDU $ 1,494
Sources:Tables 7.2 and 7.3.

Alternative Funding Sources
The City will use existing revenue sources or develop new sources to fund future facilities not required to accommodate growth, to improve existing facility standards, or to fund existing development's fair share of facilities. The City must raise $8.2 million needed to fund the VV'W I LLDAN 42
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-51

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update wastewater facilities representing existing development's existing deficiencies identified in Table

7.3 with non-fee revenue sources, net of existing impact fee fund balances. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general fund revenues or existing or new taxes. Any new special tax would require two-thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property- related charges would require majority property owner approval.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for wastewater facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 7.5: Wastewater Facilities Im act Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D E11,000
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Fee' Charge°2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 1,494 1.00 $ 1,494 $ 30 $ 1,524 0.59 Multifamily 1,494 0.73 1,091 22 1,113 1.01 Mobile Home 1,494 0.65 971 19 990 0.69
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 1,494 0.51 $ 762 $ 15 $ 777 $ 0.78 Office 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78
Light Industrial 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 Self Storage 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 Hotel/Motel 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 RV Park Space 1,494 0.26 388 8 396 0.40 ' Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or hotel room or RV space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources:Tables 7.1 and 7.4;Willdan Financial Services.

W"W I LLDAN 43
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-52

Attachment 1

8. Water System Improvements
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water fee to fund water facilities that serve new development.

Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 8.1 shows the calculation of EDU demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies.

EDU factors express demand for water facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 8.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Average Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 169 1.00
Multifamily 85 0.50
Mobile Home 50 0.30
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.59
Office 100 0.59
Light Industrial 100 0.59
Self Storage 100 0.59
Hotel/Motel 104 0.62
RV Park Space 83 0.49
Gallons per day per dw elling unit,KSF,hotel/motel room or RV park space.

Sources:City of Rismo Beach; Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 44
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-53

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,100 new EDUs inside the current city limits.

Table 8.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in Factor (DU/KSF) (DU/KSF) EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.50 1,031 207 516 104 619 Mobile Home 0.30 725 - 218 - 218
Subtotal 5,887 426 4,864 323 5,187
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.59 1,349 236 796 139 935
Office 0.59 98 56 58 33 91
Light Industrial 0.59 178 101 105 60 165 Hotel Rooms 0.62 1,921 879 1,191 545 1,736 RV Spaces 0.49 701 - 343 - 343
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 2,493 777 3,270
Total 7,357 1,100 8,457
Percent of Total 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential).

Sources:Tables 2.1 and 8.1,Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Some projects benefit both existing and new development, and others only benefit existing development. Projects costs are allocated to the impact fee based on new development's proportional share of demand in 2050, except for the Well 23 repair project. That project is allocated to new development based on the capacity expanding characteristics of the project.

In total, approximately $1.8 million worth of water facilities projects is allocated to new development through this impact fee.

VV'W I LLDAN 45
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-54

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Water Facilities
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
New New
Project Description Estimated Cost Development' Development Water System Improvements
Bello-Price/Hwy 101 Waterline Upgrade $ 1,913,400 13.0% $ 248,700 New Production Well 6,360,000 13.0% 826,800 Advanced Metering Infrastructure 2,500,000 13.0% 325,000 Water Operations Building Addition 1,500,000 13.0% 195,000 Booster Station VFD's 149,235 13.0% 19,400 Citywide Water Master Plan 250,000 13.0% 32,500 Outlet Center Ramp Waterlines: 410,800 13.0% 53,400 Cypress Waterline upgrade 400,000 13.0% 52,000 Urban Water Master Plan 160,000 13.0% 20,800 Well 23 Repairs' 500,000 7.0% 35,000
Total $ 14,143,435 $ 1,808,600
7%of the Well 23 repairs is associated with new capacity for the Central Coast Blue project.

Source:City of Pismo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033;Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
Table 8.4 calculates a cost per EDU associated by dividing the total cost of projects allocated to new development identified in Table 8.3, by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 8.2.

Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
Water System Storage and Distribution Projects
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,808,600
Growth in EDUs 1,100
Cost per EDU $ 1,644
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1.

