(a) General Findings. The Board makes the following findings related to the fees imposed under Article 4.
(1) Application. The California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq. may apply to some or all of the fees in this Article 4. While the Mitigation Fee Act may not apply to all fees, the Board has determined that general compliance with its provisions is good public policy in the adoption, imposition, collection, and reporting of fees collected under this Article 4. By making findings required under the Act, including the findings in this Subsection and findings supporting a reasonable relationship between new development and the fees imposed under this Article 4, the Board does not make any finding or determination as to whether the Mitigation Fee Act applies to all of the Article 4 fees.
(2) Timing of Fee Collection. For any of the fees in this Article 4 collected prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Board of Supervisors makes the following findings set forth in California Government Code Section 66007(b): the Board of Supervisors finds, based on information from the Planning Department in Board File No. 150149, that it is appropriate to require the payment of the fees in Article 4 at the time of issuance of the first construction document because the fee will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to the final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy or because the fee is to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made for such public improvements or facilities.
(3) Administrative Fee. The Board finds, based on information from the Planning Department in Board File No. 150149, that the City agencies administering the fee will incur costs equaling 5% or more of the total amount of fees collected in administering the funds established in Article 4. Thus, the 5% administrative fee included in the fees in this Article 4 do not exceed the cost of the City to administer the funds.
(b) Specific Findings. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis (“Nexus Analysis”) and the San Francisco Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis (“Level of Service Analysis”), both on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 230764 and adopts the findings and conclusions of those studies, specifically the sections of those studies establishing levels of service for and a nexus between new development and four infrastructure categories: Recreation and Open Space, Childcare, Complete Streets, and Transit Infrastructure. The Board of Supervisors finds that, as required by California Government Code Section 66001, for each infrastructure category analyzed, the Nexus Analysis and Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis: identify the purpose of the fee; identify the use or uses to which the fees are to be put, including a reasonable level of service; determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development. Specifically, as discussed in more detail in and supported by the Nexus Analysis and Infrastructure Level of Service Analysis the Board adopts the following findings:
(1) Recreation and Open Space Findings.
(A) Purpose. The fee will help maintain adequate park capacity required to serve new service population resulting from new development.
(B) Use. The fee will be used to fund projects that directly increase park capacity in response to demand created by new development. Park and recreation capacity can be increased either through the acquisition of new park land, or through capacity enhancements to existing parks and open space. Examples of how development impact fees would be used include: acquisition of new park and recreation land; lighting improvements to existing parks, which extend hours of operation on play fields and allow for greater capacity; recreation center construction, or adding capacity to existing facilities; and converting passive open space to active open space including but not limited to through the addition of trails, play fields, and playgrounds.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. As new development adds more employment and/or residents to San Francisco, it will increase the demand for park facilities and park capacity. Fee revenue will be used to fund the acquisition and additional capacity of these park facilities. Each new development project will add to the incremental need for recreation and open space facilities described above. Improvements considered in the Nexus Study are estimated to be necessary to maintain the City's effective service standard.
(D) Proportionality. The new facilities and costs allocated to new development are based on the existing ratio of the City’s service population to acres of existing recreation and open space. The scale of the capital facilities and associated costs are proportional to the projected levels of new development and the existing relationship between service population and recreation and open space. The cost of the deferred maintenance required to address any operational shortfall within the City’s recreation and open space provision will not be financed by development fees.
(2) Childcare Findings.
(A) Purpose. The fee will support the provision of childcare facility needs resulting from an increase in San Francisco's residential and employment population.
(B) Use. The childcare impact fee will be used to fund capital projects related to infant, toddler, and preschool-age childcare. Funds will pay for the expansion of childcare slots for infant, toddler, and preschool children.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. New residential and commercial development in San Francisco will increase the demand for infant, toddler and preschool-age childcare. Fee revenue will be used to fund the capital investment needed for these childcare facilities. Residential developments will result in an increase in the residential population, which results in growth in the number of children requiring childcare. Commercial development results in an increase of the employee population, which similarly require childcare near their place of work. Improvements considered in this study are estimated to be necessary to maintain the City's provision of childcare at its effective service standard.
(D) Proportionality. The costs allocated to new development are based on the estimated childcare demand generated by future development 1 Capital costs required to provide these childcare spaces to accommodate the new population are based on the City’s cost of funding new childcare facilities and assigned to new housing units and new non-residential development on a per-square-foot basis. The scale of the capital facilities and associated costs are directly proportional to the expected levels of new development and the corresponding increase in childcare demands.
(3) Complete Streets Findings.
(A) Purpose. “Complete Streets” encompass sidewalk improvements, such as lighting, landscaping, and safety measures, and sustainable street elements more broadly, including bike lanes, sidewalk paving and gutters, lighting, street trees and other landscaping, bulb-outs, and curb ramps. The primary purpose of the Complete Streets impact fee is to fund capital investments in bicycle, streetscape, and pedestrian infrastructure to accommodate the growth in street activity.
