Mountain View City Council
May 24, 2022

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

TO ADOPT THE EAST WHISMAN PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2019, the City Council adopted the East Whisman Precise Plan (“Precise Plan”), which allows new residential land uses and expanded commercial land uses, open spaces, and multi-modal connectivity in the East Whisman Area (“East Whisman”); and

WHEREAS, the Precise Plan identifies key public improvements needed in East Whisman to serve projected development in the area; and

WHEREAS, the Precise Plan includes a Funding Strategy that details how new public improvements in East Whisman could be funded to serve new development in the area; and

WHEREAS, the Funding Strategy identified the need for development impact fees as a key element to fund public improvements needed to serve new development in the Precise Plan area; and

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, at least 30 days prior to the date on which this Resolution was heard, a nexus study prepared by Willdan Financial Services, entitled “East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study ,” and dated April 22, 2022, was placed on file and made available for public inspection on the City website and at the location identified in the notice of availability of the nexus study and public hearing mailed on April 22, 2022 to all interested parties requesting notice and all property owners in the Precise Plan area; and

WHEREAS, minor text changes were made to the nexus study, providing clarification and further explanation of the methodology used in response to questions and comments received during the public inspection period , which are reflected in the revised “East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study,” dated May 10, 2022 (“Nexus Study”); and

WHEREAS, the Nexus Study is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, the Nexus Study : (i) meets the requirements of Section 66016.5 of the Government Code; (ii) describes development impact fees (“Fees”) to be collected wi thin the Precise Plan area for potable water facilities, transportation facilities, sewer facilities , and recycled water facilities that are necessary to fund public improvements associated with the development of the Precise Plan area; (iii) supports the finding that the Fees do not exceed the amount permitted by law; (iv) includes data indicating the amount of cost, or the estimated cost, -2-
required to provide public facilities and the revenue sources anticipated to fund those public facilities, including General Fund revenues; and (v) provides the City Council with a basis for making the findings required by Section 66001(a) of the Government Code with respect to the adoption of Fees; and

WHEREAS, at least 30 days prior to the date this Resolution was heard, notice of the filing of the Nexus Study was provided to any persons or organizations who had requested such notice pursuant to Sections 66016.5 or 66019 of the Government Code or other applicable law; and

WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed Fees was published twice in a newspaper of general circulation , in the manner set forth in Government Code Section 6062a , as required by Government Code Section 66018; and

WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held at its May 24, 2022 Regular Meeting (“Public Hearing”), the City Council considered the Nexus Study and other matters related to the proposed Impact Fee; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered the Nexus Study, a Council report and any and all public comments, oral and written, received prior to or during the Public Hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt the Nexus Study; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of the Nexus Study is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms , which do not involve a commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment , is not identified as a “project” under CEQA. CEQA review shall be completed for each project prior to project approval and commitment of funds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View:

1. Based on the facts and substantial evidence in the record, the Nexus Study is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 66016.5 of the Government Code.

2. The City Council finds that the findings set forth in Section 8 of the Nexus Study are true and correct.

– – – – – – – – – – –

RG/4/RESO
926-05-24-22r

Exhibit: A. Nexus Study

EAST WHISMAN PRECISE PLAN

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY

REVISED DRAFT
MAY 10, 2022
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
Exhibit A
This page intentionally left blank.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background 3
Study Objectives 3
Facility Standards and Costs 5
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 6

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8 Study Objectives 8
Fee Program Maintenance 8
Study Methodology 9
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 9
Organization of the Report 9

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 11 Land Use Types 11
Land Use Scenario 11
Residential Occupant Densities 12

3. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ..................................................... 14 Trip Demand 14
Trip Demand Growth 15
Planned Facilities 16
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 19
Fee Schedule 19

4. POTABLE WATER FACILITIES ...................................................... 21 Water Demand 21
EDU Generation by New Development 22
Facility Needs and Costs 22
Cost per EDU 27
Fee Schedule 27

5. SEWER FACILITIES FEES ........................................................... 29 Sewer Demand 29
EDU Generation by New Development 30
Facility Needs and Costs 30
Existing Deficiencies 33
Cost per EDU 34
Fee Schedule 34

6. RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ................................................... 36 East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study ii
Recycled Water Demand 36
EDU Generation by New Development 37
Facility Needs and Costs 37
Projected Fee Revenue 40
Fee Schedule 41

7. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 42 Inflation Adjustment 42
Reporting Requirements 42

8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 43 APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 45

3 Executive Summary
This report describes the development impact fees tha t would be needed to fully fund the costs of public improvements and facilities associated with the East Wiseman Precise Plan (EWPP) of the City of Mo untain View that are necess itated by development in the EWPP Area. Consistent with the EWPP it is the City’s intent that the cost of future development’s share of public facilities within the EWPP Area be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee.

The public facilities included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Transportation Facilities
▪ Potable Water Facilities
▪ Sewer Facilities
▪ Recycled Water Facilities
Background
East Whisman is a major employment cent er located on the eastern edge of Mountain View. The 412-acre Precise Plan Area is shown in Figure 1. The area is bounded by the U.S. 101 freeway and NASA Ames/Moffett Fi eld to th e north, Sunnyvale city limits to th e east, the Central Expressway and South Whisman and Whisman Station Precise Plan areas to the south, and Whisman Road to the west . The Plan Area also includes the commercial area at the intersection of North Whisman and East Middlefield Roads, referred to as the “Village Center” in the General Plan and the Precise Plan. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light ra il line travels north -south through the Plan Area with one station located within the boundary (Middlefield Station) and two st ations just outside t he Plan Area (Whisman Station to the south and Bayshore/NASA Station to the north).

The EWPP guides land use a nd developme nt decision -making processes for the area. The Precise Plan does not replace or augment building safety codes or other non -planning re lated codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications or improvement s to existing buildings, and c hanges in land use will be reviewed for conformance with the Precise Plan. The Precise Plan was adopted under the authority of the Ci ty’s Zoning Ordinance, which establishes Precise Plans as a tool to regulate land use and de velopment where cer tain proper ties or conditions require specialized attention.

Study Objectives
The pri mary policy object ive of a development i mpact fee program is to ensure that n ew development pays the capital costs incurred by the City associated with growth. The development impact fee funds the costs of new facilities, but is not used to fund opera ting and maintenance costs, which will be funded in the same manner as such costs for existing facilities ( i.e. through user fees and tax revenues, which can be expected to inc rease as a result of the development of the EWPP Area). The primary p urpose of t his study is to ca lculate and p resent fees t hat w ill enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates a need for additional public facilities and capital improvements in the EWPP Area.

When imposing a develop ment imp act fee, the City must comply with the requirements o f the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq .), including recently adopted requirements of AB 602 . This report provides t he findings required by the Act for adoption of the recommended fees.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 4 Figure 1: East Whisman Precise Plan Area

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 5 Facility Standards and Costs
The planned fa cilities approach is used to calculate each of the impact fees included in this study. This approach allocates costs base d on t he ratio o f planned facilities that serve new development to the inc rease i n deman d assoc iated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specif ic “new development” share of specific facilities that benefit both existing and new development can be identified. Examples include specific street improvements designed to avoid an existing street f alling to a deficient level of service as a result of new devel opment or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue will be spent on new facilities or expansion of current fa cilities to serve new development. Although not specifically defined in the Mitigatio n Fee Act, f acilities can be generally defined as capital purchases with a us eful life g reater tha n five years. Imp act fee revenue can be spent on ca pital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to, land acquisiti on, construction of buildings, construction of infras tructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equi pment, info rmation te chnology, software licenses and eq uipment. The plan ned facilities intended to be funded with impact fee revenue are detailed in each facility chapter of this report.