VV'W I LLDAN 46
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-55

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.5: Water System Improvements Impact Fee
A B C=AXB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Feel Char e1,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 1,644 1.00 $ 1,644 $ 33 $ 1,677 0.65 Multifamily 1,644 0.50 822 16 838 0.76 Mobile Home 1,644 0.30 493 10 503 0.35 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 1,644 0.59 $ 970 $ 19 $ 989 $ 0.99 Office 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99
Light Industrial 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99 Self Storage 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99
Hotel/Motel 1,644 0.62 1,019 20 1,039 1.04 RV Park Space 1,644 0.49 806 16 822 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources:Tables 8.1 and 8.4;Willdan Financial Services.

State Water Supply Costs
In addition to the water system improvement costs shown in Table 8.3, the City must also fund the infrastructure costs of the state water supply project. The state water projects supply 2,132 acre-feet per year at an estimated cost of$89.9 million through 2050. Table 8.6 summarizes the costs.

Table 8.6: State Water Supply Costs
Annual State Water Project Payment' $ 3,457,646
Years to 2050 26
Total State Water Project Costs to 2050 $89,898,796
Added Water Supply (AFY)2 2,132
Cost per Acre Foot through 2050 $ 42,166
' Based on FY 2024 payment for State Water Supply and Lopez Water. 2 Acre feet per year includes 1,240 AFY from state w ater and 892 AFY from Lopez Lake.

Sources:City of Rsmo Beach;Development Impact Fee Update Study,MAXIMUS, 2004;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 47
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-56

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update State Water Supply Fee Schedule
Table 8.7 displays the State Water Supply fee. The cost per acre-foot from Table 8.6 is multiplied by the demand per unit to determine the fee per unit of development. The demand per unit in terms of acre feet is derived from the flow generation factors from Table 8.1.

Table 8.7: State Water Supply Impact Fee Schedule
Demand
Acre Feet Cost per Base 2%Admin Total Fee per per Year' Acre Foot Feet Charge 2,3 Feet Sq. Ft.4 Residential
Single Family 0.19 $ 42,166 $ 7,982 $ 160 $ 8,142 $ 3.13 Multifamily 0.10 42,166 4,015 80 4,095 3.72 Mobile Home 0.06 42,166 2,362 47 2,409 1.67 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.11 $ 42,166 $ 4,723 $ 94 $ 4,817 $ 4.82 Office 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Light Industrial 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Self Storage 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Hotel/Motel 0.12 42,166 4,912 98 5,010 5.01 RV Park Space 0.09 42,166 3,920 78 3,998 n/a Average gallons per day from Table 8.1 converted to average acre feet per year. 325,851 gallons per acre foot. 2 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or hotel room or RV space. 3 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.

Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources:Tables 8.1 and 8.6; Willdan Financial Services.

Projected State Water Supply Fee Revenue
Table 8.8 displays a projection state water supply fee revenue. The fees per unit from Table 8.7 are multiplied by the growth in units from Table 2.1. In total, the fee will generate $17.5 million through 2050.

VV'W I LLDAN 48
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-57

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.8: Projected Fee Revenue
Projected Projected
Fee per Growth Fee
Land Use Unit (DU/KSF) Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 7,982 219 $ 1,748,058
Multifamily 4,015 207 831,105
Mobile Home 2,362 - -
Subtotal $ 2,579,163
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 4,723 236 $ 1,114,628
Office 4,723 56 264,488
Light Industrial/Self Storage 4,723 101 477,023
Hotel/Motel 4,912 879 4,317,648
RV Park Space 3,920 - -
Subtotal $ 6,173,787
Total $17,505,900
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.7;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 49
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-58

Attachment 1

9. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a recycled water fee to fund recycled water facilities that serve new development.

Recycled Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the recycled water facilities fee. The need for recycled water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 9.1 shows the calculation of EDU demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies.

EDU factors express demand for water facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 9.1: Recycled Water Demand by Land Use
Average
Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 169 1.00
Multifamily 85 0.50
Mobile Home 50 0.30
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.59
Office 100 0.59
Light Industrial 100 0.59
Self Storage 100 0.59
Hotel/Motel 104 0.62
RV Park Space 83 0.49
Gallons per day per dwelling unit, KSF,hotel/motel room or RV park space.

