Exhibit C Nexus Study — San Marcos City Council, December 9, 2025

EXHIBIT “C”
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 2024 Update

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
UPDATE

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

OCTOBER 4, 2024

Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11
Land Cost Assumptions 12

3. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ..................................................... 13 Trip Demand 13
Trip Demand Growth 14
Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory 15
Active Transportation Plan 16
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 18
Fee Schedule 18

4. PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ............................... 20 Service Population 20
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities Inventory 20
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 22
Park Facility Standards 23
City of San Marcos Park Facilities Standards 23
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 24
Trails Component 24
Existing Inventory 24
Trails Needed to Maintain Standard 25
Cost per Resident 25
Use of Fee Revenue 26
City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii

Fee Schedule 26

5. FIRE AND EMS FACILITIES ......................................................... 27 Service Population 27
Existing Facility Inventory 27
Planned Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 30
Existing Level of Service 30
Future Level of Service 30
Fee Revenue Projection 30
Fee Schedule 31

6. ADVANCED PLANNING ............................................................... 33 Service Population 33
Planned Costs 34
Facility Standard 34
Fee Revenue Projection 35
Fee Schedule 35

7. HABITAT CONSERVATION ........................................................... 37 Service Population 37
Existing Facilities and Level of Service 38
Future Level of Service 38
Cost per Capita 38
Fee Revenue Projection 39
Fee Schedule 39

8. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 41 Storm Drain Demand 41
EDU Generation by New Development 41
Planned Facilities 42
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 43
Fee Schedule 43

9. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 45 Compliance with AB 602 45
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 45
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 46 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 46
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 46

10. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 47 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 47
Inflation Adjustment 47
Reporting Requirements 47
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 49
City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii

11. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 50 Purpose of Fee 50
Use of Fee Revenues 50
Benefit Relationship 50
Burden Relationship 51
Proportionality 51
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 52

1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of San Marcos through 2040. 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:
▪ Transportation Facilities
▪ Parks, Recreation and Trail
Facilities
▪ Fire and EMS Facilities
▪ Advanced Planning
▪ Habitat Conservation
▪ Storm Drainage 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 . Th is 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 used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.

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 often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the roadway component of the transportation facilities and parks , trails 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 sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the pedestrian and bike City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 components of the transportation facilities fee, and the storm drain facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific 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. This approach is used to calculate the fire and EMS, advanced planning, and habitat conservation 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 during the 17-year planning horizon assumed in 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 the 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 E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. As a policy decision, the City can choose to adopt any fee levels up to, but not exceeding the maximum justified amounts shown in this table.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 3 E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
Transportation
Facilities Parks
Fire
Protection
Advanced
Planning
Habitat
Conservation
Storm
Drain Total
Residential - per Sq. Ft.

Single Family 4.48$ 7.02$ 0.52$ 0.07$ 0.17$ 0.19$ 12.45$ Multifamily 4.17 8.76 0.65 0.09 0.22 0.21 14.10 Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial 18.50$ -$ 1.17$ 0.04$ 0.10$ 0.37$ 20.18$ Office 16.41 - 1.70 0.06 0.15 0.40 18.72 Industrial 11.23 - 0.64 0.02 0.05 0.40 12.34 Sources: Tables 3.7, 4.10, 5.6, 6.5, 7.5 and 8.5.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 4 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in San Marcos. 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, $40.9 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level . 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 are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. To the extent that the City adopts fees that are lower than the maximum justified amount, the non -fee funding requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.

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
Fee Category
Total Project
Cost
Development
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Transportation Facilities 147,033,546$ 147,033,546$ -$
Parks 117,487,053 117,487,053 -
Fire Protection 21,341,000 13,751,000 7,590,000 Advanced Planning 7,640,000 1,415,000 6,225,000 Habitat Conservation 10,292,750 3,468,000 6,824,750 Storm Drain 25,135,303 4,851,113 20,284,190
328,929,652$ 288,005,712$ 40,923,940$
Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 4.8, 5.6, 6.2, 6.4, 7.5, and 8.3.

5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of San Marcos . 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 LU-7.2 of the General Plan states: “ Update and revise existing fee programs as needed, to ensure adequate funding for infrastructure improvements and community facilities are available to serve new development. Amend appropriate codes to require new projects to pay for the infrastructure and services.” 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 maximum justified 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.

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. Th is report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

6 San Marcos is forecast to see moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040.

This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, San Marcos 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 cur rent 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, building s, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 10.

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 10.

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:

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

7 ▪ 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 in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan 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
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. 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 used to calculate the roadway component of the transportation facilities and parks, trails 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
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 = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

8 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 pedestrian and bike components of the transportation facilities fee, and the storm drain 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
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 Comprehensive 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 fire and EMS, advanced planning, and habitat conservation 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 8 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:
▪ Transportation Facilities
▪ Parks, Recreation and Trail
Facilities
▪ Fire and EMS Facilities
▪ Advanced Planning
▪ Habitat Conservation
▪ Storm Drainage Facilities

Chapter 9 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602 Chapter 10 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 maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 11. = cost per unit of demand

9 2. Growth 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 2040.

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 2040 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 2040 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 si ngle family homes and townhomes)
▪ Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes and condominiums ▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, lodging, and service development ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial/Flex: All warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial development.

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 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.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legislature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly Bill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Code §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADUs greater than 750 square feet, impact fees can be charged as a percentage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:

𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡 × 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒

In the case of a n 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary r esidence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square feet / 1,600 square feet = 50% ) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in San Marcos , both in 2024 and in 2040. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance . The 2040 projection of residents was identified in Table 5 of the Draft San Marcos General Plan Update:

Demographic, Socioeconomic, Market, and Fiscal Conditions and Trends Report, March 2020.

The projection of dwelling units is based on a GIS analysis of undeveloped parcels and zoning densities that was completed as a part of the City’s ongoing General Plan update.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 475 local government (public administration) employees. Estimates of workers in 2040 are based on the SANDAG growth projections and are allocated to the land use categories based on the current proportion of workers in each general category . Base year nonresidential building square feet were identified in the San Marcos General Plan Update:

Demographic, Socioeconomic, Market, and Fiscal Conditions and Trends Memorandum, 2020.

The projection of nonresidential square feet is based on GIS analysis of undeveloped parcels within City limits and zoning densities.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2024 2040 Increase
Residents 1 93,730 113,540 19,810
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 19,653 21,000 1,347
Multifamily 13,319 18,407 5,088
Total 32,972 39,407 6,435

Employment 3
Commercial 14,825 21,110 6,285
Office 9,832 12,986 3,154
Industrial/Flex 8,503 11,261 2,758
Total 33,160 45,358 12,198
Building Square Feet (000s)4
Commercial 4,884 7,849 2,965
Office 1,668 2,693 1,024
Industrial/Flex 9,156 11,533 2,377 Total 15,708 22,074 6,366
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance. 2040 projection from Table 5 of the Draft San Marcos General Plan Update:

Demographic, Socioeconomic, Market, and Fiscal Conditions and Trends Report, March 2020.
2 Current values from California Department of Finance. Projection based on GIS analysis of undeveloped parcels w ithin City Limits and zoning densities. 4 Base year identified in San Marcos General Plan Update: Demographic, Socioeconomic, Market, and Fiscal Conditions and Trends, 2020. Projection based on GIS analysis of undeveloped parcels w ithin City limits and zoning densities.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap as of 2021. 2040 projection from SANDAG. Assumes current ratio among land uses w ill be maintained.

Sources: California Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2024; Draft San Marcos General Plan Update: Demographic, Socioeconomic, Market, and Fiscal Conditions and Trends Report, March 2020.; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.

Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. 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.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

12 This conversion is done with average household size factors that vary by dwelling unit square footage, shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for San Marcos from the 2022 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential
Single Family 3.14 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 2.41 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.08 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

Land Cost Assumptions
Table 2.3 displays the land cost assumption used throughout this report . The assumption was developed based on an analysis of land sales in San Marcos since 2019, as reported by CoStar.

A distinction is made between sales of parcels ten acres or less in size, and those greater than 20 acres. The assumption based on sales comparisons of ten acres or less is used to value existing facilities, or project future costs for the park, recreation, and trails facilities fee, and for the fire and EMS facilities fee. The assumption based on sales comparisons of 20 acres or greater is used to estimate the cost of future habitat acquisition.

