HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-063 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 03-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING NEW
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND INCREASING CURRENT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 26, 2003
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION NOS. 97-94 AND 98-30.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-09
establishing Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee ("DIF"), which was modified by Ordinance No. 97-14 on August 16, 1997, and was
further modified by Ordinance No. 98-05 on April 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-45 which
established the Development Impact Fees. This Resolution was restated and modified by
Resolution No. 98-30 on April 14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted residential DIF as recommended in a
Development Impact Fee Study conducted by David M. Griffith and Associates ("DMG"), and
adopted non-residential DIF at 36% of the amount recommended by DMG; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 98-30 provides for an automatic annual adjustment of both
residential and non-residential DIF based on the percentage increase or decrease, if any, of the
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index ("BCI") for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
BCl for the bNelve month period prior to May 1 of the year in which the change will be effective;
and
WHEREAS, Exhibit B to Resolution 98-30 contains projected fees for seven (7) years
with no escalation applied to residential DIF and an escalation of 10% per year applied to non-
residential DIF until fees reach 60% of the recommended fee; and
WHEREAS, Development Impact Fees are typically analyzed every three to five years to
monetarily quantify the impacts of development on certain capital facilities; and
WHEREAS, in August 2002, the City contracted with the firm of Maximus (formerly
DMG) to prepare a report providing recalculated development impact fees based on updated
information on existing and future development and facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare as follows:
A. As detailed in Exhibits A, residential Development Impact Fees shall be adopted as
recommended in the Impact Fee Study Report completed by Maximus dated March
10, 2003.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-63 1
B. As detailed in Exhibit B, non-residential Development Impact Fees shall be phased in
over a three-year period. The non-residential fees would not be increased (except
for the annual BCI adjustment) until July 1, 2004 and would phase in to 100% of the
recommended fees beginning July 1, 2008.
C. According to Resolution 98-30, both residential and non-residential development
impact fees will be subject to an automatic annual adjustment based on the
percentage increase or decrease, if any, of the Engineering News Record Building
Cost Index ("BCI") for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area BCI for the twelve month
period prior to May 1 of the year in which the change will be effective. These
annual BCI adjustments would continue during the phase-in of non-residential fees.
Section 2. These development impact fees will be effective July 26, 2003.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2003.
ATTEST:
rey E. Stone, Mayor
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-63 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03-63 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meet ng thereof held on the 27th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Pratt
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-63 3
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPAGT FEES
COMPARISON: CURRENT FEES VS. STUDY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FEES
MAX FEE CURRENT
CURRENT ALLOWABLE % FEES %
COMPONENT TYPE OF LAND USE FEES BY STUDY INCREASE IF ~* 100% INCREASE
~tteet System Residential Attached $556.46 $958.9~ 72.3% $556.4( 72.3*/
Improvements · Residential Detached 793.85 1,369,8! 72,6'~ 793.8,~ 72.6~
Office 0.97 3.14 222.8~ 2.0~ 54.9~
Retail Commerctar 3.01 5.2~ 74.2~ 6.2i -16.4~/
Service Commercial 1.50 3.6; 144.1~ 3.1.~ 17.2~A
Business Park~ndustrial 0.71 1.8; 164.4~ 1.4~ 26.9~
r're, fflc Signals and Residential Attached $83.85 $135,7~ 61,9~ $83.8~ 61.9~
Traffic Dentrol Residential Detached 118.69 193.91 63.4~/ 118.6.c 63.4~
Systems '* Office 0.15 0,~ 200.0°A 0,31 44.0~
Retail Cornmercta~ 0.46 0,74 61,8~ 0,gE -22.3S;
Service Commercial 0.23 0.5; - 127,2~ 0.4~ 9,0~
Eusir~ss PanV,/Indusnt al 0.11 0.27 145.2°,~ 0.23 17.7~
~rporate Facilities Residential Attached $128.49 $199.2~ 55.1 · $128.4~ 55.1%
Residential Detached 241,75 371.6~ 53.7~ 241.7 53.7%
Office 0.05 0.1E 195.3~ 0.11 41.7%
Retail Commercial 0.13 0.3~ 185.8~ 0.26 37.2%
Service Commercial 0.07 0.21 204.0~,{ 0.14 45.9%
Business Part(/Indusntal 0,04 0.13 204.6% 0,0g 46.2%
Police Facilities Residential Attached $0.00 $350.2~ Ne'~ $0.00
Residential Detached 0.00 197.97 Ne~ 0.00
Office 0.00 0.0E Ne~ 0.00
Retail Commercia~ 0.00 0.2(] Ne~ 0.00
Service Commercial 0.00 0.1ti Ne~ 0.00
Business Parldlndus~st 0.00 0,05 Ne~ 0.00
Fire Protection Residential Attached $45.74 $218.18 377,0% $45.74 377.0%
Facilities Residential Detached 59.89 470.17 685.0% 59.89 685.0%
Office 0.13 0.09 -32.4,% 0.28 -67.5%
Retati Commercial 0.02 0.13 433.1% 0.04 225.0%
Service Commemlal 0,02 0.13 610.8% 0.04 241.2%
Business Park/lndustrist 0.02 0.09 453,0% 0.04 119.5%
Park and RecreaSon Residen5a~ Attached $1.316.56 $1,619.77 23.0% $1.316.56 23.0%
P:'~'inance\vo ndehp~St afl Report - New D]F Atlachnmnt A~xls 2:39 PM 05~21/2003
A'rrACHMENT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
3-YEAR PHASE IN SCHEDULE
(WITHOUT ANNUAL BCI ADJUSTMENTS)
JULY 1, JULY 1, JULY 1, JULY 1,
CURRENT 2003 2004 2~)5 2006
COMPONENT TYPE OF LAND USE FEES FEES *** FEE9 *** FEES *. FEES
StreetS)stem ResidentiaiAttached $ 556.46 $ 958.92 $ 958.92 $ 958.92 $ 958.92
Improvements * ReskJan0al Detached 793.85 1,369.89 1,369.89 t,369.89 1,369.89
Office 0.97 0.97 1.69 2.41 3.14
Ret ail Commerclai 3.01 3.01 3.75 4.49 5.24
Service Commeretai 1.50 1.50 2.22 2.94 3.67
~uainess Perk/Industrial 0.71 0.71 t .10 1.49 1.88
TrafflcSIgnaisand Res[den6alAttacndd $ 83.85 $ 135.74 $ 135.74 $ 135.74 $ 135.74
Traffic Control Reslden6al Detached 118.69 193.91 193.91 193.91 193.91
Systems" Office 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45
Retail Conlmercial 0.48 0.46 0.55 0.64 0.74
Service Commercial 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.42, 0.52
Business Parldlnduetr~l 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.21 ! 0.27
CorporataFacilities ResidentialAttache(] $ 128.4g $ 199.28 $ 199.28 $ 199.28 $ 199.28
Residential Detached 241.75 371.66 371.66 371.6, 371.66
Office 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.1S
Retail Commercial 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.28 0.36
Sen. ice Commerciai 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.21
Business Paddlnduetrlal 0,04 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13
Po~iceFacilifies ReaidentialAttached $ $ 350.25 $ 350.25 $ 350.25 $ 350.25
ResMensai Detached 197.g7 197.97 197.97 197.97
Office 0.02 0.04 0.06
Retail Commerclai 0,07 0.13 0.20
Office
CiO/of Temecula
lmpa ct
Study Report
March 10, 2003
Final Draft
MAXIMUS, Inc.
Cost Services DMslon
43Z0 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95841
916.485.8102
916~185.0111 (Fax)
www. maxlmus.com
Oty o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study TabIe o£ Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Organization of the Report
Development Data
Impact Fee Analysis
Implementation
Summary of Impact Fees
Chapter I o Introduction
Legal Framework
Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Facilities Addressed in This Study
Chapter 2 - Development Data
Background an.d Setting
Study Area and Time Frame
Development Types
Units of Development and Conversion Factors
Demand Variables and Impact Factors
Development Data
Chapter $- Parks and Recreation Fadlitles
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Per-Capita Cost
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
S-1
S~I
S-2
S-3
S-4
1-1
1-5
1-7
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-6
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-5
3-5
Chapter 4 - Open Space and Trail Development
Service Area 4-1
Methodology 4-1
Demand Variable 4-1
Level of Service 4-2
Per-Capita Cost 4-3
Impact Fee Calculation 4-5
Projected Revenue 4-5
March 10, 2003 34AXIIffUS Page I
City o£ Teraecula - Impact Fee Study Table o£ Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 5- Streets and Tra~c Control
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Facility Needs
Average Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-4
5-4
5-6
Chapter 6- Libraries
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Per Capita Cost
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-3
Chapter 7-Corporate lad/ides
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
%1
7-1
7-1
7-2
74
7-6
Chapter 8- Fire Fadlities and Equipment
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Facility and Equipment Needs
Cost per Acre
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
8-1
8-2
8-2
8-2
8-2
8-4
8-5
8-6
~ 10, 2003 AIAXIA4U$ Page 11
CIO~ of Temecula - Imt~¢t Fee Study Table o£ Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter 9- Police Fadlitle$ ea~d Vehldes
Service Area
Methodology
Demand Variable
Level of Service
Cost per Call for Service
Police Vehicles
Impact Fee Calculation
Projected Revenue
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-1
Chapter 10 - Implementation
Adoption
Administration
Training and Public Information
Recovery of Study Cost
Appendix A - Street Improvement Matrix
9-2
9-2
9-3
9-4
10-1
10-2
10-7
10-7
Matr_~ 10, 200S IPlAXIMUS Pa~e 111
Cl{y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study ,D~ecutlve Summary
EX£CI. IFIVE SUA4A4AR Y
The City of Temecula has retained MAXlMUS to prepare this study to analyze the
impacts of development on certain capital facilities, and to calculate development
impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data, methodology,
and results of that impact fee study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in
this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, includ-
ing provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the Cali-
fornia Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.)
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses legal re-
quirements for establishing and imposing such fees, as well as methods used in this
study to calculate the fees. Chapter 2 contains information on existing and
planned development in Temecula, and organizes that data in a form that can be
used in the impact fee analysis. Only the area within the existing City boundaries
was considered in this study. Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of devel-
opment on specific types of facilities as follows:
Ch. 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities Ch. 7. Corporate Facilities
Ch. 4. Open Space and Trails Ch. 8. Fire Protection Facilities
Ch. 5. Street Improvements/Traffic Signals Ch. 9. Police Facilities
Ch. 6. Libraries
Each of the chapters listed above identifies facilities eligible for impact fee funding
and calculates the maximum impact fee that can be justified for each type of facility
based on the information used in the study. Chapter 10 discusses implementation
of the impact fee program, including procedures and legal requirements for imple-
menting an impact fee program under California law.
DE VEL OPMENT DA TA
Forecasts of future development used in this study are intended to represent all ad-
ditional development within the existing City limits from January 2003 to buildout
of the that area under the current General Plan. It is not necessary for purposes of
this study to forecast the timing of development or when buildout will occur. In-
formation on existing and potential development used in this study was provided
by the Community Development Department and is based on the General Plan.
Data on population and demographics were taken from the 2000 Census and Cali-
fornia Depmtment of Finance Population estimates.
A4a~h 10, 2003 A4AXI~II.I$ P4ge S-I
00; o£Temecu/a - ~npact Fee $~ud.y Executive Summao/
As shown in Chapter 2 of this report, land planned for development in the study
area would ultimately support a 53% increase in population to about 116,000, and
a 60% increase in total developed acreage. Other measures of growth, such as traf-
fic volumes and police calls generally are projected to increase between 55% and
650/o through buildout. This report addresses facilities needed to meet the service
needs of that future development.
IMPA CT FEE ANAL YSI$
Each type of facility addressed in this report is analyzed individually. In each case,
the relationship between development and the need for additional facilities is quan-
tified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of de-
velopment. For each type of facility, a specific, measurable attribute of develop-
ment is used to represent the demand for additional capital facilities. For example,
in the case of street improvements and traffic signals, the number of additional
peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development is used to measure the ira-
pact of that development.
Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized at the end of
this Executive Summary. The impact fees calculated in this report are based on
capital costs only. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in
the analysis of each type of facility
Parks and Recreation Facilities. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for
park improvements and recreation facilities. The City also requires park land dedi-
cation or payment of in-lieu fees, but those fees are not addressed in this study.
The impact fees for park improvements are based on the cost of improvements
needed to maintain the City's existing ratio of improved park acreage to popula-
tion. The impact fees for recreation facilities are based on the existing ratio of fa-
cility replacement cost to population. Because these fees are population-driven,
they apply only to residential development.
Open Space and Trails. Chapter 4 of this report calculate~ impact fees for open
space land acquisition and trail development. The impact fees for open space land
are based on the cost of land needed to maintain the City's existing ratio of open
space acreage to population. The impact fees for trail development are based on
the existing ratio of miles of developed trails to population. Because these fees are
population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
Street and Traffic Control Impact Fees. Chapter 5 of this report calculates impact
fees for street improvements and traffic signals based on a list of projects needed to
serve future development. The Public Works Department has identified the share
of project that is attributable to future development. The fees for both street im-
provements and traffic signals are based on the total cost of such improvements and
ti'latch I0, 2003 flfA)Cl~gl$ Page .~2
O{y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Execu#ve Summao/
number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by future development. None of the
costs used as the basis for impact fees in this study duplicate costs covered by the
regional TUMF program.
Libraries. Chapter 6 of this report calculates impact fees for libraries. The impact
fees for library facilities and materials are based on the ratio of existing facilities
and materials to population. Existing facilities in this study include furore facilities
for which funding has been committed. Because these fees are population-driven,
they apply only to residential development.
Corporate Facilities. Chapter 7 of this report addresses impact fees for City
administrative and maintenance facilities. The analysis assumes that the existing
City Hall and maintenance facility are at capacity. The need for future City Hall
space is assumed to increase in proportion to a weighted acreage index used to rep-
resent the demand for services housed in City Hall. The need for maintenance fa-
cilities is assumed to increase in proportion to increases in traffic (street mainte-
nance) and population (park maintenance).
Fire Facilities and Equipment. Chapter 8 of this report addresses impact fees for
fire protection facilities and apparatus. The method used to calculate these fees is
different from the methods used for other types of fees in this study. Because most
fire stations serve both existing and future development, and because all develop-
ment in the City is served by the entire system of fire protection facilities, this study
uses a "buy-in" approach to calculate fire impact fees. To calculate the buy-in fees,
costs for all existing and planned facilities and apparatus are allocated to all exist-
ing and planned development based on developed acreage. The result is an average
cost per developed acre. The impact fees assessed to future development depend
on the number of developed acres in a project.
