Pleasanton City Council
December 17, 2024

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
REVISED 12-16-2024
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
7:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
The meeting will be held in-person, broadcast live on Channel 29 and at https://www.trivalleytv.org and streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCityofPleasanton.

Public participation: It is requested that members of the public wishing to address the City Council submit a speaker card. When public comment is opened on an agenda item, individuals may speak once per agenda item.

To submit written public comment regarding an open session item on this meeting agenda visit https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment. Comments will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.

In Person at Council Chamber:
• Submit a physical speaker card to the City Clerk at the meeting. When your name is called, please provide comment at the podium.

CALL TO ORDER
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Roll Call
Resolution No. 2024-076
Ordinance No. 2289

SPECIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

1. Adopt a resolution declaring results of the General Municipal Election held November 5, 2024, for officers and ballot measure

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 2288 amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 regarding Tree Preservation

3. Adopt 1) a resolution approving and adopting the Nexus Studies prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated November 25, 2024, and by Raftelis, dated October 17, 2024, to update the City’s Development Impact Fees; and amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to increase the City’s Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee (also referred to as the Transportation Development Fee), Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, and Water and Wastewater Connection Fees; and 2) introduce an ordinance amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee, Chapter

3.26 – Transportation Development Fee, and Chapter 14.04 – Regulation of Water City Council Agenda Page 2 of 4 December 17, 2024
System and Water Service Fee to align with the Nexus Studies and make other technical updates and corrections

RECOGNITION AND REMARKS
• Public Comment - Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.
• Councilmember Valerie Arkin
• Mayor Karla Brown

OATH OF OFFICE
• Mayor-elect Jack Balch
• Councilmember-elect Craig Eicher
• Councilmember-elect Matthew B. Gaidos

REMARKS
• Councilmember-elect Craig Eicher
• Councilmember-elect Matthew B. Gaidos
• Mayor-elect Jack Balch

ROLL CALL

AGENDA AMENDMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.

City Council

4. Ratify Mayor's appointment of a Vice Mayor and City Council assignments to various boards and commissions for calendar year 2025
City Manager

5. Adopt a resolution setting the 2025 calendar year City Council meeting schedule Community Development

6. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission

7. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept award of the U.S.

Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding in the amount of $140,450 for the Climate Action Plan 2.0 Project and approve budget amendments to allocate the funds to CIP No. 24461 City Council Agenda Page 3 of 4 December 17, 2024
Finance

8. Adopt a resolution finding that certain development impact fees subject to AB 1600 and SB 1693 are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects
Human Resources

9. Adopt a resolution approving compensation for temporary/seasonal employees and amending the temporary, part-time/seasonal classification salary structure Library and Recreation

10. Accept the donation of the public artwork Hope and Promise mural and frame

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

11. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda – Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS
If necessary to ensure completion of the following items, the Mayor may alter time limits.

12. Approve the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget engagement plan

13. Approve the establishment of a Budget Advisory Committee and appoint members

14. Adopt a CIP Process and Prioritization Strategy

15. A) Adopt a resolution approving an addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; introduce an ordinance to approve: (1) Planned Unit Development rezoning (P21-1173) of two parcels totaling approximately 2.3 acres in area from C-C (Central-Commercial) to PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use) District; and (2) A PUD-MU development plan (PUD-146) to: (a) retain the two-story single-family home and construct a twostory addition to the north side of the home; (b) demolish the detached accessory dwelling unit, Barone's restaurant, and all other structures and site modifications; and (c) construct 14 detached single-family homes and two commercial buildings with a public plaza and parking lot, new private street, and related site improvements; and
B) Adopt a resolution to approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 8631) to subdivide the 2.3 acres into 15 single-family lots, one commercial lot, and three private common space parcels located at 475 and 493 St. John Street

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL

COUNCIL REPORTS
City Council Agenda Page 4 of 4 December 17, 2024
Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the Council

ADJOURNMENT
Notice
Under Government Code §54957.5, any writings/documents regarding an open session item on this agenda and items received by the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be available for public inspection on the City’s website https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/ and also at the Pleasanton Library located at 400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, CA 94566.

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

Accessible Public Meetings
The City of Pleasanton can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation (e.g., an assistive listening device), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 or (925) 931-5027 at the earliest possible time. If you need translation or interpretation assistance, please provide at least two working days’ notice prior to the meeting date.

Item #1

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
City Clerk
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR OFFICERS AND BALLOT

MEASURE

SUMMARY
A General Municipal Election was held on November 5, 2024 for the purpose of electing a Mayor and two City Councilmembers (District 2 and District 4) and to vote on a local measure.

The City consolidated its election with the California State General Election and coordinated with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters to canvass the returns. The Registrar of Voters has completed the official canvass and has provided the City with a Statement of Results of all votes cast for each candidate and for the measure.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution reciting the facts of the General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024 declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law.

BACKGROUND
The City holds its General Municipal Election for officers every other year in even-numbered years. A General Municipal Election was held on November 5, 2024 for the purpose of electing a Mayor and two City Councilmembers (District 2 and District 4). In 2024, the General Municipal Election also included local Measure PP.

DISCUSSION
City Council members are elected to a term of 4 years and the Mayor is elected to a term of 2 years.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable as this process is required to effectuate City governance.

OUTREACH
Not applicable as this process is required to effectuate City governance.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable as this process is required to effectuate City governance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON,

CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE CONSOLIDATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, DECLARING THE RESULTS

AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Pleasanton, California, Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects, the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in general law cities; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Elections Department canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the whole number of votes (ballots) cast in said election in the City is as follows:

For Mayor: 37,658 votes
For Member of City Council, District 2: 9,792 votes
For Member of City Council, District 4: 10,682 votes
For Measure PP: 37,659 votes
SECTION 2. That the names of the persons voted for at the election are as follows:

For Mayor: Jack Balch, Karla Brown
For member of the City Council, District 2: Craig Eicher, Valerie Arkin For member of the City Council, District 4: Vivek Mohan, Matthew B. Gaidos SECTION 3. That the name of the measure voted upon at the election is as follows:

Measure PP – Pleasanton Essential Services Protection Measure.

SECTION 4. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of the persons above named for the respective offices for which the persons were candidates and for and against the measure is listed in Exhibit A, attached.

Resolution No. 2024-

SECTION 5. The City Council does declare and determine that:

Jack Balch was elected Mayor for a full term of two years; Craig Eicher was elected as Member of the City Council, District 2 for a full term of four years; Matthew B. Gaidos was elected as Member of the City Council, District 4 for a full term of four years.

As a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on Measure PP did not vote in favor of it, and that the measure was not carried and shall not be deemed adopted and ratified.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall enter in the records of the City Council of the City, a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) the whole number of votes cast in the City; (2) the names of the persons voted for; (3) the measure voted upon; (4) for what office each person was voted for; (5) the number of votes given to each person, and for and against each measure.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of the persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the office of the City Clerk. Each and all the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at an adjourned regular meeting held on the 17th day of December 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A

Item #2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2288 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PLEASANTON AMENDING PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

17.16 TREE PRESERVATION
The foregoing Ordinance No. 2288 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

ORDINANCE NO. 2288

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.16 TREE PRESERVATION
WHEREAS, the City Council prioritized the preparation of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) and approved the project, CIP No. 22773, as part of the FY2021/22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested amendments to municipal code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation to improve the process and clarify the language as part of the UFMP process.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Finds that the proposed amendments to the Pleasanton Municipal Code are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) §15061(b)(3).

SECTION 2. Amends and replaces Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in “The Valley Times,” a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Pleasanton, and the complete ordinance shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk’s office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, California, on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

______________________________
Karla Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Ordinance No. 2288

Exhibit A
Chapter 17.16 TREE PRESERVATION
• 17.16.003 Purpose and intent.
• 17.16.006 Definitions.
• 17.16.010 Permit—Required.
• 17.16.020 Permit—Procedure.
• 17.16.040 Appeals.
• 17.16.045 Protected Tree Board of Appeals.
• 17.16.050 New property development.
• 17.16.060 Emergency action.
• 17.16.065 Special Condition Permit.
• 17.16.070 Protection of existing trees.
• 17.16.080 Pruning and maintenance.
• 17.16.090 Public utilities.
• 17.16.100 Insurance requirements.
• 17.16.110 Penalties.
• 17.16.120 Additional provisions.

17.16.003 Purpose and intent.

The City recognizes that preservation of trees enhances the natural scenic beauty, sustains the longterm potential increase in property values which encourages quality development, maintains the ecology, moderates the effect of extreme temperatures, prevents the erosion of topsoil, helps create an identity and quality, which enhances the attractiveness of the city to visitors, and increases the oxygen output of the area which is needed to combat air pollution. For these reasons the city council finds that to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the city while at the same time recognizing individual rights to develop and maintain private property in a manner which will not be prejudicial to the public interest, it is necessary to enact regulations prescribing the removal and preservation of trees within the city. The City also recognizes that under certain circumstances protected trees may be removed. Those circumstances generally include: where protected trees are dangerous; are dead or diseased; are so situated on undeveloped land that their preservation would preclude reasonable development; are so abundant their removal would not destroy the area’s natural beauty or ecology or cause erosion on the property. It is the intent of this chapter to preserve as many trees as possible throughout the city through staff review and the development review process.

17.16.006 Definitions.

For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms used in this chapter are defined as follows:

A. “Protected Tree” means a tree of any species or origin which meets any of the following:

For native species:

Ordinance No. 2288

1. Any single-trunked tree with a minimum trunk circumference of 37 inches measured four and one-half feet above ground level (54 inches).

2. Any multi-trunked tree with a minimum circumference of 37 inches measured below the split at the narrowest point below the main attachment or at the base if applicable.

3. The following tree species shall be considered native:
- Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
- Box Elder (Acer negundo)
- California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
- California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
- Canyon Oak (Quercus chrysolepis)
- Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
- Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii)
- Blue Oak (Quercus douglassii)
- California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
- Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
- California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica)
- California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii)
- Tan Oak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus)
For non-native species (any other species not listed in item A3):

1. Any single-trunked tree with a minimum trunk circumference of 55 inches measured four and one-half feet above ground level (54 inches).

2. Any multi-trunked tree with a minimum trunk circumference of 55 inches measured below the split at the narrowest point below the main attachment or at the base if applicable.

B. “Applicant” means the owner of property who is submitting an application to remove a Protected Tree located upon said property. Only the property owner, or their authorized representative, may apply to remove a Protected Tree.

C. “Application” means the Application for Protected Tree Removal form.

D. “Approved Consulting Arborist” means a Consulting Arborist who is approved by the Director for having the minimum qualifications to provide arborist reports satisfactory to the City for planning and development purposes.

E. “Consulting Arborist” means an individual in the profession of arboriculture who has demonstrated their experience, education, and related training to the City that they possess the competence to provide an arborist report, risk assessment, tree survey and appraisal of tree values as well as supervise the care and maintenance of trees; and who is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists.

F. “City” means the City of Pleasanton acting by and through its authorized representatives.

Ordinance No. 2288

G. “Director” means the Director of the City department that oversees tree removals or the Director’s designee.

H. “Dripline” means the outermost circumference of the tree or trees’ canopy, from which water drips onto the ground. The 'dripline' is taken to include the area that lies within that circumference.

I. “Effectively Remove” means actions that foreseeably lead to the death of a Protected Tree or permanent damage to its health. Effective removal actions include, but are not limited to:

1. Any extreme root or branch pruning that is not consistent with standard arboriculture practices for a healthy tree;

2. Removal of the bark around the circumference of the tree (girdling);

3. Compaction of soil within the dripline;

4. Introduction of harmful chemicals;

5. Introduction of harmful foreign objects into tree or root system;

6. Introduction of pests or disease;

7. Unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree; and

8. Trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline.

J. “Emergency” means a sudden, serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, property, or essential public services.

An emergency tree situation typically includes but is not limited to: a tree failure that is active and in progress, such as a broken but still attached branch; a partially uprooted tree; or a split fork or bifurcated main stem, that meets the “extreme” or “high” risk characteristics as defined by the International Society of Arboriculture.

K. “Heritage Tree” means a tree that is considered irreplaceable. It may be any tree found on public or private property that has special significance to the community due to its history, size (circumference and/or height), species, or unique quality. The Landscape Architecture Section shall be responsible for overseeing the Heritage Tree Program. A request for designation as a Heritage Tree must come from the owner of the property where the tree is growing, or if nominating someone else’s tree, must have the property owner’s written permission to nominate the tree. Trees which are on properties that come under development review, may be designated as Heritage Trees during the review process by either the property owner or the Director. Any pruning of Heritage Trees shall be done in consultation with the City’s arborist to ensure that the work performed on or around the tree will not endanger its health, structure, or life of the tree.

L. “Multi-trunk tree” means a tree having more than one major supporting stem or trunk growing from a single root mass located at ground level or just above the trunk flare, capable of naturally exceeding ten feet in height at maturity. A multi-trunk tree does not include suckering growth or subordinate root sprouts.

M. “Pruning” means the selective removal of plant parts to meet specific goals and objectives, including but not limited safety and risk reduction; clearance; growth control; and to enhance

Ordinance No. 2288

performance or function by developing and preserving tree structure and health or preserving or improving wildlife habitat.

N. “Topping” means the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role.

O. “Trunk” means the primary structural woody part of the tree beginning at and including the trunk flare and extending up into the crown from which scaffold branches grow.

17.16.010 Permit—Required.

A. No person shall remove, or Effectively Remove, any Protected Tree growing within the city without a permit except as provided in this chapter.

B. Normal maintenance and pruning of a Protected Tree shall not require a permit but shall in all cases be in conformance with the guidelines in Section 17.16.080. Pruning which, in the reasonable opinion of the Director, is not consistent with these guidelines shall be subject to penalties as provided in Section 17.16.110 of this chapter.

17.16.020 Permit—Procedure.

A. Except as provided in Section 17.16.050 of this chapter, any person desiring to remove a Protected Tree in the city shall submit an application to the Director on a form provided by the city.

Said application shall contain the number, species, size and location of Protected Trees to be removed and a brief statement of the reason for removal as well as any other pertinent information.

The permit, if granted, shall entitle the Applicant to remove only the Protected Tree(s) designated by permit.

B. When an Applicant submits an Application, the Applicant agrees to allow the Director to access the property to inspect the Protected Tree(s) and the surrounding area to make a determination on whether a permit to remove the tree shall be granted.

C. The Director may grant a permit to remove a Protected Tree if any of the following apply:

1. The tree is dead, dying, or diseased and good forestry practices cannot be reasonably undertaken to preserve it;

2. The tree is in such a dangerous or hazardous condition as to threaten or endanger the safety of people, structures, property, or other protected trees;

3. The tree has outgrown its planting space and is causing damage to utilities (e.g., water and sewer lines), structures or other significant improvements on the property (e.g., the foundation of a home, driveway, swimming pool, etc.), and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to repair the damage and preserve the tree;

4. The tree must be removed in order to construct improvements to allow for the economic enjoyment of the property (e.g., expansion of the existing home, construction of an Accessory

Ordinance No. 2288

Dwelling Unit, installation of a pool, etc.) and, at the discretion of the Director, the tree is situated on a parcel such that its preservation would preclude reasonable development;

5. After determining the number and quality of existing trees in the neighborhood or surrounding improved areas, removal of the tree would not negatively affect the goals and objectives of urban forest sustainability, canopy cover, public health, safety, general welfare of residents and upon the property values and beauty of the area; and

6. The tree is in a high or very high fire severity zone as identified by CalFire’s current Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, poses an increased risk to life or property as determined by the Fire Marshal of the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to mitigate the risk and preserve the tree.

D. The following shall not be considered as reasons for a Protected Tree to be removed:

1. A general dislike or fear of a particular species or variety of tree;

2. Tree debris, e.g., leaves, messy fruit, pods, seeds, etc.;

3. Tree pollen that causes allergies;

4. Nuisances created from non-lethal pests and diseases, e.g., aphids;

5. Surface root intrusion

6. Landscape renovations
E. The Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the determination to approve or deny the Applicant’s request for a removal permit (and the basis for the denial if the application is denied).