Table 2.3: Land Cost
Area Cost Per Acre
Weighted Average Cost per Acre (Less than 10 Acres) 948,000$ Open Space (Greater than 20 Acres) 65,000$
Sources: CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Note: Includes land sales since 2019 in San Marcos.

13 3. Transportation Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for transportation 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 transportation 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 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 3.1 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 Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The pass-by trip assumptions and trip rates come from ITE. The trip length assumptions come from SANDAG. 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.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 14 Table 3.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Pass-by
Trips1
Primary
and
Diverted
Trips
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjust-
ment
Factor3 ITE Category
PM Peak
Hour
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B = 1 - A C
D = B x C
/ Avg. E F = D x E
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family (210) 0.99 1.10 Multifamily 3% 97% 7.9 1.11 Multifamily Housing (220) 0.57 0.63 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Hotel Room
Commercial 22% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820) 4.09 1.68 Office 4% 96% 8.8 1.22 Business Park (770) 1.22 1.49 Industrial 2% 98% 9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110) 0.80 1.02 Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Percent of total trips. A pass-by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass-by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Assumption based on ITE Trip Generation 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
3 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.
4 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.

Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 3.2 lists the 2024 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 15 Table 3.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Trip
Land Use
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.10 19,653 21,618 1,347 1,482 21,000 23,100 Multifamily 0.63 13,319 8,391 5,088 3,205 18,407 11,596 Subtotal 32,972 30,009 6,435 4,687 39,407 34,696 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1.68 4,884 8,205 2,965 4,980 7,849 13,185 Office 1.49 1,668 2,486 1,024 1,526 2,693 4,012 Industrial 1.02 9,156 9,339 2,377 2,425 11,533 11,764 Subtotal 15,708 20,030 6,366 8,931 22,074 28,961 Total 50,039 13,618 63,657

78.6% 21.4% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 3.1.
2024 Growth 2024 to 2040 Total - 2040

Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory
The City of San Marcos has made considerable investments in its transportation infrastructure.

Table 3.3 summarizes the City’s existing transportation inventory in 2024. The inventory is limited to primary arterial and collector streets that provide connectivity between neighborhoods and activity centers within the City, and that provide connectivity to neighboring cities and regional transportation facilities. As new development occurs, that development will need to fund these same types of facilities to ensure that the City can maintain its existing level of service.

The City provided the replacement cost assumptions for use in this analysis. In total, the City owns approximately $421.4 million worth of worth of transportation facilities.

Table 3.3: Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory
Infrastructure Type Length Avg. Width Area Units Unit Cost Total
Replacement
Cost
Roadways - Arterial and Collector Streets 5,734,080 Sq. ft. 65$ 372,715,200$ Curb and Gutter NA NA 191,136 Linear ft. 35 6,689,760 Signals NA NA 140 Intersections 300,000 42,000,000 Total Replacement Cost 421,404,960$
Sources: City of San Marcos; Willdan Financial Services.

Note: Inventory limited to arterial and collector streets that provide connectivity betw een neighborhoods and activity centers w ithin the City, and that provide connectivity to neighboring cities and regional transportation facilities. Local streets used primarily for access to one specific neighborhood or development site are not included.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 16 Active Transportation Plan
The City’s Active Transportation Plan identifies pedestrian, and bike facilities needed to serve the entire City, including new development. The total costs for pedestrian and bike facilities are summarized in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5, respectively.

Table 3.4: Planned Pedestrian Facilities
Rank Roadway From To Total Cost
1 Smilax Rd Santa Fe Ave Oleander Ave 1,331,000$
2 San Marcos Blvd Knoll Rd Mission Rd 3,858,000
3 La Mirada Dr Poinsettia Ave Las Flores Dr 1,561,000
4 San Marcos Blvd Viewpoint Dr Grand Ave 8,971,000
5 Linda Vista Dr / W Linda Vista Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Via Vera Cruz 3,825,000 6 Grand Ave Virginia Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd 1,222,000
7 Pacific St Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd 2,171,000
8 Linda Vista Dr / W Linda Vista Dr Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave 791,000 9 Las Flores Dr Oleander Ave Descanso Ave 153,000
10 Santa Fe Ave Alternative Route Santa Fe Ave Capalina Rd 522,000 11 Twin Oaks Valley Rd Sycamore Dr La Cienega Rd 2,321,000 12 Knob Hill Rd Bougher Rd Bennett Ave 1,138,000
13 Los Vallecitos Blvd Knoll Rd Westlake Dr 464,000
14 Virginia Pl Grand Ave La Mirada Dr 489,000
15 Knoll Rd Mission Rd San Marcos Blvd 2,171,000
16 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd Via Vera Cruz 4,378,000 17 Oleander Ave Wildhorse Ln Las Flores Dr 714,000
18 Grand Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd 2,432,000
19 Hill St Enterprise St Barham Dr 306,000
20 Linda Vista Dr / W Linda Vista Dr Boundary Tilley Ln 1,543,000 21 Fulton Rd Borden Rd Harwich Dr 1,142,000
22 Richland Rd Borden Rd Rock Springs Rd 967,000
23 Fulton Rd Flagstone Ct Bennett Ave 1,071,000
24 Richland Rd Mulberry Dr Front St 2,677,000
25 La Moree Rd Via Del Campo Jack's Pond 866,000
26 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave San Marcos Blvd 1,269,000
27 Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd Lake San Marcos Dr 980,000 28 Camino Magnifico Borden Rd School Drwy 62,000
29 Rock Springs Rd End Richland Rd 873,000
30 Las Flores Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr 62,000
31 Grand Ave Las Posas Rd Linda Vista Dr 1,090,000
32 Cassou Rd Boundary Twin Oaks Valley Rd 300,000
33 Borden Rd Las Posas Rd Via Barquero 62,000
34 Discovery St Bent Ave Twin Oaks Valley Rd 2,162,000
35 Borden Rd Comet Circle Twin Oaks Valley Rd 62,000
36 Mulberry Dr Olive St La Cienega Rd 1,527,000
37 Bennett Ave Knob Hill Rd Mission Rd 1,152,000
Total 56,685,000$
Source: San Marcos Active Transportation Plan.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 17 Table 3.5: Planned Bike Facilities
Rank Roadway From To Total Cost
1 San Marcos Blvd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Rd 3,464,000$ 2 Twin Oaks Valley Rd San Marcos Blvd San Elijo Rd 3,670,000 3 Twin Oaks Valley Rd Sycamore Dr San Marcos Blvd 5,851,000 4 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Ave San Marcos Blvd 2,558,000 5 Mission Rd / Santa Fe Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Hills Ct 4,737,000 6 Santa Fe Ave Alternative Route Santa Fe Ave Las Posas Rd 1,463,000 7 Pico Ave Richmar Ave San Marcos Blvd 209,000
8 Las Posas Rd SR 78 WB Ramps San Marcos Blvd 1,186,000 9 Las Posas Rd Avenida Azul SR 78 WB Off Ramp 949,000
10 Nordahl Rd Center Dr SR 78 EB On Ramp 374,000
11 Discovery St San Marcos Blvd Twin Oaks Valley Rd 3,517,000 12 Rancheros Dr San Marcos Blvd Woodland Pkwy 5,866,000 13 Mission Rd / Santa Fe Ave Smilax Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd 1,272,000 14 Fulton Rd Borden Rd Bennett Ave 6,246,000
15 Grand Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd Discovery St 2,784,000
16 Knights Realm/Security Pl Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Blvd 238,000 17 Borden Rd Via Barquero Twin Oaks Valley Rd 5,683,000 18 Linda Vista Dr / W Linda Vista Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pacific St 208,000 19 La Mirada Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd Las Posas Rd 830,000 20 8th St/Cherokee St Rancho Santa Fe Rd Pawnee St 86,000 Barham Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd La Moree Rd W 1,896,000
22 Woodland Pkwy Borden Rd Rancheros Dr 2,157,000
23 Smilax Rd Poinsettia Ave Oleander Ave 412,000
24 Las Flores Dr Grand Ave La Mirada Dr 934,000
25 San Marcos Blvd Parallel Las Posas Rd Via Vera Cruz 1,551,000 26 San Elijo Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd Schoolhouse Way 8,320,000 27 Via Vera Cruz Grand Ave Creekside Dr 1,290,000
28 Twin Oaks Valley Frontage Rd Legacy Dr Borden Rd 1,510,000 29 San Elijo Rd Schoolhouse Way Rancho Santa Fe Rd 2,638,000 30 Craven Rd Discovery St Twin Oaks Valley Rd 1,493,000 31 Mulberry Dr Olive St Woodward St 890,000
32 Richland Rd Front St Borden Rd 163,000
33 Creekside Dr Las Posas Rd Grand Ave 837,000
34 Richland Rd Borden Rd Fulton Rd 344,000
35 El Norte Pkwy Woodland Pkwy Bennett Ave 795,000
36 San Marcos Blvd Business Park Dr Rancho Santa Fe Rd 4,384,000 37 La Moree Rd Via Del Campo Jack's Pond 1,607,000
38 Rose Ranch Rd Mulberry Dr Borden Rd 2,450,000
39 Olive St Twin Oaks Valley Rd Boundary 2,177,000
40 Camino Magnifico Avenida Abeja Avenida Arana 1,357,000 41 Vineyard Rd Mulberry Dr Woodward St 695,000
42 Borden Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd Mulberry Dr 1,126,000
43 Borden Rd Lacebark St Woodland Pkwy 686,000
44 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Lake San Marcos Dr Melrose Dr 2,676,000 45 Las Posas Rd Boundary Avenida Leon 963,000
Total 94,542,000$
Source: San Marcos Active Transportation Plan.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 18 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities , divided by a measure of demand. The cost per trip is translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 3.6 displays the calculation of the cost the cost per trip demand unit . In this case, the transportation facilities fee uses a hybrid approach to calculating the cost per trip. For roadway facilities the cost per trip is calculated based on the existing replacement cost of the existing roadway system. For bike and pedestrian facilities, the cost per trip is calculated based on the cost of all future facilities allocated across all trips, both existing and new. The cost per trip for each component is summed together, the result of which drives the fee calculation.