Police Facilities and Equipment. Chapter 9 addresses impact fees for police facili-
ties and equipment. This study assumes that Police Department space needed to
serve future development in Temecula will be provided by constructing a new sub-
station in the City. The estimated cost of that facility is allocated to future devel-
opment based on the number of calls for service per year generated by various
types of development. Projections of future equipment (vehicle) needs is based on
the current relationship between calls for service and the replacement cost of exist-
ing vehicles.
IA4PL EA/IENTA TION
Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues.
Chapter 10 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to
the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative
procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics
klamh 10, 2003 NL~XIRIU$ P~ge
City o£1'emecu/a - ImRact Fee Study Executive Summary
covered in that chapter include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for
fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding requirements, updat-
ing of fees, and staff training.
From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made
regarding the impact fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report
are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by this analy-
sis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those calcu-
lated in the study. In that event, it is important that the Council identify which fa-
cilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be
recovered through the fees.
It should also be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars.
To the extent that construction costs for capital improvements escalate over time,
the impact fees should be adjusted to keep pace with that inflation. We recom-
mend annual adjustments based on changes in the Engineering News Record Build-
ing Cost Index. If the fees are not escalated, the City could experience a significant
shortfall in anticipated funding over several years.
SUMMARY OF IA/IPA CT FEES
Table $.1 summarizes the impact fees calculated in later chapters of this report.
Fees shown in Table S.1 are for one unit of development, by facility type and de-
velopment type, and are rounded to the nearest dollar. Fees for non-residential
development are shown on a per-acre basis. Table $.2, on the next page, also
shows the impact fees calculated in this report, with non-residential fees converted
to a square foot basis.
Table 5.1
Summary of Impact Fee* Calculated in this Report (Non-Residential Fees Shown on a per-Acre Ba~i~)
Devdopment Der Park~Rec Open 5p/ $~eeu/ Corp Fire Polic~
T},pe Unit~I Facilifie~ Traih Si~nah Libraries F~lifi~ F,*,411,1.. F~eillri~ Total
Residential, Detached DU $ 2,2615 659 $ 1,$64 $ 602 $ 372 $ 470 $ 198 $ 6.126
Residential, Attached DU $ 1,620' $ 472 $ 1,095 5 42}1 $ 199 5 218 $ 350 5 4386
Professional Office Acre $ 62,552 $ 2,690 $ 1,652 $ 1,066 $67,960
BusinessPark/Lightlnd Acre $37,531 $ 2,202 5 1,652 5 838 $42,223
Gommerdal, Retail Acre $78,190 $ 4,717 $ 1,6.$2 $ 2,589 $87,148
Gommerclal, Highway Acre $78,190 5 4.717 $ 1,6.$2 5 2,$89 $87,148
Gommerdal. Service Acre 554,733 $ 2,752 $ 1,652 $ 1,294 560,431
PublledIns6tutional Acre $151638 $ 655 5 11652[ $ 11523 $197467
Development Unks-DU = dwelling unit
~ 10, 200.,= A4AX/A4'~ P~'e S-4t
~ty ~£ Tetne~ula - lrnpa~ Fee Study ,~ve~u#ve Summary
Table 5.2
Summary of Impact Fees Calculated in this Report (Non-Residential Fees Converted to Square Foot Basis)
Development Dev Parks/Rec Open Sp/ Streets/ Corp Fire Police
Type Units~ Facilities Trails $isnals Libraries Facilities Facilities F~;nri,, Total
Residential, Detached DU $ 2,261 5 659 S 1,564 $ 602 $ 372 $ 470 $ 198 $ 6,126
Residential, Attached DU $ 1,620 $ 472 $ 1,095 $ 431 $ 199 $ 218 $ 350 $ 4,386
ProfessionalOffice Sq. Ft. $ 3.59 $ O. 15 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 3.90
BusinessPark/Lightlnd Sq. Ft. $ 2.15 $ 0.13 $ 0.09 $ 0,05 $ 2.42
Commercial, Retail Sq. Ft. $ 5.98 S 0.36 S 0.13 S 0.20 S 6.67
Commercial, Highway Sq. Ft. $ 5.98 $ 0.36 $ 0.13 $ 0.20 $ 6.67
Commarcial, Sarvice Sq. Ft. $ 4.19 $ 0.21 $ 0.13 $ 0.10 $ 4.62
Public/Institutional Sq. Ft. $ 1.44 $ 0.06 $ 0.15 $ 0.14 $ 1.79
~ Developmem Units-DU -- dwelling unit
2003 ?dAfflA4U$ ?~e 5-$
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula has retained MAXIMUS to prepare this study to analyze the
impacts of development on certain of the City's capital facilities and to calculate
development impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data,
methodology, and results of the impact fee study. The methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing
such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitu-
tion, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et
seq.). Impact fees calculated in this report are intended to replace the City's exist-
ing impact fees.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. $. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including
impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private
property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts
have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form
of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations
must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the
case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential
public services.
The U. S. Supreme Court has found that a government agency imposing exactions
on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and
the interest being protected (See Nollan v. Cali[ornia Coastal Commission, 1987).
In a more recent case (Do/an v. City o[Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an.
agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden cre-
ated by development. Do/an is less significant for impact fees than for some other
types of exactions (e.g. mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is
inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees. In addition, the Do/an decision
appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than
for monetary exactions.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to
local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development.
That police power is the source of authority for imposing impact fees on develop-
ment to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some impact fees have been
A4~c.b I0, 2003 A,IA,tTA,IU$ P,~ge I-I
CRy of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval
in violation of Article XIIIA. That objection would be valid only if fees exceeded
the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that
were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. $. Constitution and the
Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 218 in 1996,
require voter approval for some "property-related fees," but exempt "the imposi-
tion of fees or charges as a condition of property development." ·
The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill
1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989.
AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section
66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from time to
time, and in 1997 was officially titled the "Mitigation Fee Act." Unless otherwise
noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may
be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improve-
ments, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifi-
cally addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government
Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or op-
erating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital
costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its recently
added official title. Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act
simply uses the word "fee," which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a
tax or special assessment, ... that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in
connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all
or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project .... "
To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted
term "impact fee," which should be understood to mean "fee' as defined in the
Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and im-
posing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that
govern the collection and expenditure of fees, and require annual reports and peri-
odic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are
discussed in the Implementation Chapter of this report. Certain fees or charges re-
lated to development are exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act. Among them are fees in lieu of park land dedication as authorized by the
Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement
or developer agreement, and fees for processing development applications.
~4qo2'cfi 10, 2003 iI'IA2Ei~Us Pa.~e 1-2
Cl~y of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduc#on
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing
or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the fadlity and the type of development on which the
fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the devel-
opment project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facili-
ties. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the construc-
tion of certain capital improvements identified in this report. Those improvements
are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in the City, and
thereby prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional
development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund such improvements.
Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee should state the purpose of the fees as
financing development-related public facilities in a broad category, such as street
improvements or water supply system improvements.
Identifying tbe Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to fi-
nance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement
plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identi-
fied in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. If a capital
improvement plan is used to identify the use of the fees, it must be updated annu-
ally by resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Impact fees
calculated in this study are based on specific capital facilities identified elsewhere in
this report, which is intended to serve as the public document identifying the use of
the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires
that, for' fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demon-
strated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of deVelopment on which it is imposed;
March I0, 2003 A~d~14U$ ' Page 1-3
City o£ Femecula - Impact Fee Study Introclucdon
2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a
fee is imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop-
ment on which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute parallel
"nexus" requirements enunciated by various courts. Although the term "dual ra-
tional nexus" is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating
exactions and impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a formulation
that recognizes three elements: "impact or need" '~enefit," and "proportionality."
The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although pro-
portionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically addressed by the U.S. Su-
preme Court in the Dolan case.
The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the
rational nexus standard used by the courts. Of course, the higher standard con-
trols. We will use the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it
is more concise and descriptive, and also to signify that the methods used to calcu-
late impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitu-
tional standard. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in
the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional
demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the
supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or
availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees
may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the
extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to
the fees. The ]qollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions
may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which
they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the
impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific
facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all
information needed to demonstrate this elemen~ of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee
revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for
which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the
facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing
in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with im-
pact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees.
Merctt I0, 2003 t~aA4ll$. Pa~e 1-4
City of remecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the
Mitigation Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expedi-
tiously or refunded. All of those requirements are intended to ensure that devel-
opments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate
showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to
the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the
Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is
established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility
costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities
and categories of development. In this study, the demand for facilities is measured
in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the
need for police facilities is measured by the number of police calls for service gen-
erated by a particular type and quantity of development.
In calculating impact fees, costs for development-related facilities are allocated in
proportion to the service needs created by different types and quantities of devel-
opment. The following section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and
calculate impact fees in ways that meet the proportionality standard.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees may be
used to pay for existing facilities, provided that those facilities are needed to serve
additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level-of-
service standards. In other words, itmust be possible to show that the fees meet
the need and benefit elements of the nexus.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The
choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and
planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad-
vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent they are
interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs
created by development.
Reduced to its simplest.terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves only
two steps: determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and
allocating those costs equitably to various types of development In practice,
though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the
many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the
need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three methods for calculating
impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
March 10, 2003 JlffA~lldUS . Page 1-5
City of ~emecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
Plan-based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a
specified set of improvements to a specified set of developments. The improve-
ments are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land
use plan. Facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in pro-
portion to the amount of development and the relative intensity of demand for
each category. Demand is represented by an appropriate, quantifiable indicator.
For example, demand for street improvements is typically measured by the number
of vehicle trips generated by development.
In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to cal-
culate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied
by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square
feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
This method implicitly assumes that the entire service capacity of the specified fa-
cilities will be absorbed by the planned development, or that any excess capacity is
unavoidably related to serving that development. For example, it may be necessary
to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but
that development may not use all of the added capacity. Assuming the improve-
ments in question are needed only to serve the new development paying the fees, it
is legitimate to recover the full cost of the improvements through impact fees.
The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service
usage is difficult to measure (as is the case with administrative facilities), or does
not directly drive the need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is
also useful for facilities, such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched
closely to demand. This method is relatively inflexible in the sense that it is based
on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a particular land use plan.
If either plan changes significantly, the fees may have to be recalculated.
Capacity-based Impact Fee Calculation. This method can be used only where the
capacity of a facilitY or system is known, and the amount of capacity used by a par-
ticular type and quantity of development can be measured or estimated. This
method calculates a rate, or cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship be-
tween total cost and total capacity. It can be applied to any type or amount of de-
velopment, provided the capacity demand created by that development can be es-
timated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development.
Since the fee calculation does not depend on the type or quantity of development
to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.
Under this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development, so
unused capacity would not be covered by impact fees ff it is not absorbed by devel-
opment. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater
systems.
lPlarch 10, 2003 A4AM~U$ Pa~e I-6
ClOt of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Introduction
To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate, facility cost is divided by facility ca-
pacity to arrive at a cost per unit of service. To determine the fee for a particular
development project, the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of
capacity needed by that project. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on
standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building
area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of service needed, on average, by those
units of development.
Standard-based Impact Fee Calculation. The standard-based method is related to
the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit
of service. The difference is that with this method, costs are defined from the out-
set on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a
standard that sets the amount of service or capacity to be provided for each unit of
development. The standard-based method is useful where facility needs are defined
directly by a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without ref-
erence to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description.
It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms
of acres per thousand residents. In addition, the cost per acre for, say, neighbor-
hood parks can usually be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park
or the total acreage of parks in the system.
This approach is also useful for facilities such as libraries, where it is 'possible to es-
timate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One
advantage of the standard-based method is that a fee can be established without
committing to a particular size of facility, and facility size can be adjusted based on
the amount of development that actually occurs.
FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS STUDY
Impact fees for the following types of facilities and improvements will be addressed
in this report:
· Parks and Recreation
· Open Space and Trails
· Street Improvements/Traffic Signals
· Libraries
· Corporate Facilities
· Fire prOtection Fadlities
· Police Fadlities
The impact fee analysis for each facility type is presented in a separate chapter of
this report.
March !0, 2003 ttqAPEMUS P, Wo !-7
~0~ o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOPA4ENTAND D£A4AND DATA
Both existing and planned development must be addressed as part of the nexus
analysis required to support the establishment of impact fees. This chapter of the
report organizes and correlates information on existing and planned development
to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent chap-
ters of the report. The information in this chapter forms a basis for establishing
levels of service, analyzing facility needs, and allocating the cost of capital facilities
between existing and future development and among various types of new devel-
opment.
Data on land use and development employed in this study are based on the Temec-
ula General Plan and on additional information provided by the Temecula Com-
munity Development Department, Planning Division. Demographic data are from
the U.S. Census Bureau and from California Department of Finance Demographic
Research Unit population estimates. Data on existing and planned development
used in this study represent the best available estimate of existing and planned de-
velopment as of January 1, 2003.
BACKGROUND AND SEITING
The City of Temecula was incorporated in 1989. It is located in the fast-
developing Southwestern corner of Riverside County along the 1-15 Freeway, mid-
way between Riverside and San Diego. Nearby communities are Murrieta and Lake
Elsinore. The City's boundaries encompass the historical town of Temecula, and
much of the 87,000-acre planned community of Rancho California, which began
development in the late 1960s.
The chart in Figure 2-A
depicts the City's esti-
mated January 1 popula-
tion year-by-year from
1992 through 2002. The
City's January 1 2002,
population is estimated by
the California Depa~iment
of Finance at 72,700. As
the chart shows, Temec-
ula's population has grown
very rapidly in recent
Figure 2A
City of Temecuh Popuhfion (1992 - 2002)
IV'~rch'l O, 2.003 ltqA..WI4US Pa.~e 2- I
City o£Teraecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
years, averaging 8.9% per year between 1992 and 2002, and almost 11% per year
since 1997. On a percentage basis, Temecula was the second fastest growing City
in California in 2001. At the same time, the City has experienced a great deal of
non-residential development, including a regional mall, and extensive business park
construction. Based on the current General Plan, residential development antici-
pated within the current City limits is projected to support a total population of
more than 110,000.