Sources:City of Rismo Beach; Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 50
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-59

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,100 new EDUs inside the current city limits.

Table 9.2: Recycled Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in Factor (DU/KSF) (DU/KSF) EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.50 1,031 207 516 104 619 Mobile Home 0.30 725 - 218 - 218
Subtotal 5,887 426 4,864 323 5,187
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.59 1,349 236 796 139 935
Office 0.59 98 56 58 33 91
Light Industrial 0.59 178 101 105 60 165 Hotel Rooms 0.62 1,921 879 1,191 545 1,736 RV Spaces 0.49 701 - 343 - 343
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 2,493 777 3,270
Total 7,357 1,100 8,457
Percent of Total 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential).

Sources:Tables 2.1 and 9.1,Willdan Financial Services.

Recycled Water Facility Cost Allocation
Table 9.3 identifies the planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the fee. The planned recycled water facility will partially be based on improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant, and partially based on improvements to the water system. As such, costs are allocated to water and wastewater functions. The total cost of each function is divided by the total annual recycled water gallons provided by the recycled water facility to determine the cost per gallon of recycled water. This figure is multiplied by the number of days per year to determine the annual cost per gallon.

VV'W I LLDAN 51
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-60

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.3: Planned Recycled Water Facilities
Project Description Water Wastewater
Net AFY Returned as Pumped Potable Water 300 300 Gallons per Acre Foot (G/AF) 325,851 325,851
Total Annual Recycled Water in Gallons 97,755,300 97,755,300 Cost of Recycling Plant, Reservoir, Pipes and Wells' $ 11,443,245 $ 23,233,255 Cost per Single Gallon (rounded) $ 0.12 $ 0.24 Days in a Year 365 365
Cost for a Gallon per Day (GPO)over a Year $ 43.80 $ 87.60 Total cost is$57,326,000 pluss$500,000 for pipelines to connect to City infrastructure.Assumes$23,149,500 is grant funded.

Sources: City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Capital Improvement Program;Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fees for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 9.4 and Table 9.5.

Table 9.4 shows the fee for the water share of the facility, and Table 9.5 shows the fee for the wastewater share of the facility. The cost per gallon from Table 9.3 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the demand factors shown in Table 9.1. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

VV'W I LLDAN 52
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-61

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.4: Recycled Water Facilities Impact Fee - Water Share A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per
Gallon Gallons Base Admin Fee per
per Day per Day Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 44 169.00 $ 7,436 $ 149 $ 7,585 $ 2.92 Multifamily 44 85.00 3,740 75 3,815 3.47 Mobile Home 44 50.00 2,200 44 2,244 1.56 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 44 100 $ 4,400 $ 88 $ 4,488 $ 4.49 Office 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49
Light Industrial 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49 Self Storage 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49
Hotel/Motel 44 104 4,576 92 4,668 4.67
RV Park Space 44 83 3,652 73 3,725 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources:Tables 9.1,9.4 and 9.5;Willdan Financial Services.

VV'W I LLDAN 53
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-62

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.5: Recycled Water Facilities Impact Fee -Wastewater Share A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per
Gallon Gallons Base Admin Fee per
per Day per Day Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 88 169.00 $14,804 $ 296 $ 15,100 $ 5.81 Multifamily 88 85.00 7,446 149 7,595 6.90 Mobile Home 88 50.00 4,380 88 4,468 3.10 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 88 100 $ 8,760 $ 175 $ 8,935 $ 8.94 Office 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94
Light Industrial 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94 Self Storage 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94
Hotel/Motel 88 104 9,110 182 9,292 9.29
RV Park Space 88 83 7,271 145 7,416 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources:Tables 9.1,9.4 and 9.5;Willdan Financial Services.

Table 9.6 projects the recycled water facilities fee revenue. The fee per single family unit is multiplied by the growth in EDUs to estimate the water and wastewater portions of the recycled water facilities fee, respectively. In total, the fees will generate approximately$24.4 million.