The table also shows a projection of fee revenue if fees are adopted at the maximum jus tified amounts. The cost per trip is multiplied by the projected growth in trips to calculate the total fee revenue generated by the fee.

Table 3.6: Cost per Trip to
Accommodate Growth
Roadway Facilities
Value of Existing Inventory 421,404,960$
Existing Trip Generation 50,039
Cost per Trip 8,422$
Pedestrain Facilies
Cost of Planned Facilities 56,685,000$
Total Trips in 2040 63,657
Cost per Trip 890$
Bike Facilies
Cost of Planned Facilities 94,542,000$
Total Trips in 2040 63,657
Cost per Trip 1,485$
Total Cost per Trip 10,797$
Growth in Trips 13,618
Projected Fee Revenue 147,033,546$
Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.7 shows the maximum justified transportation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to these amounts. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip identified in Table 3.6. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 3.1 to determine a City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 19 fee per unit of new development. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

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 costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

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 3.7: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E /
Average
Trip Fee
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 10,797$ 1.10 11,877$ 238 12,115$ 4.48$ Multifamily 10,797 0.63 6,802 136 6,938 4.17 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 10,797$ 1.68 18,139$ 363 18,502$ 18.50$ Office 10,797 1.49 16,088 322 16,410 16.41 Industrial 10,797 1.02 11,013 220 11,233 11.23 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.6.
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 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023.

20 4. Parks, Trails and Recreation
Facilities
The purpose of the parks, trails and recreation 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 resident.

Service Population
Park and recreation facilities in San Marcos primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Parks, Trails and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 93,730
Growth (2024 to 2040) 19,810
Total (2040) 113,540
Source: Table 2.2.

Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of San Marcos maintains many parks and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table

4.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2024. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 400 acres of parkland , 263.05 of which are improved with park amenities.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.2: Parkland Inventory
Name
Developed
Acres
Undeveloped
Acres Total
City Parks
Buelow Park 1.90 - 1.90
Cerro De Las Posas Park 11.46 - 11.46 Civic Center Park 0.61 - 0.61
Connors Park 6.63 - 6.63
Discovery Lake - 30.37 30.37
Double Peak Regional Park 2.27 - 2.28 F.H. Corky Gym 0.62 - 2.28
Hollandia Park 29.76 - 29.76
Jack's Pond Park 7.31 - 7.31
Knob Hill Park 3.00 - 3.00
Lakeview Park 33.00 - 33.00
La Moree Park - 28.88 28.88
Mission Sports Park 14.00 - 14.00 Montiel Park 9.95 - 9.95
Mulberry Park 3.87 - 3.87
Rancho Tesoro area park - 41.85 41.85 Richmar Park 2.52 - 2.52
San Elijo Park 21.10 - 21.10
San Marcos Joslyn Senior Center 0.45 - 0.45 Southlake Park - 8.77 8.77
Summer Hill Park 2.16 - 2.16
Sunset Park 17.30 4.45 21.75
Walnut Grove Park 38.63 - 38.63
William Bradley Park 34.36 - 34.36 Woodland Park 14.30 - 14.30
Subtotal 255.20 114.32 371.19
Neighborhood Parks
Adult Fitness Zone 0.25 - 0.25 Alder Glen Park 0.40 - 0.40
Amigo Park 0.74 - 0.74
Discovery Hills Children's Park 0.64 - 0.64 Discovery Meadows Park Sonoma Playground 0.02 - 0.02 Discovery Meadows Park Foxhall Ct Playground 0.05 - 0.05 Helen Bougher Park 1.55 - 1.55 Innovation Park 0.97 - 0.97
Optimist Park 0.34 - 0.34
Regency Hills Park 0.76 - 0.76 Ridgeline Trailhead Park 1.92 - 1.92 Sage Pointe Park 0.21 - 0.21
University District Parks - 20.96 20.96 Subtotal 7.85 20.96 28.81
Grand Total 263.05 135.28 400.00
Source: City of San Marcos.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 Table 4.3 displays the City’s inventory of recreation facilities, including pools, community centers, senior centers, and sports facilities. The total cost of these facilities is divided by the existing park acres to determine the recreation facilities replacement cost per acre.

Table 4.3: Recreation Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Total
Replacement
Cost
Community Center: 30,000 sq. ft. 30,000 Sq. Ft. 350$ 10,500,000$ San Marcos Senior Activity Center 16,500 Sq. Ft. 350 5,775,000 F. H. Corky Smith Gym: 27,000 sq. ft. 27,000 Sq. Ft. 400 10,800,000 San Elijo Recreation Center 5,696 Sq. Ft. 400 2,278,400 Las Posas Pool 1 Aquatic Center 6,000,000 6,000,000 Woodland Pool 1 Aquatic Center 6,000,000 6,000,000 Wood House 3,715 Sq. Ft. 200 743,000
Woodland Modular 1,250 Sq. Ft. 150 187,500 Jack’s Pond Barn 7,664 Sq. Ft. 200 1,532,800 Williams Barn 6,956 Sq. Ft. 200 1,391,200
Walnut Grove Park Sports Barn 2,980 Sq. Ft. 200 596,000 Total 45,803,900$
Total Improved Acres 263.05
Recreation Facilities Cost per Acre 174,100$
Source: San Marcos Parks Master Plan, 2018.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 4.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in San Marcos. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of recent land sales within the City of San Marcos and is consistent with other chapters in the report. An estimate of $ 650,000 per acre for standard parkland improvements is based on data from the City’s 2018 Parks Master Plan. The recreation facilities cost per acre from Table 4.3 is added to the cost of standard park improvements to determine the full cost per acre of park facilities and improvements.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 4.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Improvements
Standard Park Improvements1 650,000$
Recreation Facilities 174,100
Subtotal 824,100$ 47%
Land Acquisition 948,000 53%
Total Cost per Acre 1,772,100$ 100%
Sources: City of San Marcos; Tables 2.3 and 4.3, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Improvement cost per acre based on cost assumptions from 2018 Parks Master Plan Update.

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.