STUD Y AREA AND TIME FRAA4E
Except as noted in subsequent sections of this report, the impact fee analysis does
not address Temecula's sphere of influence. Development data shown in this sec-
tion represents only the area within the City's current boundaries. To the extent
that land within Temecula's sphere of influence is annexed in the future, the cost of
capital facilities needed to serve those areas is expected to be covered by develop-
ment agreements.
The timeframe for this study extends from the present to buildout of all land desig-
nated for development within the current City limits. The term "buildout' is used
to describe a hypothetical condition in which all currently undeveloped land in the
study area has been developed as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. The time required for buildout depends on the rate at which development
occurs. This study does not project a target date for buildout, because the rate and
timing of development do not affect the impact fee analysis.
DE VEL OPA4ENT TYPES
Because it is not possible to know in detail the types of development that will occur
in the future, this study uses a set of fairly broad land use categories in the impact
fee'analysis. Those categories are shown in the development data tables presented
later in this chapter. Some land use designations defined in the General Plan are
grouped into broader categories here. However, except as noted, the impact fees
are calculated in a manner that allows fees to be adjusted to the specific impacts of
a particular development project, if necessary. That need can arise when a Particu-
lar project does not fit neatly within one of the categories defined in this study.
Such adjustments are most commonly needed for specialized commercial projects,
and for uses, such as churches, hospitals, and facilities for non-profit agencies.
UNITS OF DE VEL OPA/IENT AND CONVERSION FA CTORS
In this study, quantities of existing and planned development are measured in terms
of certain units of development Those units are discussed below.
· ~ 10, 2003 A~AXIMU$ P,~e 2-2
City o£ Temenula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Acreage. Land area is a fundamental attribute of all types of development. Net
acreage, representing the useable acreage of a development site after street right-of-
way are dedicated, is used in this study as the standard unit of development for all
non-residential land use categories.
Dwelling Units. The dwelling unit (DU) is the most commonly used measure of
residential development, and is the standard unit for residential development in this
study.
Building Area. For non-residential development, building area in square feet or
thousands of square feet may be used to represent development in some situations.
When building area is used in this study the units of development are thousands of
square feet (KSF).
In some cases, it is necessary or convenient to convert one type of development unit
to another. Some types of factors used in those conversions are discussed below.
Residential Density. The relationship between dwelling units and acreage is re-
ferred to as "density," and is defined by the average number of dwelling units per
acre for a particular type of residential development. The inverse of density is acres
per dwelling unit. For example, single family residential development might have a
density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre, which equates to 0.25 acres per dwelling
unit.
Floor Area Ratio. Floor area ratio (FAR) is a factor that represents the relationship
between building area and site area for non-residential development. For example,
a FAR of 0.25:1 (or more commonly just 0.25) indicates that building area is 25%
of site area. Translated into square feet, each acre (43,560 square feet) of site area
would convert to 10,890 (43,560 x 0.25) square feet or 10.89 KSF of building
area.
DEMAND VARIABLES AND IMPA CI' FA CTORS
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and urban devel-
opment must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attrib-
utes of development (e.g.; population, vehicle trip generation) are used in those
formulas' as "demand variables" to reflect the impact of different 'types and amounts
of development on the demand for specific public services and the facilities that
support those services. Demand variables are selected either because they directly
measure service demand created by various types Of' development, or because they
are reasonably correlated with that demand.
For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as a
ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed
A,lam..h 10, 2003 A4AXIA4U$ Page 2-3
CI~, of Temecula - lmpac~ Fee Study Development a~d Demand Data
to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate
yardstick for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional
parks. Similarly, the need for capacity in a street system depends on the volume of
traffic the system must handle. Thus the vehicle trip generation rate (the number of
vehicle trips per day generated by one unit of development) is an appropriate de-
mand variable to represent the impact of development on the street system.
Each demand variable has a specific value per unit of development for each land
use category. Those values may be referred to as demand factors or impact factors.
For example, on average, one single-family detached dwelling unit generates about
one vehicle trip during the p.m. peak hour. Consequently, the peak-hour traffic
impact factor for single-family residential development is 1.0 trips per dwelling
unit. Other land use categories would have different impact factors. Some of the
impact factors used in this study are based on widely-accepted standards (e.g., the
trip generation rates), while others are based on local conditions (e.g., population,
police calls).
The specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below and the actual
values of demand factors for each land use category are shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Detaand Factors
Developtaent Der NetAcres FloorArea KSFper Population WtdAcres PkHrTrip~ policeCalle
Type Units ~ perUnit~ Ratio 3 Acre a perDUs perAcre 6 perUnit ? perUnit~
g~esidential, Detached DU 0.28 N/A N/A 3.3.5 1.00 1,0 0.52
~.esidential, Attached DU 0.13 N/A N/A 2.40 1.12 0.7 0.92
?rofessional Office Ao'e 1.00 0.40 17.42 0.00 2.06 40.0 2.80
iBusiness Park/Light lnd Acre 1.00 0.40 17.42 0.00 1.73 24.0 2.20
:Commercial, l~etai] Acre 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 3.72 $0.0 6.80
Commercial, Highway Acre 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 3.72 $0.0 6.80
Commercial, Service Ac~ 1.00 0.30 13.07 0.00 2.14 35.0 3.40
PublicAmtitudonal Acre 1.00 0.25 10.89 0.00 0.$0 10.0 4.00
Basic units of devel0ptaent used in this study; DU = dwelling unit
Average net acres per unit based on cxisdng development
Typical floor area ratio (building area/net site mca) for the development type
E~timated non-residential building arc~ per acre in thousands of aluare feet (KSF) based on the Floor A~ea Ratio
Population per DU based on data f~om the 2000 Census and the California Dept of Finance
Factors used to ~preseta relative demand per acre for city haU-ba~d functions (see text)
peak hour vehicle trips per unit b~ued on Traf~ Gea~ra~ot~ San Diego Association of Governments
Police cars per unit per year based on analy~s of 2001 Temecula PD data b,~ MAXIMU$ (see text}
Population per Unit of Deueloprnent. Population per unit of development is used
as a demand variable to calculate impact fees for certain types of fadlities in this
study. Because population is tied to residential development, the value of this vari-
able for all non-residential land uses is zero.
A4atr. JI 10, 2003 ~MiAT~IIJ~ P~e 2-4
Cl(y o£ Temecula o Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
It is important to emphasize that, rather than using actual population estimates or
census numbers, resident population figures used in this study are adjusted to a
"full-occupancy" level. That device is intended to account for the fact that actual
population fluctuates with vacancy rates, but once a residence is constructed, the
City has a responsibility to serve its occupants. Full-occupancy population esti-
mates are established by applying an average persons-per-dwelling factor to the ac-
tual number of existing dwelling units, or the projected future dwelling units, in
each residential land use category. Persons-per-dwelling factors are based on an
analysis of the most recently available Census data.
For certain public facilities, such as parks and libraries, population is a useful meas-
ure of service demand, and can be used in setting service levels and allocating facil-
ity costs. However, for most public facilities, resident population accounts for only
a portion of demand, and does not, alone, represent the impact of all development
on those facilities.
Weighted Acre Factors. This set of factors represents the relative impact of acres of
different development types on functions housed in City Hall. The factors were
developed using detailed analysis from the 1996 development impact fee study by
David M. Griffith & Associates (now part of MAXIMUS). The impact factors
from that study were converted into per-acre terms, and then scaled to single-
family residential development. In other words, single-family residential develop-
ment was assigned a weight of 1.0, and the impacts of other development types are
set relative to' that base. Factors for non-residential development are proportion-
ately larger. For example, the weighted acre factor for retail commercial develop-
ment is 3.72, indicating that one acre of such development has 3.72 times as much
impact on City Hall-based functions as one acre of single-family residential devel-
opment.
Peak-Hour Trips per Unit of Development. Traffic generation in terms of peak
hour trips is used here to measure the impact of development on the City's street
system. Peak hour traffic is used rather than average daily traffic, because peak
volumes determine the need for street capacity. The trip generation rates used in
this study are based on Traffic Generators, published by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG). Those rates are consistent with the Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers publication Trip Generation.
Police Calls for Service per Unit of Development. Demand for Police Department
services is represented in this study by the average number of calls for service per
unit of development per year in each land use category. The factors are based on
an analysis by MAXIMUS of actual calls for service by reporting district for calen-
dar year 2001.
A4arch lO, 200; ~ffAXlA41.~ Page 2-$
CIO,, oF Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Calls-for-service factors used in this study are based primarily on an analysis of dis-
tricts containing only, or mostly a single type of development. There are three po-
lice reporting districts in the City containing almost exclusively single-family resi-
dential development, and another with 90%0 single-family units and 10%0 multi-
family units. Among those districts, the number of calls for service per unit ranged
from 0.41 to 0.65. The median value was 0.52, which is used in this study. Only
one reporting district in the City is composed almost entirely of multi-family resi-
dential development. The factor for that area is 1.2 calls per dwelling unit. How-
ever, a number of districts contain a mix of single-family and multi-family devel-
opment. By using the selected single-family residential factor to cancel out the ef-
fect of single-family development in those districts, we estimated multi-family fac-
tors ranging from 0.92 to 1.13. We selected the lowest of those factors for use in
the impact fee analysis. Both of the selected residential factors are in the Iow end
of the range found in other similar MAXIMUS studies.
Only one reporting district in Temecula is devoted to a single non-residential land
use type. That district, located just south and east of the Winchester Road/Ynez
Road intersection, is the site of a regional mall. Calls for service were reported in
that district' at a rate of 6.8 per acre for 2001 and that factor is used in this study
for both the retail and highway commercial categories. No specific factors could be
calculated for service commercial development, so the factor for that category was
set at 50% of the retail rate, based on experience with other studies. Good data on
calls for one district containing mostly business park/light industrial development
allowed us to establish a rate of 2.2 calls per acre for that category. The factor for
the office category was set at 2.8, 25% above the business park category--again
based on experience with other studies.
The districts analyzed to establish these calls-for-service factors contain develop-
ment similar to that expected in Temecula in the future. A few areas of older de-
velopment with relatively high rates are not represented in these figures. Conse-
quently, when the factors shown in Table 2.1 are applied to existing development
in Temecula, the resulting number of calls for service, as shown in Table 2.2
(23,723), is about 6% lower than the actual number of calls for service recorded in
calendar year 2001 (25,319).
DE VEL OPAfEAIT DA TA
Tables 2.2 through 2.4 present data on existing and planned development in the
City, based on estimates by the Temecula Planning Division. Table 2.2, on the next
page, shows data for existing development as of January 1, 2003.
Jt4~ch[O, 2~$ it,JAXT,~US P~e2-6
City of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Table 2.2
Existing Development in the City (January 1, 2003)
Development Dev Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres ~ Units z (KSF) ~ tion 4 Acres s Trips s Calls 7
Residential, Detached 5,542 19,470 N/A 65,225 5,542 19,470 10,124
Residential, Attached 589 4,459 N/A 10,702 657 3,122 4,103
Professional Office 130 0 2,270 0 269 5,212 365
Business Park/Light Ind 765 0 13,321 0 1,326 18,348 1,682
Commercial, Retail 598 0 7,809 0 2,225 29,880 4,064
Commercial, Highway 95 0 1,236 0 352 4,730 643
Commercial, Service 194 0 2,539 0 416 6,801 661
Public/Institutional 520 0 5,667 0 260 5,204 2,082
Totals 8,433 23,930 32,843 75,927 11,047 92,766 23,723
Developed net acres. Data provided by the Temecala Planning Division
Dwelling units based on 2000 data from California Department of Finance
Estimated non-residential building area = Acres x KSF per Acre from Table 2.1
Estimated population at 09/o vacancy rate = DUs x average population per unit from Table 2.1
Acres weighted to reflect demand for city hall services = acres x weighted acre factor from Table 2.1
Peak hour trips = development units x peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1
Police calls per year = dwelling units or non- res acres x police calls per unit per year from Table 2.1
Table 2.3 presents a forecast of future development in the City, based on the City's
current General Plan.
Table 2.3
Planned Future Development in the City (to Buildout of the General Plan)
Devdopment Der Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres t Units z (KSF) ~ fion 4 Acres s Trips s Calls ?
Residential, Detached 3,282 10,081 N/A 33,771 3,282 10,081 5,242
Residential, Attached 207 2,657 N/A 6,377 231 1,860 2,444
Professional Office 229 ~ 0 3,990 0 472 9,160 641
Business Park/Light Ind 555 0 9,670 0 963 13,320 1,221
Commercial, Retail 211 0 2,757 0 786 10,550 1,435
Commercial, Highway 67 0 876 0 249 3,350 456
Commercial, Service 263 0 3,437 0 563 9,205 894
Public/Institutional 211 0 2,298 0 106 2,110 844
Totals 5,025 12,738 23,028 40,148 6,651 59,636 13,177
See Table 2.2 for footnotes
IHarch I0, 2003 lvlAX~ US P~ff e 2-7
CBy of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Development and Demand Data
Table 2.4 on the next page sums the data from the previous two tables, and repre-
sents a forecast of total development within the current City boundaries at
buildout.
Table 2.4
Total Development in the City (at Buildout)
Development Der Dwelling Bldg Area Popula- Weighted Peak Hr Police
Type Acres ~ Units 2 (KSF) 3 tion 4 Acres s Trips s Calls ?
Residential, Detached 8,824 29,551 N/A 98,996 8,824 29,551 15,367
Residential, Attached 796 7,116 N/A 17,079 888 4,981 6,547
Professional Office · 359 0 6,260 0 741 14,372 1,006
Business Park/Light Ind 1,320 0 22,991 0 2,289 31,668 2,903
iCommercial, Retail 809 0 10,567 0 3,011 40,430 5,498
Commercial, Highway 162 0 2,112 0 602 8,080 1,099
Commercial, Service 457 0 5,976 0 979 16,006 1,555
Public/Institutional 731 0 7,965 0 366 7,314 2,926
13,458 36,668 55,871 116,076 ! 17,698i 152,402 36,900
See Table 2.2 for footnotes
The projected increase in most of the demand variables shown in these tables
(acres, dwelling units, population, peak hour trips and police calls) is very close to
50%, indicating that by those measures, the City is approximately 2/3 built out at
present.