F. Upon determination by the Director, the Applicant shall plant climate-appropriate replacement tree(s) at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement ratio and 15-gallon size and irrigate for the establishment of such tree(s) unless otherwise specified by the Director. The Director may also require that the replacement tree(s) is/are an approved recommended species by the City and shall determine the size of the tree(s) and the timeline for planting the tree(s).

Ordinance No. 2288

17.16.040 Appeals
A. The Director’s decision to deny an application to remove a Protected Tree may be appealed only by the Applicant. Such appeal must be signed by the Applicant and submitted in writing to the City Clerk within 20 days of the date of the Director’s written decision and shall briefly state the basis for appeal and relevant facts supporting the appeal.

B. The cost of the appeal shall be the same as the cost to appeal a Planning Division decision as listed in the current City of Pleasanton Master Fee Schedule and shall be refunded if the appeal is successful.

C. Appeals shall be heard by the Protected Tree Board of Appeals.

D. The Director shall set a date for the hearing and shall mail notice of the hearing to the Applicant and all properties within 300 feet of the Applicant’s property. The Director shall submit a report to the Protected Tree Board of Appeals along with any recommendations.

17.16.045 Protected Tree Board of Appeals
A. The Protected Tree Board of Appeals (Board) shall consist of two planning commissioners, and one parks and recreation commissioner (which are appointed by their respective commissions to serve on the Board). Every year, the Board shall select a chairperson from among the three commissioners. The Director shall be an ex officio member of said Board and shall serve as secretary.

B. The Board shall:

1. Hold a hearing within 60 days after the city’s receipt of appeal (or later if agreed to by the Director and the Applicant) to hear information from any department of the city, the Applicant who filed the appeal, and any interested parties.

2. The Board shall consider all information presented and shall make a decision at the hearing (unless the hearing is continued) upholding, reversing, or modifying the Director’s decision, or by taking any action which is consistent with this Chapter. The decision of the Board on any such appeal shall be final and conclusive.

17.16.050 New property development.

A. This section is intended to apply to major development such as land development for new housing or commercial projects, and modifications to existing commercial property. Any person desiring to remove one or more trees (including trees that are not Protected Trees) on any property in the city that is related to the development of such property requiring city approval or where any tree may be affected by a proposed development shall include in the application to the appropriate city reviewing body as part of the regular application, the following:

1. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require the Applicant to provide a tree survey plan that includes all trees that may be affected by the new development.

The survey, noting all trees 19 inches in circumference and greater, shall specify the precise

Ordinance No. 2288

location of trunk and dripline, size, health and species of all trees that will be affected by the new development on the property with a special notation of those classified as a Protected Tree;

2. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require the Applicant to provide an arborist report that includes all trees that may be affected by the new development by an Approved Consulting Arborist.
a. The arborist report, based on the findings of the tree survey plan and other necessary information, shall be used to determine the health of existing trees, the effects of the proposed development upon the trees, recommendations for any special precautions necessary for their preservation and shall also indicate which trees are proposed for removal.
b. The Director shall require that the arborist report include an appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees affected by the development. The appraisal of each tree shall recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal” under the auspices of the International Society of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed at the Applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be completed by an Approved Consulting Arborist.
c. The tree survey plan and arborist report shall be included in the plan submittal, at which stage the Director will comment on which trees are recommended for preservation using the same standards set forth in Section 17.16.020 of this chapter. This report shall be made part of the plan set provided to the City reviewing body upon its consideration of the application for new property development;

3. The city reviewing body shall endeavor to preserve all trees recommended for preservation in the arborist report. The City reviewing body may determine that additional trees shall be preserved or that any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed, if there is sufficient evidence in the report, or based on a site visit, that the preservation of the tree(s) would significantly preclude reasonable development of the property or effectively remove said tree(s);
a. If trees are approved for removal, mitigation may include but is not limited to: (i) replacement planting with particular tree species, sizes, and numbers; (ii) payment towards the City’s urban forestry fund suitable for the appraised value of all trees removed from the site less the cost of installed trees, as reasonably determined by the Director.

4. Approval of final site or landscape plans by the appropriate city reviewing body indicating which trees are to be removed shall constitute the approval and permit for the purpose of this chapter.

Ordinance No. 2288

B. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require that prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements or final inspection, the developer shall submit to the Director a final arborist report to be performed by an Approved Consulting Arborist. This report shall consider all trees that were to remain within the development. The report shall note the trees’ health in relation to the initially reported condition of the trees and shall note any changes in the trees’ identification number or physical conditions.

1. The Applicant will be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For trees which were not previously approved for removal but were in fact removed during construction, the developer shall pay a penalty in the amount equal to the appraised value of the subject tree.

2. The property owner is responsible for the health and survival of the trees not approved for removal within the development for a period of one year following the final inspection. The Director may make the developer responsible for survival of trees for a longer period should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction; and such extension period shall be in writing.

C. Prior to the issuance of any permit allowing construction to begin, the Applicant shall post cash, bond, or other security satisfactory to the Director, in the sum of either $100 for each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk (when measured 54 inches above grade) or the appraised value for each tree required to be preserved, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of $200,000. The cash, bond, or other security shall be retained for a period of one year following acceptance of the public improvements for the development or final inspection, as applicable, and shall be forfeited in an amount equal to the greater of either $100 per each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk (when measured 54 inches above grade), or the appraised value of the tree as a civil penalty in the event that a tree or trees required to be preserved are removed or Effectively Removed. The Director may allow for the early release of all or a portion of such cash, bond, or other security in the Director’s reasonable discretion. The Director may require the retention of the security for an additional time period beyond one year should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction. Such a requirement would be set forth in writing.

D. An Applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified consulting arborist.

E. Any decision by a city reviewing body under this section may be appealed to City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.144.

Ordinance No. 2288

17.16.060 Emergency action.

A person may remove a Protected Tree without a permit if there is an Emergency, as defined in section 17.16.006. In such event, the Director shall be notified at the earliest opportunity in order to confirm the Emergency. If the Director determines that the situation was not an emergency requiring immediate action, the person removing or damaging the Protected Tree may be subject to penalties set forth in Section 17.16.110 of this chapter.

17.16.070 Protection of existing trees.

For minor development (as described in section 17.16.020(C)(4)), permission to remove a Protected Tree shall be handled as part of the building permit process, and the applicant shall comply with the following conditions:

A. The current version of the City Standard Details and Specifications for tree protection.

B. Mitigation as described in section 17.16.020(F).

C. If the project requires an arborist’s report, the applicant must follow the recommendations for tree protection in the arborist’s report and, at the discretion of the Director, may be required to provide a tree bond and/or a payment towards the City’s urban forestry fund based on the appraised value of the trees removed from the site less the cost of installed trees.

D. Retain the services of an Approved Consulting Arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The Approved Consulting Arborist shall confirm tree protection measures are installed prior to construction and be present whenever activities occur which pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved (for example, when work occurs within the dripline of trees to be preserved).

E. The Director shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a tree during construction so that appropriate measures may be administered.

17.16.080 Pruning and maintenance.

All pruning of Protected Trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, in accordance with pruning guidelines, established by the current versions of the ISA Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 - Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices, Pruning, and any special conditions as determined by the Director.

17.16.090 Public utilities.

A. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Protected Tree shall notify the City and obtain an encroachment permit before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to the Protected Tree.

B. The Director shall inspect said pruning work to ensure that appropriate pruning practices are followed. The public utility shall follow pruning practices conforming to the International Society

Ordinance No. 2288

of Arboriculture pruning standards to promote the well-being of the tree. Topping shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by the Director. The Director shall stop any tree pruning performed by a utility if said practices are not being followed.

17.16.100 Insurance requirements.

Any person engaged in the business of pruning a Protected Tree within the city shall be licensed with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and shall carry insurance as required by the CSLB.

17.16.110 Penalties.

A. Any person who unlawfully removes or Effectively Removes a Protected Tree in violation of this chapter shall pay a civil penalty of $100 for each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk when measured 54 inches above grade (or measured at the height of the remaining trunk if less than 54 inches), or the appraised value of the tree, whichever is greater. The appraised value of the tree(s) shall be determined by the Director in accordance with the “Guide for Plant Appraisal” pursuant to the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). If there is no measurable part of the tree remaining, resources such as photographs, past plans, or Google Earth Streetview may be used to determine tree species and approximate size. If such resources are unavailable or the evaluator is not able to determine tree species and approximate size, then a minimum fine of $5,000, or other amount as determined by the Director, will be charged.

B. If there are mitigating factors or other circumstances that may warrant reducing the penalties set forth above, the Director shall have the discretion to reduce the penalty to a lesser amount on a case-by-case basis.

C. The property owner who hired such person to prune or remove a Protected Tree shall be responsible for payment of the penalty unless otherwise determined by the Director. The collection of penalties may be enforced through the use of a collection agency or by civil action brought by the City.

D. The penalty imposed by the Director, may be appealed by the person subject to such penalty by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk within 20 days of the date of the imposition of such penalty, and shall state the facts and grounds for the appeal and be signed by the appellant. Such appeal will be heard by the Protected Tree Board of Appeals as provided in Section 17.16.045.

E. The Director may consider the cost of replacement tree(s) as partial payment of any penalty under this chapter.

F. The failure of a person to plant a replacement tree(s) within one year, or water and care for such replacement tree(s) until establishment, shall be subject to penalties for the value of the original tree(s) removed, as provided in Subsection A, above, as reasonably determined by the Director.

Ordinance No. 2288

G. In addition to the penalties set forth above, where a Protected Tree has been unlawfully removed or Effectively Removed, the Director may suspend permit processing, issue a stop work notice, or revoke permits for construction (where construction has not begun.)

17.16.120 Additional provisions.

The provisions of this chapter shall supplement but not supplant other provisions of this code relating to the preservation of trees.

Item #3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: ADOPT 1) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE NEXUS STUDIES PREPARED BY ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC., DATED NOVEMBER 25, 2024, AND BY RAFTELIS, DATED OCTOBER 17, 2024, TO UPDATE THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; AND AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE THE CITY’S CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE,

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE (ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE), COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE,

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE, AND WATER AND WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEES; AND 2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 3.22 – CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE, CHAPTER 3.26 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND CHAPTER

14.04 – REGULATION OF WATER SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEE TO

ALIGN WITH THE NEXUS STUDIES AND MAKE OTHER TECHNICAL UPDATES

AND CORRECTIONS

SUMMARY
City staff and a professional services team have completed the necessary nexus studies to update the CIty's various impact and other fees that mitigate the impact of new development on public facilities, infrastructure, and affordable housing. The updated studies, conducted in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, support increases to the Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Impact Fee (also known as the Transportation Development Fee), Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing Fee, and Water and Sewer Connection Fees.

At three public study sessions in May, August and November, 2024, the City Council considered and provided direction on the results of the nexus studies, including consideration of the maximum fee levels supported by the study, and the appropriate rates at which fees should be set, whether at or below the maximum. At the most recent meeting on November 19, 2024, based on analysis that considered development feasibility and comparability of potential new fees with those charged by neighboring jurisdictions, the City Council provided direction to staff on preferred fee levels, in most cases to set fees below the maximums justified by the nexus studies. This item presents, for City Council adoption, the Nexus Fee studies, a resolution to establish fees, consistent with the City Council's November 19 direction, and an Ordinance to make related amendments and other technical updates to the Pleasanton Municipal Code, related to the Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Demand Fee, and Water Connection Fee.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt 1) a resolution approving and adopting the Nexus Studies prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated November 25, 2024, and by Raftelis, dated October 17, 2024, to update the City’s Development Impact Fees; and amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to increase the City’s Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee (also referred to as the Transportation Development Fee), Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing In-Lieu

Fee, and Water and Wastewater Connection Fees; and 2) introduce an ordinance amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee, Chapter 3.26 – Transportation Development Fee, and Chapter 14.04 – Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fee to align with the Nexus Studies and make other technical updates and corrections.

BACKGROUND
Since early 2024, City staff and a professional services team led by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) have been undertaking work to update the City’s Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing Fees, and to update the existing Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO).

As a concurrent effort, the City, working with Raftelis, is also completing a study to update the local water and wastewater (sewer) connection fees.

The City Council held three workshops on May 7, August 20, and November 19, 2024, to discuss the fee updates and IZO. At these workshops, the City Council received information on the preliminary findings of the nexus studies, and analysis of the relationship between total fee burdens, inclusive of local impact fees, and development feasibility. Following an additional study session on October 15, 2024, on November 19, 2024 the City Council adopted amendments to the IZO, which included modifications to the inclusionary rate; this rate affects the calculation and consideration of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee, which is among the updated fees under review.

At the November 19, 2024, meeting, staff presented the Draft Nexus Studies and a series of alternatives and recommendations with respect to the level or amount of the various impact fees and affordable housing fees across different land use categories. The majority of fees, with the exception of the water and sewer connection fees, and fees for townhome developments, were recommended to be set below the maximum level supported by the Nexus Studies. The City Council, by a 4-1 vote, supported the staff-recommended alternatives.

The resultant fee levels, following the City Council's direction, are reflected in the draft fee master fee schedule amendments for adoption (Attachment 1, Exhibit C) and outlined below.

Also presented for City Council adoption is an ordinance amending several chapters of the Pleasanton Municipal Code related to fees: the amendments to Chapter 3.22, Chapter 3.26 and Chapter 14.04, to make the certain provisions more consistent across Chapters 3.22 and

3.26; align the PMC to the nexus studies; and make other minor technical updates.

The November 19, 2024, Agenda Report (Attachment 3) provides additional background on the Nexus Studies, the regulatory requirements of State law governing the preparation of those studies, the methodology and results of the Nexus Studies, and each of the alternatives presented for City Council consideration and direction.

DISCUSSION
Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing Fee Study EPS prepared the Draft Fee Update and Nexus Study – City of Pleasanton Development Impact, Commercial Linkage and Housing In-Lieu Fee (Draft Fee Update and Nexus Study), which includes the necessary background, analysis, and documentation to support the adoption of updated fees (Attachment 1, Exhibit A). The study was prepared in accordance with all applicable requirements of State law, including AB1600 and AB 602, as documented in detail in the attachment.

The Draft Fee Update and Nexus Study addresses three main categories of fees:

1. Development Impact Fees, which include the City’s Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) and Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), which offset the cost of new and expanded public facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of new residents and employees associated with new development.

2. A Commercial Linkage Fee with respect to housing, which is intended to offset or capture the impact of new commercial development on the demand for affordable housing, in the form of contributing new employees and related housing demand.

3. An Affordable Housing Fee, also known as an “inclusionary in-lieu fee,” is levied for residential projects that are not required to build on-site affordable housing units or that may be permitted by the City to pay fees “in-lieu” of constructing units on-site.

Table 1 summarizes the maximum Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, and Commercial Linkage Fee that can be supported, based on the analysis in the study. While the study supports increases to most of the fees, the City Council may choose, by policy, to set the fees at or below the maximum. The proposed fees are to be levied on a per-square-foot basis for all development types, including residential projects, which were previously assessed on a per-unit basis. As shown in Table 2, there are some limited cases in which residential fees would be charged per unit, for very large and very small units, for which there is lack of a direct nexus between unit size and project impact above or below those size thresholds.