Because the City cannot pr edict with certaint y how and when development within the City will occur through buildout, the City may need to upd ate and r evise the project lis ts funded by the fees documented in this st udy. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same f acility category, and the substitute projects must meet the same nexus and proportionality requi rements of the Mitigation Fee Act and other relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The City can identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates the CIP. The impact fees can also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipa ted or if significant changes to the EWPP occur.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1. summarizes the deve lopment impa ct fees that meet t he City’s identified nee ds and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 6 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary Land Use
Transportation
Facilities
Potable
Water
Facilities
Sewer
Facilities
Recycled
Water
Facilities Total
Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 5,351$ 299$ 923$ 4,177$ 10,750$ Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 13,059 299 618 4,177 18,153 Hotel (per Room) 2,505 231 618 3,213 6,567 Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms)
Studio 1,278$ 193$ 517$ 900$ 2,888$ 1 1,496 223 609 1,028 3,356 2 2,281 344 923 1,607 5,155 3 2,762 416 1,117 1,928 6,223 Per Additional Bedroom 392 58 157 257 864 Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.7, 5.8 and 6.6.

Other Funding Needed
Impact fees cannot fund costs associate d with remedying existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the cos ts a ttributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the d evelopment project. This means that the d evelopment impact fee levied against parcels in the EWPP Area cannot fund the sha re of new projects needed to serve existing development or new development that is not subject to the fee.

As shown i n Table E.2, approximately $ 96.8 million in additional funding is anticipated to be needed to complete the facilities the City currently pl ans to de velop, if fees are adopted at the maximum jus tified fee level. The “ Additional Funding Projected” column shows non-impact fee funding projected to be needed to complete the improvements partially funded by impact fees.

These facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

To the exten t that the City ado pts fees that are lower than the ma ximum justified amou nt, t he non-impact fee funding projections would increase. To the extent that development (i) has occurred since the 2017 impact fee baseline or (ii) is subject to agreements that limit the amou nt of impact fees that can be c harged, the projected impact fee revenue wou ld decrease, and the additional funding projections would increase.

Potential so urces of revenue include, but are not li mited to , existing or new general fund revenues, existin g or n ew taxes, spe cial assessments, bond proce eds, grants and public/community benefits required in connection with the Precise Plan.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 7 Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Projected
Fee Category
Total Project
Cost
Total
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue 1
Additional
Funding
Projected
Transportation Facilities 62,810,000$ 26,129,174$ 36,680,826$ Potable Water Facilities 3,590,300 2,500,600 1,089,700 Sewer Facilities 9,792,300 6,987,898 2,804,402 Recycled Water Facilities 75,300,000 19,068,525 56,231,475 Total 151,492,600$ 54,686,197$ 96,806,403$
Sources: Tables 3.3, 3.4, 4.5, 5.6, 6.3 and 6.5.
1 Projected impact fee revenue listed includes fee revenue associated w ith 355 E Middlefield and 400 Logue. These w ere approved prior to the adoption of the proposed fee and may not be subject to the proposed fees. After accounting for credits for demolished existing uses, these tw o projects account for $3,135,998 in projected impact fee revenue. Should these projects not be subject to the fees, this amount w ould need to be funded from other sources.

8 1. Introduction
This report pr esents an analysis of the need for public facili ties to accommodate new development in the EWPP Area. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee pr ogram is to ens ure t hat new development p ays t he capi tal costs needed to accommodate growth. The EWPP Funding Strategy section of t he Im plementation chapter of the Precise Plan identifies guidelines for the funding of capital impr ovements within the P recise Plan: “Each n ew development will satisf y project related requirements for impa ct fees, related of f-site improvement s, an d other f unding sources.”
The primary purpose of this report is to set forth an impact fee program for the EWPP Area based on the most current available faci lity plans and growth proje ctions. The maximum justified fees are projected to enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new d evelopment creates increases in service demands. This report supports the EWPP funding strategy guideline stated above.

The City is subject to the limitations contained in the Mitigation Fee Act ( the “Act”). This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.

The EWPP Area is forecast to see significant growth through buildout. This growth will create an increase in demand fo r public se rvices and the facilities re quired to d eliver them. Given the revenue c hallenges described ab ove, it has been proposed to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth.

This report makes u se of the most cur rent available growth forecasts and facility plans to create the EWPP impact fee program to ensure that the impact fees accurately reflect the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected ade quately f unds the facilities n eeded by new dev elopment. To avoid collec ting inadequate revenue, the in ventories of existing facilities and cos ts for pl anned facilities m ust be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is common to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 7.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues ke ep up with increase s i n the cos ts of public f acilities, it is recom mended to conduct more extensive upda tes of th e fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth fo recasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 7.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

9 Study Methodology
Development impact fees a re calculated t o f und the cost of facilities r equired t o accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

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

2. Identify f acility standards: Determine the facil ity standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities. In this case the applicable standards used to identify needed facilities and infrastructure necessary to accommodate new development are documented in the EWPP EIR and accompanying technical appendices. T hese documents are available in the office of the Cit y Clerk and inc orporated herein for reference;

3. Determine facilities re quired to se rve new developme nt: Estimate the total amount of pl anned facilities, and identify the share required to ac commodate new development. Similar to the facility standards in St ep 2, the facilities needed to accommodate new development were identified a nd documented in the EWPP EIR and accompanying technical appendices;

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

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit o f new de velopment to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Alternative funding needs: Determine if any n on-impact fee funding is required to complete projects.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
This study identifies facility n eeds and co sts to serve new developmen t. This was a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs. The facility needs were id entified in the EWPP EIR and accompanying technical appendices. This study uses the planned facilities metho d to allocate costs and calculate fees.

This method is summarized below:

Planned Facilities Method
The plann ed f acilities met hod allocates costs based on th e r atio of allocated facility costs t o demand from new development as follows:

Allocated Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for all the fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a development impact fee begins with the s election of a p lanning horizon and devel opment of growth projections. T hese p rojections are used throughout the anal ysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2. = cost per unit of demand
East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

10 Chapters 3 through 6 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between n ew d evelopment and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Transportation Facilities
▪ Potable Water Facilities
▪ Wastewater Facilities
▪ Recycled Water Facilities
Chapter 7 details the pro cedures that the City must follow when impleme nting a develop ment impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

Recommended findings required for adoption of the maximum justified development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are set forth in Chapter 8.

11 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of d emand to determine facility needs and allo cate those nee ds between existing and new dev elopment. This chap ter explai ns the s ource f or the growth projections used i n th is stud y based o n a 2017 base year and a planning horizon o f buildout of the EWPP Area. The year 2017 is used as a baseline to be consistent with the EWPP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the mitigation identified in that document needed to serve projected growth.

Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development i n 2017 is used as an indica tor of existin g facility demand.
▪ The estimate of to tal development at buildout is used as an indicator of f uture demand to dete rmine total facilities needed to accomm odate growth a nd remedy existing facility deficiencies.
▪ Estimates of growth from 2017 through buildout are used to (1) allocate facility costs between n ew development and existing development, and (2) e stimate tota l fee revenues.

The dema nd for p ublic facilities is base d on the dwelling units, nonresidential building square footage and hotel rooms creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonabl e relationship between each fee and t he type of d evelopment paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Office / R&D / Industrial : Office, research and developme nt and in dustrial lan d uses.
▪ Retail: All retail and service (including restaurants) land uses. ▪ Hotel: All commercial lodging development.
▪ Residential dwelling un its: All res idential dwelling units (Includes single family homes, townhomes, apartments, and condominiums).