Table 9.6: Recycled Water Facilities Fee - Revenue Projection Water Wastewater Total
Projected Growth in EDUs 1,100 1,100
Fee per EDU $ 7,436 $ 14,804
Recycled Water Facilities Fee Revenue $ 8,179,600 $16,284,400 $24,464,000 Sources:Tables 9.2,9.4 and 9.5.

VV'W I LLDAN 54
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-63

Attachment 1

10. Traffic and Circulation
Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for traffic and circulation facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for traffic and circulation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian)often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
■ Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. ■ The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.

These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.

Table 10.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Association of Governments. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. Though urban development patterns differ between San Diego and the City of Pismo Beach, the use of this data is appropriate as a means of allocating trips across multiple land use categories. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip generation in this report are based on data specific to the City of Pismo Beach.

VV'W I LLDAN 55
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-64

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.1: Trip Rate Ad'ustment Factors
Total Average Adjust- Trip
Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment PM Peak Demand Trips' Trips' Pass-by' Length Factor3 ITE Category HourTripe Factors A B C=A+B D E=CxD F G=ExF
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing(210) 0.94 1.04 Multifamily 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Apartment(220) 0.51 0.57 Mobile Home 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Mobile Home Park (240) 0.58 0.64 Nonresidential
Ser\jce/Retail 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center(820) 3.40 1.39 Office 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 General Office(710) 1.44 1.76 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial(110) 0.65 0.83 Mini Storage 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 Mini Warehouse(151) 0.15 0.19 Resort/Hotel 58% 38% 96% 7.6 1.06 Hotel(310) 0.59 0.63 RV Park Space 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Mobile Home Park (240) 0.58 0.64 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops,or"links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. s In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
s The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 6.9 miles.
"Trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet or per hotel room s The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments,Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002;Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation,11th Edition;Willdan Financial Services.

Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2050. Table 10.2 lists the 2024 and 2050 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 10.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.

VV'W I LLDAN 56
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-65

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Generation
PM Peak 2024 Growth 2024 to 2050 Total -2050
Hour Trip Units/ Units/ Units/
Land Use Rate 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips Residential
Single Family 1.04 4,131 4,310 219 229 4,350 4,539 Multifamily 0.57 1,031 584 207 117 1,238 701 Mobile Home 0.64 725 467 - 725 467
Total 5,887 5,361 426 346 6,313 5,707 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 1.39 1,349 1,881 345 480 1,694 2,361 Office 1.76 98 172 56 99 154 271
Light Industrial 0.83 178 148 100 83 278 231
Hotel Rooms 0.63 1,921 1,201 879 550 2,800 1,751 RV Park Spaces 0.64 701 451 - - 701 451 Subtotal 4,247 3,853 1,380 1,212 5,627 5,065 Total 9,214 1,558 10,772

85.5% 14.5% 100.0%
Sources:Tables 2.1 and 10.1.

Project Costs and Cost Allocation
Cost estimates for traffic and circulation facilities needed to serve new development are summarized in Table 10.3. The City identified the projects and project costs in its CIP. A share of each project is allocated to new development, based on new development's proportional share of trip demand in 2050. In total, $12.8 million worth of traffic and circulation projects are allocated to new development through this fee.

VV'W I LLDAN 57
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-66

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.3: Planned Street Improvements
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
New New
Project Name Total Cost Development Development Downtown Parking Structure $ 40,000,000 14.5% $ 5,800,000 Dolliver/Pomeroy Ped Scramble 50,000 14.5% 7,250 Shell Beach Road Multi Use Path: (Terrace to Spyglass) 15,000,000 14.5% 2,175,000 Shell Beach Road Sidewalk 850,000 14.5% 123,250 Dolliver Price Street Streetscape(Butterfly Grove to Shell Beach Road) 15,000,000 14.5% 2,175,000 Price Street Beautification and Improvements 5,000,000 14.5% 725,000 Signalize Bello/Price Canyon Rd Construction 1,000,000 14.5% 145,000 Parking Structure Land Purchase 3,200,000 14.5% 464,000 Shell Beach Parking 2,000,000 14.5% 290,000 Parking Kiosk Machines 326,000 14.5% 47,270
Hinds/Ocean View Ped Path 180,000 14.5% 26,100 Promenade Extension 5,000,000 14.5% 725,000 ADA Improvements 500,000 14.5% 72,500
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 88,106,000 $ 12,775,370 Source:City of Rsmo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Ran And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet or room) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 10.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 10.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 10.2.