2005 A4AXIAaUS Pa~e 2-8
CRy o£ Teme~ula - Impact £ee Study Pat'ks and Recreation Facllltlea
CHAPTER $
PARKS AND RECREATION FA CILITIES
This chapter addresses the calculation of impact fees for park improvements and
recreation facilities needed to serve future development in Temecula. Information
on parks and recreation facilities used in this chapter is based on the 1993 Temec-
ula ?arks and Recreation Master Plan and on additional information provided by
the Temecula Community Services Department.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the parks and recreation impact fee analysis is the existing City,
which is the study area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Because level-of-service
standards are set on a citywide basis, impact fees for parks and recreation facilities
will be calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of
the City. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for parks to be located in
close proximity to all residential development projects in the City. This study as-
sumes that future parks will be sited in a manner consistent with the location stan-
dards set forth in the Master Plan, so that all future development subject to the
park impact fees has reasonable access to City parks. Geographic distribution of
recreation facilities is not an issue, because those facilities may serve large areas or
the entire City
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. They are based on a ratio of fa-
cilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate limits of de-
velopment in the City. All fees in this report are calculated in current dollars and
should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DE/kl/UVD VARIABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for parks and recreation facilities as
a function of population, and that is the case in Temecula. Consequently, popula-
tion is used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees in this chapter. Be-
cause the fees are population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Park hnprovements. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan sets a standard of 5.0
acres of parks per thousand residents--3 J acres in community parks and 1.5 acres
in neighborhood parks. However, to calculate impact fees for park improvements,
;Watch !0, 2003 A4AXIIffU$ Pa~e 3-1
City o/'Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Parka and Recreation £adllties
this study uses the existing ratio of
City-owned developed park acreage to
population as the level-of-service stan-
dard. That approach eliminates any
existing deficiencies relative to the
specified standard, and ensures that
impact fees paid by future develop-
ment do not subsidize the provision of
park improvements for the existing
community.
Table 3.1 lists existing City-owned
parks and shows the developed acreage
of each park. The total developed
acreage of existing parks will be used
to calculate the ratio of existing devel-
oped park acreage to existing popula-
tion in Temecula. That ratio is shown
in Table 3.2 below.
Recreation Facilities. The City has not
adopted numerical standards for rec-
reation facilities. The calculation of
impact fees for these facilities is based
on the existing ratio of facilities to
population. In this case, because of the
variety of facility types involved, the
quantity of existing facilities is meas-
ured by their replacement value instead
of their size. That technique not only
provides a common basis for measur-
Table 3.1
Existing Developed City Parks
Park Developed
Name Park Acres
Community/Sports Parks
Margarita Community Park 12.16
Pala Community Park 10.00
Paloma Del Sol Park 9.50
Rancho California Sports Park 73.00
Temeku Hills Park 11.41
Subtotal Communit?/ /Sports Parks 116.07
NeigbborboodISpe~ialty Parks
Bahia Vista Park 0.46
Butterfield Stage Park 3.13
Calle Aragon Park 0.50
Crowne Hill Park 3.56
ohn McGee Park 1.00
Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park 9.11
Loma Linda Park 2.64
Long Canyon Creek Park 3.15
Meadows Park 5.18
Nakayama Park 0.28
Nicholas Road Park 2.93
Pablo Apis Park 2.29
Riverton Park 4.94
P. otary Park 1.09
,Sam Hicks Monument Park 1.83
Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Park 2.13
Temecula Duck Pond 7.51
Temecula Skate Park 1.00
Vail Ranch Park 16.43
Veteran's Park 3.50
Voorburg Park 0.75
Winchester Creek Park 4.49
Subtotal Nbrlxt/$~ecial~ Parks 77.90
Total Developed Park Acreage 193.97
ing different types of facilities, but it Source: Temecula Community Services Depamnent
also facilitates adjustments for outstanding debt on existing facilities. Full replace-
ment value, rather than a depreciated replacement value is used here, because the
Table 3.2
Existing Ratio of Developed Park Acreage to Population
Acres ~ Population 2 per Capita per 1,000
193.97 75,927 0.00255468 2.55468
See Table 3.1
Estimated existing. See Table 2.2
~ 10, 2003 tlffAXl~l~ Page $-2
C_.lly o£ Temecula - Irnlaact Fee Study ParRs and Recreation £aclll#ea
impact fees calculated in this chapter are for the purpose of constructing additional
facilities to serve new development. If the intent were for new development to buy
into existing facilities, depreciated replacement value would be used to calculate
"buy-in" fees.
The level of service standard used here is the ratio of existing facility replacement
cost to existing population, where replacement cost has been reduced by the
amount of outstanding debt on existing facilities. Basing the impact fees on the ex-
isting service level eliminates the need to address any existing deficiencies relative
to a specified standard, and ensures that impact fees paid by future development do
not subsidize the provision of community and recreation facilities for the existing
community. Table 3.3 lists existing City-owned community and recreation facilities
and shows their estimated replacement cost.
Table 3.3
Existing Community and Recreation Center Facilities
Building Bldg Repl Site Land Total
Facility Sq Ft Cost z Acreal~e Value 3 Repl Cost
Community Recreation Center ~ 26,480 $ 6,583,000 3.80 $ 767,493 $ 7,350,493
Temecula Community Center 5,900 $ 1,180,000 1.60 $ 327,089 $ 1,507,089
Mary Phillips Senior Center 9,248 $ 1,849,600 1.20 $ 242,461 $ 2,092,061
Chaparral Pool 4 N/A $ 1~500~000 N/A $ $ 1fl00~000
Total 41~628 $11~112~600 6.60 $1t337t043 $12t449~643
Building cost shown is replacement cost less outstanding debt of $6,185,000
Estimated replacement cost includes design, construction, site development, FFt~E, project
administration and other miscellaneous costs
Land value estimated by the Temecula Community Services Department
Replacement cost shown is only the Cit~ cash contribution to pool improvements
PER-CAPITA COST
Park Improvements. In Table 3.4, on the next page, the existing ratio of developed
park acres to population from' Table 3.2 is applied to the estimated average per-
acre cost for park improvements to calculate the per-capita cost for future park im-
provements at the existing level of service. The estimated improvement cost per
acre shown in Table 3.4 is a weighted average cost estimate for constructing com-
munity and neighborhood parks with fadlifies similar to those in existing parks.
l~wch I0, 2003 ~4AXlil4~ Page $-3
Cl~/ of Temecula - impact Fee Study Par~ and Recreation Fadlltle~
Acres
per 1,000
2.55468
Table 3.4
Cost per Capita - Park Improvements
I Acres I Impr°vement
per Capita Cost per Acre z
0.00255468 $200,000
Cost
per Capita
$510.94
See Table 3.2
Estimated average improvement cost provided by the Temecula
Community Services Department
Cost per capita = acres per capita x improvement cost per acre
Recreation Facilities. Table 3.5 shows the per-capita replacement cost of existing
facilities, based on the total replacement cost from Table 3.3 and current popula-
tion estimates, as shown in Chapter 2. That per-capita cost will be used to calculate
the impact fee for community and recreation centers.
Table 3.5
Cost per Capita - Existing Recreation Facilities
Total Facility I Existing Cost I
Repl Cost I Population 2 per Capita 3
$12~449~643 75~927 $163.97
See Table 3.3
See Table 2.2
Cost per capita = total facility cost / existing population
Combined Park Improvements and Recreation Facilities. Table 3.6 totals the per-
capita costs for park improvements and recreation facilities, from the previous two
Table 3.6
Combined Cost per Capita
Cost
Component per Capita
Park Improvements $510.94
Recreation Facilities $163.97
Total $674.90
See Tables 3.4 and 3.5
~ 10, 2003 I~U~?~US P4~e 3-4
City o£Temecula - Impact Fee Study Pt, rl~ and Recreation Fadlltle$
IA/IPA CT FEE CALCULATION
In Table 3.7, the total cost per capita from Table 3.6 is converted into impact fees
per unit of development, by development type. To calculate fees per unit of devel-
opment, the per-capita cost is multiplied by the average number of people per
dwelling unit for each type of residential development.
Table 3.7
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Park Improvements/Recreation Facilities
Development Dev Population Cost Impact Fee
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 per Capita $ per Unit a
Residential, Detached DU 3.35 $674.90 $2,260.92
Residential, Attached DU 2.40 $674.90 $1,619.77
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See TaMe 3.6
Impact fee per unit = population per unit x cost per capita
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 3.7 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming futur, e development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have.agreed .to construct parks or recreation facilities, or will pay fees in effect
at an earlier time.
Table 3.8 on the next page shows the projected revenue that would be generated if
the fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future residential development not '
subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
CIO' of Temecula - Impact Fee Stucly Partes ancl Rocreatlon £.~cllltles
Table :;.8
Projected Revenue - Impact Fees for Park Improvements/Recreation Facilities
Development Der Future Total Fees Projected
Type Units ~ Units z per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $2,260.92 $ 4,890,379
Residential, Attached DU 744 $1,619.77 $ 1,205,106
Total Revenue $ 6,095,486
DU = dwelling unit
Furore residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 3.7
Projected revenue = furore units x total fees per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
2005 ~I~OIi,IU$ Pao~o 3-6
CIO~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study ORen Space and Tr~ll DeveJopme~t
CHAPTER 4
OPEN SPA CE LAND AND TRAIL DEVELOPA4ENT
This chapter addresses open space land acquisition and trail development needed to
serve future development in Temecula. A separate fee will be calculated for each of
those facility types.
Information on existing and planned open space and trails used in this study is
based on the 2O02 city of Temecula Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
and on additional information provided by the Temecula Community Services De-
partment.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the open space and trails impact fee analysis is the existing
City, which is the study area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Because these fa-
cilities benefit the entire community, impact fees for open space and trails are
calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development citywide.
The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan calls for trails and bikeways to be
developed throughout the City. This study assumes that future trails will be sited in
a manner consistent with the intent of the Master Plan, so that trails will be rea-
sonably accessible to all future development that is subject to the fees. Open space
will not necessarily be dispersed throughout the City, but will be acquired in loca-
tions that benefit the entire community by providing for trails and passive recrea-
tion, preserving views, and/or protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
A4 TI"IODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are based on a ratio of assets to population. As a
result, they are open-ended and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate
limits of development in the City.
DEA4AND VARIABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for parks and recreation facilities,
including trails and open space, as a function of population. That is the case in
Temecula. Consequently, population is used as the demand variable in calculating
impact fees in this chapter. Because the fees are population-driven, they apply only
to residential development.
l~atch 10, ZOOS A4AXIA4US Page4-1
Oty o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and TraII Developm~nt
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City has not adopted numerical standards for open space or trails, although the
Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan does propose a system of trails and
bikeways for the City. The calcula- Table 4.1
tion of impact fees for open space
and trails in this chapter is based
on the existing ratios of City-
owned open space acreage and
miles of existing trails to popula-
tion. That approach eliminates the
need to address any existing defi-
ciencies relative to a specified stan-
dard, and ensures that impact fees
paid by future development do not
subsidize the provision of open
space and trails for the existing
community.
Existing Open Space
Open Space Existing Open
Location Space Acres:
Pala Community Park 12.0
Rancho California Sports Park 48.0
Veterans Park 10.0
Long Canyon Creek 1.5
Margarita Park 3.0
Roripaul~h Ranch 201.0
Totals 275.5
1 Excludes developed portions of parks. Data provided
by the City of Temecula Community Services Dept.
Open Space. Table 4.1 lists existing City-owned open space sites and their acreage.
Table 4.2 shows the ratio of existing open space acreage to population. That ratio
is based on current population estimates, as shown in Table 2.2. It will be used to
calculate the impact fee for open space land acquisition.
Table 4.2
Ratio of Existing Open Space Acreage to Population
Existing Open
Space Acres ~
275.5
See Table 4.1
See Table 2.2
Population z Capita Residents
75~927 0.0036285 3.6285
Trails. Table 4.3, on the next page, lists existing improved public trails in Temecula
with their length in miles. Although not all of those trails are on City-owned land,
they have all been improved by the City or by developers for public use.
A/larchlO, 200$ it4AXIMUS Pa~e4-2
Cl~y of Tem~cula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
Table 4.3
Existing Improved Public Trails
Existing Length
Public Trails (Miles}
Woodside Chantemar Trail 1 0.41
Rancho California Trail I 0.71
Tradewinds Trail (DePortola E. of Butterfield) 2 1.00
Highlands Trail (Ynez/$anfiago) ~ 0.19
Santa Gertrudis Trail a 2.28
Total Miles 4.59
Owned and improved by the City of Temecula; development stan-
dard similar to type M1 trail as illustrated in the Trails and Bike-
ways Master Plan
Privately-owned; improved as part of an approved development
plan;development standard similar to trail type MI as illustrated
in the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
Located on Riverside Co Flood Control property. The City has
paid for paving and construction of a pedestrial underpass for this
Table 4.4 calculates existing miles of trails per capita, using the total miles of exist-
ing trails from Table 4.3 and the estimate of existing population from Table 2.2.
Table 4.4
Miles Per Capita - Existing Trails
Trails ~ Population 2 per Capita
4.59 75~927 0.000060
See Table 4.3
See Table 2.2
Miles per capita -- existing miles / existing population
PER-CAPITA COST
Open Space. The existing level of service for open space in Temecula, in terms of
acres per 1,000 residents, is shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.3, on the next page, uses
A4arc~ 10, 200;
Clqg of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
the existing population ratio and an estimated average per-acre cost for open space
land acquisition to calculate the per-capita cost to provide additional open space
acreage needed to maintain the existing ratio as the City grows.
Table 4.5
Per Capita Cost - Open Space
Acres per [ Cost per [ Cost per
Capita ~ Acre 2 I Capita
0.0036285 $50~000 $181.42
See Table 4.2
2 Estimate by the City of Temecula
Cost per capita = acres per capita x cost per acre
Trails. Table 4.6 shows the estimated average cost per capita to provide future
trails, using the miles-per-capita ratio from Table 4.4. The cost per mile shown in
Table 4.6 is based on a development standard defined as trail type M1 in the Multi-
Purpose Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and assumes a 10-foot wide right-of-way.
Land acquisition cost is included in the estimated cost of trail development, at the
same per-acre cost as open space land.
Table 4.6
Per Capita Cost - Trails
per Capita ~ Mile 2 Capita ~
0.000060 $2531000 $15.29
See Table 4.4
Cost per mile estimated at $192,000 using data for type M1
improvements (see Trails and Bikeways Master Plan) plus
1.22 acres'of land per mile for 10-foot trail width) using the
land cost from Table 4.5
Cost per capita -- miles per capita x cost per mile
Table 4.7 on the next page shows the combined cost per capita for open space and
trails from Tables 4.5 and 4.6. That combined cost will be used in calculating im-
pact fees per unit of development.