Table 1: Summary of Maximum Development Impact Fees, Commercial Linkage Fees and Inclusionary Housing Fees
Land Use Capital
Facilities
Fee1
Transportation
Fee1
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Inclusionary
In-Lieu Fee
Total
Residential (per sq. ft)
Single Family
Detached
$11.87 $8.23 -- $84.24 $104.35
Townhome $11.87 $8.23 -- $42.10 $62.20
Multi-Family $23.48 $12.47 -- $69.19 $105.14
Non-Residential
Office (per sq. ft) $13.41 $31.50 $142.42 -- $187.34
Retail (per sq. ft) $9.15 $48.35 $578.73 -- $636.26
Industrial (per
sq.ft)
$4.02 $17.94 $143.39 -- $165.35
Lodging (per
room)
$671 $12,908 $36,430 -- $50,009

1. Includes 2% Administrative Charge

Table 2: Maximum Capital Facilities and Transportation Fee (Combined), Per Square Foot
Unit Type Fee per Square Foot
$20.10 per square foot (Units 824-4,500
square feet)
Minimum Fee (Units 824 square feet or
less: $16,567
Single-Family (including Detached and
Townhome Units)
Maximum Fee: Units 4,500 square feet or
more: $90,437
$35.95 per square foot
Minimum Fee (Units 417 sq.ft or less):
$14,982 per unit
Multi-Family
Maximum Fee (Units 1,600 square feet or
more): $57,517 per unit
Water and Wastewater Connection Fees
Raftelis has prepared the Draft Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study, which includes the necessary background, analysis and documentation to support the adoption of updated connection fees (Attachment 1, Exhibit B). Tables 3 and 4 indicate the maximum justifiable connection fee amounts for water and wastewater, respectively.

Table 3: Water Connection Fees (See Attachment 1, Exhibit B, Tables 8 and 9 for full list of water connection fees)
Meter Size Meter
Capacity
2024 Update
Maximum Allowable
5/8" 25 $2,721.29
3/4" 35 $3,809.81
1" 55 $5,986.84

1.5" 120 $13,062.20
Table 4: Wastewater Connection Fees by Equivalent Dwelling Unit (See Attachment 1, Exhibit B, Table 10 for full list of wastewater connection fees, including non-residential uses)
EDU
Ratio
Factor 2024 Update
Maximum
Allowable
Single Family
Residential (SFR) 1 unit $556.24
Secondary Dwelling
Unit 0.004
square
foot $2.22
Townhome/Duplex 1 per unit $556.24
Condominium 0.75 per unit $417.18
Apartment/Mobile
Home 0.66 per unit $367.12

Recommended Fees for Adoption
As described above, a significant consideration in the City Council’s discussion of the fee updates, was the level at which those fees should be set, whether at or below the maximum supportable by the Nexus Studies. The City Council considered various alternatives and options in evaluating the appropriate fee levels, with an emphasis on balancing the need to help offset costs of new infrastructure and facilities, with considering overall development feasibility and comparability to peer jurisdictions. The nexus analysis generally finds that new growth and the cost of infrastructure and facilities to serve it could justify significantly higher impact fees. However, in setting the level of the fees, there are tradeoffs to be considered; in particular, setting fees at a very high level could have the negative consequence of discouraging, or making infeasible, new development or investment in the city, which could have longer-term fiscal implications.

After discussion, at the November 17 study session, the City Council provided direction to establish fees in consideration of the various factors above. The recommended initial fee amounts to be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule are summarized below:

Water and Wastewater Connection Fees
The City Council recommended the water and wastewater fees be set at the maximum levels justified by the Nexus Study, as reflected in Tables 3 and 4 above and in Tables 8, 9, and 10 of the Raftelis Nexus Study (Attachment 1, Exhibit B,).

Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
The recommended fee levels for residential and non-residential land uses are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below, organized by land use.

Table 5 includes the maximum allowable, versus the actual recommended fees for all residential land use categories.

Not shown in the table, but reflected in the proposed Master Fee Schedule Amendments in Exhibit C to Attachment 1, are recommended fees for Accessory Dwelling Units. For ADUs, the proposed fee schedule follows the structure of the existing fee schedule, which does not charge impact fees for ADUs up to 750 square feet (as is required by State law), charges a reduced rate of 25 percent of the typical rate per square foot for smaller ADUs between 750 and 1,000 square feet, and 50 percent of the typical rate for ADUs larger than 1,000 square feet. This structure supports the production of ADUs more generally, by reducing fees relative to those of primary units, and providing a further discount to incentivize smaller and more affordable ADUs. This approach also meets the requirements of State law, which does not permit fees for ADUs to exceed 50 percent of those typically charged for the primary dwelling unit, and requires fees for ADUs to be charged such that they are proportionate to the size of the ADU, relative to the primary unit.

Table 5: Residential Projects: Maximum Versus Recommended Capital Facilities, Transportation Development and Affordable Housing Fees for Adoption Land Use Maximum Fee per Nexus
Study
Recommended Fee
Single-Family Detached (per sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $11.87 $11.871
Transportation Development
Fee
$8.23 $8.231
Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Fee
$84.25 $42.10
Total Fee $104.35 $62.20
Townhome (per sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $11.87 $11.871
Transportation Development
Fee
$8.23 $8.231
Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Fee
$42.10 $42.10
Total Fee $62.20 $62.20
Multi-Family (per sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $23.48 $23.482
Transportation Development
Fee
$12.47 $12.472
Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Fee
$69.19 $42.21
Total Fee $105.15 $78.16

1. Fee shown is per square foot for Single-Family and Townhome Units between 825 and 4,499 square feet. See Exhibit A for other unit sizes.

2. Fee shown is per square foot for Multi-Family Units 418-1,599 square feet. See Exhibit A for other unit sizes.

Table 6, below includes the maximum versus the recommended fees for all non-residential land use categories. Note that the non-residential fees discussed by the City Council on November 19 were presented for the Office land use category only; other commercial land use categories are listed below, reflecting proportionate adjustments to fees, in line with the direction provided for the Office land use.

Table 6: Non-Residential Projects: Maximum versus Recommended Capital Facilities, Transportation and Commercial Linkage Fees for Adoption Land Use Maximum Fee per Nexus
Study1
Recommended Fee
Office (per sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $13.41 $10.15
Transportation Development
Fee
$31.50 $10.15
Commercial Linkage Fee $8.98 $2.49
Total Fee $53.89 $22.79
Retail/Commercial (per
sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $9.15 $6.93
Transportation Development
Fee
$48.35 $15.58
Commercial Linkage Fee $5.38 $1.49
Total Fee $62.88 $24.00
Industrial (per sq.ft)
Capital Facilities Fee $4.02 $3.04
Transportation Development
Fee
$17.92 $5.77
Commercial Linkage Fee $14.91 $4.13
Total Fee $36.85 $12.94
Lodging (per room)
Capital Facilities Fee $671 $507.88
Transportation Development
Fee
$12,908 $4,159.24
Commercial Linkage Fee $1,855 $514.36
Total Fee $15,434 $5,181.48

1. The maximum commercial linkage fee amounts are very high, and the City was not considering adopting them at their highest level. In this table, the existing commercial linkage fees in place of the maximum allowable are used.

Other Recommended Policy Items
On November 17, the City Council provided direction on two related policy items: a near-term, temporary reduction in the on-site inclusionary rate for multi-family projects, and applicability of the updated fee amounts to projects in process.

Near-Term Reduction in On-Site Inclusionary Requirement for Multi-Family Residential Projects
As directed by the City Council, the proposed resolution for adoption (Attachment 1) includes an interim provision, effective for two years following the resolution's adoption, to allow multifamily residential projects to include 10 percent, rather than 15 percent of their units as on-site affordable, as is typically required by the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Such projects

would still be required to pay a pro-rata share of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee for the units not constructed on-site. The intent of this provision is to stimulate near-term multi-family housing production, by providing some relief as to the typical on-site inclusionary requirement.

Because the multi-family in-lieu housing fee was also reduced below the maximum that could be charged, overall development costs should be reduced as a result of this action.

Applicability of Updated Fees to Projects in Process
With respect to projects in process and with active applications, the draft resolution of adoption of the fees incorporates a policy regarding the applicability of the new fees to such projects.

The City Council supported staff’s recommended policy language, as reflected in Attachment

1. See the November 17, 2024 Agenda Report for additional discussion of this item. As noted, these provisions would not supersede or replace vesting conferred by provisions of State law or an existing Development Agreement, and would still apply any annual cost adjustments as reflected in the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Furthermore, they would not preclude the City and a developer from negotiating fees as part of a development agreement or similar mechanism.

Note that the proposed fees, if adopted on December 17, would become effective 60 days after adoption, on February 15, 2025.

Municipal Code Amendments
Amendments are proposed to several chapters of the PMC that relate to impact fees:
specifically Chapters 3.22 - Capital Facilities Fees; 3.26 - Transportation Development Fee; and 14.04- Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fee. A redlined/strikeout version of the proposed text amendments is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. In Chapters 3.22 and

3.26, the majority of the changes are to align and make more consistent definitions and procedural requirements for calculation and application of fees between the chapters, and to clarify administrative provisions around fee credits. The changes also include minor changes to align with the nexus fee studies, such as referencing the refined list of land use categories, and including reference to a per-square-foot basis for applying fees.

With respect to Chapter 14.04, minor revisions have been made to reference provisions for sub-metering of attached single-family projects, to clarify that the City Engineer may authorize this in situations where it is deemed appropriate to do so, and to update the definition for "water system" to delete an antiquated reference.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The adoption of this Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because there is no potential for it to result in a physical change in the environment, either directly or indirectly, in that the resolution provides only for the adoption of amendments to existing fees imposed on new development.

Additionally, it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment and contains no provisions that will directly or indirectly result in a physical change in the environment.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Adopting the updated fees helps to advance equity and sustainability goals by ensuring that new development contributes to the necessary facilities and infrastructure, including upgrading

buildings and facilities to meet energy efficiency standards, and expanding facilities to meet the needs of all segments of the community. Updating affordable housing fees will help to increase the inventory of below-market rate units by collecting fees that support the City’s affordable housing programs and production.

OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was made 30 days in advance as required by California Government Code, appearing in The Valley Times on the December 2, 2024, and December 9, 2024, publication dates. Interested parties requesting notification were also sent notices, as were developers whose email contact information is maintained by the City.

Staff also presented the key findings of the fee update to meetings of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development and Government Relations (EDGR) Committee and the City’s Economic Vitality Committee at meetings in October 2024.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Completion of these updates is consistent with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Funding Our Future - Strategy 7: Conduct an analysis and update development fees to keep pace with new development costs, and with the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting the fees would have a neutral or beneficial fiscal impact, since it would better align proposed fees levied on new development with the capital facilities, infrastructure and housing needs of the community, as documented in the EPS and Raftelis Fee studies. The TIF and CFF are proposed to include a 2% administrative charge, which is a permissible to address the administrative costs of preparing, revising and updating the Nexus Studies; as these fees are received, they may be used to reimburse the General Fund for the cost to prepare the current Nexus Studies and future updates. The total amount authorized by the City Council for the 2024 Nexus Study update is $203,928
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ellen Clark, Director of
Community Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution to Approve Nexus Studies and Fees - with Exhibits

2. Ordinance - Adopt PMC Amendments with Exhibits

3. City Council Agenda Report 11-19-24

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE NEXUS STUDIES PREPARED BY ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC., DATED NOVEMBER 25, 2024, AND BY RAFTELIS, DATED OCTOBER 17, 2024; AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO

UPDATE THE EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITY, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT,

AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION FEES WHEREAS, Chapters 3.22, 3.26 and 17.40 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code respectively established the Capital Facilities, Transportation Development and Affordable Housing Fees; and Chapters 14.04 and 15.05 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code respectively establish the charges for connection to the City’s water and sewer systems; and
WHEREAS, these various chapters provide that such fees and charges shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 602, signed into law on September 28, 2021, and effective January 1, 2022, requires that a local agency that conducts an impact fee nexus study after January 1, 2022, must comply with new standards and practices, including, but not limited to, calculating fees levied or imposed on a housing development project to be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units, but with such requirement not applicable to sewer and water connection fees ; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Capital Facility, Transportation Development, and Affordable Housing Fee, with the latter inclusive of fees for commercial development (referred to as the Commercial Linkage Fee) and residential development (referred to as the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee), to reflect the improvements described in the 2005-2025 General Plan, the most recent 5- Year Capital Improvement Program, and Pleasanton Development Impact Fee LongTerm Capital Improvement Program that in part form a basis for such fees as detailed in the Fee Update and Nexus Study for the City of Pleasanton Development Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) dated November 25, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference and adopts the findings contained therein. The Development Impact Fee Study shall be made available for public inspection within the office of the City Clerk, and on the City’s website within 30 days of adoption and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive review of the charges for connection to the water and sewer system (referred to as the water and sewer connection fees), to reflect the improvements described in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan and incremental wastewater system improvements that in part form a basis for such fees or charges as detailed in the City of Pleasanton Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study prepared by Raftelis dated October 17, 2024 ATTACHMENT 1

2 that results in changes to the fees charged, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held four public workshops to consider the results of the above-referenced studies and related amendments to the inclusionary zoning ordinance on May 7, 2024 and August 20, 2024, October 15, and November 19, 2024, including considerations of factors such as overall development feasibility and comparability of fees to those of neighboring jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the EPS and Raftelis studies were prepared in accordance with all applicable provisions of state law and the Pleasanton Municipal Code, and identify the purpose of each fee, the use to which each fee will be put, demonstrate a reasonable relationship between each fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and provide how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of each fee and the cost of the public facility or equipment or portion of the public facility or equipment attributable to the development on which each fee is imposed. The above-referenced nexus studies are incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, the studies and Capital Improvement Program identified capital projects are necessary to meet the goals, programs, and objectives within the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the City Council adopted amendments to Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 17.40 – Affordable Housing Fee, and Chapter 17.44 – Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which modified the City’s requirements for inclusion of affordable housing units in market-rate residential projects; and WHEREAS, there is a need, particularly in the near-term, to reduce impediments to the production of multi-family housing units and promote residential development in conformance with the Housing Element so as to meet the housing needs of all segments of the community; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, based on the entire record of proceedings, including the oral and written staff reports and all public comment and testimony:

Section 1: Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The approval and adoption of the Nexus Studies and the adoption of an Updated Master Fee Schedule is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because there is no potential for it to result in a physical change in the environment, either directly or indirectly, in that the resolution provides only for the adoption of amendments to existing fees imposed on new development. Additionally, it is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment and contains no provisions that will directly or indirectly result in a physical change in the environment.

3 Section 2: The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Nexus Studies prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated November 25, 2024, and by Raftelis, dated October 17, 2024, to update the City’s Development Impact Fees.

Section 3: The City Council hereby amends the Master Fee Schedule as set forth in the attached Exhibit C, except for projects “already in process” which shall be subject to the Capital Facilities Fee, the Transportation Development Fee and the Affordable Housing Fee in effect on December 17, 2024. The following projects are considered “already in process”: 1) planning applications subject to the Permit Streamlining Act that have been deemed complete before February 15, 2025; 2) planning applications that are not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, which have been deemed complete or have made a significant financial investment prior to February 15, 2025; and 3) building permit applications that are substantially complete and submitted to the City prior to February 15, 2025. Any disputes regarding whether a project is “already in process” shall be determined by the Community Development Director, subject to appeal to the City Manager. Planning applications subject to a negotiated agreement with the City or vested rights under state law shall be subject to the terms of such agreement or state law.

Section 4: The City Council hereby permits any multi-family residential project ordinarily subject to the requirements of PMC Chapter 17.44 with respect to provision of on-site affordable units, and whose application is deemed complete between December 18, 2024 and December 17, 2026, to pay the Affordable Housing Fee in-lieu of constructing up to 33 percent of the required units on site (i.e. whereas PMC Chapter 17.44 would typically require 15 percent of the total project units to be included as affordable units constructed on-site, during the specified period, only 10 percent of the units would be required to be affordable units constructed on-site, with the project permitted to pay a pro-rata share of the Affordable Housing Fee in-lieu of constructing the remaining units) Multi-family residential projects shall be subject to all other applicable requirements in PMC Chapter 17.40 and 17.44.

Section 5: The amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as identified in attached Exhibit "C" adopted by this Resolution shall take effect on February 15, 2025, a period no sooner than 60 days following adoption of this Resolution, except for those projects “already in process” in accordance with Section 3 of this Resolution. All other provisions of this Resolution shall be effective immediately.