City of San Marcos Park Facilities Standards
Table 4.5 shows the existing standard of park acreage per 1,000 residents . The City currently has a parkland standard of 4.27 acres per 1,000. The table also shows the calculation of the park improvements standard. The City currently has 2.81 improved park acres per 1,000 residents.

The fee analysis in this report will be based on new development funding the acquisition of parkland at a 3.0-acre standard and the improvement of parkland at the 2. 81-acre standard. The

3.0 acre per 1,000 residents standard is the minimum standard that a City can charge under the Quimby Act.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 4.5: Parkland Standards
Existing
Standard
(2024)
Land Standard
Total Parkland 400.00
Service Population 93,730
Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 4.27
Improvements Standard
Acres of Improvements 263.05
Service Population 93,730
Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.81
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 4.6 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing facility standard. New development must fund the purchase of 59.43 acres of land and the improvement of 55.67 acres, at a total cost of $102.2 million in order to fund parks at the 3.0 acre per 1,000 resident policy standard for acquisition and the 2.81 acre existing standard of park improvements.

Table 4.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Existing Standard
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00 2.81 Service Population Growth (2024 to 2040) B 19,810 19,810 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 59.43 55.67 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 948,000 $ 824,100 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $56,340,000 $ 45,878,000 $102,218,000 Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.4 and 4.4.

Trails Component
Existing Inventory
Table 4.7 lists the City’s existing trails inventory. The City currently owns and maintains 70.34 linear miles of trails. The replacement cost per mile of trails is assumed to be $1,027,000 per mile, as derived from information from the City’s Draft Trails Master Plan.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Table 4.7: Trails Standard
Exsiting Miles of Trails 70.34
Residents (2024) 93,730
Standard (Miles per 1,000 Residents) 0.75
Source: Draft Trails Master Plan, 2020.

Trails Needed to Maintain Standard
Table 4.8 shows the calculation of the amount of trails needed to serve new development at the existing trails standard. The standard is multiplied by the growth in population (in thousands) to determine the total number of miles of trails needed. The needed miles of trails are multiplied by the cost per mile to determine the total cost.

Table 4.8: Trails Needed to Serve New Development
Existing Standard (Miles per 1,000 Residents) 0.75
Growth in Population 19,810
Miles of Trails needed to Serve New Development 14.86
Cost per Mile 1,027,700$
Total Cost 15,269,053$
Source: Draft Trails Master Plan, 2020; Tables 4.1 and 4.7, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per Resident
Table 4.9 calculates the cost per resident to provide parkland acquisition, park improvements and trails at the facility standards discussed above. The cost assumptions are multiplied by the facility standard to determine the cost to serve 1,000 residents at the existing standards. The cost per 1,000 residents is divided by 1,000 to determine the cost for a single resident.

Table 4.9: Cost per Resident
Calculation Land Improvements Trails Total
Cost Assumption (per acre or linear mile) A 948,000$ 824,100$ 1,027,700$ Facility Standard (acres or linear miles per
1,000 residents) B 3.00 2.81 0.75 Total Cost per 1,000 Residents C = A x B 2,844,000$ 2,315,700$ 770,800$ Cost per Resident D = C / 1,000 2,844$ 2,316$ 771$ 5,931$ Sources: Tables 4.4 and 4.7.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 26 Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park , recreation facilities and trials fee revenue to purchase parkland , recreational facilities and trails and to construct improvements to add to the system of 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. The City should program public safety facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

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

4.9) is the investment per resident based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.

Table 4.10 show the maximum justified park , recreation facilities and trails fee based on the facility standards described above . The cost per resident from Table 4.9 is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of 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.

Table 4.10: Maximum Justified Park Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E /
Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Single Family 5,931$ 3.14 18,623$ 372$ 18,995$ 7.02$ Multifamily 5,931 2.41 14,294 286 14,580 8.76 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
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 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.9, Willdan Financial Services.

27 5. Fire and EMS Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing inventory facilities standard of fire protection facilities in the City of San Marcos to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Fire protection 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 5.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire and EMS facilities.

Workers are weighted at 1.23 of residents based on relative demand for fire services based on incident response data from the City of San Marcos Standards of Cover Plan, 2017. See Appendix Table A.1 for the calculation of the worker weighting factor.

Table 5.1: Fire and EMS Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 93,730 1.00 93,730 New Development 19,810 1.00 19,810 Total (2040) 113,540 113,540
Workers
Existing (2024) 33,160 1.23 40,787 New Development 12,198 1.23 15,003 Total (2040) 45,358 55,790
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 134,517
New Development 34,813
Total (2040) 169,330
Sources: Table 2.1 and Appendix Table A.2. Willdan Financial Services. 1 Workers are w eighted at 1.23 of residents based on an analysis of call data from the City's Standards of Cover Report.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s fire and EMS facilities inventory is comprised of four fire stations, a training center, various apparatus, vehicles, and equipment. The land cost assumption was based on an analysis of recent land sales within the City of San Marcos and is consistent with other chapters in the report. The value of buildings is based on the replacement cost for similar facilities provided by City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 other Willdan clients. In total the City over $53.2 million worth of fire and EMS facilities. Table 5.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of fire and EMS facilities.

Table 5.2: Existing Fire and EMS Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost
Replacement
Cost
Land
Fire Station 1 0.63 Acres 948,000$ 593,448$
Fire Station 2 0.73 Acres 948,000 692,040
Fire Station 3 1.07 Acres 948,000 1,014,360
Fire Station 4 1.99 Acres 948,000 1,886,520
Subtotal 4.42 $ 4,186,368
Buildings
SM Emergency Training Center 3,000 Sq. Ft. 700$ 2,100,000$ Fire Station 1 Main Building 15,000 Sq. Ft. 700 10,500,000 Station 1 Reserve Equipment Barn 3,200 Sq. Ft. 250 800,000 Fire Station 2 Buidling 12,000 Sq. Ft. 700 8,400,000 Fire Station 3 Building 6,500 Sq. Ft. 700 4,550,000 Fire Station 4 Building 12,000 Sq. Ft. 700 8,400,000 Subtotal 51,700 $ 34,750,000
Vehicles and Apparatus $ 11,260,559
Equipment $ 3,003,782
Total Cost - Existing Facilities Inventory 53,200,709$

Sources: City of San Marcos Fire Department; Appendix Tables A.2 and A.3, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned public safety facilities needed to serve the City, as identified by the Fire Department. The City plans to build a new fire station, expand its fleet of vehicles, and expand its inventory of equipment to add capacity to accommodate new development. The total cost of the identified facilities is $21.3 million.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 Table 5.3: Planned Fire and EMS Facilities
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
New Station
Fire Station1 18,000 Square Feet 700$ 12,600,000$ Land Acqusition2 3 Acres 948,000 2,844,000 Reserve Barn 4 Bays 750,000
Subtotal 16,194,000$
Vehicles and Apparatus
Type 1 Engine 2 Engines 850,000$ 1,700,000$ Ambulance 2 Ambulances 350,000 700,000
Battalion Chief Vehicle 1 Vehicle 165,000 165,000 Mobile EOC 1 MEoC 2,000,000
Subtotal 4,565,000$
Equipment
SCBA Compressor 1 Compressor 125,000$ 125,000$ PLYMO Vent 1 Vent 150,000 150,000
PPE n/a Total 107,000 107,000
Station Alerting 1 Total 150,000 150,000
Classroom AV 1 Total 50,000 50,000
Subtotal 307,000$
Total 21,341,000$
1 New fire station construction cost per square foot from other recent Willdan clients. 2 Based on w eighted cost per acre for sales comparison less than 10 acres in size as reported by CoStar since 2019.

Sources: City of San Marcos Fire Department; Willdan Financial Services.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4: Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 53,200,709$
Existing Service Population 134,517
Cost per Capita 395$
Facility Standard per Resident 395$
Facility Standard per Worker1 486
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 1.23.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for fire and EMS facilities. The planned facilities will serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the planned facilities are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology.

This cost standard is calculated by dividing the total value of all fire and EMS facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 1.23 to determine the value per worker. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 5.5: Fire and EMS Facilities - System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 53,200,709$
Value of Planned Facilities 21,341,000
Total System Value (2040) 74,541,709$
Future Service Population (2040) 169,330
Cost per Capita 440$
Facility Standard per Resident 440$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 541
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 1.23.

Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fire and EMS facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of fire and EMS facilities to serve new City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 31 development. Table 5.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 5.1. The City should program fire and EMS facilities fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $ 6 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

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

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 440$
Growth in Service Population (2024- 2040) 34,813
Fee Revenue 15,318,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 21,341,000$
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified (6,023,000)$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire and EMS 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 single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of 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.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 32 Table 5.7: Fire and EMS Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 440$ 3.14 1,382$ 28 1,410$ 0.52$ Multifamily 440 2.41 1,060 21 1,081 0.65 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 541$ 2.12 1,147$ 23 1,170$ 1.17$ Office 541 3.08 1,666 33 1,699 1.70 Industrial 541 1.16 628 13 641 0.64 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.
3 Assumes 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023. 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.

33 6. Advanced Planning
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of advanced planning studies. The City will undertake several advanced planning studies through 2040. These studies will guide future facility planning needed to serve all development within the City. A fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of advanced planning studies in the City of San Marcos to ensure that new development funds its fair share of future advanced planning studies.

Service Population
Advanced planning studies 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 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for advanced planning. 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 advanced planning.

Table 6.1: Advanced Planning Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 93,730 1.00 93,730
New Development 19,810 1.00 19,810
Total (2040) 113,540 113,540
Workers
Existing (2024) 33,160 0.31 10,280
New Development 12,198 0.31 3,781
Total (2040) 45,358 14,061
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 104,010
New Development 23,591
Total (2040) 127,601
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 Planned Costs
Table 6.2 lists the City’s anticipated advanced planning costs within the 2040 planning horizon.

Estimated study costs were provided by City staff for use in this analysis. In total, the City has identified $7.6 million in advanced planning costs.

Table 6.2: Advanced Planning Costs
Cost per
Study
Studies
within
Planning
Horizon Total Cost
Future PFF Update 100,000$ 3 300,000$
General Plan Update 2,000,000 2 4,000,000 Housing Element Update 150,000 2 300,000 Parks and Trails Master Plan Update 130,000 3 390,000 Drainage Master Plan Update 1,500,000 1 1,500,000 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 250,000 1 250,000 Climate Action Plan Update 300,000 3 900,000 Total 4,430,000$ 7,640,000$
Source: City of San Marcos.

Facility Standard
Table 6.3 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for advanced planning studies. The studies will identify facilities needed to serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the studies are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of all advanced planning studies needed by 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 6.3: Advanced Planning – System Standard
Cost of Planning Studies 7,640,000$
Future Service Population (2040) 127,601
Cost per Capita 60$
Facility Standard per Resident 60$
Facility Standard per Worker1 19
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use advanced planning fee revenue to complete the studies identified in Table

6.2. The studies will be used to identify facility needs to serve the City as it grows . Table 6.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 6.1. The City should program advanced planning fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $6.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the advanced planning studies.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the advanced planning studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 6.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 60$
Growth in Service Population (2024- 2040) 23,591
Fee Revenue 1,415,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 7,640,000$
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified (6,225,000)$
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the maximum justified advanced planning 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 single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 36 Table 6.5: Advanced Planning Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 60$ 3.14 188$ 4 192$ 0.07$ Multifamily 60 2.41 145 3 148 0.09 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 19$ 2.12 39$ 1 40$ 0.04$ Office 19 3.08 57 1 58 0.06 Industrial 19 1.16 22 - 22 0.02 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.3
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 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023.

37 7. Habitat Conservation
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of habitat conservation. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing inventory facilities standard of habitat conservation in the City of San Marcos to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Habitat conservation provides benefits to everyone in the City, including residents and workers .

Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for habitat conservation .

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 habitat conservation.

Table 7.1: Habitat Conservation Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 93,730 1.00 93,730
New Development 19,810 1.00 19,810
Total (2040) 113,540 113,540
Workers
Existing (2024) 33,160 0.31 10,280
New Development 12,198 0.31 3,781
Total (2040) 45,358 14,061
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 104,010
New Development 23,591
Total (2040) 127,601
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Existing Facilities and Level of Service
The City has acquired 129.65 out of 288 acres identified it it’s prior nexus study for the purpose of habitat conservation. Table 7.2 expresses the existing level of service, in terms of acres per 1,000 capita. This is not used to drive the fee calculation, rather, it is shown for informational purposes only.

Table 7.2: Existing Standard
Existing Habitat Acres 129.65
Existing Service Population 104,010
Acres per 1,000 Capita 1.25
Sources: City of San Marcos; Table 7.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
The City’s 2003 nexus study identified 288 acres of habitat to be acquired. Table 7.3 expresses the future level of service, once new development has occurred, and all 288 acres of habitat have been acquired. This standard drives the impact fee calculation.

Table 7.3: Habitat Conservation Costs
Total Future Habitat Acres 288.00
Future Service Population (2040) 127,601
Acres per 1,000 Capita 2.26
Sources: City of San Marcos; Table 7.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per Capita
Table 7.4 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for habitat conservation. An assumption of $65,000 per acre to acquire habitat is multiplied by the future facility standard to determine the cost to serve 1,000 service population at the system standard.

The cost per 1,000 service population is divided by 1,000 to determine the cost for a single person. The cost per resident is multiplied by the worker weighting factor to determine the cost per worker.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 Table 7.4: Habitat Conservation System Standard
Cost Assumption (per acre) 65,000$
Facility Standard (acres 1,000 capita) 2.26
Total Cost per 1,000 Capita 146,900
Cost per Resident 147$
Facility Standard per Worker1 46
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use habitat conservation fee revenue to acquire habitat to add to the inventory of habitat to serve existing and new development. Table 7.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 7.1. The City should program habitat conservation fee revenue to open space land acquisition annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $6.6 million in non-fee funding will be needed to purchase the identified habitat.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the habitat acquisition. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 7.5: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 147$
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2040) 23,591
Fee Revenue 3,468,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities1
10,292,750$
Non-Fee Revenue To Be Identified (6,824,750)$
1 Assumes $65,000 per acre for habitat acquisition, and 158.35 acres to be acquired.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 7.6 shows the maximum justified habitat conservation 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 single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 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.

Table 7.6: Maximum Justified Habitat Conservation Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 147$ 3.14 462$ 9 471$ 0.17$ Multifamily 147 2.41 354 7 361 0.22 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 46$ 2.12 98$ 2 100$ 0.10$ Office 46 3.08 142 3 145 0.15 Industrial 46 1.16 53 1 54 0.05 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.3
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 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023.

41 8. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of San Marcos . This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s Drainage Master Plan for City of San Marcos, 2019 . This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on from the City’s Drainage Master Plan . EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 8.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units A B C = (43,560 / A) x B D = C / Single Family
DU or 1,000
Sq. Ft. per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious
per Acre
Impervious
Square feet per
DU or 1,000 Sq.

Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)2
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 12.00 45% 1,634 1.00 Multifamily 30.00 80% 1,162 0.71 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 30.49 85% 1,214 0.74 Office 30.49 90% 1,286 0.79
Industrial 30.49 90% 1,286 0.79 Sources: Drainage Master Plan for City of San Marcos, 2019; Willdan Financial Services. 2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development. 1 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for non-residential. Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratio of 0.7 for commercial, office and industrial.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate 9,841 new EDUs, representing 19.3 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 42 Table 8.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 19,653 19,653 1,347 1,347 21,000 21,000 Multifamily 0.71 13,319 9,456 5,088 3,613 18,407 13,069 Subtotal 32,972 29,109 6,435 4,960 39,407 34,069 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.74 4,884 3,614 2,965 2,194 7,849 5,808 Office 0.79 1,668 1,318 1,024 809 2,693 2,127 Industrial 0.79 9,156 7,233 2,377 1,878 11,533 9,111 Subtotal 15,708 12,165 6,366 4,881 22,074 17,046 Total 41,274 9,841 51,115

80.7% 19.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.
2024 Growth 2024 to 2040 Total - 2040

Planned Facilities
Table 8.3 identifies the planned storm drain facilities to be funded by the fee. The new storm drain facilities were all identified in the City’s Drainage Master Plan . Since drainage projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