Some de velopments may includ e more th an one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with b oth residential and retail uses. In th ose cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the di scretion to determine wh ich lan d use type best ref lects a de velopment project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact char acteristics of th e use. If a project results in the intensification of use, the City would charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Land Use Scenario
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number o f nonresidential building square feet, hotel rooms and residential dwelling units within the EWPP Area, both in 2017 and at buildout. 2017 is used as the impact fee calculation baseline because this is the amount of development assumed in the EWPP EIR. Some of this development has already been approved, including 700 East Middlefield Road, East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

12 600 El lis Street, 355 -415 East Middlefie ld Ro ad and 400 Logue Avenue. These four developments are included in the change, not in the ba seline. The first two projects hav e development agreements that require payment of this fee, up to a maximum amount. The latter two may or may not be subject to the fee depending on the status of their vested rights at the time of development.

Table 2.1: East Whisman Precise Plan Impact Fee Land Use Scenario
Land Use Type
Fee
Baseline
(2017)
Cumulative
Precise Plan
Change
(2017 to
Buildout)
Nonresidential Square Feet (1,000's)
Office/R&D/Industrial 6,443 8,896 2,453 Retail 54 154 100
Subtotal 6,497 9,050 2,553
Hotel Rooms - 200 200
Residential Dwelling Units
Single Family Residential 1 100 99 Multi-Family Residential - 4,970 4,970 Total Residential 1 5,070 5,069 Source: City of Mountain View.

Residential Occupant Densities
Residential impact fee s in this re port are calculated based on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. Occupant density assumptions ensu re a reasonable relationship between the size of a develop ment project, the increase in facilities demand associated with the proje ct, and the amount of the fee.

Persons per bedroom assu mptions ensure a re asonable rela tionship between the size of a dwelling u nit and the re sidents, and ther efore demand for new facilities. For residential development, the fee is based on the number of bedrooms in each additional housing unit, so the fee schedule must conve rt facilities demand estimates to these measures o f b edrooms per dwelling unit and number of dwelling units in the project.

This conversion is done with average household size fact ors that vary by bedroom s proposed in the dwelling unit, shown in Table 2.2. T he data se ries that was us ed to sta tistically es tablish these household size factors is from the 2019 American Housing Survey (AHS), the most recent AHS data available. Willdan used AHS data from the Pacific Division to estimate the p ersons per bedroom. This estimate of persons per bedroom for the Pacific Division was then adjusted based on difference in average multifamily unit density for Mountain Vie w compared to the Pacific Division as calculated from the latest American Community Su rvey (ACS) data. These adjustments were nece ssary because data f or the City of Mountain Vi ew is not specifica lly available from the AHS, and the ACS does not provide data at the granularity needed to estimate these factors for the City.

The occupant density assumptions in Table 2.2 are used in each chapt er to scale estimates of demand per average dwelling unit to de mand per dwelling unit by number of bedroom s. The East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

13 project EIR and transportation analysis assumed 2.08 residents per dwelling unit. This figure was derived by dividin g the 10, 570 projected resid ents associated with the project, b y 5,070 total dwelling units in the project. Estimates of trip genera tion, water flow generation, wastewater flow generation and recycled water flow generation per dwelling unit can be divided by 2.08 to estimate demand generated by a single resident. Demand per resi dent is then mul tiplied by residents per dwelling unit , by number of bedrooms to determine demand per dwelling un it, by number of bedrooms.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Number of Bedrooms
Residents per
Dwelling Unit
Studio 1.17
1 1.37
2 2.09
3 2.53
Per Additional Bedroom 0.36
Sources: Tables B25024 and B25033 from the U.S. Census
Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates; 2019 American Housing Survey; Willdan Financial Services.

14 3. Transportation Facilities
This chapter details an anal ysis of the need fo r transportation facilities to accommodate n ew development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship bet ween new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based o n the trip demand placed on the sy stem by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehic le trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvem ents because vehicle tr ips are the gre atest source of congestion and other impacts, which alternative modes are meant in part to mitigate.

AM peak hour trip generation rates are used to estimate demand and allocate the fees because the capacity of transportation infra structure must be designed to accommodate demand when traffic peaks, which is during the weekday AM commute hour.

An adjustment is made to trip generation rates to calculate tr ip demand . Pass-by trips are deducted from the tri p g eneration rate for retai l uses. Pass-by trips a re inte rmediate stops between an origin and a destination that require no significant diversion from the route, su ch as stopping to get gas on the way to work. This adjustment allows for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip characteristics beyond trip generation rates into account for fee calculation purposes.

The EWPP includes stringent new provis ions to r educe the numbe r of c ommute trips generated by office uses. Therefore, this report assigns such uses developed under the plan a somewhat lower trip generation factor per 1,000 square feet th an is assigned to buildings i n existence at the baseline year. Appendix Table A.1 displays the amount of existing and new office development within the EWPP Area and the associated trip rates.

Table 3.1 shows the calcula tion of trip demand fac tors by land use category based on th e adjustments described above for both existing and new development.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

15 Table 3.1: AM Peak Hour Trip Rates
Pass-by
Land Use Trips1 Existing New Existing New
Office/R&D/Industrial (per KSF) 0% 0.995 0.833 0.995 0.833 Retail (per KSF) 34% 3.080 3.080 2.033 2.033 Hotel (per Room) 0% 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.390 Residential Average (per DU) 0% 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360 Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms) 2
Studio 0% 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.199 1 0% 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233 2 0% 0.355 0.355 0.355 0.355 3 0% 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.430 Per Additional Bedroom 0% 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 Note: KSF = 1,000 square feet.
2 Assumes 0.17 AM peak hour trips per resident. Residents per dw elling unit by number of bedrooms show n in Table 2.2.

AM Peak Hour Trip Rates Adjusted Trip Rate
Sources: East Whisman Precise Plan, p.48; Memorandum: East Whisman Precise Plan – Project Trip Estimates, Fehr & Peers, May 10, 2019; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Percent of total trips. A pass-by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass-by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Assumption based on ITE data.

Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizo n for t his analysis is buildout. Table 3.2 lists the existing and buildout land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 3.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units, building square feet and hotel rooms to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new dev elopment. Existing trip rates are use d to calculate existing trip demand, and the new trip rates are used to calculate the trip demand associated with new development. In total, new development will generate 38.9% of trips at buildout.

Table 3.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Trip
Rate

KSF/DU/
Rooms Trips
Trip
Rate

KSF/DU/
Rooms Trips

KSF/DU/
Rooms Trips
Office/R&D/Industrial (KSF) 0.995 6,443 6,411 0.833 2,453 2,043 8,896 8,454 Retail (KSF) 2.033 54 110 2.033 100 203 154 313 Hotel (per Room) 0.390 - - 0.390 200 78 200 78 Residential (per DU) 0.360 1 - 0.360 5,069 1,825 5,070 1,825 Total 6,521 4,149 10,670
Share of Trips at Buildout 61.1% 38.9% 100%
Note: KSF = 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 2.1 and 3.1.

New Development BuildoutBaseline

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

16 Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 lists the transportation projects included in this analysis. The projects w ere identified from the EWPP P roject Level Transportation Analysis. Cost estimates for th e projects were developed by Fehr & Peers for use in this analysis. Figure 2 displays the location of the planned transportation improvements.