Section 6. If any part of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on December 17, 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

4 _____________________________
-RFHO\Q.ZRQJ&LW\&OHUN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Final Draft Fee Update and Nexus Study
City of Pleasanton Development
Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage
Fee, and Affordable Housing InLieu Fee
Prepared for:

City of Pleasanton
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

EPS #231081
November 25, 2024

EXHIBIT A

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 Legal Context ............................................................................................... 4 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees .............................................................. 7 Summary of Methodology ............................................................................... 9 Demographic and Land Use Assumptions ........................................................ 10 Facility Needs and Costs .............................................................................. 15 Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation ................................................................ 18 Capital Needs, Costs, and Allocation .............................................................. 24 Transportation Fee Calculations ..................................................................... 25 Methodology .............................................................................................. 27 Nexus Findings ........................................................................................... 40 Summary of Impact Fees ............................................................................. 41 IZO Policy Scenarios .................................................................................... 45 Methodology .............................................................................................. 46

List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Maximum Fee Calculations ....................................................... 7 Table 2 Existing Service Population Factor Estimate ................................................. 11 Table 3 Existing Development and Development at Buildout ...................................... 12 Table 4 Forecasted Service Population Estimate ...................................................... 13 Table 5 Average Household Size and Density Assumptions ........................................ 14 Table 6 Parks and Recreation Facilities Service Level ................................................ 16 Table 7 Pleasanton Public Facilities Service Levels ................................................... 17 Table 8 Specialized Facilities ................................................................................. 18 Table 9 Costs Attributable to Growth ..................................................................... 19 Table 10 Costs per Facility Category ...................................................................... 20 Table 11 Facilities Costs per Resident & Employee ................................................... 21 Table 12 DIF Calculation Summary ........................................................................ 22 Table 13 Capital Facilities Fees Summary ............................................................... 23 Table 14 Transportation Costs included in Fee Program ............................................ 25 Table 15 DUE Growth .......................................................................................... 26 Table 16 Transportation Fee Calculation ................................................................. 26 Table 17 Income Distribution of Worker Households by Employment Category ............. 30 Table 18 Household Generation Rates by Employment Category ................................ 31 Table 19 Affordability Gap Analysis ....................................................................... 34 Table 20 Fee Calculation – Office........................................................................... 36 Table 21 Fee Calculation – Commercial / Retail ....................................................... 37 Table 22 Fee Calculation – Industrial ..................................................................... 38 Table 23 Fee Calculation – Lodging ........................................................................ 39 Table 24 Capital Facilities & Transportation Fees...................................................... 42 Table 25 Capital Facilities & Transportation Single Family Fee Per Sq. Ft. Conversion .... 43 Table 26 Capital Facilities & Transportation Multifamily Fee Per Square Foot Conversion 44 Table 27 Inclusionary Housing Requirements .......................................................... 46 Table 28 Prototype Development Costs (per unit) .................................................... 48 Table 29 Affordable Home Values .......................................................................... 49 Table 30 Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee Calculations ........................................................ 50

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 4 Introduction and Results
Introduction
This Fee Update and Nexus Study (Nexus Study) is designed to provide the City of Pleasanton with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an update to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF), Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF), and Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee (AHF) programs. It has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), with technical support from Fehr & Peers for transportation as well as input from City of Pleasanton staff. The DIF, CLF, and AHF Programs must be approved by the City Council and will be effective 60 days following the City’s adoption of the fees.

Impact fees are one-time charges on new development collected and used by jurisdictions (e.g., a City or County) to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new residential and commercial growth. Meanwhile, affordable housing in-lieu fees provide developers, in certain circumstances, an alternative to meeting the City’s inclusionary affordable housing requirements. This Nexus Study provides a legal basis for requiring payment of a development impact fee consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and subsequent related legislation.

This Study is designed to support a comprehensive DIF program and update to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO). It provides the nexus arguments and associated fee calculations for the maximum fees the City can charge for the facilities described herein.

The calculated fees are proposed to be collected on a citywide basis given the broad scope of capital improvements included in this study. While the City may elect to charge lower fees for particular land uses, areas of the city, or across the board, it should consider the implications of doing so on funding for the identified improvements.

Legal Context
Development Impact Fees
This Nexus Study is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis to support the Pleasanton DIF and CLF programs to be established by a City Ordinance and implemented by Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt, by resolution, the citywide DIF and CLF programs consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Nexus Report, and consistent with the basic parameters of the fee that have been adopted by an enabling ordinance and codified in the Municipal Code. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 5 Impact fee revenues are used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the area in which they apply. As such, impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new development and the need for specific capital facilities and improvements.

Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of preexisting infrastructure needs or deficiencies.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) require a local agency to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

In September 2021, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which includes several new requirements related to the development and implementation of impact fee programs. The key provisions related to the calculations documented in this Nexus Report are summarized below.
x Capital Improvement Plan: AB 602 requires that jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study process. This adoption can occur at the same time as the fee ordinance adoption. Accordingly, this Nexus Study relies on a Pleasanton DIF Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan (Pleasanton DIF CIP) to be approved by the City Council in conjunction with the DIF Program. 1The Pleasanton DIF CIP presented in this Nexus Study is derived from the capital improvements identified as part of the Nexus Study and is attached as Appendix Table A-1.
x Explanation of Level of Service and Fee Increase: AB 602 requires that when applicable, the nexus study identifies the existing level of service for each public facility, identifies the proposed new level of service, and includes an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. This Nexus Study relies on service standards developed in consultation with City staff, based on City planning documents, and with reference to the existing capital facilities and improvements in 1 The Pleasanton DIF CIP is different from and does not replace the City's 5 year CIP budget (balanced) and 10 year CIP. These separate CIP documents serve a shorter-term frame and generally rely on more specific project parameters than the DIF CIP. That said, the DIF CIP may provide funding to support some projects included in the 5-year and 10-year CIPs.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 6 the City as appropriate and documented herein. The level of service is articulated in the CIP provided in Appendix A-1.
x Per Square Foot Residential Fees: AB 602 notes that for fees adopted after July 1, 2022, the nexus study must “either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specific findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees.” AB 602 also notes that “This bill would require that a local agency that calculates fees proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.” This analysis relies on assumptions about the average unit size for residential units developed following market research and conversations with City staff. The average home sizes were then applied to the per unit fees, to determine the maximum per square foot fee for both single family and multifamily development.

All State statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this DIF, as documented in subsequent chapters. Chapter 6 summarizes the specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. If the DIF is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure its accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources.

To the extent that infrastructure requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the DIF will need to be updated. AB 602 requires the DIF to be updated at least every 8 years.

Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees
Inclusionary housing programs require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. Instead of providing required affordable housing units on site, developers may opt to pay an in-lieu fee. Local governments gain the authority to enact inclusionary housing programs and charge in-lieu fees through their general police power to regulate the development and use of real property.2 The City of Pleasanton is updating its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and as part of the process is updating the in-lieu fee levels. These in-lieu fees are not “mitigation fees” and therefore do not require a nexus study illustrating demand generated by new housing developments. The City’s authority impose in-lieu fees was confirmed with the approval of AB 1505 in 2017 which allows jurisdictions to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new rental housing projects, thereby superseding the 2009 decision of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P., et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396.
2 California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (2015).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 7 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees
Table 1 summarizes the City’s maximum allowable fee schedule for the capital facility and equipment needs as evaluated in this Fee Update. The three fee categories updated in this analysis are:
• Development Impact Fees – This fee includes the capital facilities fees and transportation fees for the City. Calculations can be found in Chapters 2-4. • Commercial Linkage Fee – This fee only applies to nonresidential developments and is designed to mitigate its impact on the need for affordable housing in the city.

Calculations can be found in Chapter 5.
• Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee – This fee only applies to residential developments not providing the affordable housing on site required in the IZO. Calculations can be found in Chapter 7.

Table 1 Summary of Maximum Fee Calculations
As noted, the fees represent the maximum allowable amount that the City can charge based on the nexus requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The fees also include a two percent administration charge to cover the cost of implementation, as described further in Chapter 6.

Note that the maximum allowable commercial linkage fee is very large and significantly exceeds levels that could feasibly be borne by new commercial developments. This is a typical outcome for commercial linkage fee calculations and reflects the fundamental impact that most employment generating uses have on the need for affordable housing.

This is why among the relatively small proportion of cities that impose commercial linkage fees, few, if any, charge the maximum allowable amount. To do so would likely have a deleterious effect on a city’s economic development and fiscal health.

Land Use
Capital Facilties
Fees1
Transportation
Fee1
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Inclusionary
In-Lieu Fee Total
Residential (per sq. ft.)
Single Family Detached $11.87 $8.23 $84.25 $104.35
Multifamily Rental $23.48 $12.47 $69.19 $105.14
Nonresidential
Office (per sq. ft.) $13.41 $31.50 $142.42 $187.34
Retail (per sq. ft.) $9.15 $48.35 $578.73 $636.23
Industrial (per sq. ft.) $4.02 $17.94 $143.39 $165.35
Lodging (per room) $671 $12,908 $36,430 $50,009
(1) Includes 2% adminstrative charge.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 8 This Fee Update and Nexus Study is provided to support the City Council’s ultimate approval of a total fee schedule by land use. As part of these process, City staff has also prepared an analysis of various fee levels and their implications on various City policy considerations, including the need to fund future capital needs, to support affordable housing development, and to ensure that future residential and commercial projects are economically viable. Cities frequently approval impact fees that fall below the maximum allowable amount based on economic and fiscal considerations.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 9 Development Impact Fee Methodology
This section provides a brief overview of the nexus methodology and key assumptions used in this Study. It also summarizes the demographic and land use projections underlying the fee. Subsequent chapters provide more detailed calculations for each DIF category. While the commercial linkage fee is considered a development impact fee, the methodology for determining the maximum justifiable fee level differs slightly and will be described in Chapter 5.

Summary of Methodology
While the nexus methodology employed in this study varies by fee category as appropriate given the range of capital facilities and improvements covered, there are basic steps common to all. Specifically, for each fee category, EPS has applied the following general steps to calculate the nexus-supported fee amounts:

1. EPS estimated existing and future population and employment in Pleasanton through buildout of the current General Plan using a variety of City and thirdparty sources, as described in the subsequent section.

2. The EPS consultant team identified the universe of new infrastructure and capital facility improvements needed to serve both existing and future residents and employees. These needs were based on interviews with City staff and analysis of existing City facility capacity and service standards. Capital facilities exclude water, sewer and storm drain facilities since these are part of a separate fee program.

3. The EPS consultant team developed cost estimates for the capital facility improvements described in step 2 above. These cost estimates were developed based on information provided by City departmental staff as well as additional research and in-house resources.

4. EPS allocated the capital facility costs identified in step 3 above between existing and new development to determine the share included in the DIF program. These allocation shares were determined in a variety of ways depending on improvement, available data, and City guidance. In cases where the improvement is expected to service both the existing population and the future population equally, the share of costs attributable to new development is based on the City’s current versus future service population.

5. Once costs have been allocated between new and existing development, they are further distributed among residential and commercial uses to arrive at a cost per resident and a cost per employee. This distribution was based on the proportion of total forecasted service population composed of residents and employees, respectively.

6. Once costs were allocated to a “cost per resident” and “cost per employee” basis, they are multiplied by the people per household for each residential fee category

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 10 to derive a fee per unit, or by the average square feet per employee to estimate a fee per square foot for each commercial land use.

7. As a final step, EPS converted the residential fee per unit to a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Demographic and Land Use Assumptions
This section describes the demographic and land use assumptions utilized in this study for both existing and future General Plan buildout conditions. The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculation:
x Existing population and employment levels are used to estimate service levels for specific capital improvement categories as well as to ascertain existing needs relative to existing standards.
x Future population and employment growth in the city are the basis for determining future capital facility needs and apportioning these costs between existing and new development.
x Estimates related to population and employment density (e.g., persons per household or employees per square foot) are used to allocate costs between land use categories.

Service Population Calculations
The DIF is largely predicated on calculations that translate the population and employment projections provided above into estimates of existing and future “service populations.” The “service population,” in turn, is derived from assumptions that compare residents and employees based on the relative service demands or typical service profiles of each (e.g., amount of time spent in the city, likely utilization of specific infrastructure).

While the service population characterization can differ by infrastructure category, in cases where detailed estimates are not available, EPS has relied upon a default service population calculation. This calculation is based on the City’s existing “daytime population” as derived using the City’s existing residents, employees, and commute patterns for each to estimate the relative time spent within the City. This approach is used to derive an employee to resident equivalency factor to allocate costs between existing and new growth and between residential and commercial development.

As illustrated in Table 2, the City’s existing population, employment, and commute patterns (derived from US Census data) suggest a total estimated service population of 99,343. The service population is composed of 76,459 residents and 55,650 employees, with each employee equivalent to .411 residents (e.g., the typical service demand of an employee is about 41 percent of a resident).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 11 Table 2 Existing Service Population Factor Estimate
Population and Employment Growth Projections
The nexus analysis relies on estimated population and employment growth likely to occur by buildout of existing City plans. EPS reviewed projections from several sources including the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) but relied primarily on Pleasanton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft EIR and General Plan to estimate population growth. Employment growth is based on an employee to resident ratio of 0.81, which is sourced from Pleasanton’s transportation model. EPS growth projections are based on approved City planning documents rather than specific projects “in the pipeline” at the local level, as such projects are, at this point, potentially speculative, and do not cover all years in the planning horizon.

As summarized in Table 3, this approach results in a total population of approximately 96,400 residents and total employment of approximately 78,080 employees at buildout.

This equates to an increase of 19,941 residents and 22,434 jobs, representing a 26.1 percent and 40.3 percent increase over existing conditions, respectively. The buildout estimate does not correspond to a particular year, but rather reflects projected development embodied in City-wide planning documents.
#%
Employment Status of
Pleasanton Residents1 Formula: a = b *
76,459 b 1 c = b * c
Not in Labor Force 41,149 53.8% 100% 53.8%
Employed in the City 5,007 6.5% 50% 3.3%
Employed Outside of the City 30,303 39.6% 67% 26.6%
Total Residents 76,459 100.0% 83.7%
Residence Status of
Pleasanton Employees1 Formula: a = b *
55,650 b 1 c = b * c
Live in the City 5,007 9.0% 50% 4.5%
Live Outside the City 50,643 91.0% 33% 29.9%
Total Jobs 55,650 100.0% 34.4%
Employee to Resident Equivalency Factor 3 (34.4% / 83.7%) = 41.1% (3) Equals weighted average of residents divided by weighted average of employees.

Sources: LEHD OnTheMap 2021, Department of Finance, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2) Represents EPS estimate of how various types of residents and employees relate to each other in terms of demand for City Services.

Item
Existing
Weight2
Weighted
Average
(1) Distribution based on data from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2021). Total residents are based on 2023 estimates provided by DOF in Table 2. Total jobs are based on 2021 estimates from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2021).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 12 Table 3 Existing Development and Development at Buildout At buildout, the service population is projected to reach 128,510, with new growth accounting for about 22.7 percent of the service population total at that time as shown in Table 4. New residents are estimated to account for approximately 68.4 percent of the growth in service population while new employees account for the remaining 31.6 percent. These proportions are used to allocate costs for many of the facilities included in the DIF, unless otherwise indicated. These percentages are used repeatedly throughout the nexus study to allocate cost between new and existing (22.7 percent) and between residential and non-residential development (68.4 and 31.6 percent, respectively).

Amount % Change
Resident Population1 76,459 96,400 19,941 26.1%
Housing Units 30,992 37,781 6,788 21.9%
Employment2 55,650 78,084 22,434 40.3%
Nonresidential Development (KSF) 19,886 28,024 8,138 40.9% Service Population3 99,343 128,510 29,167 29.4%
(1) Resident population growth is sourced from 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft EIR. (2) Employment growth is based on an employees to residents ratio of 0.81 at the time of buildout. (3) Service population represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given a 40 percent weighting of residents, due to more modest service demands. It is calculated by adding total residential population and 40 percent of total employment (see Table 2).