Table 8.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Total Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
2019 Storm Drain Master Plan CIP
1 West Mission Road (West Mission Road and North Pacific Street) 840,965$ 19.3% 162,306$ 2 Bingham Drive (Bingham Drive and Armorlite Drive) 2,406,239 19.3% 464,404 3 West Mission Road (West Mission Road and Liberty Drive) 1,989,404 19.3% 383,955 4 West Mission Road (Culvert across West Mission Road and Liberty Drive) 313,060 19.3% 60,421 5 South Rancho Santa Fe Road (South Rancho Santa Fe Road and Grand Avenue) 2,244,653 19.3% 433,218 6 Las Flores Drive (Las Flores Drive between 9th Street and Perdido Street) 1,106,572 19.3% 213,568 7 South Santa Fe Avenue 2,015,175 19.3% 388,929
8 East Mission Road (East Mission Road and Mulberry Drive) 5,468,463 19.3% 1,055,413 9 Los Vallecitos Boulevard 1,768,909 19.3% 341,399
10 Discovery Street (Discovery Street and La Sombra Drive) 604,794 19.3% 116,725 11 West Mission Road (West Mission Road and Firebird Lane) 1,321,825 19.3% 255,112 12 Mulberry Drive (Mulberry Drive and La Cienega Drive) 3,163,198 19.3% 610,497 13 A_North Twin Oaks Valley Road 1,892,046 19.3% 365,165 Grand Total 25,135,303$ 4,851,113$
Source: Drainage Master Plan for City of San Marcos, 2019; City of San Marcos.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 43 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the planned facilities approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 8.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 8.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Cost Project Costs 4,851,113$
Growth in EDUs 9,841
Cost per EDU 493$
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 8.4 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) 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 costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Table 8.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per

EDU EDU
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Fee 1,2
Total
Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft. 3
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 493$ 1.00 493$ 10 503$ 0.19$ Multifamily 493 0.71 350 7 357 0.21 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 493$ 0.74 365$ 7 372$ 0.37$ Office 493 0.79 389 8 397 0.40 Industrial 493 0.79 389 8 397 0.40 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4; Willdan Financial Services. 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 2,704 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,665 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in San Marcos based on an analysis of building permits issued in 2022 and 2023.

45 9. 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 fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: the roadway component of the transportation facilities and parks, trails and recreation facilities fees. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per unit of demand is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. 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 pedestrian and bike components of the transportation facilities fee, and the storm drain facilities fees in this report . These fees are driven by improvements identified in the C ity’s various master planning documents. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the level of service will not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. 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 the library facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified and by City. 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 increase level of service through any other funding source. The fire and EMS, advanced planning, and habitat conservation fee chapters include tables that show the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility cost per capita.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions Table 9.1 summarizes a review of the assumptions from the 2003 study fee and compares those assumptions to this study.

Table 9.1: Summary of Review of 2003 Study
2003 Study 2024 Study
Base Year 2003 2024
Planning Horizon 2020 2040
Projected Increase In Dwelling Units 8,754 6,435 Costs Allocated to New Development 421,824,410$ 288,005,712$ Sources: City of San Marcos Public Facilities Financing Plan 2003 Update; Tables 2.1 and E.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Table 9.2 presents an accounting of impact fee revenue collected over the past five completed fiscal years , and displays the average annual amount collected, by impact fee fund during this time period.

Table 9.2: Annual Collected Fee Revenue
Impact Fee Category 2020 Actual 2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Actual Five-Year
Average
Circulation Streets 936,009$ 2,329,868$ 1,263,655$ 1,025,856$ 302,487$ 1,171,575$ SR-78 Interchanges 943,514 1,610,503 1,527,003 1,330,821 104,627 1,103,294 Parks and Trails 2,323,622 1,090,524 3,242,738 3,334,024 183,789 2,034,939 Drainage 295,089 208,733 315,982 328,769 121,383 253,991 NPDES 96,333 56,046 119,158 110,949 14,108 79,319 Habitat Conservation 44,890 21,640 55,010 51,709 6,453 35,940 Technology Improvements 19,180 11,204 23,772 22,089 5,390 16,327 Total 4,658,638$ 5,328,519$ 6,547,317$ 6,204,217$ 738,238$ 4,695,386$ Source: City of San Marcos.

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 and other City documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

Appendix Table A.4 is included to demonstrate the CIP for the roadway component of the transportation facilities fee. Note that these projects do not drive the fee calculation and are included to demonstrate that the City has sufficient capacity -expanding projects to spend future impact fee revenue on.

47 10. 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. 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 be used for adjusting fees for inflation . The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2024).

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. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

While fee updates using inflation ary 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 will comply 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.

Table 10.1 summarizes the annual and five -year reporting requirements identified in the Mitigation Fee Act.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

48 Table 10.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements 1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and thepurpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) (i) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(ii) An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report pursuant to clause (i) and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report.
(iii) For a project identified pursuant to clause (ii) for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §66001 and §66006.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 49 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 if those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. 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.

50 11. 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 documented 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 documented 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: transportation facilities, parks, recreation and trail facilities, fire and EMS facilities, advanced planning, habitat conservation and storm drainage 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.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 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 relationsh ip 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 differently 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 cor recting 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 Standard 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 maximum justified facilities fees.