The projects costs are allocated to new development as follows:
• Costs of projects serving all development in the EWPP Area are allocated 38.9% to the impact fee based on the new development’s share of trips at buildout. This includes, but is not limited , to all fre eway u nder crossings, SFPUC and VTA crossings, mid -block crossings, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, wayfinding, and cycle tracks. 38.9% is used because it r epresents new developmen t’s share of total trip demand within the EWPP Area at buildout. These improvements are primarily needed to facilitate travel by trips that begin and/or end within the EPPA Area.
• Costs of p rojects that are needed to main tain an acceptable LOS as new development occurs are partially allocated to the impact fee based on the EWPP Area’s share of future trip volumes. This was calculated by comparing the trip vo lume generated by new development in the EWPP Area to t he trip volume generated by new development outside the E WPP Area at each specific improvement. Fehr & Peers provided estimates of the EWPP Area’s share of the AM peak hour traffic volume increase for each intersection included in the analysis. AM peak hour traffic volumes were used to correspond with the AM peak hour trip rates used to allocate the fees. • Intersection 10 is allocated 100% to new development because the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS under existing and cumulative conditions but falls to an unacceptable LOS under cumulative plus project conditions.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

17 Table 3.3: Transportation Improvement Project Costs
Project1 Cost Estimate
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Freeway Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing

5. State Route 237 Undercrossing 10,000,000$ 38.9% 3,890,000$

6. Highway 101/ Ellis Street Undercrossing Improvements 4,700,000 38.9% 1,828,300 Subtotal 14,700,000$ 5,718,300$
SFPUC, VTA/CPUC Crossings

7. Multi-use Path/ LRT crossing 10,000,000$ 38.9% 3,890,000$

8. Street A/SFPUC crossing 50,000 38.9% 19,450

9. Street D/SFPUC crossing 1,200,000 38.9% 466,800 Subtotal 11,250,000$ 4,376,250$
Mid-Block Crossings 2

13. Middlefield/ Street A crossing 450,000$ 38.9% 175,050$

15. Bernardo/ Greenway crossing 340,000 38.9% 132,260 Subtotal 790,000$ 307,310$
Bike Lanes

16. Fairchild bike lanes 840,000$ 38.9% 326,760$
Buffered Bike Lanes 2

17. East Middlefield Road 3,050,000$ 38.9% 1,186,450$

18. North Whisman Road 2,320,000 38.9% 902,480

19. National Avenue 1,040,000 38.9% 404,560

20. Ellis Street 1,130,000 38.9% 439,570

21. Clyde Court 530,000 38.9% 206,170

22. Logue Avenue 750,000 38.9% 291,750

23. Clyde Avenue 1,040,000 38.9% 404,560

24. Ravendale Avenue 1,340,000 38.9% 521,260

25. Bernardo Avenue 1,020,000 38.9% 396,780
Subtotal 12,220,000$ 4,753,580$
Cycle Tracks 2

27. SR 237 WB collector distributor cycle tracks 3,090,000$ 38.9% 1,202,010$ Subtotal 3,090,000$ 1,202,010$
Pedestrian Streetscape Improvements / Wayfinding 5,370,000$ 38.9% 2,088,930$ Intersections (From Project-Level Transportation Analysis) 3 Intersection 1: Ellis and Manila 1,900,000$ 10.2% 193,894$ Intersection 4: Ellis and Fairchild 4 2,900,000 85.2% 2,469,677 Intersection 9: Middlefield and Whisman 1,800,000 77.6% 1,397,549 Intersection 10: Middlefield and Ellis 2,000,000 100.0% 2,000,000 Intersection 27: Moffett and Middlefield 3,100,000 22.8% 705,651 Intersection 39: Whisman and 237 2,850,000 45.1% 1,285,000 Subtotal 14,550,000$ 8,051,771$
Total 62,810,000$ 26,824,911$
1 Project numbering corresponds w ith numbering from Precise Plan. Intersection numbering consistent w ith numbering from Project- Level Transportation Analysis.

Source: East Whisman Precise Plan; East Whisman Project-Level Transportation Analysis; Fehr & Peers; Table 3.2, Willdan Financial Services.
2 Mid-block crossing projects #10, #11, #12 and #14, buffered bike lane project # 26, cycle track project # 28, and portions of #17, #20, #22 and #23 are not included in this list of projects and not incorporated into the fee calculations. These projects are proposed to be built w ith redevelopment projects.
3 Allocation of responsibility betw een EWPP Area and new development outside of the EWPP Area prepared by Fehr & Peers for use in this analysis. Based on AM peak hour volumes.
4 Since the EIR w as completed, the city has done significant design w ork on this intersection for bike and pedestrian improvements. During the initial stages of the Nexus Study the City Traffic Engineer review ed the proposed improvements and determined that the proposed improvements (Converting the southbound approach to include one additional through lane) could be incorporated into the Nexus Study.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

18 Figure 2: Transportation Project Map

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

19 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee con sists of a do llar amount, representing the v alue of facilities , divided by a measure of demand. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and nonresidential space (cost per 1,000 square feet or hotel room) fees by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts are reflected in the fee schedule.

Table 3.4 displays the calculation of the cost the cost per trip demand unit. Allocated costs from Table 3.3 are summarized in the table by improvement category. Note that several of the buffered bike lane projects were also id entified in the City’s Multimodal Impact Fee, which was adopted in 2018. To avoid double counting those costs in this analysis, the assumed bike lane costs from the Multimodal Impact Fee study were adjusted to 2022 dollars using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI), then subtracted from the costs allo cated to new development in the EWPP Area.

The net costs are divided by the growth in trip demand from Table 3.2 to determine the cost per trip attributable to new development. These figure drives the fee calculation.

Table 3.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Costs Allocated to New Development
Freeway Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing $ 5,718,300 SFPUC, VTA/CPUC Crossings 4,376,250
Mid-Block Crossings 307,310
Bike Lanes 326,760
Buffered Bike Lanes 4,753,580
Cycle Tracks 1,202,010
Pedestrian Streetscape Improvements / Wayfinding 2,088,930 Intersections 8,051,771
Total $ 26,824,911
Less: Citywide Multimodal Impact Fee Project Overlap1
695,737
Net Cost Allocated to New Development 26,129,174$
New Development Trip Generation 4,149
Cost per Trip 6,298$
Sources: Engineering News Record, CCI; Tables 3.2 and 3.4, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Project cost of $600,000 adjusted from August, 2018 to April, 2022 using the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 details the maximum justified transportation facilities fees. The City can adopt any fee amount up to this maximum. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip identified in. Table 3.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the “new” trip de mand f actors i n Table 3.1 to determine a fee per unit of new de velopment. The total f ee includes a two perce nt (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard over head charge applied to all City programs for leg al, ac counting, and other departme ntal and admi nistrative sup port, and fee East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

20 program adminis trative costs including revenue collec tion, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience w ith impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee is a re asonable estimate of the City’s cost to administer the fee program , including adoption, implementation, and updates. Th e admin istrative charge should be rev iewed an d adjusted durin g comp rehensive impact fee updates to e nsure that reven ue gener ated from the charge s ufficiently cove rs, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 3.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
AM Peak Fee
Land Use
Cost per
Trip
Hour Trip
Rate Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
per Sq.

Ft.

Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 6,298$ 0.83 5,246$ 105$ 5,351$ 5.35$ Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 6,298 2.03 12,803 256 13,059 13.06 Hotel (per Room) 6,298 0.39 2,456 49 2,505 n/a Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms)
Studio 6,298$ 0.20 1,253$ 25$ 1,278$ n/a 1 6,298 0.23 1,467 29 1,496 n/a 2 6,298 0.36 2,236 45 2,281 n/a 3 6,298 0.43 2,708 54 2,762 n/a Per Additional Bedroom 6,298 0.06 384 8 392 n/a 1 Fee per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space, per hotel room or per residential dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

21 4. Potable Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for potable water system facilities to accommodate growth within the EWPP Area. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and water facilities impact fees to fund water facilities that serve new development.

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

Table 4.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow g eneration e stimates come from the EWPP Utility Impact Study p repared as a part of the p roject EIR. Estimates of flo w generation are expressed per 1,000 square feet for office, R&D, industrial and retail land uses, per room for hotels and per dwelling unit for residential dwelling units.