~10~ o£Temecula - Impact Fee Study Open Space and Trail Development
Table 4.7
Combined Cost per Capita
Cost Cost per
Component Capita ~
Open Space $ 181.42
Trails $ 15.29
Total $ 196.72
~ See Tables 4.5 and 4.6
IA4PACT FEE CALCLII. ATION
In Table 4.8, the combined per-capita cost from Table 4.7 is converted into impact
fees per unit of development, by development type, for open space land acquisition
and trail development. To calculate fees per unit of development, the combined
per-capita cost for open space and trails is multiplied by the average number of
people per dwelling unit for each type of residential development.
Table 4.8
Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit - Open Space and Trails
Development Persons Cost per Impact Fee
Type per DU ~ Capita 2 per DU
Residential, Detached 3.35 $196.72 $659.00
Residenfial~ Attached 2.40 $196.72 $472.12
See Table 2.1
See Table 4.7
Impact fee per Du -- cost per capita x per~ons per DU
PRO]ECl'ED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 4.8 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have agreed to dedicate land and/or construct facilities, or will pay fees in ef-
fect at an earlier time.
A,gur..h 10, 200~ A,IAXIA/IU5 P~ge 4-5
CRy o£ Ternecula - impact Fee Study Open Space and TraII Development
Table 4.9 shows the projected revenue that would be generated if the fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future development not subject to existing de-
velopment agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 4.9
Projected Revenue - Fees for Open Space and Trails
Development Dev Future Total Fees Projected
Type Units t Units ~ per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $659.00 i $ 1,425,426
Residential~ Attached DU 744 $472.12I $ 351~259
Total Revenue $ 1~776~685
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See TaBle 4.6
Projected revenue = future units x total fees per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
~ 10, 2003 MAXIM~ P,~'e 4-~
City o£Temecula - Impact Fee Stud~ Streets and TraStc Contol
CHAPTER 5
STREETS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
This chapter of the report addresses street improvements and traffic control systems
required to serve future development in Temecula. Development-related street im-
provements and signals used to calculate impact fees in this analysis were identified
by the City of Temecula Public Works Department.
The improvements addressed in this section do not duplicate improvements cov-
ered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter are
intended to complement the TUMF.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for this impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. The improvements to be funded with im-
pact fees are on arterial streets and will handle citywide traffic. If areas within the
City's sphere of influence are annexed in the future, the cost of providing street
improvements to serve development in those areas is expected to be addressed in
development agreements.
A4~THODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chap-
ter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for a set of improvement
needs to a certain set of land uses to be served by the improvements. That method
results in a proportional allocation of costs, so that the share of street improvement
costs charged to a particular development project equals the share of new traffic
generated by that project. Thus, if a project that generates 1% of the traffic added
by new development, it will be allocated 10/0 of the total cost of improvements
needed to serve new development.
DEMAND VAR[ABLE
The demand variable used to allocate improvement costs for street improvements in
this study is peak-hour trips (PHT) per unit of development. Peak:hour trips are
used instead of average daily trips (ADT) because peak traffic is more critical in de-
termining the amount of system capacity required to maintain a certain level of ser-
vice.
lffat'c.b 10, 2003 A4AXII~US Page .%1
00~ of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Streets and Trafdc Contol
Trip generation rates are used in this analysis to project traffic volumes for broad
categories of development, and are based on p.m. peak-hour rates from the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publication, Traffic Generators.
The resulting traffic volumes are used to establish an overall average improvement
cost per peak hour trip for all future development. For those categories of devel-
opment (e.g., commercial) that encompass a variety of uses with different trip gen-
eration characteristics, the trip generation rates used in this study are intended to
reflect average impacts for the category as a whole.
It should be emphasized that the trip generation rate assigned to any category of
development in this study may be different from the rate for a specific type of de-
velopment in that category. That is especially true of commercial development
When imposing impact fees on a particular project, the City should use a rate that
reflects, as nearly as possible, the actual trip generation characteristics, which is to
say the actual impact, of that project.
When assessing the trip generation characteristics of particular development pro-
jects in order to determine an appropriate impact fee, the City may use other
sources of trip generation data to define the specific impacts of the project, includ-
ing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Circulation Element of Temecula's General Plan defines level of service (LOS)
D as the standard for Temecula's street system. Level of service designations used
by tranportation planners range from LOS A (free traffic flow, insignificant delays
at intersections) to LOS F (forced flow, stop and go traffic, excessive delays at in-
tersections). LOS D is described as reaching the upper limit of stable flow condi-
tions with traffic volumes reaching 90% of capacity. At that level of service, inter-
sections experience significant congestion and vehicles may have to wait through
more than one cycle at signalized intersections.
FACILITY NEEDS
The Temecula Public Works Department has developed a list of street improve-
ments and traffic control systems needed to serve future development within the
existing City boundaries. Table .5.1 on the next page lists the street improvements
addressed in the impact fee analysis provides a cost estimate for each improvement.
Table 3.1 also shows the estimated percentage of each street improvement needed
to serve future development. More detailed information on the improvement pro-
jects is provided in Appendix _8. In addition to the street improvements, the De-
pa~ilnent has identified a need for 59 additional traffic signals at an estimated cost
of $8,850,000, plus 143,500 linear feet of signal interconnect cable and conduit at
10,2005 A4AXI~II. IS PaS'e $-2
City of Temecula - Impact Fee Study Streets and Traffic Contol
a cost of $2,700,000. The total estimated cost of signals and the interconnect sys-
tem amounts to $11,$$0,000.
Table 5.1
Development-Related Street Improvement Projects
Estimated New Dev New Dev
Roadway Project Cost Share Cost Share
Business Park Drive $ 102,078 75% $ 76,559
ButterfieldStage Road $ 1,408,156 100% $ 1,408,156
Commerce Center Drive $ 110,850 75% $ 83,138
DePortolaRoad $ 1,863,061 100% $ 1,863,061
Del Rio $ 81,480 100°A $ 81,480
Diaz Road $ 6,060,307 60% $ 3,636,184
Enterprise Circle West $ 65,034 100%o $ 65,034
Front Street $ 408,973 100% $ 408,973
Highway79 South $ 124,164 100% $ 124,164
'edediah Smith Road $ 894,700 40% $ 357,880
'efferson Avenue $ 3,054,577 50% $ 1,527,289
La Paz $ 2,500,000 100% $ 2,500,000
La Serena Way $ 83,063 100°A' $ 83,063
Margarita Road $ 1,072,219 80°~ $ 857,776
Meadows Parkway $ 1,154,867 70°~ $ 808,407
Moraga Road $ 5,625 100~ $ 5,625
Nicolas Road $ 3,702,346 75% $ 2,776,759
Overland Drive $ 8,047,886 75% $ 6,035,915
Pauba Road $ 2,884,962 100% $ 2,884,962
Rainbow Canyon Road $ 8,286,500 65% $ 5,386,225
Rancho California Road $ 2,422,428 60~ , $ 1,453,457
Rancho Vista Road. $ 468,158 100% $ 468,158
Rancho Way $ 28,643,480 100% $ 28,643,480
Rider Way $ 3,000 0% $
Santiago Road $ 1,265,866 100% $ 1,265,866
Solana Way $ 9,000 0% $
Via Montezuma $ -38,1¢0 100% $ 35,160
Vincent Moraga $ 288,342 100% $ 288,342
Via Rio Temecula $ 9,000,000 100% $ 9,000,000
Winchester Road $ 2,773,484 80% $ 2,218,787
Ynez Road $ 7:3641592 100% $ 713641592
Total $ 941184:358 87% $ 8117081489
See Appendix A for more detail on improvements
~ lO, 20O3
Pa~e~3
City o£Ternecula - Impact Fee Study SD'eets and Tratflc Conto!
AVERAGE COST PER PEAK HOUR TRIP
In order to allocate the cost of development-related improvements to future de-
velopment projects in proportion to their impacts on the street system, the total
cost of those improvements is averaged over the projected total number of addi-
tional peak hour trips to be generated by new development in the study area. Ta-
ble 5.2 shows the calculation of an average cost per peak hour trip for street im-
provements and signal/interconnect projects.
Table 5.2
Average Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Cost of Improvements Estimated Added Peak Cost per Peak
Related to Future Der Cost Hour Trips s Hour Trip 4
Street Improvements ~ $ 81,708,489 59,636 $ 1,370.12
Signals/Interconnect z $ 11~550~000 59~636 $ 193.68
$ 93~258~489 59~636 $ 1fl63.80
Costs estimated by the Temecula Public Works Department; See Table 5.1
Costs estimated by the Temecula Public Works Department
See Table 2.3
Average cost per peak hour trip = estimated cost / added peak hour trips
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
The average cost per peak-hour trip, from Table 5.2 is used to calculate the impact
fee per unit of development for each category of development. Table 5.3 on the
next page shows the resulting impact fees per unit of development for each cate-
gory, calculated as the number of peak-hour trips per unit of development multi-
plied by the average cost per peak hour trip.
March 10, 2003 MAXIMUE PgS'e 5-4
CItj/ o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study Streets and Traffic Contol
Table 5.3
Street Impact Fees per Unit of Development
Development Der Pk Hr Trips Cost per Pk Impact Fee KSF per Non-Res Fee
Type Units ~ per Unit: Hr Trip 3 per Unit n Acre $ per KSF ~
Residential, Detached DU 1.00 $1,563.80 $ 1,563.80 N/A N/A
P~esidential, Attached · DU 0.70 $1,563.80 $ 1,094.66 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre 40.00 $1,563.80 $ 62,551.91 17.42 $3,589.99
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 24.00 $1,563.80 $ 37,531.15 17.42 $2,153.99
Commercial, Retail Acre 50.00 $1,563.80 $ 78,189.89 13.07 $5,983.31
Commercial, Highway Acre 50.00 $1,563.80 $ 78,189.89 13.07 $5,983.31
Commercial, Service Acre 35.00 $1,563.80 $ 54,732.92 13.07 $4,188.32
Public/Institutional Acre 10.00 $1~563.80 $15~637.98 10.89 $1~435.99
D[J = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
See Table 5.2
Impact fee per unit of development = peak hour trips per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip
See Table 2.1
Impact fee per KSF = impact fee per acre / KSF per acre
Also shown in Table 5.3 is the conversion of non-residential impact fees from a
per-acre basis to a building area basis. Per-acre fees for non-residential categories
are converted to fees per thousand square feet (KSF) of building area using conver-
sion factors from Table 2.1. If desired, fees for street improvements and signals can
separated. Impact fees for street improvements represent 87.6% of the fees shown
in Table 5.3. Impact fees for signals represent 12.4%
As previously noted, the peak hour trip generation rate assigned to a particular
category of development in this study is intended to represent the entire category,
based on the expected mix of development types in that category. For the residen-
tial categories, the fees shown in Table 5.3 should be appropriate for virtually all
projects in a category. But for non-residential categories, because they cover a wide
range of potential development types, the fees shown in Table 5.3 may not be ap-
propriate for a particular project.
When applying the fees to an actual project, the City should review the trip genera-
tion characteristics of that project, ff necessary a project-specific impact fee can be
calculated for that project. The formula for calculating a project-specific impact fee
is as follows:
No. of Development Units in Project x Trips per Dev. Unit x Cost per Trip
Match 10,
City otrTemecula - Impact Fee Study Streets and Tral~c Contol
See the Implementation Chapter for recommendations on adoption of fees to facili-
tate this approach.
PRO]£CTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 5.3 can be applied to future devel6pment to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout
of the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2
of this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula
is covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision
maps, and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those devel-
opments may have agreed to dedicate land and construct improvements, or will
pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 5.4 shows projected revenue that
would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future devel-
opment not subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 5.4
Projected Revenue - Street Impact Fees
Development Dev Future Impact Fee per Projected
Type Units ~ Units 2 Unit a Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 ' $ 1,563.80 $ 3,382,495
Residential, Attached DU 744 $ 1,094.66 $ 814,426
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $ 62,551.91 $ 14,324,388
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $ 37,531.15 $ 20,809,520
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $ 78,189.89 $ 12,525,238
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $ 78,189.89 $ 5,238,723
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $ 54,732.92 $ 7,063,284
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $ 15~637.98 $ 173131903
Total $ 65~4711976
t DU = dwelling unit
2 Future development potentially subject to these fees
s See Table 5.3
4 Projected revenue = future units of development x impact fee per unit of development
The costs USed in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be indexed, or adjusted annually
for inflation. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
In the event that developers construct any of the improvements tised as the basis for
these imPact fees, the cost of that right-of-way and/or construction should be cred-
ited against the traffic impact fees charged to that project.
~ !0, 2003 1~u~411S Page ~-~
CI~ of Tern~ula - Impact Fee Study Libraries
CHAPTER 6
LIBRARIES
This chapter addresses libraries needed to serve future development in Temecula.
Information on library facilities was obtained from the 2002 Temecula Public Li-
brary Needs Assessment and from the Temecula Community Services Department.
The existing Temecula branch library is owned and operated by the Riverside
County Library System. At present, Temecula is underserved in terms of the both
size of the existing branch library and its location at the north end of the City.
Temecula plans to build three more libraries in the future--a main Temecula li-
brary and two more branches. However, the impact fee analysis is based on the ex-
isting ratio of library facilities and materials to population.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. (The existing service area for the Temec-
ula branch library extends beyond the City, and that fact must be recognized in cal-
culating the existing level of service, below.) The facilities to be constructed with
impact fees will serve the entire community and library impact fees will be calcu-
lated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the City.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. Fees calculated in this chapter
are based on a ratio of facilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about
the ultimate limits of development in the City.
DEMAND I/APJABLE
Virtually all local governments define the need for libraries as a function of popula-
tion, and that is the case in Temecula. Consequently, population is used as the de-
mand variable in calculating impact fees for these facilities. Because the fees are
population-driven, they apply only to residential development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE.
The Temecula General Plan references a Riverside County Library System standard
of 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes of library materials per capita as
the desired library standard for Temecula. However, the calculation of impact fees
for libraries in this chapter is based on the existing ratio of library facility space and
Aqarc. h I0, ,2003 A4AXIA4~ Page S-I
Cl(y o£1'erac~:ula - Impact Fee Study Libraries
materials to population. Because the existing Temecula branch library serves some
population outside the City, that population must be included in calculating the ex-
isting level of service. Table 6.1 shows the calculation of service levels for existing
library building space and materials, relative to the estimated population of the. ser-
vice area, including population outside Temecula in the unincorporated portion of
Riverside County served by the Temecula branch library. (The City of Murrieta
has its own City library, so the population of Murrieta is not included in the service
area population.)
Table 6.1 also shows additional library space to be constructed by the City with
funds currently available from impact fees and money pledged by Riverside County
and Friends of the Library.