52 Appendix
Table A.1: Emergency Services Worker Weighting Factor
2013 2014 2015
Average
Annual
Incidents
(2013 -
2015)
Residents
or
Employees
(2015)
Calls per
1,000
Residents or
Employees
per Year
Residential Incidents
419 1 or 2 family dwelling 3,178 3,129 3,577 3,295
429 Multifamily dwellings 1,272 1,440 1,786 1,499
962 Residential street, road or residential driveway 262 327 341 310 459 Residential board and care 118 98 126 114 460 Dormitory type residence, other 11 25 13 16 464 Barracks, dormitory 12 10 24 15
Total 5,250 92,458 56.78
Nonresidential Incidents
963 Street or road in commercial area 473 464 613 517 340 Clinics, Doctors offices, hemodialysis centers 270 421 508 400 311 24-hour care Nursing homes, 4 or more persons 180 202 303 228 241 Adult education center, college classroom 93 116 101 103 931 Open land or field 69 110 97 92
888 Fire station 97 83 94 91
215 High school/junior high school/middle school 79 92 95 89 161 Restaurant or cafeteria 68 82 101 84
938 Graded and cared-for plots of land 62 69 65 65 581 Department or discount store 45 34 57 45 341 Clinic, clinic-type infirmary 8 16 91 38 519 Food and beverage sales, grocery store 34 28 48 37 599 Business office 37 30 34 34
700 Manufacturing, processing 30 28 37 32 321 Mental impairment/development disability facility 29 27 34 30 449 Hotel/motel, commercial 33 25 30 29
365 Police station 24 31 32 29
213 Elementary school, including kindergarten 23 24 35 27 342 Doctor, dentist or oral surgeon’s office 25 30 26 27 131 Church, mosque, synagogue, temple, chapel 23 23 25 24 160 Eating, drinking places 16 20 31 22
539 Household goods, sales, repairs 14 18 34 22 141 Athletic/health club 14 17 28 20
549 Specialty shop 7 25 25 19
500 Mercantile, business, other 15 23 17 18 110 Fixed use recreation places, other 12 20 22 18 124 Playground 17 18 18 18
142 Clubhouse 16 16 18 17
571 Service station, gas station 15 20 11 15 936 Vacant lot 17 15 13 15
183 Movie theater 22 11 10 14
343 Hemodialysis unit 12 8 22 14
120 Variable use amusement, recreation places 14 12 14 13 Total 2,247 32,200 69.77
Worker Weighting Factor 1.23
(Calls per 1,000 Employees / Calls per 1,000 Residents) Other Incidents (Excluded from Weighting)
965 Vehicle parking area 305 348 398 350
961 Highway or divided highway 244 239 336 273 960 Street, other 8 7 23 13
Total 636
Sources: Standards of Cover Report; California Department of Finance Table E-5, 2015; OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 53 Appendix Table A.2: Apparatus, Vehicle and Onboard Equipment Inventory SMID Item Make Model Number Purchase Price Equipment Cost Total 8298 Aerial Truck Pierce FT Velocity 1,300,320$ 5,000$ 1,305,320$ 8323 MEOC COM 140 Featherlite 4941 885,785 5,000 890,785 8276 Aerial Truck Pierce Dash-2000 779,448 100,000 879,448 8295 Structure Engine Pierce PUC 644,949 100,000 744,949 8285 Structure Engine Pierce Velocity 582,465 100,000 682,465 8323 MEOC COM 14 Trailer Featherlite 4941 464,590 5,000 469,590 8265 Structure Engine Pierce Dash Series Pumper 389,978 75,000 464,978 8262 Structure Engine Pierce Dash Pumper (Type I) 380,624 75,000 455,624 8263 Reserve Structure Engine Pierce Dash Pumper (Type I) 380,624 75,000 455,624 8238 Structure Engine - Reserve E One Cyclone II Series Pumper 380,000 - 380,000 8288 Brush Engine International 7400 4x4 208,982 100,000 308,982 82103 Ambulance Ford 200,720 40,000 240,720 8296 Ambulance Ford E450 193,000 30,000 223,000 8291 Ambulance GMC 4500 189,428 100,000 289,428 8299 Ambulance Ford E450 180,920 15,000 195,920 8294 Ambulance Ford E450 176,886 100,000 276,886 8241 Brush Engine International Model 15 4900 167,012 75,000 242,012 8235 Brush Engine International Model 15 Navistar 4900 152,000 - 152,000 82104 Ambulance Ford E450 151,564 100,000 251,564 8293 Ambulance GMC 4500 147,173 100,000 247,173 8290 Ambulance GMC 4500 130,265 100,000 230,265 8287 Reserve Ambulance GMC C4500 111,328 - 111,328 8270 Utility Vehicle Chevrolet 7500 76,617 100,000 176,617 81200 Staff Vehicle - Battalion Chief Chevrolet Silverado 2500 LT 49,771 10,000 59,771 81201 Staff Vehicle - Fire Chief Chevrolet Tahoe 45,465 10,000 55,465 81184 Staff Vehicle - Back Up Chief Chevrolet Suburban 43,132 75,000 118,132 81195 Staff Vehicle - Fire Chief Chevrolet Tahoe 41,710 5,000 46,710 81191 Utility Pick-Up Chevrolet 2500 40,926 10,000 50,926 8286 Support Vehicle Chevrolet G30 39,893 100,000 139,893 81183 Staff Vehicle - Battalion Chief Chevrolet Tahoe 39,642 - 39,642 81192 Staff Vehicle - 1403 Chevrolet Tahoe 36,413 200,000 236,413 81141 Staff Vehicle - Back Up Chief Chevrolet Suburban 2500 4x4 35,136 5,000 40,136 81167 U-145 Staff Vehicle Chevrolet Tahoe 35,000 5,000 40,000 8248 Utility Vehicle Ford F250 27,047 75,000 102,047 81199 Staff Vehicle - EMS Ford Escape 24,482 10,000 34,482 81196 Prevention Vehicle Ford Escape 24,289 10,000 34,289 81193 Support Vehicle Chevrolet G10 24,044 200,000 224,044 81185 Support Vehicle Chevrolet Colorado 22,508 75,000 97,508 81168 Prevention Vehicle Chevrolet Colorado 19,786 75,000 94,786 81140 Prevention Vehicle Ford Ranger XLT 19,576 5,000 24,576 86283 Gator Rescue Vehicle John Deere XUV850D 19,557 100,000 119,557 8318 Rescue Trailer Mighty Mover TrailerTandem Axle Pro II 10,718 5,000 15,718 8319 Gator Trailer Ronco 1,788 5,000 6,788 8297 Structure Engine Pierce Velocity - 5,000 5,000 Total 8,875,559$ 2,385,000$ 11,260,559$
Souce: City of San Marcos Fire Department.

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Item Count Total Cost
20" Ram 1 2,200
30' Ladder 1 900
30" Ram 2 4,800
35' Extension Ladder 2 2,160
35' Ladder 9 9,000
4050 NCT HD Cutter 1 5,551
4150 Combi-Cutter 1 4,711
4242 Hydraulic Spreader 1 6,057
4332 Large 65" ram 1 3,924
4340 Small Telescopic Ram 1 3,734
4350 Med. Telescopic Ram 1 4,606
45 Minute Cylinder 163 153,709
50" Plasma TV with Tuner 3 7,913
60" Ram 2 5,200
64" HDTV 1 2,500
75 Minute Cylinder 4 4,020
ACU-2000 1 30,249
AED 37 52,480
Air Bag 21.8 Ton 2 1,774
Air Bag 31.8 Ton 2 1,988
Air Bag Control Kit 1 2,509
Air Bag Kit 1 5,000
Air Cart 1 1,751
Air Chisel 1 800
Air Monitor 1 750
Aircraft Radio 1 889
Analog Microwave Receiver 1 3,622
Arizona Vortex - Artificial High Directional 2 9,365 Ball Valve Intake 3 4,998
Bar-B-Q 2 4,000
Bendix King VHF Radio 1 900
BK VHF Portable 2 2,224
BK VHF Portable Radio 3 3,336
Blower 6 13,037
Chainsaw 10 10,549
Circular Saw 4 4,258
Cisco 3825 1 10,441
CISCO Catalyst 1 3,442
Cisco Wireless Phone 6 3,164
Clothes Dryer 2 1,600
Communications System 1 4,064
Conference Table 2 4,897
Copier 2 5,750
Copy Machine 1 5,000
Core 32 ft. hose (Blue) 2 1,682
Core 32 ft. hose (Orange) 2 1,682
Cutting Torch 1 1,000
David Clark 7 23,800
DefibTech Lifeline Arm CPR Deivce 2 22,013
DefibTech Lifeline Arm CPR Device 4 44,027
Appendix Table A.3: Fire and EMS Equipment
Inventory Summary

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 55 Item Count Total Cost
Dell Latitude E550 Laptop Computer 4 5,108
Deluxe Difficult Airway Trainer 1 2,389
Desktep Computer 1 1,027
Desktop Computer 3 3,080
Digital Camera 5 1,248
Digital Microwave Receiver 1 18,765
Digital Projector 1 1,283
Display Kiosk 1 1,000
DPU31 Compact Duo Pump 1 8,808
Dumbell Set 4 8,000
Electric Blower 1 1,800
Elliptical Machine 6 12,600
Extractor 2 15,500
Fire Flow Test Kit 1 975
Fire Hose Repair Device 1 10,300
Floor Buffer 2 2,642
Foam Eductor 4 3,785
Freddie Fire Truck 1 4,253
Gas Monitor 3 3,285
Gated Tri-way 7 11,550
Generator 9 14,482
Generic 1 750
GIS Laptop 1 1,871
Graco Ultramax Cordless Sprayer 1 841
HAM Radio 1 1,085
HDTV Widescreen TV 1 2,000
Holmatro Blue Core Hose 1 1,740
Holmatro Cutters 1 6,203
Holmatro Duo Pump 1 7,918
Holmatro Greenline Combi Tool 1 9,865
Holmatro Pulling Attachment Set 1 1,087
Holmatro Spreaders 1 7,199
Holmatro Telescopic Ram (Long) 1 4,763
Holmatro Telescoping Ram (Short) 1 3,862
Hose Tester 1 3,042
HP Design Jet Printer/Plotter 1 7,123
HP Laser Jet Printer 1 754
iDirect Modem 1 4,344
Intake Ball Valve 1 1,666
IPICS Call Manager Express 1 15,980
IPICS CISCO 3845 1 14,278
IPICS Server 1 3,710
Iridium Satellite Phone 1 1,400
Kenwood Mobile Radio 1 1,964
Kenwood VHF Mobile Radio 2 5,990
Kenwood VHF Radio 2 4,601
KENWOOD VHF/7/800MHZ 1 5,780
Kenwood VHF/7/800Mhz radio 3 17,340
Ladder Testing Equipment 1 2,429
Laptop 1 1,500
Laptop Computer #17 1 2,000
Appendix Table A.3: Fire and EMS Equipment
Inventory Summary