Item Existing Buildout
Growth
Sources: City of Pleasanton Housing Element Draft EIR; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems,

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 13 Table 4 Forecasted Service Population Estimate
Population and Employment Density Assumptions
In addition to the demographic calculations described above, the DIF utilizes assumptions related to population and employment densities by land use type. Specifically, DIF improvement cost estimates per capita or per job are converted to fee rates per unit or square foot based on average persons per household and square foot per employee factors. Note that for methodological simplicity, EPS first calculates all residential fees on a per unit basis (i.e., per single family and multi-family) and then converts the fee to per square foot based on data on typical housing unit sizes. Single Family units include single family detached and townhome units, therefore the average size is less than the typical single family detached home. These assumptions are summarized in Table 5 and rely on data from the U.S. Census, CoStar, and the City of Pleasanton.

The commercial linkage fee also uses these employment densities in order to estimate the number of employees generated by 100,000 square feet of development for each land use type.
# % #% #%
Employment Status of Pleasanton
Residents1
Not in Labor Force 41,149 53.8% 51,881
Employed in the City 5,007 6.5% 6,313
Employed Outside of the City 30,303 39.6% 38,206
Total Residents 76,459 100.0% 96,400 19,941 26%
Residence Status of Pleasanton
Employees
Live in the City 5,007 9.0% 11,562
Live Outside the City 50,643 91.0% 116,948
Total Jobs 55,650 100.0% 128,510 72,860 131%
Service Population Calculation3
Amount Attributable to Residents (@ 100%) 76,459 77.0% 96,400 75.0% 19,941 68.4% Amount Attributable to Employees (@ 41.1%) 22,884 23.0% 32,110 25.0% 9,225 31.6% Total Service Population 99,343 100.0% 128,510 100.0% 29,167 100.0% Service Population Growth as % Build-out Service Population 22.7% Sources: LEHD OnTheMap 2021, Department of Finance, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2) Resident and Job totals per Table 3. Composition based on existing (1) Existing Resident and Job totals per Table 3, percent distributions per Table 2. (3) Amount attributable to Employees per Table 2.

Net New Item Existing1 Buildout2

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 14 Table 5 Average Household Size and Density Assumptions Land Use Fee Categories
Average Unit Size
Single Family 2,500 square feet
Multifamily 895 square feet
Residential1
Single Family 3.03 people per household
Multifamily 2.15 people per household
Nonresidential2
Office 300 square feet per employee
Retail 440 square feet per employee
Industrial 1,000 square feet per employee
Lodging 6 rooms per employee
(1) Average household size per occupied housing unit in the City of Pleasanton based on data from the 2022 American Community Survey (5-Year Estimates) conducted by U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) Average employment density is based on previous Pleasanton nexus studies and EPS review of relevant sources.

Sources: U.S. Census ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates; CoStar; Redfin; City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Assumption for Population
& Employment

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 15 Capital Facilities Fees
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for the Capital Facilities fees which consist of a variety of public buildings and facilities, including those for needed for Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, and other City department functions. The transportation fee is calculated separately in Chapter 4. Since most City government services serve the needs of both residents and businesses (employees), it is assumed that both residential and nonresidential development will pay both the parks and recreational impact fee and the public facilities impact fee.

Facility Needs and Costs
In an effort to maximize the fee program’s adaptability, this analysis determined the facility improvements necessary to serve future development primarily by calculating the City’s existing service levels for its facilities. Table 6 shows the inventory of existing parks and recreational facilities, as well as their calculated service levels, based on the City’s current service population. In a select few instances, the City has identified that the existing service level is insufficient to meet the City’s existing facility needs. These facilities are identified with an asterisk (*) and instead use a service standard approach to determine the facility needs for future development.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 16 Table 6 Parks and Recreation Facilities Service Level Existing
Inventory Service Level1 New Total Space
Space Attributable
to Growth
a b = (a / 99,343) * 1,000 c = (b * 128,510) / 1,000 d = c - a Library & Recreation
Library Building 32,802 750* 96,383 63,581 square feetCommunity Center2 22,000 221 28,459 6,459 square feet Cultural & Arts Buildings3 58,266 587 75,373 17,107 square feet Parks & Trails
Open Space 1,016 10 1,314 298 acres
Developed Parkland 385 4 498 113 acresRestrooms 12,622 127 16,328 3,706 square feet Trails 80 1.24* 159 79 miles
Fields 67.25 0.68 87 20 acres
Synthetic Fields 7.46 0.08 10 2 acres
Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities4 6.45 0.06 8 2 acres
(2) Existing square footage refers to Senior Center
(3) See Appendix Table A-2 table for detailed list of facilities included. (4) Includes basketball courts, tennis courts, pickleball courts, bocce courts and skate park.

Item Units(1) Calculations are based on the existing facility space per 1,000 service population, except where indicated by an asterisk (*), which signifiesa service standard identified by City Staff.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 17 Table 7 shows the inventory of existing public facilities, as well as their calculated service levels, based on the City’s current service population. Table 7 Pleasanton Public Facilities Service Levels Existing
Inventory Service Level1
New Total
Space
Space
Attributable to
Growth
a b = (a / 99,343) * 1,000 c = (b * 128,510) / 1,000 d = c - a General Government
Civic Center2 45,384 456.84 58,709 13,325 square feet
Parking Spaces2 370 4 479 109 spaces
Public Works
Public Works Yard2 53,709 541 69,478 15,769 square feet Fleet Expansion/ Replacement3 939 9 1,215 276 vehicles
Police
Police Station2 21,797 219 28,197 6,400 square feet
Public Works Yard Space4 11,600 117 15,006 3,406 square feetFleet Expansion/ Replacement3 258 3 334 76 vehicles Fire
Fire Stations 53,298 537 68,946 15,648 square feetPublic Works Yard Space4 9,200 93 11,901 2,701 square feet Fleet Expansion/ Replacement3 111 1 144 33 vehicles
(2) See Appendix Table A-2 table for detailed list of facilities included. (3) This analysis assumes vehicles are replaced on average, 3 times within the term of the fee study. (4) An evidence storage building (Police), firing range (Police), and fire training tower (Fire) are located at the Public Works Yard. (1) Calculations are based on the existing facility space per 1,000 service population, except where indicated by an asterisk (*), which signifies a service standard identified by City Staff.

Item Units

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 18 There are a few capital improvement projects which do not fit into this methodology.

Those facilities and their related costs are outlined in Table 8.

Table 8 Specialized Facilities
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
The public facility improvements allocated to new development are based on maintaining the same level of service for new development as is currently provided to existing residents. The portion of the cost allocated to new development is based on growth in the City’s service population relative to the City’s future service population, or 22.7 percent (see Table 4).

Facilities Department Cost
Allocation to Fee
Program (22.7%)
Aquatic Center Modernization1 Library & Recreation $6,400,000 $1,452,562 Emergency Operations Center Police/Public Works $5,600,000 $1,270,992 Cemetery2 Library & Recreation $660,000 $149,796
(1) Cost sourced from Capital Improvement Program.
(2) Cost sourced from Cemetery Master Plan. This cost assumes there is no expansion in the South Hill Area of the Cemetery and all designs are completed in-house.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 19 Table 9 Costs Attributable to Growth
Table 10 illustrates the total costs included in the fee program for each department. This figure includes the portion of the specialized facility costs identified in Table 8, as well as the costs attributable to growth identified in Table 9.

Facilities
Cost Attributable
to Growth
Library & Recreation
Library Building 63,581 square feet $550 per square foot $34,969,275 Community Center 6,459 square feet $500 per square foot $3,229,588 Cultural & Arts Buildings 17,107 square feet $500 per square foot $8,553,418 Parks & Trails
Open Space2 298 acres $1,000 per acre $298,297
Developed Parkland 113 acres $500,000 per acre $56,517,797 Restrooms 3,706 square feet $2,000 per square foot $7,411,612 Trails 79 miles $560,000 per mile $44,296,000
Fields 20 acres $1,000,000 per acre $19,744,529
Synthetic Fields 2 acres $1,000,000 per acre $2,190,534 Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities 2 acres $2,500,000 per acre $4,734,283 General Government
Civic Center 13,325 square feet $500 per square foot $6,662,347 Parking Spaces1 109 spaces $10,000 per space $1,086,316 Public Works
Public Works Yard 15,769 square feet $550 per square foot $8,672,898 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 276 vehicles $85,000 per vehicle $23,433,600 Police
Police Station 6,400 square feet $1,000 per square foot $6,399,576 Public Works Yard Space 3,406 square feet $550 per square foot $1,873,161 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 76 vehicles $70,000 per vehicle $5,302,397 Fire
Fire Stations 15,648 square feet $2,000 per square foot $31,296,473 Public Works Yard Space 2,701 square feet $550 per square foot $1,485,611 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 33 vehicles $270,000 per vehicle $8,799,160 Total $276,956,873
(1) Estimate assumes all spaces are surface parking.

Sources: City of Pleasanton
Space Attributable
to Growth Cost Assumption

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 20 Table 10 Costs per Facility Category
Table 11 allocates these costs by land use, either residential or nonresidential, and then calculates a facilities cost per resident. Table 12 utilizes that cost per resident figure to calculate fees for each department, and Table 13 summarizes those department fees into the larger fee categories: Parks and Recreation Facilities and Public Facilities.

It is noted that the analysis included in this chapter calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. As described and outlined in the summary of fees at the end of this report, residential fees per unit have been converted into a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Facilities Cost
General Government $7,748,663
Public Works $32,106,498
Library and Recreation $48,354,639
Parks and Trails $135,193,051
Police $14,846,127
Fire $41,581,244
Total $279,830,223

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 21 Table 11 Facilities Costs per Resident & Employee
Cost Allocation Factor Formula
Library &
Recreation Parks & Trails
General
Government Fire Police Public Works
Facility Costs Allocated to Fee Program a $48,354,639 $135,193,051 $7,748,663 $41,581,244 $14,846,127 $32,106,498Cost Allocation to Land Use1 Residential Development b 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%Nonresidential Development c 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% Allocated Costs by Land Use
Residential Development d = a * b $33,059,275 $92,429,274 $5,297,634 $28,428,415 $10,150,053 $21,950,687Nonresidential Development e = a * c $15,294,226 $42,760,595 $2,450,847 $13,151,850 $4,695,724 $10,155,056 Service Population Growth
Residents f 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941Employees g 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434 Facilities Cost per Resident h = d / f $1,658 $4,635 $266 $1,426 $509 $1,101Facilities Cost per Employee i = e / g $682 $1,906 $109 $586 $209 $453 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Public Facilities
[1] The cost allocation to residential and nonresidential development is based on the service population attribution calculated in Table 5.

Parks and Recreation Facilities

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 22 Table 12 DIF Calculation Summary
Land Use
Density
(See Table 6)
Library and
Recreation
Parks and
Trails
General
Government Fire Police
Public
Works
Residential (per unit) Persons / Household
Single Family 3.03 $5,028 $14,057 $806 $4,323 $1,544 $3,338Multifamily 2.15 $3,560 $9,954 $571 $3,062 $1,093 $2,364 Nonresidential Average Employment Density
Office (per sq. ft.) 300 $2.27 $6.35 $0.36 $1.95 $0.70 $1.51Retail (per sq. ft.) 440 $1.55 $4.33 $0.25 $1.33 $0.48 $1.03Industrial (per sq. ft.) 1,000 $0.68 $1.91 $0.11 $0.59 $0.21 $0.45Lodging (per room) 6 $114 $318 $18 $98 $35 $75 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 23 Table 13 Capital Facilities Fees Summary
Land Use
Parks &
Recreation
Facilities
Public
Facilities
Total Capital
Facilities Fees
Residential (per unit)Single Family Residential $19,084 $10,011 $29,095Multifamily Residential $13,515 $7,089 $20,604Nonresidential Office (per sq. ft.) $8.63 $4.52 $13.15Retail (per sq. ft.) $5.88 $3.09 $8.97Industrial (per sq. ft.) $2.59 $1.36 $3.95Lodging (per room) $431 $226 $658 Source: City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
Transportation DIF
This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the transportation component of the Pleasanton Impact fee program, also known as the Transportation Impact Fee or TIF. Transportation consultant Fehr & Peers (F&P) provided research and technical analysis to support the analysis and assumptions used in this fee calculation. The more detailed documentation of their assumptions, methodology, and data sources is provided in Appendix B.

Capital Needs, Costs, and Allocation
F&P, in coordination with City staff, developed a list of capital improvement projects for inclusion as part of the Transportation category of the citywide Development Impact Fee.

The projects reflect the goals and objectives identified by the Pleasanton General Plan and City budget documents, with some project needs determined based on existing service standards as described below. The capital project list has a particular emphasis on improving traffic flow and reducing conflicts for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the application of new signalized intersections, upgraded signal infrastructure, and various pedestrian/bicycle safety improvements such as new bike lanes and bridge railing.

The Transportation analysis uses the same service population calculations as those used for the capital facilities fees, therefore the fair share allocation to new development used for transportation items is 23 percent.

Table 14 lists each project type, the number of projects, and the resulting costs allocated to new development and included in the fee program. As shown, the total transportation-related costs included in the fee program sum to $293 million. A more detailed list of these items and their descriptions can be found in Appendix Table B-1.

Following the same approach that was used in the 2018 TIF nexus study, if more than 70 percent of the usage of the facility was from Pleasanton, that indicates that the need for the improvement is predominantly due to Pleasanton-related travel so the entire cost of the project was considered to be included in the TIF program. If less than 70 percent of the usage was from Pleasanton, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton was used directly from the model. The result is shown in Appendix Table B-1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. Note that these percentages have been newly calculated only for the 18 additional transportation improvement projects proposed to be included in the TIF program. For all the projects that are remaining from the current TIF project list, the percentage of future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton has not been re-calculated but is carried forward from the 2018 TIF nexus study.

For projects that involve bicycle, pedestrian or safety enhancements, or those that are citywide projects, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton is calculated based on

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 25 current data about existing service population and projections of future growth. Per the growth projections described above, that value is 22.7 percent.

Table 14 Transportation Costs included in Fee Program

Transportation Fee Calculations
This analysis allocates the $293 million in fair share costs attributed to new growth based on trip rate factors drawn from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), with a 35 percent adjustment for pass-by trips applied to retail uses (consistent with the approach from the 2018 TIF nexus study). Table 15 determines the growth in total dwelling unit equivalents (DUE) for the buildout of the General Plan. Table 16 establishes a cost per DUE and then applies that figure to each land use to calculate a fee.

This analysis included in this chapter calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. As described and summarized in the summary of fees at the end of this report, residential fees per unit have been converted into a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Project Type
Number of
Projects Cost
Roadway Improvements 40 $233,144,000
New Traffic Signals 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 53 $37,912,360
Citywide Projects 3 $576,100
Total 97 $293,832,460
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 26 Table 15 DUE Growth
Table 16 Transportation Fee Calculation
Item Growth Trip Rate1
DUE
Growth
Housing Units 6,788 0.56 3,769
Non Residential (KSF) 8,138 1.22 9,930
Total 13,699
(1) Reflects weighted average based on estimated development distribution.

Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Item Trip Rate Total
Total Costs $293,832,460
DUE Growth 13,699
Cost per DUE $21,449
Fee Calculation
Single Family (per unit) 0.94 $20,162
Multifamily (per unit) 0.51 $10,939
Office (per KSF) 1.44 $30,886
Retail (per KSF) 2.21 $47,402
Industrial (per KSF) 0.82 $17,588
Lodging (per room)1 0.59 $12,655
Other (per Trip Rate) $21,449
Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.
(1) Analysis assumes hotel/motel rooms will average 500 gross sq. ft. per room.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 27 Commercial Linkage Fee
The commercial linkage fee is charged to non-residential development, exclusively, in order to mitigate its impact on the need for affordable housing in the city. Development of nonresidential buildings in the city will attract tenants or businesses who, in turn, hire additional workers. The wages of a significant portion of the new workers will be inadequate to support sufficient rent prices to attract residential developers to provide housing opportunities without further subsidy. The fee will be used to help to fill the “affordability gap” for housing development and increase the number of homes available for the local workforce.