Note that the water flow generation factors and corresponding E DU factors from the project EIR have been divided be tween potable and recycled water demand. Th e potable water flow generation factors and the recycled water flow generation facto rs also used in Chapter 6 sum to the total water flow generation by land use from the pr oject EIR. Based on input from City staff, the analysis assumes that 50% of the office/R&D/industrial, retail and hotel water demand, and 25% of residential demand will be non-potable (recycled) water. The costs of the recycled water system are discussed later in this study.

Flow generated by each land use is then compared to th e flow generated by the average residential dwelling unit to calc ulate equivalent dwelling un its (EDU). EDU factors express water flow from each lan d use in terms of the flow generated by the average dwelling unit. This allows for a calculation of water demand in uniform service units and allows for an equitable allocation of facility costs.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 22 Table 4.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use
Total
Water
Flow
Generation
Potable
Water
Flow
Generation
Recycled
Water
Flow
Generation
Potable
Water
EDU
Factor
Recycled
Water
EDU
Factor
Total
EDU
Factor
Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 130 65 65 0.87 2.60 1.30 Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 130 65 65 0.87 2.60 1.30 Hotel (per Room) 100 50 50 0.67 2.00 1.00 Residential Average (per DU) 100 75 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms) 1
Studio 56 42 14 0.56 0.56 0.56 1 65 49 16 0.65 0.64 0.65 2 100 75 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 121 91 30 1.21 1.20 1.21 Per Additional Bedroom 17 13 4 0.17 0.16 0.17 Sources: Table 3.16-2: Future Water Demand in the Precise Plan Area, Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report, 2020; City of Mountain View; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Assumes 36 gallons of potable water flow, and 12 gallons of recycled water flow per day per resident. Estimates of residents per dwelling unit by number of bedrooms are shown in Table 2.2.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 4.2 shows t he e stimated potable water EDU generation within the EWPP from new development through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 4.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Chapter 2 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new developme nt. Because the EWPP Area is n ot currently served by rec ycled water, the total water EDU factor is used to calculate EDUs in the base year. For new development the potable water EDU factor is used to estimate EDUs because it is assumed that recycled water will be used to meet a share new development’s total demanded water needs.

Table 4.2: Potable Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use

KSF/DU/
Rooms
EDU
Factor EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms
EDU
Factor EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms EDUs
Office/R&D/Industrial 6,443 1.30 8,376 2,453 0.87 2,134 8,896 10,510 Retail 54 1.30 70 100 0.87 87 154 157 Hotel (per Room) - 1.00 - 200 0.67 134 200 134 Residential (per DU) 1 1.00 1 5,069 1.00 5,069 5,070 5,070 Total 8,447 7,424 15,871
Share of EDUs at Buildout 53.2% 46.8% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.1.

Baseline New Development Buildout

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 4.3 displays the unit costs used to estimate the cost of the improvements needed to serve new development. The unit cost estimates, including contingencies, were provided by the City for use in the analysis based on recent costs.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 23 Table 4.3: Potable Water Facilities Unit Costs
Pipe
Size
Construction
Cost
($/linear
foot)
Construction
Contingency
(30%)
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Engineering
Cost (20%)
Construction
Management
(10%)
Project
Admin.
(7.5%)
Total Capital
Improvement
Cost per
Linear Foot
8" 410 130$ 540$ 110$ 60$ 50$ 760$ 12" 440 140 580 120 60 50 810 Source: City of Mountain View .

Table 4.4 uses the unit cost estimates from Table 4.3 and the quantities identified in the EWPP Utility Impact study and Precise Plan to estimate the co st of needed potable water facilities. The projects identified in the EWPP Utility Impac t study are needed to m itigate fire flow requirements both within and outside of the project area.

Table 4.5 allocates the cost of facilities from Table 4.4 to new development as follows:
• Projects that are needed to rectify existing conditions in the base year are not allocated to the impact fee.
• Projects th at solely expand existing, non -deficient infrastructure to directly provide additional capacity required by new development are allocated 100% to the impact fees.

Figure 3 reproduces a figure from the EWPP Utility Impact Study which displays the locations of potable water CIP projects.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 24 Table 4.4: Potable Water Facilities Cost Estimates
Project Location
2030
GPUUIS
CIP # Description
Length
(Feet)
Existing
Diameter
(Inches)
CIP
Diameter
(inches)
Unit Cost
per Linear
Foot
Estimated
Project
Cost
Water System Improvements from General Plan UIS
E Evelyn Ave, between Kittyhawk Way and Ferry Morse Way 24 Install new pipe 65 - 12 810$ 52,650$ Central Expy, between Ravendale and N Bernardo Ave 35 Install new pipe 1,550 - 12 810 1,255,500 Whisman Station Dr, between Miranet Ave and Beverly St 36 Install new pipe 400 - 8 760 304,000 Easy St, Central Expy, and Ada Ave 37 Upsize 970 8 12 810 785,700 Flynn Ave, west of N Whisman Rd 39 Upsize 370 6 8 760 281,200 E-W portion of National Ave 43 Upsize 745 8 12 810 603,450 Clyde Ct 44 Upsize 380 8 12 810 307,800 Total 4,480 3,590,300$
Sources: Table 35, East Whisman Precise Plan; Table 4.3, Willdan Financial Services.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 25 Table 4.5: Potable Water Facilities Costs to Serve New Development Project Location
2030
GPUUIS
CIP #
Estimated
Project Cost
Allocation to
EWPP New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New
Development
Water System Improvements from General Plan UIS
E Evelyn Ave, between Kittyhawk Way and Ferry Morse Way 1 24 52,650$ 100.0% $ 52,650 Central Expy, between Ravendale and N Bernardo Ave3 35 1,255,500 100.0% 1,255,500 Whisman Station Dr, between Miranet Ave and Beverly St2 36 304,000 0.0% - Easy St, Central Expy, and Ada Ave 2 37 785,700 0.0% - Flynn Ave, west of N Whisman Rd3 39 281,200 100.0% 281,200 E-W portion of National Ave3 43 603,450 100.0% 603,450 Clyde Ct3
44 307,800 100.0% 307,800
Total 3,590,300$ 2,500,600$
1 Not currently deficient. Outside project area, allow s for more connectivity across Evelyn Avenue 2 These projects are needed to address existing deficiencies outside of the Precise Plan. 3 These projects are included because they are w ater lines that directly connect to parcels w ithin the Project area. Not currently deficient.

Sources: Table 3.16-2: Future Water Demand in the Precise Plan Area, East Whisman Precise Plan Draft EIR; General Plan Update Utility Impact Study, p. 11; Table 4.4, Willdan Financial Services.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 26 Figure 3: Potable Water Facilities CIP

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 27 Cost per EDU
Table 4.6 calculates a co st per potable water EDU by dividing the total co st allocated to new development identified in Table 4.4 by the growth in EDUs identifie d in Table 4.2. This cost per EDU drives the impact fee calculation.

Table 4.6: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development 2,500,600$
New Development EDUs 7,424
Cost per EDU 337$
Sources: Tables 4.2 and 4.5.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for potable water facilities is shown in Table 4.7. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee pe r unit of new dev elopment based on the EDU factors shown in Table 4.1.