Table 6.1
Existing Ratio of Library Building Area and Materials to Population
Existing Service Area Units per
Cost Component Units Units ~ Population 2 Capita
Existing Temecula Library Space Square Feet 15,300 79,927 0.19
Cit~-funded Additional Library Space Square Feet 18~663 75~927 0.25
Subtotal Library Space 0.44
Existin$ Collection ]Volumes [ 91,000 [ 79,927 1.14
"Funded Additional Library Space" is additional space that will be constructed with
available impact fee funds and pledged funds from Riverside County and Friends of the
Library. Available funds = $3,972,000. Assumed cost of facilities = $320.00 per square
foot including land.
For existing facilities, service area population = City population (see Table 2.2) plus estimated
4000 residents of the unincorporated service area. For City- funded additional facilities,
the service area population = the City population.
Units per capita = existing units / service area population
PER-CAPITA COST
Table 6.2 shows the per-capita cost to provide library facilities and materials at the
current level of service to serve future development. Those per capita costs are
based on the per capita service levels from Table 6.1. The per-capita costs will be
used to calculate impact fees for library facilities and materials.
10, 2003 t~lAXIMtlS Page 6-2
CiO* o£ TemecuIa - Impact Fee Study LIl~ra#e$
Table 6.2
Cost per Capita - Library Facilities and Materials
Cost Existing Units Cost per Cost per
Component Units per Capita 1 Unit 2 Capita 3
Library Space Square Feet 0.44 $320.00 $139.91
Library Materials Volumes 1.14 $35.00 $39.85
Total Cost per Capita $179.76
See Table 6.1
Cost per square foot based on $225 for construction, $33 for land, $25 for
site development and $35 for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Cost per
volume of new materials includes purchase and processing.
Cost per capita = cost per unit x units per capita.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Below, the per-capita cost from Table 6.2 is converted into impact fees per unit of
development, by development type, for library facilities and materials. To calculate
fees per unit of development, the per-capita cost is multiplied by the average num-
ber of people per dwelling unit for each type of residential development. Table 6.3
shows the resulting impact fees per unit of development.
Table 6.3
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Library Facilities and Materials
Development Dev Population Cost Impact Fee
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 per Capita 3 per Unit a
Residential, Detached DU 3.35 $179.76 $602.19
Residential~ Attached DU 2.40 $179.76 $431.42
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
gee Table 6.2
Impact fee per unit = population per unit x cost per capita
PRO]EC lED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 6.3 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildnut of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
Page 6-3
Ci{y o£ TernecuIa - Impact Fee Study Hbrattea
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time.
Table 6.4 shows the projected revenue that would be generated if the fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future residential development not subject to ex-
isting development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 6.4
Projected Revenue - Fees for Library Facilities and Materials
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units ~ Units 2 per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $602.19 $1,302,537
ResidentialI Attached DU 744 $431.42 $ 3201976
Total $11623~513
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 6.3
Projected revenue = future units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
A4arch 10, 2003 tlqAXI~IIJS Page 8-4
O(y o£Temecula - Impact F~e Study Corporate Facilities
CHAPTER 7
CORPORATE FA CIL1TIES
This chapter addresses corporate facilities (City Hall and maintenance facilities)
needed to serve future development in Temecula. Information on corporate facili-
ties was obtained from the Temecula Finance Department.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Facilities needed to serve new develop-
ment in areas annexed in the future will be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard-based method discussed in
Chapter 1. Standard-based fees are open-ended. They are based on a ratio of fa-
cilities to users and do not depend on assumptions about the ultimate limits of de-
velopment in the City. All fees in this report are calculated in current dollars and
should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DEA4AND VARIABLE
Because corporate facilities support a wide range of City functions, no single attrib-
ute of development is particularly useful in representing the impact of development
on the need for such facilities. This chapter uses one demand variable for City Hall
facilities and two separate demand variables for street and park maintenance facili-
ties, as discussed below.
City Hall Demand Variable. The 1996 development impact fee study prepared for
Temecula by David M. Griffith & Associates (now MAXIMUS) included a detailed
analysis of City Hall space assignments and the relationship of various line and
support functions to development. In the current study, the impact factors from
the 1996 study have been converted into acreage weighting factors that represent
the relative impacts of one-acre various types of development on the need for City
Hall space. See Chapter 2 for details.
Maintenance Facility Demand Variables. The City's maintenance facility is used
primarily to support two types of activities--street maintenance and park mainte-
nance. The analysis in this chapter considers separately the portions of the mainte-
nance facility used for those activities. Peak hour trip generation, the demand
variable for streets, is also used to represent the impact of development on the
street maintenance portion of the maintenance facility. Population, the demand
A4am_fi 10. 2003 A4AXIA4U$ '
variable used for parks, is also used to represent the impact of development on the
park maintenance portion of the maintenance facility.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
No numerical level-of-service standards have been adopted by the City for corpo-
rate facilities. This chapter establishes the existing level of service in terms of the
relationship between existing facilities and existing demand, and calculates impact
fees needed to maintain that level of service as future development occurs.
Tables 7.1 shows the City's existing corporate facilities and their estimated re-
placement cost. A major portion of the existing Maintenance Building is actually
being used as an annex to City Hall because space is not available to house all gen-
eral government functions in City Hall itself. For purposes of this analysis, space in
the Maintenance Facility being used as a City Hall Annex will be treated as City
Hall space. Table 7.1 also shows $1.2 million in cash from impact fee revenue that
is dedicated to future corporate facilities.
TabLe 7.1
Existing Corporate Facilities
Existing Est Bldg Repl Total Bldg Est Land
Facility Square Feet ~ Cost/Sq Ft 2 Repl Cost Value ~ Total
CityHall 30,095 $300.00 $ 9,028~500 $ 900,000 $ 9,928,500
Maintenance Bldg Admin Space 12,798 $150.00 $ 1,919,700 $ 1,919,700
Cash on Hand for Future Facilities $ 1~200~000
Subtotal City Hall Facilities 427893 $ 10~948~200 $ 900~000 $13~048~200
Street Maintenance Facilities 2,136 $200.00 $ 427,200 $ 165,802 $ 593,002
Park Maintenance Facilities 2~373 $200.00 $ 474?600 $ 184~198 $ 658~798
Subtotal Maintenance Facilities 4fi09 $ 901~800 $ 350~000 $ 1~251fl00
Totals 47~402 $ 11,850~000 $1~250~000 $14,300,000
Building area provided by the Temeanla Finance Department
F_~'timated replacement cost per sq. ft. includes design, construction, FFE, and all project costs except land
Land value esumated bi' the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency
Table 7.2 on the next page shows the existing relationship between facilities and
demand for City Hall space. For convenience, that relationship is shown in terms
of the replacement cost of facilities. As discussed above, the demand variable used
in this analysis for City Hall is weighted acreage.
March 10, 2003 AffAXIA4LIS Page 7-2
Clt~ o£Temecula olm, oact Fee Stud. v Corporate F-~llltlez
Table 7.2
Cost per Weighted Acre - Existing City Hall Facilities
Total [ Weighted Acres [ Cost per
Facility Cost ~[ Existinl~ Der z I Weishted Acre
$13~048~200 11~047 $1~181.19
See Table 7.1
See Table 2.2
Cost per weighted acre = total facility cost/weighted acres of
existing development
Table 7.3 shows the relationship between existing street maintenance facilities and
demand measured in terms of peak hour trips generated by existing development.
Table 7.3
Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Street Maintenance Facilities
Total I Peak Hr Trips
Facihty Cost t [ Existin~ Dev 2
$593~002 92~766
Cost per
Pk Hr Trip
$6.39
See Table 7.1
See Table 2.2
Cost per peak hout trip = total facility cost / peak hoar trips
generated by existing development
Table 7.4 shows the relationship between existing park maintenance facilities and
demand measured in terms of existing population.
Table 7.4
Cost per Capita - Park Maintenance Facilities
I Total ] Existing I Cost per
Facility Cost 1 Population z Capita s
$658~798 75~927 $8.68
See Table 7.1
See Table 2.2
Cost per Capita = total facility cost / existing population
~ A4arch lO, 2003 ~U$ Paffe 7-3
City o£ Ternocula - Impact Fee Study Corporate £~dlltle$
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
In the following three tables, the cost per unit of demand from each of the preced-
ing three tables is converted into a cost per unit of development for one component
of corporate facilities. Table 7.5 shows that conversion for city hall facilities.
Table 7.5
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - City Hall Facilities
Development Dev Wtd Acres Cost per Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Wtd Acre 3 Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 0.28 $1,181.19 $ 336.20
Residential, Attached DU 0.15 $1,181.19 $ 173.98
ProfessionalOffice Acre 2.06 $1,181.19 $ 2,434.75
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 1.73 $1,181.19 $ 2,049.00
Commercial, Retail Acre 3.72 $1,181.19 $ 4,397.79
Commercial, Highway Acre 3.72 $1,181.19 $ 4,397.79
Commercial, Service Acre 2.14 $1,181.19 $ 2,528.25
Public/Institutional Acre 0.50 $1~181.19 $ 590.59
t DU = dwelling unit
2 Weighted acres per acre x units per acre. See Table 2.1
3 See Table 7.2
4 Fee per unit of development = weighted acres per acre x cost per weighted
acre / units per acre
Table 7.6 shows the fee per unit of development for the street maintenance portion
of the maintenance facility.
Table 7.6
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Street Maintenance Facilities
Development Der Peak Trips Cost per Fee per
Type Units: per Unit 2 Trip 3 Unit 4
Residential, Detached DU 1.00 $6.39 $ 6.39
Residential, Attached DU 0.70 $6.39 $ 4.47
Professional Office Acre 40.00 $6.39 $ 255.70
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 24.00 $6.39 $ 153.42
Commercial~ Retail Acre 50.00 $6.39 $ 319.62
Commercial, Highway Acre 50.00 $6.39 $ 319.62
Commercial, Service Acre 35.00 $6.39 $ 223.74
Public/Institutional Acre 10.00 $6.39 $ 63.92
l DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
~ See Table 7.3
4 Fee per unit of development = peak hoar trips per unit x cost per peak hr trip
A4,tr~ 10, 2003 1t4AXI~I.Z~
P,,~e
C/O, o£Temecu/a - Impact Fee Study
Corl~ra~e Facilities
Table 7.7 shows the fee per unit of development for the park maintenance portion
of the maintenance facility.
Table 7.7
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Park Maintenance Facilities
Development Dev Population Cost per Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit: Capita 3 Unit
Residential, Detached DU 3.35 $8.68 $ 29.07
Residential, Attached DU 2.40 $8.68 $ 20.82
Professional Office Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Business Park/Light lnd Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Commercial, Retail Acre 0.00 $8.68
Commercial, Highway Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Commercial, Service Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
Public/Institutional Acre 0.00 $8.68 $
I DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 2.1
a See Table 7.4
4 Fee per unit of development = population per unit x cost per capita
Table 7.8 sums the fees per unit of development from the previous three tables to
arrive at the total fee per unit of development for all corporate facilities.
Table 7.8
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Total
Development Dev Total Fee KSF Fee per
Type Units I per Unit: per Acre s KSF s
Residential, Detached DU $ 371.66 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU $ 199.28 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre $ 2,690.45 17.42 $ 154.41
Business ParldLight Ind Acre $ 2,202.42 17.42 $ 126.40
Commercial, Retail Acre $ 4,717.42 13.07 $ 360.99
Commercial, Highway Acre $ 4,717.42 13.07 $ 360.99
Commercial, Service Acre $ 2,751.98 13.07 $ 210.59
Public/Institutional Acre $ 654.52 10.89 $ 60.10
DU = dwelling unit
Sum of fees per unit from Tables 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7
1,000 sq. ft. of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development
types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residential fees are converted from an
amount per acre into an amount per KSF
~ 10, 2003 MAXIMUS P, we
CIO, o£T~rnecula - Impact Fee Study Corporate Fadll#~s
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 7.8 can be applied to furore development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 7.9 shows projected revenue that
would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied to future develop-
ment not subject to existing development agreements or vesting tentative maps.
Table 7.9
Projected Revenue - Fees fo~ Corporate Facilities
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units ~ Der Units: per Unit 3 Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $ 371.66 $ 803,904
Residential, Attached DU 744 $ 199.28 $ 148,265
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $ 2,690.45 $ 616,113
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $ 2,202.42 $ 1,221,155
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $ 4,717.42 $ 755,683
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $ 4,717.42 $ 316,067
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $ 2,751.98 $ 355,143
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $ 654.52 $ 54,993
Total $ 4~271~322
DU = dwelling unit; KSF -- 1,000 square feet of building area
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 7.8
Projected revenue -- future development units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
.Match I0, 2003 ~VIA.~M~ Page 7-6
CRy o£ Temecula - Iml~act Fee Study Rre Deferment £adlltlea and Equipment
CHAPTER 8
FIRE FA CILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
This chapter addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities and equipment
needed to serve future development in Temecula. The Riverside County Fire De-
partment (RCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical first responder
services to the City through a cooperative agreement. RCFD also serves unincor-
porated portions of Riverside County surrounding Temecula.
RCFD currently staffs four fire stations in Temecula: Station 12 on Mercedes Street
in Old Town, Station 73 on Enterprise Circle West, Station 84 on Pauba Road, and
temporary Station 92 in the Wolf Valley area. Station 83 on Winchester Road
north of Temecula also serves a portion of the City at present.
Station 12 (which is owned by the State) houses one municipal engine staffed by
three firefighters to serve the City. (The Department also operates two state-
funded brush engines from this station to respond to wild land fires in the area.)
Station 73 houses an engine, a ladder truck, and a paramedic unit, with a total of
nine staff. Station 83 and temporary Station 92 each house an engine and three
staff. Station 84 houses one engine and a paramedic unit with five staff.
As is the case for most fire departments, the bulk of the calls received by RCFD in
Temecula are medical calls. Fire calls make up less than twenty percent of total re-
sponses.
SERVICE AREA
The study area addressed in this analysis is the existing City. The entire study area
will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire impact fees,
because fire protection and emergency medical services are provided to the entire
City by an integrated system of facilities, equipment, and personnel. Although in-
dividual fire stations are assigned first-due responsibility for designated areas, de-
velopment in any part of the City depends on the whole system for protection.
While each fire station houses at least one engine company, more specialized
equipment such as ladder trucks, are not available in every station. A standard first
alarm response to a fire call requires more than one company at current staffing
levels. Furthermore, when one company is called out, other companies may have
to move to provide coverage in case of additional calls. For all of those reasons,
impact fees for Fire Depathnent facilities and equipment are calculated on a dty-
wide basis.