As a development impact fee, this linkage fee can only be charged to new development and must be based on the impact of new development on the need for resources to subsidize the development of new affordable housing. Fee revenue may be collected by the City and used to subsidize the production or preservation of affordable units for lower-income households. Expenditures may include, but are not limited to, direct contributions to affordable housing developers, land acquisition, and funding local match requirements to leverage other funding opportunities. This use of funds is consistent with how the City has been using commercial linkage fee revenue collected since the fee’s adoption, and consistent with Chapter 17.40 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the enabling legislation for the City’s Affordable Housing Fee.

Methodology
Estimates for Level of Service
The City of Pleasanton currently has over approximately 1,000 affordable (non-senior) housing units for an employment base of 41,319 workers.3 This represents a ratio of

0.024 affordable units per worker. The “adjusted maximum” linkage fee levels identified herein would allow the City to subsidize a greater number of affordable units per worker than the current ratio – 0.5 per Commercial worker, 0.2 per Office worker, 0.5 per Lodging worker, and 0.4 per Industrial worker.4 These higher proportions may be appropriate given the shortfall of such affordable units in the city, region, and state, and the impacts of new commercial development on the city’s need for affordable housing. 3 Assisted rental unit count is from the City of Pleasanton Community Development department as of 2024. The employment base is from the US Census Bureau, ACS, Five-Year Estimates, 2022.
4 Proportions are calculated as the number of affordable units that could be subsidized by the maximum fee on a 100,000 square foot space, divided by the total number of employees that would work in a given building type (as shown on Table 18).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 28 Primary Sources
To estimate the fee, EPS relied on numerous sources of data, including the following:
x JobsEQ, which is a software tool that compiles industry and wage occupation data for 2023 from a variety of sources, including U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Center of Education Statistics, and others.
x State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annual income limits for Alameda County, 2024 (Appendix Table C-1)
x U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (2018- 2022)
In addition, EPS sought input from City of Pleasanton staff regarding affordability levels and recently developed affordable housing projects. Data from recent Pleasanton developments and land transactions were combined with information collected from various market-rate and affordable housing developers to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions for use in Pleasanton. These and other data sources are identified on the tables provided throughout this report.

Land Use Categories
The linkage fee program uses the same land use categories as the Capital Facilities and Transportation fees. While most land use categories are unique to a particular type of building, others may be interchangeable as tenants often shift between building types (e.g., businesses located in industrial space moving to office space). The commercial land uses analyzed in this study, along with a description of the types of businesses that often locate in each category, are presented in Appendix Table D-1. In general, each land use category is intended to be associated with a particular type of building or land use, to which the fees can be applied. This analysis bases its employment projections on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with the most typical tenants for each land use category.

Estimates of New Worker Households
The following section details the methodology for estimating the distribution of household income levels for new worker households in the city, and the number of these households that will be generated by new development in each commercial land use category.

Occupational Category and Wage Distribution
The first step in determining the number of new worker households requiring affordable residential units is to associate each land use type with occupational categories and the wage distribution within those categories. This estimate included the following analytical steps:
x EPS used JobsEQ to calculate the proportion of occupations likely to be represented under each land use category in the Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 29 Metropolitan Division (MD) which includes Pleasanton.5 For example, EPS evaluated the occupation categories within the lodging industry to determine the proportional distribution of occupations for the land use category “Lodging.” Using JobsEQ, the NAICS sector 721000 (“Accommodation”) for Oakland-FremontBerkeley MD shows that 7.9 percent of the jobs in the Lodging industry nationwide are filled by managers, while 30.04 percent are in the category of buildings and grounds cleaning and maintenance (see Table E-3). The occupational distribution for all designated employment categories is provided in Appendix E. In addition to the distribution by occupation, JobsEQ provided the average wage for each occupation in each land use category. x The wages for each occupation were multiplied by 1.79, the average number of workers per working household in the city.6 While certainly there will be some variation in wages per employee within a household, in the absence of more specific data, this analysis assumes comparable levels of education and training and thus hourly earnings among all workers in a household.7 x Each occupation is placed into its income category and the distribution is calculated based on JobsEQ’s reported percent of each industry’s jobs that is in the income category. This sorting uses HCD’s income classifications for a 3-person household because there are 3.4 people per working household in the City of Pleasanton. For consistency, the affordability gap calculation averages the respective affordability gaps of a two-person household multifamily rental unit and a four-person household townhome. The unit values used in this calculation are consistent with the unit values calculated as part of the Affordable Housing InLieu Fee Study in Chapter 7.

Household Formation
After calculating the estimated number of new employees (see Table 5 for density assumptions) generated for each land use category, EPS estimated the number of households represented by these new employees (detailed in Appendix Table F-1). To calculate new households, EPS first adjusted the number of workers expected to form new households, accounting for those workers who are typically too young (aged 16 to 19) to form their own households.8 The resulting adjusted estimate of new workers was 5 The Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley Metropolitan Division (MD) is comprised of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
6 From the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
7 This assumption is consistent with “Assortative Mating” theory. See National Bureau of Economic Research, “Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality.” 8 Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate this age cohort represents about 2.0 percent of the overall workforce. This proportion was applied to all industries except Commercial, which represents retail and food service industries, where the younger worker cohort represents 7.7 percent of the overall industry employment.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 30 divided by 1.79, which represents the average number of workers per households in Pleasanton.9
Table 17 Income Distribution of Worker Households by Employment Category 9 Based on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2018-2022 data regarding the number of Pleasanton residents who are defined as “workers” in households that have workers.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 31 Table 18 Household Generation Rates by Employment Category

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 32 Housing Development Costs and Affordability Gap
To calculate the maximum justifiable fee for each land use category, EPS estimated the “affordability gap” related to developing residential units affordable to very-low, low, and moderate-income households. The average household size in Pleasanton is 2.83 people per household according to 2022 Five-Year Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS), but the average number of people, per working household (households with earnings – not including retired households, etc.) is 3.40.

To estimate the development cost of a “typical” affordable unit, a development prototype is defined. In an effort to provide consistency between the Commercial Linkage Fee Study and the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study, EPS has relied on prototypes developed for the Inclusionary Housing analysis in this study as well. Since there was no three-person household prototype used in the Inclusionary Housing analysis, the Commercial Linkage Fee analysis uses an average affordability gap of two development prototypes to characterize the cost of a “typical” affordable unit. The first assumed prototype reflects multifamily construction at over 30 dwelling units to the acre with podium parking. Based on comparable recent projects, EPS assumes the typical gross square footage of a one-bedroom rental unit will be approximately 800 square feet.

The second assumed prototype reflects single family townhome construction at 20 dwelling units to the acre, consistent with recent townhome production in Pleasanton. EPS assumes the typical gross square footage of a three-bedroom townhome unit will be 2,000 square feet. These assumptions are based on the average sizes of similar housing units recently constructed in Pleasanton and nearby jurisdictions. The multifamily prototype is assumed to be rental and the townhome prototype is assumed to be for sale. The City of Pleasanton does not anticipate a significant amount of single family detached development, so it is less appropriate when estimating the “typical” affordable unit.

Development Cost Assumptions
Affordable housing development costs include land costs, direct costs (e.g., labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). Data from recent land transactions in and around Pleasanton have been combined with EPS’s information from various market-rate and affordable housing developers in the surrounding region to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions for use in Pleasanton. A developer fee is also estimated and represents the compensation to the developer for their efforts, investment, and risk. These assumptions are shown on Table 19 and indicate that the total development cost per unit for rental apartments is about $595,000 and the total development cost per unit for for sale townhomes is about $1.07 million. By necessity, this figure represents a “prototypical” project; the actual costs for a given project will vary by location and project design characteristics.

Revenue Assumptions
Assumptions must be made regarding the applicable income level (very-low, low, and moderate) and the percentage of household income spent on housing costs to calculate the values of the affordable units. In addition, translating these assumptions into unit prices and values requires estimates of operating expenses and capitalization rates. Additional details about assumptions used to estimate unit prices and values can be found in Chapter 7.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 33 Affordability Gap Results
Table 19 shows the costs and values for developing rental apartments in the city for households at various income levels. Across all categories, the cost of constructing the unit is higher than the supportable value of the unit. This is considered the “affordability gap,” and serves as the basis for calculating the subsidies required to provide housing for the lower-wage worker households generated by new nonresidential development. The results of the analysis illustrate that rents affordable to households earning moderate incomes and below cannot support the costs of new construction without subsidy.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 34 Table 19 Affordability Gap Analysis
Item
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Low
Income
Median
Income
Moderate
Income
50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI
Multifamily Rental
Project Development Cost Assumptions (per unit) $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 Maximum Supported Home Value
Household Income1 $62,300 $74,730 $96,650 $124,550 $149,500 Income Available for Housing Costs/Year2 $15,528 $19,257 $25,833 $34,203 $41,688 (less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year3 ($7,500) ($7,500) ($7,500) ($10,000) ($10,000) Net Operating Income $8,028 $11,757 $18,333 $24,203 $31,688 Capitalization Rate4 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total Supportable Unit Value5 $160,560 $235,140 $366,660 $484,060 $633,760 Affordability Gap $434,667 $360,087 $228,567 $111,167 -$38,533 Townhomes
Project Development Cost Assumptions (per unit) $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income6 $77,850 $93,420 $108,990 $140,130 $171,270 Income Available for Housing Costs/Year7 $27,248 $32,697 $38,147 $49,046 $59,945 Less Annual Housing Expenses8 $13,167 $14,204 $16,277 $18,350 $21,025 Income Availably for Mortgage Payments $14,080 $18,493 $21,869 $30,695 $38,920 Interest Rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Total Supportable Mortgage Amount9 $174,719 $229,478 $271,376 $380,897 $482,955 Down Payment % 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Total Supportable Unit Value $183,915 $241,556 $285,659 $400,944 $508,374 Affordability Gap $885,754 $828,113 $784,011 $668,726 $561,295 Average Affordability Gap $660,211 $594,100 $506,289 $389,946 $261,381 (2) Assumes 30% of income available for housing related expenses. (7) Assumes 35% of household income is spent on housing related expenses. (8) Includes property tax, mortgage insurance, and utility payments. (9) Assumes 30-year mortage term.

Sources: City of Pleasanton; Alameda County Housing Authority; California Housing and Community Development (HCD); CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(5) The total supportable unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. (1) Incomes are based on 2024 HCD Income Limits for two-person households in Alameda County for rental. (6) Incomes are based on 2024 HCD Income Limits for four-person households in Alameda County. Per California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, incomes for households above 70% AMI are set at a lower percent of AMI than the cutoff, (ex. Moderate Income is 110% of AMI rather than 120%).
(3) Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region and are inclusive of utility costs; lower-income units (at or below 80% of AMI) are assumed to be built as non-profit and are, therefore, exempt from property taxes. Property taxes are assumed to comprise a share of the operating expenses for the moderate-income category. (4) The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 35
Fee Calculation
Tables 20 through 23 provide the maximum nonresidential housing fee calculations for each of the four land use categories.

The fee is calculated by the following steps:

1. Estimate the number of new households by income category generated by a prototype 100,000-square foot building in the land use category.

2. Multiply the number of households generated by the per-unit affordability gap (as calculated in Table 19) to determine the level of subsidy required to provide housing in Pleasanton for all new worker households.

3. Divide the total affordability gap by 100,000 square feet (the size of the prototype building) to determine a maximum fee per building square foot.

The “Maximum Fee per Square Foot” calculated in the following tables represents the maximum justifiable linkage fee that the City can charge for each land use category based on the required nexus findings. The City may, however, decide to adopt fees below the maximum justifiable levels based on economic or policy considerations The fee level ultimately adopted by City Council will depend on policy considerations regarding development feasibility and overall fee burdens.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 36
Table 20 Fee Calculation – Office
Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 24 $506,289 $12,150,927
Median Income 35 $389,946 $13,648,116
Moderate 8 $261,381 $2,091,048
Total 67 $14,241,976
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $14,241,976
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $142.42
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 37
Table 21 Fee Calculation – Commercial / Retail
Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 43 $594,100 $25,546,301
Low Income - 80% 60 $506,289 $30,377,318
Median Income 5 $389,946 $1,949,731
Moderate 0 $261,381 $0
Total 108 $57,873,350
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $57,873,350
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $578.73
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 38
Table 22 Fee Calculation – Industrial
Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 8 $506,289 $4,050,309
Median Income 17 $389,946 $6,629,085
Moderate 14 $261,381 $3,659,335
Total 39 $14,338,729
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $14,338,729
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $143.39
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 39
Table 23 Fee Calculation – Lodging
Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 9 $506,289 $4,556,598
Median Income 7 $389,946 $2,729,623
Moderate 0 $261,381 $0
Total 16 $7,286,221
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $7,286,221
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $72.86
Maximum Fee per Room1 d = c * 500 $36,431
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Lodging fees will be charged per room, rather than per square foot. This analysis assumes 500 square feet per room.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 40
Nexus Findings and Impact Fee Summary
This chapter documents the necessary findings for the approval of a comprehensive DIF program for Pleasanton, as required under Government Code Section 66000 (also referred to as AB1600/the Mitigation Fee Act). Specifically, it demonstrates the "nexus" between new development in Pleasanton and the infrastructure improvements needed to serve it. It also summarizes the DIF calculations presented in previous chapters.

Nexus Findings
The development impact fees to be collected for all new development are calculated based on the proportionate share of the total facility demand that the land uses included in the DIF are anticipated to represent at build-out of the General Plan. With this context, the following findings are made regarding the Fee Program.

Purpose and Use of Fees
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The fee will fund acquisition and improvements of new parks as well as existing facility improvements and renovations, as documented in Chapter 3.

Public Facilities
The fee will fund construction and expansion of public facilities, including general government, fire, police, and public works. The public facility components are documented in Chapter 3.

Transportation
Fee revenue will be used to fund City transportation improvements, including interchange, pedestrian / bicycle safety, and traffic signal improvements required to serve future growth. A list of projects and costs is included in Appendix Table B-1.

Commercial Linkage Fee
The fee generated by this program will be deposited in the City’s Lower Income Housing Fund, to assist in the production, acquisition of at-risk units, or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

Relationship between Use of Fees and Type of Development New development in the City of Pleasanton will require additional public facilities and capital improvements, to maintain adequate levels of service and meet the needs of new residents and employees. The DIF revenue will be used to fund the “fair share” cost of these facilities and improvements based on the nexus relationships described in previous

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 41
chapters. While some of the infrastructure improvements included in the DIF Long Term CIP will also benefit existing land uses, the cost allocated to the DIF only reflect the proportion of the cost attributable to new development.

New development will also generate demand for affordable housing. The Commercial Linkage Fee revenue will be used to support the development of affordable housing.

Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project The specific infrastructure improvements identified in this study are designed to accommodate the needs of new development. In addition, the infrastructure is based on the level of service standards and goals that reflect what is currently provided and/or addresses future needs identified by City staff. To establish a proper nexus between the demand for affordable housing and the type of project, EPS has assessed the proportion of lower wage workers and the number of square feet per employee for each employment category.

Relationship between Fee Amount and Cost Facilities Attributed to Development
The fee levels calculated in this Nexus Study are based on a fair share cost allocation to new citywide development. Overall, about 22.7 percent of the facility improvement costs are allocated to future development, which corresponds with growth as a percentage of future population, with the remainder attributable to existing land uses in the city.