The total f ee includes an administrative c harge to fund costs that i nclude: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, a nd other departme ntal and administrative support, (2) capital pl anning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the fa cilities fee, and (3) f ee program admini strative costs including r evenue c ollection, revenue and cost account ing, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee ade quately covers the cost of fee program adm inistration. Th e administrative charge should be rev iewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee u pdates to ensu re that revenue generated from t he charge sufficiently covers, but do es not exceed, the administ rative costs associ ated with the fee program.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 28 Table 4.7: Potable Water Facilities Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Land Use
Cost per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 337$ 0.87 293$ 6$ 299$ 0.30$ Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 337 0.87 293 6 299 0.30 Hotel (per Room) 337 0.67 226 5 231 n/a Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms)
Studio 337$ 0.56 189$ 4$ 193$ n/a 1 337 0.65 219 4 223 n/a 2 337 1.00 337 7 344 n/a 3 337 1.21 408 8 416 n/a Per Additional Bedroom 337 0.17 57 1 58 n/a 1 Fee per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space, per hotel room or per residential dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.6.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

29 5. Sewer Facilities Fees
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the EWPP Area. It documents a reasonable relation ship between new development and a sewer facilities impact fee to fund sewer facilities that serve new development.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and it s cons equent increased wastewater demand provide th e basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expresse d as the number of gallons pe r day generated b y a specific type of l and use. Flow gene ration rates are a reasonable measu re of demand on the City’s system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by lan d use category. The flow generation e stimates come from the City’s General Plan Update Utility Impact Study. Estimates of flow generation are e xpressed per 1,000 square feet for office, R &D, industrial and retail land uses, per roo m for hotels and per dwel ling unit for residential dwelling units.

Flow generated by each land use is the n compared to the flow generated by the average residential dwelling u nit to ca lculate eq uivalent dwelling units (EDU). EDU factors express wastewater flow fr om each land use in terms of the flow generated by the average dwelling unit.

This allows for a calculation of was tewater demand in uniform service units an d allows for an equitable allocation of facility costs.

Table 5.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Land Use
Flow
Generation
(GPD) EDU Factor
Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 150 1.00 Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 100 0.67
Hotel (per Room) 100 0.67
Residential (per Dwelling Unit) 150 1.00
Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms) 1
Studio 84 0.56
1 99 0.66
2 150 1.00
3 182 1.21
Per Additional Bedroom 26 0.17
Sources: Table 2-2 - Sew er Generation Factors from Residential and Non- Residential Sources, General Plan Update Utility Impact Study; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Assumes 72 gallons of flow per day per resident. Estimates of residents per dw elling unit by number of bedrooms show n in Table 2.2.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 30 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 5.2 shows the e stimated EDU g eneration from new d evelopment throug h buildout. The EDU factors from Table 5.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from presented in Chapter 2 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development.

Table 5.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
EDU
Factor

KSF/DU/
Rooms EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms EDUs
Office/R&D/Industrial 1.00 6,443 6,443 2,453 2,453 8,896 8,896 Retail 0.67 54 36 100 67 154 103 Hotel (per Room) 0.67 - - 200 134 200 134 Residential (per DU) 1.00 1 1 5,069 5,069 5,070 5,070 Total 6,480 7,723 14,203
Share of EDUs at Buildout 45.6% 54.4% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1.

Baseline New Development Buildout

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 5.3 displays the unit costs used to estimate the cost of the impro vements needed to serve new development. The unit cost estimates, including contingencies, were provided by the City for use in the analysis based on recent costs.

Table 5.3: Sewer Facilities Unit Costs
Pipe
Size
Replacement
Unit
Construction
Cost ($/linear
foot)
Construction
Contingency
(30%)
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Engineering
Cost (20%)
Construction
Management
(10%)
Project
Admin.
(7.5%)
Total Capital
Improvement
Cost per
Linear Foot
Gravity Main Unit Costs
8" 410$ 130$ 540$ 110$ 60$ 50$ 760$ 12" 440 140 580 120 60 50 810 15" 610 190 800 160 80 60 1,100 18" 690 210 900 180 90 70 1,240 21" 750 230 980 200 100 80 1,360 Source: City of Mountain View .

Table 5.4 identifies the pla nned sewer facilities identified in t he EWPP Utility Im pact Study, displays the estimated project costs based on the unit costs identified in Table 5.3.

Figure 4 reproduces a figure from the EWPP Utility Impact Study whic h displays the locations of sewer CIP projects.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 31 Table 5.4: Project Cost Estimates
Project Location
2030
GPUUIS
CIP # Description Length (Feet)
Existing
Diameter
(Inches)
CIP Diameter
(inches)
Unit Cost per
Linear Foot
Estimated
Project Cost
Sanitary System Improvements from General Plan Utility Impact Study N Whisman Rd between Skyview Ct and Evandale Ave 72 Upsize 3,060 12 15 1,100$ 3,366,000$ Flynn Ave west of N Whisman Rd 75 Upsize 301 6 8 760 228,760 N Whisman Road and Devonshire Ave 77 Upsize 65 15 18 1,240 80,600 Ferguson Dr south of E Middlefield Rd 78 Upsize 923 10 12 810 747,630 E Middlefield Rd from Ferguson Dr through Ellis St1 79 Upsize 906 10 15 1,100 996,600 Ellis St North of E Middlefield Rd 80 Upsize 1,083 12 15 1,100 1,191,300 Easement between Ellis St and B St 81 Upsize 504 10 12 810 408,240 Fairchild Dr from Ellis St to B St 82 Upsize 297 10 12 810 240,570 National Ave south of Fairchild Dr 83 Upsize 319 8 15 1,100 350,900 Subtotal 7,458 7,610,600$
Precise Plan Sanitary System Improvements

1. North Whisman Road and Devonshire Avenue Upsize 65 - 15 1,100$ 71,500$

2. Easement between Ellis Street and Street B Upsize 342 10 15 1,100 376,200

3. Fairchild Drive between Ellis Street and North Whisman Road Upsize 1,275 18 21 1,360 1,734,000 Subtotal 1,682 2,181,700$
Total 9,140 9,792,300$
1 Diameter listed as 12" / 15". Analysis assumes 15" for cost estimating purposes.

Sources: Table 5-4, East Whisman Precise Plan Utility Impact Study; Table 37, East Whisman Precise Plan; Table 5.3, Willdan Financial Services.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 32 Figure 4: Sewer Facilities CIP

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 33 Existing Deficiencies
Projects that are needed to rectify existi ng co nditions in the bas e year are not allocated to the impact fee. The EWPP Utility Impact Study identified deficien t segments in the base year of the analysis. Table 5.5 identifies the existing deficient segments for t he projects inclu ded in th is analysis. The existing deficient share of each proj ect is calculated based on the d eficient length relative to the total pile length for a given project.

Table 5.5: Existing Deficiencies
GPUU
IS
CIP # Description
Existing
Deficient
Length
(Feet)
Total
Length
(Feet)
Existing
Deficiency
Share
72 N Whisman Rd between Skyview Ct and Evandale Ave 1,950 3,060 63.7% 75 Flynn Ave west of N Whisman Rd 301 301 100% 77 N Whisman Road and Devonshire Ave 65 65 100% 78 Ferguson Dr south of E Middlefield Rd - 923 0% 79 E Middlefield Rd from Ferguson Dr through Ellis St - 906 0% 80 Ellis St North of E Middlefield Rd - 1,083 0% 81 Easement between Ellis St and B St - 504 0% 82 Fairchild Dr from Ellis St to B St - 297 0% 83 National Ave south of Fairchild Dr 319 319 100% Source: Table 5-4, East Whisman Precise Plan Utility Impact Study; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 5.6 displays the allocation of sewer project costs to n ew development. The deficient share of projects identified in Table 5.5 is subtracted from the estimated project costs identified in Table