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 56 Item Count Total Cost
Laptop Computer #8 1 2,000
Laser Jet Printer 4 3,508
LCD Monitor 1 1,075
LED Portable Scene Light 8 15,568
Lo-Band Mobile Radio 2 2,350
Low Pressure Air Cushion Kit 1 8,564
M.S. Nozzle 1 1,700
Map Plotter 1 6,595
Map Plotter (Printer) 1 5,774
Mast Camera 1 9,622
Maytag Neptune Dryer 1 1,000
Maytag Neptune Washer 1 870
Milwaukee Cordless Tool Kit 1 861
Mini Cutter 1 2,850
Mobile Data Computer 82 320,079
Mobile VHF Radio 4 7,692
Monitor and Appliances 2 10,966
Motorola 800 MHz Base Radio 5 20,085
Motorola 800 MHz Dash Mount Base Station 4 17,200 Motorola 800 MHz Dash Mount EMS Radio 3 11,630
Motorola 800 MHz Dash Mount Radio 1 4,082
Motorola 800 MHz Dual Head Mobile 1 4,300
Motorola 800 MHz Mobile Radio 24 102,144
Motorola 800 MHz Portable Radio 72 296,855
Motorola 800 MHz Remote Mount Single Head 11 45,402 Motorola 800MHz Dash Mount EMS Radio 1 3,716
Motorola 800MHz Mobile Radio 1 3,593
Motorola 800MHz Portable Radio 1 4,075
Motorola 800MHz Remote Mount Single Head Radio1 4,082 Multi Gas Monitor 1 1,800
Multimedia Projector 1 3,371
Nautilus Cycle 4 6,000
Omni-directional Antenna 1 1,215
Particulate Generator 1 11,385
PC (SCBA) 1 1,275
Philip's Heart Monitor 14 271,709
Phillip's Monitor Battery Charger 4 3,389
Portable Fire Pump 2 2,390
Portable Monitor 6 18,150
PortaCount 1 1,000
Port-A-Power 1 1,200
PPU15 Honda Power Unit 1 5,511
Printer/Copier/Scanner 1 750
Projector/Smart Board 2 6,000
Protable Fire Pump 1 1,195
Pump Test Manifold 1 3,900
RAD 57 CO Monitor 1 4,085
Ram Fan Blower 5 9,100
Receiver 1 1,000
Refridgerator 1 1,000
Refrigerator 2 3,600
Appendix Table A.3: Fire and EMS Equipment
Inventory Summary

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 57 Item Count Total Cost
RIT Group Search Kit 1 986
Satellite 1 25,725
Satellite Antenna 1 2,040
Satellite Phone 1 4,155
Satellite Phone Antenna 1 2,135
SCBA 6 36,588
SCBA Compressor 1 48,351
SCBA Harness 62 179,032
SCBA Regulator 68 68,340
Smartboard Overlay 1 3,299
Smoke Machine 1 1,423
Snap Tite Valve 1 975
Snap-Tite Valve 5 4,875
Sofa 1 1,400
Spare Motorola 800 MHz Portable Radio 2 8,150
Sparky Fire Suite 1 779
Spec Pak 1 1,099
S-Scort VX2 Suction Unit 2 1,880
Star Trak Cycle 1 1,500
Stokes Basket 1 2,010
Stryker Gurney 3 12,181
Stryker Power Gurney 4 43,893
Stryker Power Pro Gurney 4 61,102
Stryker Stair Chair 4 10,739
Stryker Stairchair 6 12,334
Stryker Stair-Pro Model 6252 2 8,609
Sub. Pump 1 1,500
Surface Pro Laptop 1 1,275
Thermal Imager Camera 6 58,800
Tread Mill 3 7,500
Treadmill 2 5,000
Two-Horn Antenna 1 2,160
UHF Mobile Radio 2 3,764
Universal Weight Machine 4 12,000
Vehicle Stabilization Kit 1 5,188
VGA Matrix Switcher 1 1,865
VHF Mobile Radio 43 92,119
VHF Portable Radio 125 90,896
VHF Portable Repeater 1 11,528
VHF Single Head Remote Radio 1 2,370
VHF/800Mhz RADIO 7 34,743
Video Projector 1 5,321
Viking Commercial Oven 1 3,300
Washing Machine 2 1,600
Water Vacum 1 908
Weather Micro Server 1 1,076
Wireless LAN Controller 1 5,297
Wireless Mesh WiFi Extender 1 2,649
Wireless Mesh WiFi Extender Peilican Case 1 5,271 Wireless Mesh WiFi Extender Pelican Case 3 15,814 Wireless Modem 26 22,880
Appendix Table A.3: Fire and EMS Equipment
Inventory Summary
City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 58 Item Count Total Cost
Wolf Range w/hood sys. 1 2,500
XTS Vehicle Adapter 1 1,604
Yamaha Receiver 1 1,000
Grand Total 1,124 3,003,782
Souce: City of San Marcos Fire Department.

Appendix Table A.3: Fire and EMS Equipment
Inventory Summary

City of San Marcos Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 59 Appendix Table A.4: Circulation Improvement Projects PFF Plan
Project
No. Roadway Segment
General Plan (GP)
Classification
Impvts to Complete
GP Classification
2003 Plan Cost (2024)
Twin Oaks Valley Road:
1-4 Cassou Rd to Buena Creek Rd 4-lane Secondary 2 lanes 2,788,000$ 1-5 Buena Creek Rd to City Limits 4-lane Secondary 2 lanes 2,045,000 Nordahl Road:
2-1 Center Dr. to Knob Hill Rd 4- lane Major 2 lanes 2,550,000 Las Posas Road:
3-2 San Marcos Blvd to Grand Ave 6-lane Prime 2 lanes & Median 10,569,000 3-3 Avenida Leon to Highland 4-lane Secondary 2 lanes 8,963,000 Rancho Santa Fe:
4-1 Lake SM Dr to Linda Vista Dr 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 12,630,000 4-2 Linda Vista Dr. to SR-78 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 6,940,000 4-3 SR-78 to Mission Rd 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 4,784,000
Mission Road:
5-1 Smilax to Las Posas Road 1 6 lane Prime 2 lanes + ped & bike 12,822,000 San Marcos Boulevard:
6-1 Acacia Dr to Twin Oaks Valley 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 30,356,000 Discovery Street:
7-1 San Marcos Blvd to La Sombra 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes & Bridge 3,770,000 7-2 La Sombra Dr to Craven Rd 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes 11,325,000 Barham Drive:
8-1a Twin Oaks Valley to Campus Way 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 3,010,000 8-2 W. La Moree to SR-78 E Off-Ramp 6 lane Prime 3 lanes & Median 9,694,000 8-3 SR-78 E Off Ramp to Woodland 6 lane Prime 4 lanes & Median 16,449,000 8-4 Woodland Pkwy to Mission Rd 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes 7,936,000 Woodland Parkway:
9-1 Barham Drive to R/Road Crossing 6 lane Prime 2 lanes 1,460,000 Bennett Avenue:
12-1 Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4 lane Secondary 1 lane 3,810,000 Borden Road:
13-1 Las Posas to Twin Oaks Valley Rd 4 lane Major 2 lanes & Median 4,975,000 13-3 Vineyard to Mulberry Dr 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes 1,106,000 13-4 Mulberry Dr to Fulton Rd 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes 3,825,000 13-5 Rose Ranch Rd to Woodland Pkwy 4 lane Secondary 2 Lanes 1,796,000 Grand Ave:
17-1 San Marcos Blvd to Discovery St 4 lane Major 4 Lanes 4,985,000 Buena Creek Rd:
19-1 City Limits to Deer Springs 4 lane Secondary 2 lanes 5,918,000 San Marcos Creek Overcrossings:
20-2 @Grand Ave 4 Lanes 20,328,000
Total Costs All Projects: 194,834,000$
Note: Costs rounded to nearest $1,000. Costs escalacted from 2003 to October 2024 using ENR's Construction Cost Index. 2003 Average Construction Cost Index 6694
October 2024 Construction Cost Index 13632.23
Adjustment Factor: 2.0365
1 Cost estimate show n only includes assumed roadw ay segment costs.

Sources: City of San Marcos; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

San Marcos City CouncilDecember 9, 2025

San Marcos City Council
December 9, 2025