(B) Use. The Complete Streets fees will be used to implement the Better Streets Plan (2010), on file in Board File No. 230764, including enhancement of the pedestrian network in the areas surrounding new development – whether through sidewalk improvements, construction of complete streets, or pedestrian safety improvements – and development of new premium bike lanes, upgraded intersections, additional bicycle parking, and new bicycle sharing program stations..1
(C) Reasonable Relationship. New residential and non-residential development brings an increased demand for new or expanded and improved Complete Streets infrastructure. This relationship between new development, an influx of residents and workers, and a demand for complete streets infrastructure provides the nexus for an impact fee. Complete Streets impact fees, imposed on new development, fund the construction of new and enhanced complete streets infrastructure for the additional residents and workers directly attributable to new development.
(D) Proportionality. The fees allocated to new development are based on the existing ratio of the City’s service population to a conservative estimate of its current Complete Streets infrastructure provision to date – in the form of square feet of Complete Streets sidewalk per thousand service population units. The costs associated with this level of improvement are drawn from the cost per square foot associated with constructing Complete Streets elements based on data from the San Francisco Planning Department, Department of Public Works, Public Utilities Commission, and Municipal Transportation Agency. Due to the locational variation in the cost of building Complete Street elements, the fee calculation includes a 20 percent markup for the downtown area..1
The scale of the capital facilities and associated costs are directly proportional to the expected levels of new development and the existing relationship between service population and Complete Streets infrastructure. The cost of the deferred maintenance required to address any operational shortfall is not allocated to be funded by new development.
(4) Transit Infrastructure Findings.
(A) Purpose. Transit Infrastructure funds will be used to meet the demand for transit capital maintenance, transit capital facilities and fleet, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generated by new development in the City.
(B) Use. Transit Infrastructure fees will fund transit capital maintenance and transit capital facilities to maintain the existing level of service. Revenues for capital maintenance operating costs will improve vehicle reliability to expand transit services. Revenues for capital facilities will be used for transit fleet expansion, improvements to increase SFMTA transit speed and reliability, and improvements to regional transit operators. Though the fees are calculated based on transit maintenance and facilities, fee revenues may be used for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to complement revenue from the Complete Streets fee, including Area Plan complete street fees.
(C) Reasonable Relationship. The Transit Infrastructure fee is reasonably related to the financial burden that development projects impose on the City. As development generates new trips, the SFMTA must increase the supply of transit services and therefore capital maintenance expenditures to maintain the existing transit level of service. Development also increases the need for expanded transit facilities due to increased transit and auto trips.
(D) Proportionality. The existing level of service for transit capital maintenance is based on the current ratio of the supply of transit services (measured by transit revenue service hours) to the level of transportation demand (measured by number of automobile plus transit trips). The fair share cost of planned transit capital facilities is allocated to new development based on trip generation from new development as a percent of total trip generation served by the planned facility, including existing development. The variance in the fee by economic activity category based on trip generation, and the scaling of the fee based on the size of the development project, supports proportionality between the amount of the fee and the share of transit capital maintenance and facilities attributable to each development project.
(5) Additional Findings. The Board finds that the Nexus Analysis and Level of Service Analysis establish that the fees are less than the cost of mitigation and do not include the costs of remedying any existing deficiencies. The City may fund the cost of remedying existing deficiencies through other public and private funds. The Board also finds that the Nexus Analysis and Level of Service Analysis establish that the fees do not duplicate other City requirements or fees. The Board further finds that there is no duplication in fees applicable on a Citywide basis and fees applicable within an Area Plan. Moreover, the Board finds that these fees are only one part of the City’s broader funding strategy to address these issues. Residential and non-residential impact fees are only one of many revenue sources necessary to address the City’s infrastructure needs.
(Added by Ord. 50-15
, File No. 150149, App. 4/24/2015, Eff. 5/24/2015; amended by Ord. 188-15
, File No. 150871, App. 11/4/2015, Eff. 12/4/2015; Ord. 200-15
, File No. 150790, App. 11/25/2015, Eff. 12/25/2015; Ord. 222-15
, File No. 155521, App. 12/18/2015, Eff. 1/17/2016; Ord. 193-23, File No. 230764, App. 9/15/2023, Eff. 10/16/2023)
AMENDMENT HISTORY
Nonsubstantive changes; Ord. 188-15
, Eff. 12/4/2015. Division (b) amended; new division (b)(5) added; former division (b)(5) redesignated as (b)(6) and amended; Ord. 200-15
, Eff. 12/25/2015 and Ord. 222-15
, Eff. 1/17/2016. Divisions (b), (b)(1)(D), (b)(2)(D), (b)(3)-(b)(3)(D) amended; (b)(4)-(b)(4)(D) deleted; (b)(5)-(6) amended as (b)(4)-(5); Ord. 193-23, Eff. 10/16/2023.
CODIFICATION NOTE
1. So in Ord. 193-23.