5.4. The net costs are allocated to the impact fee. The sewer projects funded by the impact fees have been sized solely to serve development within the EWPP Area and are not oversized to serve other future development.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 34 Table 5.6: Cost Allocation to New Development
Project Location
2030
GPUUIS
CIP #
Estimated
Project Cost Deficiency
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Sanitary System Improvements from General Plan Utility Impact Study N Whisman Rd between Skyview Ct and Evandale Ave 72 3,366,000$ 63.7% 36.3% $ 1,221,858 Flynn Ave West of N Whisman Rd 75 228,760 100.0% 0.0% - N Whisman Road and Devonshire Ave 77 80,600 100.0% 0.0% - Ferguson Dr South of E Middlefield Rd 78 747,630 0.0% 100.0% 747,630 E Middlefield Rd from Ferguson Dr through Ellis St 79 996,600 0.0% 100.0% 996,600 Ellis St North of E Middlefield Rd 80 1,191,300 0.0% 100.0% 1,191,300 Easement between Ellis St and B St 81 408,240 0.0% 100.0% 408,240 Fairchild Dr from Ellis St to B St 82 240,570 0.0% 100.0% 240,570 National Ave South of Fairchild Dr 83 350,900 100.0% 0.0% - Subtotal 7,610,600$ 4,806,198$
Precise Plan Sanitary System Improvements

1. North Whisman Road and Devonshire Avenue 71,500$ 0.0% 100.0% 71,500$

2. Easement between Ellis Street and Street B 376,200 0.0% 100.0% 376,200

3. Fairchild Drive between Ellis Street and North Whisman Road 1,734,000 0.0% 100.0% 1,734,000 Subtotal 2,181,700$ 2,181,700$
Total 9,792,300$ 6,987,898$
Sources: Tables 5.4 and 5.5.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development from Table 5.7 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to dete rmine a cost per EDU. This c ost per EDU drives the impact fee calculation.

Table 5.7: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development 6,987,898$
New Development EDUs 7,723
Cost per EDU 905$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.6.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee s for sewer facilities are shown in Table 5.8. The co st p er EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new de velopment based o n the EDU factors shown in Table 5.1.

The t otal fee includes an adminis trative c harge t o fund costs that include: (1) a sta ndard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, prog ramming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenu e collection , revenu e and cost accoun ting, mandated p ublic reporting, a nd fee justification analyses.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 35 In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee ade quately covers the cost of fee prog ram admi nistration. Th e administrative charge should be re viewed and adjusted during comp rehensive impact fee u pdates to ensu re that rev enue gen erated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administ rative costs associ ated with the fee program.

Table 5.8: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Land Use
Cost per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 905$ 1.00 905$ 18$ 923$ 0.92$ Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 905 0.67 606 12 618 0.62 Hotel (per Room) 905 0.67 606 12 618 n/a Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms)
Studio 905$ 0.56 507$ 10$ 517$ n/a 1 905 0.66 597 12 609 n/a 2 905 1.00 905 18 923 n/a 3 905 1.21 1,095 22 1,117 n/a Per Additional Bedroom 905 0.17 154 3 157 n/a 1 Fee per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space, per hotel room or per residential dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.7.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification

36 6. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the EWPP Area. It documents a reasonable r elationship between new developmen t and recycled water facilities impact fees to fund recycled water facilities that serve new development.

Recycled Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increas ed water demand provide the basis for calculating the recycled water facilities fee. The need for recycled water facilities improvements is based o n the demand for recycled water placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand i s a flow ge neration rate, expressed as the numb er of ga llons per da y generated by a sp ecific type o f la nd use. Flow genera tion rates are a re asonable measure of demand on the City’s system of recycled water imp rovements bec ause t hey r epresent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 6.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates were developed with gu idance from City staff. Estimates of flow generation are expressed per 1,000 square feet for office, R&D, industrial and retail land u ses, per room for ho tels a nd per dwelling unit for residential dwelling units.

As noted in t he potable water facilities fee chapt er, recycled water flow generation factors are assumed to be a component of total water flow. The recycled water fl ow generation facto rs presented here and the potable water flow generation facto rs presented in Chapter 4 sum to the total water flow generation by land use from the proj ect EIR. Based on input from City staff, the analysis assumes that 50% of the office/R&D/industrial, retail and hotel water demand, and 25% of residential demand will be non-potable.

Flow generated by each land use is compared to the flow generated by the average dwelling unit to calculate equivalent dwelling units (EDU). EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by the average dwelling unit. This allows for a calculation of water demand in uniform service units and allows for an equitable allocation of facility costs.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 37 Table 6.1: Recycled Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use
Flow
Generation
(GPD) EDU Factor
Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 65 2.60 Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 65 2.60
Hotel (per Room) 50 2.00
Residential (Average per Dwelling Unit) 25 1.00 Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms) 1
Studio 14 0.56
1 16 0.64
2 25 1.00
3 30 1.20
Per Additional Bedroom 4 0.16
Sources: Future Water Demand in the Precise Plan Area; East Whisman Draft EIR; City of Mountain View ; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Assumes 12 gallons of flow per day per resident. Residents per dw elling unit by number of bedrooms show n in Table 2.2.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 6.2 shows the estimated EDU generation within the EWPP Area from new de velopment through buildout. The EDU factors from Table 6.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions associated with new EWPP Area development. Since the area is not currently served by recycled water, existing development does not generate any demand for recycled water facilities and no EDUs currently exist.

Table 6.2: Recycled Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use

KSF/DU/
Rooms
EDU
Factor EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms
EDU
Factor EDUs

KSF/DU/
Rooms EDUs
Office/R&D/Industrial 6,443 - - 2,453 2.60 6,378 8,896 6,378 Retail 54 - - 100 2.60 260 154 260 Hotel (per Room) - - - 200 2.00 400 200 400 Residential (per DU) 1 - - 5,069 1.00 5,069 5,070 5,069 Total - 12,107 12,107
Share of EDUs at Buildout 0.0% 100.0% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.1.

Baseline New Development Buildout

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 6.3 displays the cost of the ident ified recycled water facilities needed to ser ve the EWPP Area and the City as a whole. There are two general categories of costs in the table:

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 38 1. Citywide Cos ts – these costs are needed to serve the entire City, including the EWPP Area. A proportional share of these costs will be al located to the EWPP recycled water impact fee.

2. EWPP Costs – these are costs specific to the EWPP Area (such as pipes which are needed specifically to connect the EWPP Area to the City ’s recycled water treatment infrastructure and a tank located in the EWPP Area). The EWPP piping will se rve the EWPP Area plus a small number of properties along the route d recycled water lines.

Recycled wa ter demand for these costs t otals 0.93 MGD, 0.85 MGD from the EWPP Area and 0.08 from properties along the route. These costs will be allocat ed to EWPP through the recycled water impact fee.

Table 6.3: Recycled Water Facilities Costs
Item
Total Capital
Cost
(Millions)
Citywide
Costs
EWPP
Costs
Piping 26.20$ 6.80$ 19.40$
Storage Tank 39.10 17.80 21.30
Booster Pumping 10.00 2.80 7.20
Total 75.30$ 27.40$ 47.90$
Source: Recycled Water Feasibility Study Update, Project 18-71.

Figure 5 reproduces a figure from the draft Recycled Water M aster Plan which displays the locations of recycled water CIP projects.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 39 Figure 5: Recycled Water Facilities CIP

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 40 Table 6.4 calculates a cost per EDU for new development in the EWPP Area in three steps:

1. The total costs associated with new citywide development, and new development in the EWPP Area identified in Table 6.3, respectively, are divided by the average daily capacity accommodated by each category of i mprovements to determine a cost per gallon of capacity per day.

2. The cost per gallon of ca pacity per day is multiplied by the gallons of flow per day per EDU to determine a cost per EDU.

3. The costs per EDU for citywide costs and E WPP costs are summed to determine a total cost per EDU for recycled water facilities.

Table 6.4: Cost per EDU
Citywide Costs
Total Project Cost 27,400,000$
Total Average Day Demand (MGD)1

2.39 Cost per GPD 11.46$
GPD per EDU 25
Cost per EDU 287$
EWPP Piping Costs
Total Project Cost 47,900,000$
Total Average Day Demand (MGD)1, 2 0.93
Cost per GPD 51.51$
GPD per EDU 25
Cost per EDU 1,288$
Total Cost per EDU 1,575$
1 Total average day demand identified in Recyceld Water Feasibility Update. 2 EWPP represents 0.85 MGD of average daily demand. Demands along the route represent 0.08 MGD.

