HR&A is frequently called upon by public and private clients to prepare or critique "nexus" studies.

Development Fees & Exactions

Impact Fee | Exaction System Design

• For the City of Los Angeles City Attorney and the Department of City Planning, HR&A prepared analysis to support new in-lieu fees for affordable housing that will apply to specified market rate developments pursuant to 1982 State legislation requiring policies to address affordable housing in the coastal zone.  HR&A was specifically named to conduct this analysis in a settlement agreement between the City and plaintiff affordable housing advocates alleging that the City had not properly implemented the State requirements.

• Assistance in the development of an impact fee for library facilities, including review and comment on work by city staff, and recommendations for calculation steps and considerations needed to meet development fee statutory requirements, for the City of Huntington Beach’s City Attorney.

• Design of an affordable housing and open space mitiga­tion program (on-site perfor­mance or fees in lieu thereof) for new office development, for the City of Santa Monica.

• Complete redesign of the City of Santa Monica’s program requiring developers of new apartment and condominium projects to mitigate impacts on project-related demands for affordable housing, including preparation of a nexus study to support the in-lieu fee option in the new program.

• Design of an affordable housing, public open space and child care mitigation program (on-site performance or fees in lieu thereof) for new com­mer­cial de­vel­op­ment, for the City of West Hollywood and its outside counsel, Burke Willliams & Sorensen.

Impact Fee/Exaction System Critiques

• Review of an existing Los Angeles County Fire Department impact fee for fire station construction and life safety (fire suppression and emergency medical response) capital equipment, and development of a more appropriate “fair share” fee applicable to a 1.6 million square foot industrial project in the eastern part of the County, prepared for a pension fund investor and the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Philips.

• An analysis of whether a traffic impact fee imposed by the City of Los Angeles on new development proposed along the Ventura Boulevard Corridor in the San Fernando Valley is supported by an adequate showing of nexus under applicable law and professional practice, prepared for a group of property owners and the law firm of Reznik & Reznik.

• An analysis of the rationale and economic consequences for prototypical development projects, of development fees (traffic, child care, public art, afford­able housing) as initially proposed by the City of Los Angeles for the Warner Center Specific Plan, prepared for a group of property owners, developers and the law firm of Paul, Hast­ings, Janofsky & Walker.

• An analysis and critique of the rationale, nexus basis and implementation plan for a transportation management program and ordinance proposed by the City of Santa Monica which would have imposed Regulation XV-style requirements on existing businesses with as few as 10 employees, and a traffic impact fee on developers, for the Santa Monica Bay Area Chamber of Commerce.

• Analysis and preparation of a Supplemental EIR address­ing school impacts and fees related to a Long Range Development Plan, for U.C. Santa Barbara, the office of the Universi­ty Counsel and the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro.  The SEIR figured prominently in a decision in favor of the University in Goleta Union School District v.  The Regents of the University of California, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (1995), holding that the University was not obligated to pay school impact fees.

• Analysis of school enrollment and facilities impacts associated with a proposed $3 billion expansion of Disneyland, and the relationship of these impacts to statutory school fees, for The Walt Disney Company and the law firm of Latham & Watkins.  The analysis helped facilitate a settlement agreement between The Walt Disney Company and local school districts.

• Analysis of school enrollment and facilities impacts associated with the Universal City Specific Plan, a $3 billion proposal to nearly double the intensity of development at Universal City, the home of Universal Studios, Inc.’s film studio, studio tour, various entertainment retail uses, commercial office buildings and hotels, for Universal Studios, Inc. and the law firm of Latham & Watkins.

• Analysis of school enrollment and facilities impacts associated with alternative expansion plans for doubling passenger and airfreight cargo volumes at Los Angeles International Airport by the year 2015, for Los Angeles World Airports (formerly the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports).

• Analysis of the impacts on a variety of elementary and secondary school districts in Kern County from a number of large-scale residential projects planned by Castle & Cooke Development Corporation (represented by the Corey, Croudace, Dietrich & Dragun law firm).  The project involved developing alternative student generation rates and calcula­tions of "fair share" impact costs pursuant to applicable State law.

• For the Los Angeles Central City Association, the Build­ing In­dus­try Association of Southern California, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the Valley Industry and Commerce As­so­cia­tion, HR&A evaluated the methodology and conclusions of the nexus analysis that forms the basis for affordable housing link­age fees that were being studied by the City of Los Angeles.  The evalua­tion included a detailed assessment and critique of the nexus analysis methodology as it per­tains to the re­quirements of California law (AB 1600); a compar­ison of the nexus analy­sis prepared for four other municipalities in California; al­ter­na­tive estimates of affordable housing linkage fees using other concepts; and identification and commentary on a wide range of implementa­tion issues that must be ad­dressed in any City or­di­nance imposing linkage fees.

• Analysis of the economic consequences to a 200-unit condominium proposal of a City of Santa Monica require­ment that 30% of the units be made affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and analysis of other "inclusionary" housing alternatives which might be offered to the City, for TransAction Compa­nies, Ltd. and the law firms of Irell & Manella and Manatt Phelps & Phillips.

• An analysis of the degree to which the Wood Ranch residential project had already contributed a fair share of infrastructure and other community benefits such that the City of Simi Valley was not justified in asking for additional fees in order to extend an exist­ing Development Agreement, for Olympia & York.

• A critique of whether the City of Irvine's pro­posed commercial development exaction to fund af­fordable housing complied with nexus requirements under State law, on behalf of the Building Industry Association/Orange County (California) Region.

• A critique of, and counter-proposal to, a fee proposal by the City of Santa Monica to mitigate the impact of land recycling on "affordable" lodging in the coastal zone, for Maguire Thomas Partners and the law firm of Lawrence & Harding..

• A critique of the City of Rancho Mirage's approach to impact fee calculations, and preparation of an alternative, nexus-based approach to fee calculations for a 527 unit subdivision, on behalf of the developer, Landmark Land Company, and the law firm of DeCastro, West, Chodorow & Burns.