Table 10.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs $ 12,775,370 Growth in Trip Demand 1,558
Cost per Trip $ 8,200
Sources:Tables 10.2 and 10.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 10.5 shows the maximum justified traffic and circulation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The proposed fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 10.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 10.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The total fee includes a two-percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative VV'W I LLDAN 58
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-67

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 10.5: Circulation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Tri p
Cost Per Demand Admin Fee per
Land Use Trip Factor Base Feel Charge,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.' Residential
Single Family $ 8,200 1.04 $ 8,556 $ 171 $ 8,727 $ 3.36 Multifamily 8,200 0.57 4,642 93 4,735 4.30 Mobile Home 8,200 0.64 5,279 106 5,385 3.74
Nonresidential
Service/Retail $ 8,200 1.39 $ 11,431 $ 229 $ 11,660 $ 11.66 Office 8,200 1.76 14,406 288 14,694 14.69 Industrial 8,200 0.83 6,822 136 6,958 6.96 Mini Storage 8,200 0.19 1,574 31 1,605 1.61 Resort/Hotel 8,200 0.63 5,128 103 5,231 n/a
RV Park Space 8,200 0.64 5,279 106 5,385 n/a
Fee per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.

Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.4;Willdan Financial Services.

W"W I LLDAN 59
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-68

Attachment 1
11 . AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study's compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For the park impact fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service.

The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in Table 6.6.

2. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are fire protection, and police facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of identified planned facilities New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.

3. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the circulation, sewer facilities, water facilities and recycled water facility fees. The City identified the projects needed to serve the City through the planning horizon.

VV'W I LLDAN 60
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-69

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update 66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City's prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.

Notably this study differs from the 2018 study in several ways:

1. This study uses a planning horizon of 2050, compared to the planning horizon of 2040 used in the prior study.

2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2018 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land.

3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.

Table 11.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected between FY2019-20 and F2022- 23 for the impact fees included in this analysis.

Table 11.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Government (including Fire and Police) $ 717,189 $ 901,409 $ 484,076 $ 365,710 Circulation 53,606 162,752 186,006 94,744
Water Facilities 299,083 433,492 3,405,171 3,037,224 Wastewater Facilities 146,217 337,416 624,964 2,758,042 Parks 497,793 594,249 289,688 309,615
Source:City of Pismo Beach.
66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City's current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

VV'W I LLDAN 61
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-70

Attachment 1

12. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.

Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for 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 go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly
VV'W I LLDAN 62
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-71

Attachment 1

13. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
■ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
■ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or§66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged(§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: general government facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities, parks and recreation facilities, wastewater facilities, water facilities, recycled water facilities and traffic and circulation facilities.

Benefit Relationship
■ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.

Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

VV'W I LLDAN 63
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-72

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Burden Relationship
■ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
■ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed(§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.

VV'W I LLDAN 64
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -4-2025 3.A-73

Attachment 1
Appendix
Appendix Table A.1: Energy Efficiency Project Debt
General
Payment(Real Wastewater Government
Year Annual Debt Discount Factor Dollars) Allocation (901/6) Allocation (101/6) 2025 $ 309,478 0.97 $ 300,464 $ 270,417 $ 30,046 2026 309,478 0.94 291,712 262,541 29,171 2027 309,478 0.92 283,216 254,894 28,322 2028 309,478 0.89 274,967 247,470 27,497 2029 309,478 0.86 266,958 240,262 26,696 2030 309,478 0.84 259,183 233,264 25,918 2031 309,478 0.81 251,634 226,470 25,163 2032 309,478 0.79 244,305 219,874 24,430 2033 309,478 0.77 237,189 213,470 23,719 2034 309,478 0.74 230,281 207,252 23,028 2035 309,478 0.72 223,573 201,216 22,357 2036 309,478 0.70 217,061 195,355 21,706 2037 309,478 0.68 210,739 189,665 21,074 $ 4,023,211 $ 2,962,154 $ 329,128
Sources:City of Rsmo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.