Sources: Recycled Water Feasibility Study Update, Project 18-71; City of Mountain View Public Works Department, Recommended Recycled Water Expansion Alternative based on the Recycled Water Feasibility Study Update Memorandum, February 9, 2022; Tables 6.1 and 6.3, Willdan Financial Services.

Projected Fee Revenue
Table 6.5 displays a projection of recycled water impact fee revenue. The total cost per EDU from Table 6.4 is multiplied by th e growth in EDU s from Table 6.2 to determine the fee r evenue generated by new development in the EWPP Area.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 41 Table 6.5: Projected Fee Revenue
Total Cost per EDU 1,575$
Growth in EWPP EDUs 12,107
Projected Fee Revenue 19,068,525$
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.4.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 6.6. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new developmen t based on the EDU factors shown in Table 6.1.

The total f ee includes an administra tive c harge to fund costs that i nclude: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental an d administrative support, (2) capital pl anning, programming, project management costs associated with the sh are of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) f ee program administrative costs including r evenue c ollection, revenue and cost accounting, ma ndated pu blic r eporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Th e admi nistrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted durin g comprehensive impact fe e u pdates to ensu re that revenu e generated from t he charge sufficiently covers, but does not exce ed, the adm inistrative costs associ ated with the fee program.

Table 6.6: Maximum Justified Recycled Water Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Land Use
Cost per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Office/R&D/Industrial (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 1,575$ 2.60 4,095$ 82$ 4,177$ 4.18$ Retail (per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) 1,575 2.60 4,095 82 4,177 4.18 Hotel (per Room) 1,575 2.00 3,150 63 3,213 n/a Residential (per DU, by Bedrooms)
Studio 1,575$ 0.56 882$ 18$ 900$ n/a 1 1,575 0.64 1,008 20 1,028 n/a 2 1,575 1.00 1,575 32 1,607 n/a 3 1,575 1.20 1,890 38 1,928 n/a Per Additional Bedroom 1,575 0.16 252 5 257 n/a 1 Fee per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space, per hotel room or per residential dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.4.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

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

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to en sure that ne w development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. The California Construction Cost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division- Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) is com monly be used fo r adjusting fees for inflation . The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Rec ord and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adj usted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the year the cost estimating was completed for the study, 2022.

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

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five -year reporting requi rements of the Mitigation Fee Act

43 8. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
This chapter recommends findings to be made by the City Coun cil to co mply wi th the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

The four proposed fees are designed to recover from new development in the East Wiseman Precise Plan A rea the cost of providing , resp ectively, Transportation Facilities, Potab le Water Facilities, Sewer Facilities and Recycled Water Facilities that are necessary to s erve such new development. The fees do not allocate to new development any portion of facility cost that remediates existing deficiencies, rather than allowing service to new development. ▪ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is finan cing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, ma y be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

The fees will be u sed, re spectively, to fund Transportation Facilities, Potable Water Facilities, Sewer Facilities and Recycled Water Faciliti es that are either identified the East Whisman Project-Level Transportation Analysis , East Whisman Precise Plan Utility Imp act Study, and C ity of Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study Update , or are identified as providing Transportation, Potable Water, Sewe r or Recycled Water services to the Precise Plan Area.

Proceeds of each of the four fees will be separately acco unted for, and each fee will be used only for its respective service.
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fe es' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

New residential and non residential develop ment wi ll generate trips and will require water and wastewater service. As described in more detail in this Study, the proposed fees will enable the City to accommodate these trips and to provide water and wastewater services to th e new development. The City wil l accommodate the water service demands in the EWPP area with a combination of potable and non -portable facilities. It will accommodate the trip demands in the EWPP Area with a combination of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and multi -modal facilities.

Consequently, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the proposed fees and the types of development on which the fees will be imposed. ▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

The facilities that will be funded are each either (i) neede d to connect new development in the EWPP to the City’s existing infrastructure network or (ii) need ed to expand the capacit y of existing in frastructure so that it can accommodate service demands or trips from the new development. Each new development project is charged only for the share of the cost of the new facilities that is proportionate to the tr ips generated, or water o r sewer service demanded, by the project. Costs associated with remediating existing deficiencies in service or providing service to future development outside of the EWPP area have not been inclu de in the fees. Trip generation and service demand has been calculated for e ach type of development based on the development’s land use characteristics. Consequently, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the identified public facilities and the types of dev elopment on which the fees are imposed.

East Whisman Precise Plan Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 44 ▪ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The amount of the fee had been calculat ed on a pe r trip (transportation) or volumetric (water, sewer) basis. Therefore, each development will pay only for the cost of accom modating the number of trips, or the volume of water or sewer service, that the development is anticipated to generate. Consequently, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee amounts and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities att ributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
▪ Findings relating to Section 66016.5 of the Act.

The fees p roposed by this study for housing development projects are not directly based on the square footage of each dwelling unit included in the housing development. Instead, fees are scaled based on the anticipated number of residents of each dwelling unit, as estima ted based on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit.

This measure was chosen because:

1. Dwelling unit square footage is not an ap propriate metric of water or sewer use because (i) the indoor water and sewer use of a dwelling is not proporti onal to the floor area of the unit but to the number of individuals who use the bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities of the unit, (ii) a dwel ling unit does not generate trips based on its size, but on its occupancy, and (iii) the common area landscaping water use of a development is based on the square footage of landscaping, not the interi or square footage of the dwelling unit, and common area open space is required on a per person/per unit basis rather than a per square foot basis

2. A fee based on projected occupancy (based on number of bedrooms) bears a reasonable relationship to the burden posed by the development upon the City’s water, sewer , and transportation capacity because (for the reasons described above), trip generation and water and sewer service demand is best estimated based on occupancy.

3. This fee structure supports smaller developments and ensure that smaller developments are not c harged disproportionate fees , because dwelling units with less bedrooms (and therefore a lower projected occupancy) will generate a lower fee than dwelling units with more bedrooms. Furthermore, each development will pay only for the number of dwelling units it contains, meaning that a small building with less dwelling units will pay less than a larger building with more dwelling units of the same size. .

45 Appendix

Appendix Table A.1 displays the amount of existing an d new office development within the EWPP Area and the associated trip rates.

AM Peak
Hour Trips
per KSF KSF
Net new office 0.833 2,453
Existing and replaced office 0.995 6,443
Total Average from PP 0.950 8,896
Source: East Whisman Precise Plan – Project Trip Estimates.

Appendix Table A.1: Office Trip Rates and
Building Square Feet

In general, the “Baseline” trip generation estimates used in this nexus analysis may differ from the “Background” trip generation estimates in the Precise Plan EIR for several reasons:

1. Baseline office trip generation in the nexus study is less than Precise Plan Background office trip generation, since the nexus study Baseline assumes some reduction over time of existing buildings’ office trips (through Precise Plan measures, trip internalization and some new enforcement).

2. The nexus study combines office, industrial and R&D into a single land use category, and corresponding trip generation rate, for the purpose of calculating and allocating fee responsibility.

3. The nexus study Baseline also includes some residential dwelling units and floor area that were included in the Precise Plan Cumulative Baseline (Transfer of Development Rights projects).

4. Residential trip generation estimates differ because the EIR analyzed a larger geography.

Some traffic analysis zones (TAZ) used for traffic modeling extended beyond the Precise Plan and included other units outside of the Precise Plan boundaries.

5. Retail trip generation rates are different to incorporate a reduction for pass-by trips.