~ 10, 2005
City o£Ternecula - Impact Fee $~udy Fire Department FacllRles and Equipment
Because of uncertainty regarding future annexations, the City's sphere of influence
is not included in this analysis. The City anticipates that the impact of such an-
nexations, if they occur, would be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees for Fire Department facilities and equipment
using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan-based fees are closed-
ended, meaning that they depend on assumptions about both future facilities and
future development in the study area. Unlike some other plan-based calculations in
this report, the fire impact fees are calculated on a "buy-in" basis. That is, the fees
represent future development's proportionate share of all existing and future facili-
ties and equipment needs. That approach is used here because fire protection is
supported by an entire system of facilities and equipment, and it is not possible to
identify certain facilities or equipment that serve future development as opposed to
existing development. Using that approach ensures that both existing and future
development share in capital costs for fire protection in proportion to the demand
they create. These impact fees are calculated in current dollars and should be ad-
justed annually to reflect changes in facility costs.
DEMAND VARIABLE
In this chapter, demand for Fire Department services is measured in terms of devel-
oped acreage. Because the first-response coverage provided from a fire station is
limited by the distance that can be traveled within response time standards, the
number of fire stations needed to serve the City is determined primarily by the size
of the area to be served. Logically, then, the attribute of development that is most
significant in determining facility needs is site area. Impact fees calculated in this
chapter are based on the net acreage of a development project.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Fire station locations are determined by the need to meet certain response time
standards. The City's response time standard for fire and medical emergency calls
is 5 minutes.
FA CIL ITY AND EQUIPA4ENT NEEDS
In order to satisfy the desired response' time standard, Temecula will need to con-
struct several new fire stations as it grows. One existing fire station (Station 92) is
currently housed in temporary quarters at a temporary location. A permanent re-
placement station to be constructed by a developer under a development agreement
is in the works. In addition, RCFD expects that Station 12, an old state-owned fire
~ 10, 200~, AfAX]~I.I$ P4ffeS-2
CI(y o£ Tern~cula - Impact Fee Study ~7re Department l~acllltles and Equipment
station currently used by RCFD in Old Town Temecula will be relocated out of the
City in the next few years. That station will have to be replaced.
Table 8.1 lists existing and future fire stations needed to serve existing and future
development within the City. All costs in Table 8.1 are in current dollars, so de-
preciated replacement cost is shown for existing stations and estimated construction
cost in current dollars is shown for future stations.
Table 8.1 shows four existing stations, including two that are fully funded but not
yet constructed. The replacement for Station 12 is shown as a future facility, as are
two other new fire stations and a training facility to be shared and jointly funded by
Temecula and the Riverside County Fire Department.
Table 8.1
Fire Department Facilities - Existing and Future
Existing or Funded Constt; Bldg Rcpl Useful Bids Depr Land I Total
Facilities Date Cost I Life (Yrsl Repl Cost z Value 3 ! Repl Value 4
Station 73 1988 $ 2,500,000 50 $1,800,000 $360,000 $2,160,000
Station 84 1996 $ 2,500,000 50 $2,200,000 $250,000 $2,450,000
Permanent Station 92 (Wolf Ct) s 2004 $ 2,800,000 50 $2,800,000 $250,000 $3,050,00(]
Rofipaufih Station {City Shace/a 2004 $116001000 S0 $11600~000 $2501000 $11850~00(]
Subtotals $914001000 $814001000 $111101000 $91510~00(]
Future Constr Est Bids Est Land Est Total
Facilities Date Cost ? CoSt s Cost
Station 12 Replacement 2008 $ 2,800,000 $300,000 $3,100,000
~ast End Station (City Share} 9 2006 $1,400,000 $150,000 $1,~50,000
Promenade Station 2009 $ 2,800,000 $300,000 $3,100,000
training Center (City Share) to 2009 ~ $115001000 $3501000 $118501000
Subtotals $815001000 $111001000 $916001000
Totals $171900100(] $2~2101000 $1911101000
Source: Temecula Fire Department
Replacement cost of existing buildings based on current co~t of similar facilities
Existing building values deprecated using straight line method.
Estimated current land value.
Total cost = sum of building cost and land cost.
Planned Station 92 is fully funded under a Development Agreement.
Planned Station at Roripaugh project i~ fully funded by a combination of City DIF funds, developer contribution and
Riverside County Fire Department Contribution. Amounts shown do not include RCFD share.
Estimated building construction costs at current price levels.
Estimated land costs at current price levels.
The planned East End station is expected to be funded joindy by the City and the Riverside County Fire Dept.
io City share of future training center to be constructed joindy with Riverside County Irate Department. Includes
tralnln~ props.
A4~c.h lO, 2003 A'IAXIA4US P, We 8-3
City o£ Temecula - Impact tee Study Fire Oeparlment Facilities and Equipment
Table 8.2, on the next page, lists existing and future firefighting apparatus and
other vehicles needed to serve the City's fire protection needs. As with the facilities
in Table 8.1 existing apparatus is shown at depreciated replacement value. Esti-
mated acquisition cost in current dollars is shown for future apparatus. Some of
the apparatus shown is fully depreciated.
Table 8.2
Fire Department Equipment - Existing and Future
Existing Purchase Replacement Service Depreciated
Vehicle/Apparatus Date Cost ~ Life Ors} z Value 3
Truck 73 1991 $ 800,000 20 $ 360,000
Engine 73 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
MS-73 (Paramedic Squad) 2003 $ 150,000 10 $ 165,000
Engine 84 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Engine 84A 1978 $ 350,000 15 $
MS-84R (Paramedic Squad) 1999 $ 150,000 10 $ 105,000
MS-84 (Paramedic Squad) 2002 $ 150,000 10 $ 150,000
Engine 92 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Engine 12 1993 $ 350,000 15 $ 140,000
Ensine 12R 1985 $ 350~000 15 $
'Subtotal $ 3~3507000 $1~060~000
Future Vehicle/ Purchase Estimated
Apparatus Needs Date Cost ~
Fire Chiefs Vehicle 2003 $ 40,000
Prevention Specialist Vehicle 2003 $ 20,000
Planned Station Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Planned Station Squad 2004 $ 200,000
Planned Station Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Planned Station Engine 2009 $ 350,000
Reserve Engine 2004 $ 350,000
Reserve Engine 2008 $ 400~000
Subtotal $2~0607000
Total $3~120~000
Source: Temecula Fire Department
Estimated current replacement cost of apparatus
Estimated useful service life of item
Depreciated value using straight-line method
C057' PER ACRE
Table 8.3 on the next page summarizes costs for facilities and apparatus from the
previous two tables. It also calculates the cost per net acre for all facilities and ap-
paratus needed to serve existing and future development in the City. That per-acre
cost is the basis for the impact fees calcu!ated in this chapter.
/14arcl~ I0, 200S II/IR~IUS P~ge ,~4
~lt~ o£ ~'eme~ula - Iml~ct fe~ Study Dm Delaar~ent l~adlltles ~cl Equipment
By dividing the cost of all existing and future fire protection facilities and equip-
ment in the City by total developable acreage in the City, this analysis allocates fire
protection costs to existing and future development on an equivalent basis. To the
extent that revenue from these impact fees is not sufficient to fund future facilities,
the City will have to turn to other sources of revenue to make up the difference.
Table 8.3
Average Cost per Net Acre - Fire Facilities/Apparauts
Facilities/Equip City Dev Cost
T}'pe Cost 1 Net Acres z Per Acre a
Existing Faf:ilities $ 9,510,000 13,458 $ 706.67
Future Facilities $ 9,600,000 13,458 $ 713.36
Existing Apparatus $ 1,060,000 13,458 $ 78.77
Future Apparatus $ 2~060t000 13~458 $ 153.07
Totals $ 22t230~000 13~458 $1~651.87
See Tables 8.1 and 8.2 for faolity and vehicle/apparatus cost
Projected net developed acres in City at buildout. See Table 2.4
Cost per net developed acre = total cost / developed net acres
IAdPA CT FEE CALCULATION
In Table 8.4, on the next page, the cost per acre from Table 8.3 is converted into
impact fees per unit of development, by development type. To make that conver-
sion, the cost per acre is divided by the number of units per acre for each type of
development. Note that, since acres are used as the units of development for all
non-residential development types, the per-acre fee is equal to the per-unit fee for
non-residential development. For consistency with other chapters in this report;
impact fees for residential development are converted to a cost per dwelling unit,
based on existing residential densities for each category. In practice, the City could
choose to apply this impact fee to residential development on a per-acre basis.
ll4mrc~ 10, 200; II4AXI~IU$ P~ge 8-5
City o£ Temecula - Impact Fee Study R~e Department Faclllffe~ and Equipment
Table 8.4
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Fire Facilities and Equipment
Development Dev Cost per Units per Impact Fee KSF per Non-Res Fee
Type Units ~ Acre z Acre 3 per Unit 4 Acre s per KSF ~
Residential, Detached DU $1,651.87 3.51 $470.17 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU $1,651.87 7.57 $218.18 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 17.42 $94.80
Business Park/Light Ind Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 17.42 $94.80
Commercial, Retail Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Commercial, Highway Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Commercial, Service Acre $1,651.87 1.00 $1,651.87 13.07 $126.41
Public/Institutonal Acre $1~651.87 1.00 $1~651.87 10.89 $151.69
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 8.3
See Table 2,1
Impact fee per unit of development -- cost per acre / units per acre
1,000 square fee of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residential fees are converted from an amount per acre
into an amount per KSF
?RO]ECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 8.4 can be applied to furore development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
may have agreed to dedicate land, or will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table
8.5 on the next page shows projected revenue that would be generated if fees calcu-
lated in this chapter are applied to future development not subject to existing de-
velopment agreements or vesting tentative maps.
The projected revenue from these fees, as shown in Table 8.5 is substantially less
than the total cost of planned future fire protection fadlifies and equipment. It
should be noted that some of the revenue from the "Public/Institutional" develop-
ment category may not be collected because the City may not impose most impact
fees on schools or state or county facilities. The City currently has approximately
$650,000 of fire impact fee revenue on hand. Most of that has been committed to
facilities shown in this chapter as "funded' and treated as existing. To the extent
that any previously collected impact fee revenue remains available, it can be used to
~arch 10, ~003 ~dAdUS Pa~e S-6
make up the shortfall between the cost of future facilities and the revenue gener-
ated by these fees.
Table 8.5
Projected Revenue - Fire Impact Fees
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units ~ Dev Units 2 per Unit ~ Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $470.17 $1,016,982
Residential, Attached DU 744 $218.18 $162,327
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $1,651.87 $378,278
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554..$ $1,651.87 $915,894
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $1,651.87 $264,613
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $1,651.87 $110,67.$
Commercial, Service Acre 129.1 $1,651.87 $213,173
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $1~651.87 $138~790
$ 3~200~732
DU = dwelling unit
Future residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 8.4
Projected revenue = future development units x impact fee per unit
It should be noted that all costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To
keep pace with changing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted
annually for inflation. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of
fees.
~/0, 2005 MA~TA~U$ Pe~'e 8~7
~y o£ Temecula - Impact Fee $~d.y Police Facllltle~
CI-IAPTER 9
POLICE FAC/LIlIES AND VEHICLES
This chapter addresses police facilities and vehicles needed to serve future devel-
opment in Temecula. Information on police facilities was obtained from the Te-
mecula Police Department. The City of Temecula contraCtS with the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department for police services. At present, Sheriff's personnel as-
signed to the Temecula Police Department operate out of the Sheriff's Department
Southwest Station in Murrieta, north of Temecula. Staffing includes 73 sworn offi-
cers and 22 non-sworn employees.
SERVICE AREA
The service area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, which is the study
area defined in Chapter 2 of this report. Impact fees for police facilities will be cal-
culated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all parts of the exist-
ing City. This analysis will address only facilities needed to serve future develop-
ment within the existing City. Facilities needed to serve new development in areas
annexed in the future will be addressed in development agreements.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan-based method discussed in Chap-
ter 1. Plan-based fees are calculated by allocating costs for a set of existing and/or
planned facilities to a certain set of land uses. Impact fees are based on the cost of
facilities needed to serve future development.
DE/VIAND VARIABLE
In this chapter, demand for police services is measured by calls for service. De-
mand factors representing calls for service per unit of development per year are
used to represent demand for each type of development used in this study. See
Chapter 2 for a discussion of how those factors were established.
The demand factors are used in this analysis to allocate the cost of police facilities,
vehicles and equipment between existing and future development and among vari-
ous types of development.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Like most cities, Temecula has not adopted numerical level-of-service standards for
police facilities. However, existing facilities used by the Police Depmiment are at
capacity, and additional space will be required to serve the department as it grows
~ IO, 2003 tI4AXIIffUS Pa,~e 9-1
City o£ Temecula - [mlaact Fee Study
Poi/ce
to keep pace with new development in the City. Temecula plans to construct a new
Police substation in the City to augment the space available in the building now oc-
cupied by the Department and to house some police services that are location sensi-
tive. That facility is planned to increase the department's space in proportion to
the projected demand related to future development. The cost of the planned facil-
ity is allocated to various types of future development in this chapter, using calls for
service--the demand variable identified above. Table 9.1 shows the estimated cost
of the planned police substation.
Building
Size
17~500 Sq Ft
Table 9.1
Planned Police Facility
Constr Cost 1 Cost 3 Cost
$ 4~$00~000 $ 400~000 $ 4~900~000
Cost estimates include design, construction, project administration,
site development, perimeter enclosure, and furn., fixtures, and equip.
Land cost assumes a 2 acre site at $200,000 per acre
COST PER CALL FOR SERVICE
Table 9.2 calculates the cost per call for service for the planned police substation.
Cost per call for service is calculated by dividing the total cost of the planned facil-
ity by the projected total calls for service that facility can support. The facility is
planned to serve all future development in the existing City, so the cost is divided
by the projected total calls for service from future development at buildout.
Table 9.2
Cost per Call for Service - Police Facility
Facility Cost ~ for Service z Added Call
$4~900~000 13~177 $371.85
See Table 9.1
Projected calls for service added by new development. See Table 2.4
Cost per call for service -- Total facility cost/added calls for service
POLICE VEHICLES
Patrol cars used by the Temecula Police Department are owned by the Sheriff's De-
pa~iment, and the cost of those vehicles is covered by the City's contract with the
County. However, the City does own the following vehicles that are assigned to
the Police Depamnent: 6 police motorcycles, two all-terrain vehicles, a pickup
~ lO, 2003 ~'IAXI~IU$ Pa, ge .0-:2
CJO; o£ Temecula o Impact Fee Study Police Fadlltles
truck, a sports utility vehicle, and a mobile command post trailer. Total replace-
ment cost is estimated at $210,000.