W"W I LLDAN 65
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda - -2025 3.A-74

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Appendix Table A.2: Present Value of Interest on Public Safety Facility Debt Service
Interest Interest
Payment Discount Payment
Date Payment Principal (nom. dollars) Factor' (real dollars) Public Safety Facility
2025 $2,390,100 $ 610,000 $ 1,780,100 0.97 $ 1,728,252 2026 2,389,600 640,000 1,749,600 0.94 1,649,166 2027 2,387,600 670,000 1,717,600 0.92 1,571,847 2028 2,389,100 705,000 1,684,100 0.89 1,496,301 2029 2,388,850 740,000 1,648,850 0.86 1,422,312 2030 2,386,850 775,000 1,611,850 0.84 1,349,899 2031 2,388,100 815,000 1,573,100 0.81 1,279,074 2032 2,387,350 855,000 1,532,350 0.79 1,209,651 2033 2,389,600 900,000 1,489,600 0.77 1,141,654 2034 2,389,600 945,000 1,444,600 0.74 1,074,918 2035 2,387,350 990,000 1,397,350 0.72 1,009,475 2036 2,387,850 1,040,000 1,347,850 0.70 945,355
2037 2,385,850 1,090,000 1,295,850 0.68 882,411
2038 2,386,350 1,145,000 1,241,350 0.66 820,679
2039 2,389,100 1,205,000 1,184,100 0.64 760,029
2040 2,388,850 1,265,000 1,123,850 0.62 700,346
2041 2,385,600 1,325,000 1,060,600 0.61 641,680
2042 2,389,350 1,395,000 994,350 0.59 584,076
2043 2,389,600 1,465,000 924,600 0.57 527,286
2044 2,386,350 1,535,000 851,350 0.55 471,372
2045 2,389,600 1,615,000 774,600 0.54 416,386
2046 2,390,000 1,680,000 710,000 0.52 370,544
2047 2,387,800 1,745,000 642,800 0.51 325,701
2048 2,388,000 1,815,000 573,000 0.49 281,878
2049 2,385,400 1,885,000 500,400 0.48 238,994
2050 2,385,000 1,960,000 425,000 0.46 197,070
Total $23,096,358
'Discount rate assumed to be 3.0%per year.

Source:City of Bsmo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.

W"W I LLDAN 66
V�1 �1L H4 kS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-75

Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Appendix Table A.3: Present Value of
Interest on Future Wastewater Debt
Issuance
Discount Payment
Date Payment Factor' (real dollars)
Five Cities Lift Station
2025 82,947 0.97 $ 80,531
2026 82,947 0.94 78,186
2027 82,947 0.92 75,908
2028 82,947 0.89 73,697
2029 82,947 0.86 71,551
2030 82,947 0.84 69,467
2031 82,947 0.81 67,444
2032 82,947 0.79 65,479
2033 82,947 0.77 63,572
2034 82,947 0.74 61,720
2035 82,947 0.72 59,923
2036 82,947 0.70 58,177
2037 82,947 0.68 56,483
2038 82,947 0.66 54,838
2039 82,947 0.64 53,241
2040 82,947 0.62 51,690
2041 82,947 0.61 50,184
2042 82,947 0.59 48,723
2043 82,947 0.57 47,304
2044 82,947 0.55 45,926
2045 82,947 0.54 44,588
2046 82,947 0.52 43,289
2047 82,947 0.51 42,029
2048 82,947 0.49 40,804
2049 82,947 0.48 39,616
2050 82,947 0.46 38,462
Total $ 1,482,831
Pismo Oaks Lift Station
2025 41,906 0.97 $ 40,685
2026 41,906 0.94 39,500
2027 41,906 0.92 38,350
2028 41,906 0.89 37,233
2029 41,906 0.86 36,148
Total $ 191,917
VV'W I LLDAN 67
V�1 �1L H4 LS
Council Agenda -'IL 3.A-76

Pismo Beach City CouncilFebruary 3, 2025

Pismo Beach City Council
February 3, 2025