This study assumes that, as the City grows, it will be necessary to expand that fleet
in proportion to the number of additional calls for service generated by new devel-
opment. To establish a basis for projecting the need for additional City-owned po-
lice vehicles, Table 9.3 calculates the average cost per call for service for the exist-
ing fleet. Note that, in this case, that cost is divided by the number of calls gener-
ated by existing development, because the current fleet serves only existing devel-
opment.
Table 9.3
Cost per Call for Service - City-owned Police Vehicles
Total
Repl Cost
$210~000
Existing
Calls for Service
23~723
Cost per
Call for Service
$8.85
Estimated replacement cost of existing city-owned police vehicles
See Table 2.2
Cost per call for service -- Total cost / existing calls for service
IIVIPA C7' FEE CA £ CU£A TION
Table 9.4, on the next page, calculates impact fee per unit of development, by de-
velopment type, for police facilities and vehicles, using the combined cost per call
figures from the two preceding tables. Table 9.4 also converts non-residential im-
pact fees from a per-acre basis into a fee per 1,000 square feet (KSF) of building
area, to allow easier comparison with current impact fees.
tt,larch lO, 2003 MAXIA4U$ P4ge 9-3
CIO/of Ternecula - impact Fee Study Police t~adlltles
Table 9.4
Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Police Facilities and Vehicles
Development Der Calls Cost per Impact Fee KgF Fee per
Type Units ~ per Unit 2 Call ~ per Unit ~ per Acre s KSF 6
Residential, Detached DU 0.52 $ 380.70 $ 197.97 N/A N/A
Residential, Attached DU 0.92 $ 380.70 $ 350.25 N/A N/A
Professional Office Acre 2.80 $ 380.70 ' $1,065.97 17.42 $ 61.18
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 2.20 $ 380.70 $ 837.54 17.42 $ 48.07
Commercial, Retail Acre 6.80 $ 380.70 $ 2,588.77 13.07 $198.10
Comm..ercial, Highway Acre 6.80 $ 380.70 $ 2,588.77 13.07 $198.10
Commercial, Service Acre 3.40 $ 380.70 $1,294.39 13.07 $ 99.05
Public/Institutional Acre 4.00 $ 380.70 $1~522.81 10.89 $139.84
DU = dwelling unit
See Table 2.1
Sum of cost per call from Tables 9.2 and 9.3
Impact fee per unit of development = calls per unit x cost per call
1,000 sq. ft. of building area (KSF) per acre for non-residential development types. See Table 2.1
For comparison with existing fees, non-residential fees are converted from an amount per acre
into an amount per KSF
PROJECTED REVENUE
Finally, the impact fees from Table 9.4 can be applied to future development to
project the total revenue that would be generated by those fees through buildout of
the study area, assuming future development occurs as projected in Chapter 2 of
this study. It is important to note that most future development in Temecula is
covered by existing development agreements or vesting tentative subdivision maps,
and would not be subject to the fees calculated in this study. Those developments
will pay fees in effect at an earlier time. Table 9.5 on the next page shows pro-
jected revenue that would be generated if fees calculated in this chapter are applied
to future development not subject to existing development agreements or vesting
tentative maps.
2003 A4AXI~IUS P,~e .q~
GOt o£ Temecula - lml~Ct Fee Study Police £adlltles
Table 9.5
Projected Revenue - Fees for Police Facilities and Vehicles
Development Dev Future Impact Fee Projected
Type Units 1 Dev Units z per Unit ~ Revenue 4
Residential, Detached DU 2,163 $197.97 $ 428,198
Residential, Attached DU 744 $350.25 i $ 260,583
Professional Office Acre 229.0 $1,065.97 $ 244,106
Business Park/Light Ind Acre 554.5 $837.54 $ 464,385
Commercial, Retail Acre 160.2 $2,588.77 $ 414,696
Commercial, Highway Acre 67.0 $2,588.77 $ 173,448
ICommercial, Service Acre 129.1 $1,294.39 $ 167,041
Public/Institutional Acre 84.0 $1~522.81 $ 127~946
Total $ 2~280~403
DU = dwelling unit
Furore residential development potentially subject to these fees
See Table 9.4
Projected revenue -- furore development units x impact fee per unit
All costs used in this report are given in current dollars. To keep pace with chang-
ing price levels, the fees calculated above should be adjusted annually for inflation.
See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.
~ lO, 2003 ~lg~dAqU$ Pa~e 9-$
City of Ternecula - Impact Fee Study Implementation
CHAPTER 10
IA4PL £A4ENTA TION
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administra-
tion of a development impact fee program based on this study, and for the inter-
pretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory require-
ments for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of devel-
opment approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections
66000 et seE.).
ADOPIION
The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or
resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically, it is desirable
that specific fee amounts be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments.
Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice
and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Section 66016.
By statute, those fees do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the
governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation
Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and
discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report.
Cost per Unit of Service vs. Impact Fee per Unit of Development. In general, im-
pact fees recommended in this report are calculated initially in terms of a cost per
unit. of service, and then converted into fees per unit of development. Service units
are attributes of development (e.g., population, peak hour vehicle trips) that are
used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To implement im-
pact fees, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by a
certain development project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and
to facilitate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is useful to convert the
cost per unit of service into impact fees for common units of development, such as
dwelling units for residential development or square feet of building area for non-
residential development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been
converted into fees per unit of development for th~ land use categories defined in
this study.
However, wherever possible, we recommend adopting impact fees in terms of an
amount per unit of service rather than as a schedule of fees per unit of develop-
ment, because it affords the City flexibility in setting fees for projects whose de-
mand characteristics differ substantially from the assumptions used in this study
regarding demand, per unit of development.
~ 10, 2005 A~AXIA~US P~Ke 10-1
CI~ of Ternecula - Impact Fee Stud5, Implementation
ADAdlNISTRA TION
Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sec-
tions 66000 et seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including
collection and accounth3g procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References
to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government
Code.
Imposition of Fees. Section 66001 of The Mitigation Fee Act states that, "in any
action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a de-
.velopment project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency
shall do all of the following:"
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; and
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development on
which it is imposed;
bo
The need for the public facility and the type of
development on which the fee is imposed
Section 66001 also requires that: "In any action imposing a fee as a condition of
approval of a development project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989,
the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or the portion of the public fa-
cility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed."
Note that items 1 through 3 above must be included in findings supporting the es-
tablishment or increase of the fees, and that whenever the fee is imposed on a par-
ticular project, the City must meet all of those requirements plus the further re-
quirement regarding the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
facilities attributable to the project on which the fee is imposed.
The following findings are suggested to satisfy those requirements of The Mitiga-
tion Fee Act:
1. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that the purpose of these
impact fees is to prevent a deterioration in the quality of public services to
residents and businesses in the City of Temecula as a result of new develop-
ment by requiring new development to bear a portion of the cost of addi-
tional capital assets needed to meet its service needs.
2003 A4AXll~U$ Pa~e 10-2
CJ~y o£ Temecula -impact Fee Study knplementatlon
e
The City Council of the City of Temecula finds that revenue from these im-
pact fees will be used to construct facilities and acquire other capital assets
identified in the 2003 Impact Fee Study prepared for the City by MAXI-
MUS, Inc.l
Based on analysis presented in the 2003 Impact Fee Study prepared by
MAXIMUS, Inc., the City Council of the City of Temecula finds that there
is a reasonable relationship between:
bo
The use of the fee and the development type on which it is im-
posed, in that fees are proportional to the impacts of develop-
ment and will be used only to pay for facilities needed to ~erve
new development;
The need for the facility and the type of development on which
the fee is imposed, in that the fee calculations are based on the
demand for capital facilities created by new development; and
The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the de-
velopment project, in that the fees are calculated by allocating fa-
cility costs in proportion to the impacts created by new develop-
mei~t.
In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency,
at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development pro-
ject, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance."
Although that language can be interpreted as requiring the City to identify a spe-
cific facility, common practice is to identify the type of improvement the fee will be
used to finance, and to refer to the specific improvements identified in this study.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require
payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final in-
spection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. How-
ever, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility
service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the
agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon fi-
nal inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling
unit completed.
According to Gov t Code §66001, the use of the fee may be specified m a capital improvement plan, the
General Plan, Or other public documents that identity the public facilities for which the fee is charged. We
recommend that this study bc designated as thc source of that information.
,t~atch lO, 2003 AdAXI~US Pete
Ot~ o£ Temecula -Impact Fee Study Implementation
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be
used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improve-
ments or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also
have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. Statutory re-
strictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-
residential development.
In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Section
66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract
to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the
fees are paid.
Impact Fee Exemptions. In the event that a development project is found to have
no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be ex-
empted from the fees.
Impact Fee Waivers. In some cases, the City may desire to waive impact fees that
would otherwise apply to a project to promote goals such as affordable housing or
economic development. Such waivers are not recommended, and if granted may
not result in increased costs to other development projects. They are allowable
only if the City offsets the revenue lost as a result of the waiver from other sources
of revenue.
Credit for Improvements provided by Devdopers. If the City requires a developer,
as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for
which impact fees have been, or will be, charged, the impact fee imposed on that
development project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for
the cost of the facilities or improvements constructed by the developer. Of course,
this requirement does not apply to any facilities constructed under a development
agreement.
In the event a developer offers to dedicate land or construct improvements in lieu
of paying impact fees, the City has the discretion to accept or reject such offers. If
impact fee credits provided in exchange for such consideration would exceed the
amount of the fees that would otherwise have been imposed on such developer(s),
the City may wish to execute a reimbursement agreement so that the excess credits
are not paid until impact fees are collected from other benefiting development.
Credit for Existing Devdopment. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment
or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied
only to the portion of the project which represents a net increase in demand for
City fadlities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since resi-
dential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling
Unit, an addition to a single family d',4elling:unit typically would not be subject to
ClO~' o£7'emecula - impact Fee Study implementation
an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure.
In any project that results in a net increase in the number of dwelling units, the
added units would be subject to impact fees. A similar approach can be used for
non-residential development.
Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 mandates that fees be deposited "with
other fees for the improvement" in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a
manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the
local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for
the purpose for which they were collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues
must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees
for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of im-
provements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has in-
terpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual pro-
jects. As a practical matter, that approach is unworkable because it would mean
that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefitting develop-
ment had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or
counts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improve-
ments), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once
each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must
make available to the public the following information for each separate account
established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. The amount of the fee;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and
the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the per-
centage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public
improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have
been collected to complete finandng of an incomplete public improvement;
A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im-
provement on which the transfer or loan Will be expended;
,~am..b~2003 IVIA)~'I4U$ P~gel$$
CIO; o£ Temecula -Impact tee Study Implementation
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001,
paragraphs (e) and (f).
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly sched-
uled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments
contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend
or commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued
need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed
that requirement in material ways.
Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first de-
posit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section
66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the follow-
ing findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or
uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose
for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financ-
ing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to com-
plete finandng of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate
account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed
above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local
agency could be required to refund 'the moneys in the account or fund. Once the
agency determines that suffident funds have been collected to complete an incom-
plete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180
days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of
the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that
requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to proce-
dures spedfied in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing COst of implementing the impact fee pro-
gram is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include
the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, acCOunting for fee
City o£7'emecula -Impact Fee Study Implementation
revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees,
and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those
costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development ap-
plications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Ham Section 66002 provides that if a
local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees,
that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing
body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in
other public documents. We recommend that this study be identified as the source
of information on the use of the fees.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. Fees calculated in this report are stated in current
dollars. Fees should be adjusted annually to account for changes in land or con-
struction cost. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index
as the basis for indexing construction costs for future projects. We also recom-
mend that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for
annual escalation.
TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMA lION
Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation
and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the
fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee
program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training
workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved
in collecting or accounting for fees.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the
public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be dearly distinguished from user
fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of particular
impact fees should be made dear.
Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project
management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restric-
tions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in
this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be ex-
pended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been prop-
erly expended.
RECOVERY OF SI[IDY COST
We do not reCOmmend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the
costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in
114,am_.h 10, 2005
City of ~'ernecula - Impact fee Study ~nplementatlon
the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable
for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once
the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple matter
to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study.
Assuming the impact fee study will be updated every five years, the cost of this
study could be divided by the amount of revenue projected over the next five years
to determine the percentage by which fees should be increased to cover the cost of
the study. That percentage typically represents a very small increase in the fees.
For example, if the study cost amounts to $30,000 and the City expects to collect
an average of $2,000,000 per year in impact fees over the next five years, the fees
calculated in this study would be have to be increased by 0.3%, or $3.00 per
$1,000, to recover the cost of the study over five years [30,000 / (2,000,000 x 5) =
0,003]. The necessary adjustment should be made before the fees are actually
adopted by the City Council, and should be reflected in the adopting resolution.
A,larcb ~0, 2003 A,IAXIA. fU~ Pa~e 10-8
Appendix A
Street Impro vemen t l~a trix
TABLE A-1
MATRIX OF IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN STREET PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
CIJRB & LANDSCAPED ADD STREET
ROADWAY SIDEWALK GU l IER MEDIAN LANES LIGHTS
gUSINESS PARK DRIVE X X
5UI-IERFIELD STAGE ROAD X X X X
COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE X X
DE PORTOLA ROAD X X X X X
DEL RIO X X
DIAZ ROAD X X X X X
ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST X X X
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET X X X
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH X
EDEDIAH SMITH ROAD X X X X
EFFERSON AVENUE X X X
LA PAZ X X X X
LA SERENA WAY X X X X
MARGARITA ROAD X
MEADOWS PARKWAY X
MORAGA ROAD X
NICOIdkS ROAD X X
OVEKLAND DRIVE X X X X
PAUBA ROAD X X X X
RAINBOW CANYON ROAD X X X X
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD X X X X X
RANCHO VISTA ROAD X X X X
RANCHO WAY X X X X
RIDER WAY X
SANTIAGO ROAD X X X X X
SOLANA WAY X
VIA MONTEZUMA X X
VINCENT MORAGA X X X X
VIO RIO TEMECULA X X X X
WINCHESTER ROAD X
YNEZ ROAD X X X X X
REVISED: 3/11/2003