EPS estimated the difference between the cost of developing new rental housing and the value of the new rental units based on rents affordable to workers at wages typical of businesses in different commercial land uses. The affordable rents yielded unit values below the cost of construction, indicating an “affordability gap.” To estimate the fee for each non-residential land use, this gap was multiplied by the anticipated number of lower wage workers generated by the new development projects and the number of households of various income categories those workers are likely to form.

Summary of Impact Fees
Table 24 summarizes the Capital Facilities fees and Transportation fees for residential and nonresidential uses.

The maximum fee estimates include a 2 percent fee program administration fee, consistent with other Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions. This 2 percent administration cost is designed to cover expenses for preparation of the development impact fee and subsequent updates, as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 42
Table 24 Capital Facilities & Transportation Fees

This analysis calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. Table 25 and Table 26 convert the Capital Facilities and Transportation fees for single family and multifamily into per square foot fees using the average unit sizes for those units. EPS has also provided a minimum and maximum per unit fee, based on the range of typical unit sizes. The minimum unit size has been adjusted to reflect the minimum square footage of a one-person household, based on the average unit sizes and average persons per household for single family and multifamily.

Land Use
Capital Facilties
Fees1
Transportation
Fee1 Total1
Residential (per unit)
Single Family $29,677 $20,565 $50,243
Multifamily $21,016 $11,158 $32,174
Nonresidential
Office (per sq. ft.) $13.41 $31.50 $44.92
Retail (per sq. ft.) $9.15 $48.35 $57.50
Industrial (per sq. ft.) $4.02 $17.94 $21.96
Lodging (per room) $671 $12,908 $13,579
(1) Includes 2% adminstrative charge.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 43
Table 25 Capital Facilities & Transportation Single Family Fee Per Sq. Ft. Conversion Capital
Facilities Transportation
Unit Size (sq.ft.)
Average1 a Redfin
Units equal or less than2 b
Units equal or greater than3 c Redfin
Fee / Unit
Average4 $29,677 $20,565 d
Minimum5 $9,786 $6,781 e = d * (b / a)
Maximum6 $53,419 $37,017 f = d * (c / a)
Fee Amounts
Units equal to or less than 824 sq.ft. (per unit) $9,786 $6,781 see "e" Units between 824 - 4,500 sq.ft. (per sq. ft.) $11.87 $8.23 = d / a Units equal to or greater than 4,500 sq.ft. (per unit) $53,419 $37,017 see "f" Formula Source /
Assumption
Amount
2,500
4,500
824
Item
(4) Based on the average development impact fee per unit as calculated in Table 24. (5) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of minimum unit size to the average unit size. (6) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of maximum unit size to the average unit size. (1) Represents average square footage of recently built single family housing (both detached and attached) in Pleasanton, based on Redfin sales data.
(2) Minimum size has been adjusted to reflect the square footage for a 1-person household, based on the average unit size (2,500 sq. ft.) and average persons per household (3.03) in Pleasanton. (3) Represents high end of recent home built in Pleasanton based on Redfin sales data.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 44
Table 26 Capital Facilities & Transportation Multifamily Fee Per Square Foot Conversion Capital
Facilities Transportation
Unit Size (sq.ft.)
Average1 a CoStar
Units equal or less than2 b
Units equal or greater than3 c CoStar
Fee / Unit
Average4 $21,016 $11,158 d
Minimum5 $9,786 $5,196 e = d * (b / a)
Maximum6 $37,570 $19,947 f = d * (c / a)
Fee Amounts
Units equal to or less than 417 sq.ft. (per unit) $9,786 $5,196 see "e" Units between 417 - 1,600 sq.ft. (per sq. ft.) $23.48 $12.47 = d / a Units equal to or greater than 1,600 sq.ft. (per unit) $37,570 $19,947 see "f" Source /
Assumption
(1) Represents average square footage of recently built single family housing (both detached and attached) in Pleasanton, based on (5) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of minimum unit size to the average unit size. (6) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of maximum unit size to the average unit size. (2) Minimum size has been adjusted to reflect the square footage for a 1-person household, based on the average unit size (895 sq. ft.) and average persons per household (2.15) in Pleasanton. (3) Represents high end of recent rental apartments built in Pleasanton based on CoStar rental data. (4) Based on the average development impact fee per unit as calculated in Table 24. 895
417
1,600
Item
Amount
Formula

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 45 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
The City of Pleasanton’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) requires that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. This program also includes the option for new development to pay a fee in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site, as an alternative means of compliance. This Chapter provides the calculation needed to establish the maximum allowable in-lieu fee amount that corresponds to the City’s IZO requirements.

When a developer builds the affordable units on-site, the project’s development costs are not significantly affected as it usually costs roughly the same to build a marketrate unit as an affordable unit, unless the units are materially different. However, the revenue the developer can expect from the affordable units is less than the revenue from the market-rate units. The developer is, in effect, subsidizing the development of the affordable units. Generally, the deeper the affordability for the units, the greater the amount of subsidy needed for the development.

As an alternative to on-site construction of the full inclusionary requirement, the developer may request to pay in-lieu fees. Pleasanton’s IZO also allows for smaller residential projects, below a threshold number of units, to pay in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees, which are a common alternative means of complying with an inclusionary requirement, are typically calculated based on the financial subsidy needed to support the development of affordable units that are not being provided on-site. The fee revenues are collected in a dedicated fund that can be utilized to support the production and preservation of affordable units in the city.

IZO Policy Scenarios
EPS worked closely with City staff to develop the inclusionary housing scenarios used in this analysis. Additionally, the study process was informed by input from City Council received at two separate public meetings in May and August, 2024. It is important to stress that the affordable housing in-lieu fee represents only one component of a large IZO policy framework that has been developed by City staff with City Council input, and which will be considered separately as part of a comprehensive update to the Ordinance. Other elements of the IZO will play a more significant role in the amount and type of affordable housing developed in the city over time.

EPS calculated an updated maximum in-lieu fee to align with the proposed changes to the IZO recommended by City staff and supported by City Council as illustrated in Table 27. Specifically, the calculations reflect the City’s intent to change the inclusionary percentage for ownership units (generally, single-family units) from 20 percent to 15 percent, bringing it into alignment with the inclusionary percentage for rental properties (generally, multi-family units). The subsidy between market rate and

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 46 affordable rates tends to be greater for ownership units, therefore the affordability level for these units is set at Moderate-income (120% AMI). For rental units, the affordable units will be evenly split between Very Low-income and Low-income households (50% and 60% AMI, respectively).

Table 27 Inclusionary Housing Requirements
Methodology
To calculate the subsidy needed to support the development of affordable units, EPS developed several residential prototypes to determine their respective development costs and estimated anticipated revenues.

Housing Prototypes
The prototype residential products used in the feasibility analysis were informed by EPS research on the local housing market. Research included review of recent developments and proposed projects, discussions with developers active in the region, and discussions with City staff. The chosen prototypes include one rental prototype – podium multifamily apartments - and three for-sale prototypes – condominiums, townhomes, and single-family detached homes.

The critical differentiator between the for-sale prototypes is the density at which they are built and how parking is provided, with the condominium product assumed to be built at a higher density (45 units per acre) than the townhome product (20 units per acre) and with wrap-around style parking. The townhome product is assumed to include an attached, “tuck-under” garage. The single-family detached product is assumed to be developed at an even lower density (5 units per acre) and with an attached garage. The analysis also assumes that the prototypical townhome is smaller than the prototypical single-family home. In some cases, there may be additional design factors – such as whether a unit is detached or attached – that are used to define a project as a townhome or single-family home. This analysis does not account for those types of factors, only differentiating the two prototypes based on density, parking, and unit size.

Overall
Very Low Income
(50% of AMI)
Low Income
(60% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% of AMI)
Ownership 15% 0% 0% 15%
Rental 15% 7.5% 7.5% 0%
Source: City of Pleasanton

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 47 The unit characteristics for each prototype are meant to represent average unit sizes and other generic project parameters. The analysis assumes that the unique unit mix of any particular project will, in aggregate, conform to these average unit sizes.

However, any specific project will have its own cost and revenue factors that may be impacted in part by its unit mix.

Development Cost Assumptions
Housing development costs categories include land acquisition, site preparation, indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.), and hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials). For multifamily projects that include a structured garage, EPS also defines parking costs per unit as a separate line item.

Data from recent developments and land transactions in the local market have been combined with information from interviews with various housing developers to inform the development cost assumptions used in this analysis. Table 28 calculates the cost per unit for all four development types. More detailed cost calculations can be found in Appendix G.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 48 Table 28 Prototype Development Costs (per unit)
Affordable Housing Values
Based on the maximum household income at each income level, which as defined in Pleasanton is based on the Alameda County Area Median Income, EPS calculated the maximum spending toward housing costs affordable at each income level. Consistent with the City’s published inclusionary program guidelines, the analysis assumes that rental households spend 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs and for-sale households spending 35 percent of gross annual income. For rental units, housing costs include rent and utilities. For for-sale units, housing costs include mortgage and interest payments, insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees.

To calculate the maximum affordable sale price for these for-sale units, EPS estimated other housing costs based on professional assumptions as well as assumptions given in the City’s inclusionary program guidelines and subtracted them from 35 percent of gross annual income to obtain the maximum income available for a mortgage payment. This mortgage payment was converted into an affordable home sale price assuming a 5 percent down payment10 and a 30-year mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 7 percent.

Table 29 indicates the maximum annual incomes for Alameda County households associated with each income category for the associated household size, as well as the affordable rents and sale prices associated with each category. 10 While The City’s affordable housing guidelines allow for down payments as low as 3 percent, 5 percent is commonly used when estimating affordable values due to the availability of assistance programs.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 49 Table 29 Affordable Home Values

Pleasanton Comprehensive Fee Update and Nexus Study November 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 50 Fee Calculations Table 30 summarizes the development costs and supportable home values for all prototypes and calculates the corresponding maximum justifiable in-lieu fee. Table 30 Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee Calculations

APPENDIX A:
2024 Pleasanton Development Impact Fee
Capital Improvement Program

Appendix Table A-1
2024 Pleasanton Development Impact Fee CIP
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Improvement Item Cost Allocated to Fee
Protram
Library & Recreation
Library Building 63,581 square feet $34,969,275
Community Center 6,459 square feet $3,229,588
Cultural & Arts Buildings 17,107 square feet $8,553,418 Aquatic Center Modernization $1,452,562
Cemetery $149,796
Parks & Trails
Open Space 298 acres $298,297
Developed Parkland 113 acres $56,517,797
Restrooms 3,706 square feet $7,411,612
Trails 79 miles $44,296,000
Fields 20 acres $19,744,529
Synthetic Fields 2 acres $2,190,534
Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities 2 acres $4,734,283
General Government
Civic Center 13,325 square feet $6,662,347
Parking Spaces 109 spaces $1,086,316
Public Works
Public Works Yard 15,769 square feet $8,672,898
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 276 vehicles $23,433,600
Police
Police Station 6,400 square feet $6,399,576
Public Works Yard Space 3,406 square feet $1,873,161
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 76 vehicles $5,302,397
Emergency Operations Center $1,270,992
Fire
Fire Stations 15,648 square feet $31,296,473
Public Works Yard Space 2,701 square feet $1,485,611
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 33 vehicles $8,799,160
Sources: City of Pleasanton, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Space Attributable to Growth

Appendix Table A-2
Baseline Data of Existing Facilities
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Facility Existing Amount
Civic Center (square feet)
200 Bernal 16,209
200 Bernal HR Modular 2,666
123 Main 9,243
123 Main IT Modular 2,048
157 Main 15,218
Subtotal 45,384
Parking Spaces (number of spaces)
Library 113
Police 88
123 Main 26
IT Modular 2
157 Main 40
200 Old Bernal 89
HR Modular 12
Subtotal 370
Public Works Yard (square feet)
Administrative Building1 7,808
Control Tower/Office 5,100
Parks Building 12,900
Steam Cleaning Office 493
Streets Building 12,900
Support Services Storage 2,500
Support Services Building 17,800
Vehicle Services Building 2,016
Subtotal 61,517
Cultural & Arts Buildings (square feet)
Cultural Arts Building (4477 Black Ave) 3,200
Amador Recreation Building 2,015
Amador Theater 12,530
Century House 2,730
Historical Building (603 Main St) 4,716
Nature House 800
VFW Building 9,025
Adobe House 750
Alviso Adobe 2,500
Fire House Arts Center 20,000
Subtotal 58,266

Appendix Table A-2
Baseline Data of Existing Facilities
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Facility Existing Amount
Police Buildings
Police Station 20,297
Joint BART/Pleasanton (50%)2 1,500
Subtotal 21,797
Source: City of Pleasanton
(1) The Public Works Yard Administrative Building is shared with the Utilities Department, which is funded by an enterprise fund. While the Administrative Building is actually 10,410 square feet, this analysis assumes 25% of that space is used by the Utilities Department and therefore is not included in this fee program.
(2) Analysis assumes responsibilities for 3,000 sf joint BART/Pleasanton substation are split 50/50 between BART and Pleasanton

APPENDIX B:
2024 Transportation Improvements

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Technical Memorandum
Date: September 24, 2024
To: Jason Moody and Megan Gregory, Economic & Planning Systems From: Julie Morgan and Bruno Lertora, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Pleasanton Transportation Impact Fee Update: Documentation of Nexus Analysis WC24-4053
Introduction
The Pleasanton Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program, as most recently updated in 2018, has a capital improvement list made up of 111 projects. As documented in previous nexus studies, the transportation facilities included in the Pleasanton TIF project list are needed in whole or in part to serve the demand created by new development in Pleasanton. The primary purpose of this current effort is to update the TIF project list by removing completed projects and incorporating 19 additional transportation improvement projects that are consistent with the purpose of the TIF program. As part of that effort, Fehr & Peers has completed a technical analysis regarding the nexus between new development, the need for the 19 additional transportation projects, and the costs associated with those improvements. This technical memorandum documents the steps in that analysis.

Transportation Project List
The list of new transportation improvement projects to be included in the TIF was developed by City staff. The projects are drawn from recent studies and plans that identified the needs for future improvements in order to serve the City’s transportation needs. Table 1 shows a summary of the project costs by type of improvement for the projects from the current TIF program that will remain on the project list, as well as for the new projects to be included in the TIF program.

Improvement projects have been subdivided into four categories: roadway improvements, new traffic signals, bicycle projects, and supporting citywide infrastructure. Projects that have already been completed or those for which TIF funding has already been secured have been removed from the list. Attachment 1 shows the detailed project list with project descriptions and extents,

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

along with the source for each project. The locations of the roadway improvements are shown geographically in Figure 1.

Table 1: Pleasanton TIF Transportation Project List
Project Type
2018 TIF Remaining
Projects New Projects Total 2024 TIF Project List
# of
Projects Cost* # of Projects Cost* # of Projects Cost*
Roadway
Improvements 31 $259,170,000 9 $11,685,000 40 $270,855,000 New Traffic
Signals 0 $0 1 $22,200,000 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Improvements
45 $129,560,000 8 $64,280,000 53 $193,840,000
Citywide Projects 2 $2,570,000 1 $500,000 3 $3,070,000
Total 78 $391,300,000 19 $98,665,000 97 $489,965,000
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Note: *The costs are in 2024 US dollars.

For the projects that are already part of the TIF program, the cost estimates from the 2018 TIF nexus study have been escalated to the current year to adjust for inflation. For the newly added projects, cost estimates have been developed based on assumptions about the planned right-ofway, roadway cross-sections, and landscaping treatments for each corridor. These assumptions have been based on similar existing corridors within the City of Pleasanton as well as the City’s roadway design standards, and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. In some cases, the estimated project cost is presented as a range, depending on design details that are not known at this point.

As shown in Table 1, the total cost of all projects is about $490 million. The results of the nexus analysis procedures are described in the following sections of this memorandum.

Nexus Analysis
In order to include the 19 additional projects that are proposed to be added to the TIF program, it is necessary to establish a “nexus” or relationship between new development in Pleasanton, the need for transportation improvements in order to serve that new development, and the cost of the improvements that would be covered by the TIF. The following procedures have been used to evaluate that nexus relationship.

! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
22 20
12 4
5 24
16 1
2 9
8 30
17 11
10 21
32 40
39 38 38
38 38
38 33
36 37
34 35
19 14
15 6
7 3
13 18
27 25 26
28 29
23 Pleasanton
Transportation Impact Fee
Legend
Roadway Improvement
! Intersection Improvement
## Project Number
City Limits
Figure 1
Roadway Improvements

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

First, there has been an evaluation of whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the 18 new project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency. Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the fee program. The concept of accounting for existing deficiencies in a fee study is that new development should not be charged the full cost of improving a facility if that facility is not meeting current operating standards during the critical peak hour (typically the PM peak period). As in the original TIF study, the determination of existing deficiencies is being drawn from the results of prior traffic analyses and the traffic count data available from the City, and no new traffic data has been collected. Based on the available information, no existing deficiencies were identified for the 19 new projects being added to the TIF list.

Anticipated Direct Developer Contributions
Some of the projects listed in Attachment 1 are anticipated to be partially funded through direct contributions from nearby developments, because those projects are needed to provide access to the developments or as mitigation for the developments’ direct impacts. In those instances, the percent eligibility for the TIF program has been set per direction from City staff. None of the 19 new projects proposed to be added to the TIF program involve any direct developer contributions.

Growth Projections
The City of Pleasanton’s Travel Demand Model was used to project future traffic volumes for the Buildout Year scenario. The travel demand model includes forecasted land use changes and roadway improvements, reflecting the growth anticipated in the Pleasanton General Plan. The total amount of citywide growth in the major land use categories is presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Growth Projections by Land Use Category
Land Use Unit Existing Buildout
Growth
(Existing -
Buildout)
% Growth
Residential Dwelling Units 30,992 37,781 6,788 22%
Non-Residential KSF 19,237 26,990 7,753 40%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

As part of this TIF study, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) has prepared refined projections of the number of residents and workers who would be associated with the new residential and nonresidential development summarized above. The EPS projections calculate that the “Service Population” which is defined as all of the residential population and 40% of the employees, is expected to grow from roughly 99,343 today to approximately 128,510 over the planning horizon

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

of this study. Thus, the Service Population added as a result of new growth will represent 22.7% of the total future Service Population.

Costs Attributable to Pleasanton
The next step in the nexus analysis is to determine the proportion of project costs attributable to the land uses within the City of Pleasanton.

Land use growth to the buildout year was incorporated into the Pleasanton travel demand model and the model was applied to generate estimates of travel patterns and volumes in the future. A common modeling technique called a select zone analysis was applied to identify the amount of future traffic volume on each roadway link that would be generated by land uses in Pleasanton.

On each model link that represents the location of a project, the future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton was compared to the overall future traffic volume, thereby calculating the share of the usage of that link that can be attributed to land uses in Pleasanton. These usage percentages are shown in Attachment 1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, From Model.

Following the same approach that was used in the 2018 TIF nexus study, if more than 70% of the usage of the facility was from Pleasanton, that indicates that the need for the improvement is predominantly due to Pleasanton-related travel so the entire cost of the project was considered to be included in the TIF program. This approach was used in recognition of the “lumpiness” of most transportation infrastructure (for example, it is not possible to build half of a left-turn lane or half of a traffic signal), and the consideration that if Pleasanton traffic was contributing more than 70% of the need for an improvement then it would be reasonable to conclude that the improvement would not be needed but for the growth in Pleasanton. If less than 70% of the usage was from Pleasanton, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton was used directly from the model. The result is shown in Attachment 1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. Note that these percentages have been newly calculated only for the 19 additional projects proposed to be included in the TIF program. For all of the projects that are remaining from the current TIF project list, the percentage of future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton has not been re-calculated but is carried forward from the 2018 TIF nexus study.

For projects that involve bicycle, pedestrian or safety enhancements, or those that are city-wide projects, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton is calculated based on current data about existing service population and projections of future growth. Per the growth projections described above, that value is 22.7%.

Final Nexus Results
For each project, the cost to be included in the TIF program was calculated as the estimated project cost multiplied by the eligibility factor (thus accounting for existing deficiencies and direct developer contributions) and then multiplied by the Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. As shown

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

in Table 3, the final project costs eligible for funding through the TIF program are approximately $294 million, with about $49 million of that total being associated with the 19 new projects to be added to the program.

Table 3: Pleasanton TIF Transportation Projects Cost Eligibility Project Type
2018 TIF Remaining
Projects New Projects Total 2024 TIF Project List
# of
Projects Cost* # of Projects Cost* # of Projects Cost*
Roadway
Improvements 31 $221,459,000 9 $11,685,000 40 $233,144,000 New Traffic
Signals 0 $0 1 $22,200,000 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Improvements
45 $23,320,800 8 $14,591,560 53 $37,912,360
Citywide Projects 2 $462,600 1 $113,500 3 $576,100
Total 78 $245,242,400 19 $48,590,060 97 $293,832,460
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Note: *The costs are in 2024 US dollars.

Trip Rate Factors
The costs attributable to new development in Pleasanton, described above, can be distributed across the various land uses that will make up the new development, in order to determine a reasonable fee for each land use category.

A typical method for achieving this distribution is to develop a set of factors that relate the transportation demands of different land use categories to each other. Table 4 presents a set of factors for the land use categories that might occur in Pleasanton; these factors are drawn from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), and an adjustment of 35% for pass-by trips is applied to retail uses (consistent with the approach from the 2018 TIF nexus study). Each land use factor is then multiplied by the corresponding growth projection to result in a Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) growth that can be added across categories.

Table 5 displays the calculated maximum impact fees based on this nexus analysis. The total potential future fee contribution toward all the projects shown in Table 3 ($293.8 million) has been divided by the total number of future Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUEs) expected in Pleasanton as shown in Table 4 (13,699 DUEs), to calculate the resulting maximum fee per trip of

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

21,449. That maximum fee per trip is then multiplied by the Adjusted PM Peak Hour Trip Rate for each of the categories shown in the previous table, and the results are presented in Table 5.

Table 4: Trip Rates and DUE Growth by Land Use Category Category Unit
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
Pass-by
Adjustment
Adjusted
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
Growth
(Existing -
Buildout)
DUE
Growth
Single-Family Residential DU 0.94 0% 0.94 6,788 3,769
Multi-Family Residential DU 0.51 0% 0.51
General Office KSF 1.44 0% 1.44
7,753 9,930 Light Industrial/R&D KSF 0.82 0% 0.82
Retail KSF 3.40 -35% 2.21
Hotel Rooms 0.59 0% 0.59
Total - 13,699
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Table 5: New Maximum Fee Calculations
Category Unit New Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential DU $20,162
Multi-Family Residential DU $10,939
General Office KSF $30,886
Light Industrial/R&D KSF $17,588
Retail KSF $47,402
Hotel Rooms $12,655
Other Categories PM Peak Hour Trip Rate $21,449
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

This concludes the technical elements of the transportation nexus analysis. Please contact us with any questions.

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

Attachment 1

Low High Minimum Maximum
1 Bernal Avenue I-680 to East of Foothill
Construct a new bridge to the south of the existing bridge to provide new bike lane and two eastbound travel lanes. Existing bridge will be converted to "westbound" direction only. $7,350,000 $7,350,000 No 100% 100% 100% $7,350,000 $7,350,000 2 Bernal Avenue I-680 to Valley Avenue
Widen to 6 lanes; at the intersection of Valley Avenue, convert the westbound right turn only lane into a through/right option lane; convert the SBR only lane to a channelized free right turn lane and convert the SB shared through/right lane to an exclusive SBT lane $1,470,000 $1,470,000 No 100% 96% 100% $1,470,000 $1,470,000 3 Bernal Avenue Case Avenue/Old Bernal Avenue Add southbound right turn lane on Old Bernal Avenue $740,000 $740,000 No 100% 96% 100% $740,000 $740,0004 Busch Road East of Ironwood Drive to El Charro Road Construct as 4 lane divided with Class I bike facility along south side or Class IV bike facilities $12,340,000 $12,340,000 No 100% 100% 100% $12,340,000 $12,340,000 5 El Charro Road Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard
Construct as 4 lane divided with Class I bike facility along west side or Class IV bike facilities $78,670,000 $78,670,000 No 100% 99% 100% $78,670,000 $78,670,000 6 First Street Vineyard Avenue/Ray Street Convert east/west to protected/permissive left turn phasing $110,000 $110,000 No 100% 97% 100% $110,000 $110,0007 First Street/Sunol Boulevard Bernal Avenue Add 2nd WBL lane on Bernal and extend 2nd SBT lane on First Street/Sunol Boulevard; include bike lanes $6,100,000 $6,100,000 No 100% 97% 100% $6,100,000 $6,100,000 8 Foothill Road Stoneridge Drive Add a third southbound left turn lane; consider removing split phasing $590,000 $890,000 No 100% 90% 100% $590,000 $890,0009 Foothill Road Foothill High School Widen SB approach to provide 2nd left-turn lane and NB right turns $1,620,000 $1,620,000 No 100% 100% 100% $1,620,000 $1,620,000 10 Hacienda Drive Owens Drive
Add 3rd southbound and eastbound left turn lanes from through lanes $2,360,000 $2,360,000 No 100% 95% 100% $2,360,000 $2,360,000 11A Hopyard Road Owens Drive (Phase I)
Modify northbound lanes to full build configuration: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn $0 $0 No 100% 86% 100% $0 $0
11B Hopyard Road Owens Drive (Full Build)
Modify lanes; Northbound: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn; Southbound: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn (free); Eastbound: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn; Westbound: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn (free); unsplit eastbound/westbound; narrow lane to reduce pedestrian clearance to 20 seconds $2,500,000 $2,500,000 No 100% 86% 100% $2,500,000 $2,500,000 12 Nevada Street First Street to California Avenue Construct as 2 lane street with TWLTL and bike lanes $7,350,000 $7,350,000 No 100% 100% 100% $7,350,000 $7,350,000 13 Santa Rita Road I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp/Pimlico Construct 2nd southbound left turn lane $11,310,000 $11,310,000 No 100% 91% 100% $11,310,000 $11,310,000 Attachment 1: 2024 Pleasanton TIF Update Project List
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Roadway Improvements
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 1

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 14 Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue
Construct second WB left-turn lane. Construct 3rd SB left-turn. Timing to be determined by City Council under Program 2.3. $2,940,000 $2,940,000 No 100% 100% 100% $2,940,000 $2,940,000 15 Stanley Boulevard Valley Avenue/Bernal Avenue
Extend sidewalk on east side of Valley Avenue (from the termination near the train overcrossing) to Stanley Boulevard and modify intersection to provide crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection and construct free westbound right turn lane. $3,680,000 $3,680,000 No 100% 99% 100% $3,680,000 $3,680,000 16 Stoneridge Drive I-680 Overpass Widen WB overpass by 1 to 2 lanes $11,760,000 $18,510,000 No 100% 90% 100% $11,760,000 $18,510,00017 Stoneridge Drive Hopyard Road Provide EB free right turn (maybe remove one SB through lane). Change cycle to 100 sec $1,140,000 $1,140,000 No 100% 97% 100% $1,140,000 $1,140,000 18 Stoneridge Drive Springdale Avenue Unsplit north/south phasing (safety improvement) $110,000 $110,000 Yes 18% Treated as existing deficiency because
project is primarily
safety-focused.
88% 100% $19,800 $19,800
19 Stoneridge Drive W Las Positas Boulevard
Convert a through lane for the northbound and southbound approaches to a left turn lane; restripe WB and EB lanes to add separate WB and EB right turn lanes on Stoneridge $80,000 $80,000 No 100% 100% 100% $80,000 $80,000
20 Sunol Boulevard I-680 Interchange
Widen roadway in interchange area; signalize both ramp intersections at Sunol Boulevard; widen structure over Happy Valley Road and provide a southbound acceleration lane from Sunol On-Ramp $31,000,000 $31,000,000 No 100% 97% 100% $31,000,000 $31,000,000 21 W Las Positas Boulevard Hopyard Road Construct 3rd westbound left turn lane $1,210,000 $1,210,000 No 100% 98% 100% $1,210,000 $1,210,000 22 Park and Ride Lot - Park and Ride lot at Bernal/I-680 $5,880,000 $5,880,000 No 100% 100% 100% $5,880,000 $5,880,00023 Embarcadero Court Embarcadero Court at two-way stop-controlled intersection Construct a roundabout $1,470,000 $1,470,000 No 100% 100% 100% $1,470,000 $1,470,000 24 El Charro Road I-580 Interchange
I-580/El Charro Road Interchange Improvements (Phase 2): reconstruction of overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction with bike lanes; reconstruction of the southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right tum lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum and two right tum lanes; and widening of the westbound on-ramp $46,120,000 $46,120,000 No 25%
City of Pleasanton is
only responsible for
25% of the project
cost
77% 100% $11,530,000 $11,530,000
25 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive at I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Modify signal and striping to convert #2 left turn lane to a left/right option lane $60,000 $60,000 No 100% 84% 100% $60,000 $60,00026 Hopyard Road Hopyard Road at I-580 Eastbound Ramp Modify signal to provide eastbound right/northbound through overlap period $50,000 $50,000 No 100% 72% 100% $50,000 $50,00027 Hopyard Road Hopyard Road at I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Re-stripe off-ramp to convert #2 left turn lane into a left/right option lane $30,000 $30,000 No 100% 56% 56% $16,800 $16,800 28 Stoneridge Drive Stoneridge Drive at I-680 Northbound Modify signal to allow a northbound right/westbound through overlap period $50,000 $50,000 No 100% 96% 100% $50,000 $50,00029 Valley Avenue Valley Avenue at Koll Center Parkway North Un-split east/west signal phasing $60,000 $60,000 No 100% 100% 100% $60,000 $60,000 2

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 30 - Johnson Drive at Stoneridge Drive
Construct 3rd eastbound left turn lane; widen southbound approach to six lanes for at least 700 feet north of intersection to provide an additional northbound receiving lane and an additional southbound right turn lane; add an additional southbound left turn lane; extend the westbound right turn pocket 800 feet, convert the lane to a shared through-right lane, and construct a second on-ramp lane to northbound I-680 $10,290,000 $10,290,000 No 100% 98% 100% $10,290,000 $10,290,000 31 Various Locations - Install flashing yellow arrows at up to 25 traffic signals $1,840,000 $3,680,000 Yes 18%
Treated as existing deficiency because
project is primarily
safety-focused.
100% $331,200 $662,400
32* Hopyard Road Hopyard @ Valley Unsplit eastbound and westbound and add a second eastbound left turn $890,000 $890,000 No 100% 97% 100% $890,000 $890,00033* West Las Positas Boulevard West Las Positas @ Muirwood Drive Widen eastbound and westbound approaches to allow for 2 through lanes. Need 200 feet of additional lane to improve intersection capacity $2,000,000 $2,000,000 No 100% 96% 100% $2,000,000 $2,000,000 34* West Las Positas Boulevard West Las Positas @ Foothill Road Add a second westbound left turn lane. Widen the south side of intersection to receive second left turn lane. Extend westbound left turn pocket $1,250,000 $1,250,000 No 100% 94% 100% $1,250,000 $1,250,000 35* Bernal Avenue Bernal Avenue at Foothill Road
Add a second southbound left turn lane and widen east side of intersection to receive additional turn lane $1,110,000 $1,110,000 No 100% 96% 100% $1,110,000 $1,110,000 36* Santa Rita Road Santa Rita @ Rosewood Add a second northbound left turn lane $1,210,000 $1,210,000 No 100% 93% 100% $1,210,000 $1,210,00037* Owens Drive Owens @ Willow Reduce crossing distance on west side of intersection $825,000 $825,000 No 100% 100% 100% $825,000 $825,00038* Valley Avenue Crestline, Blackbird, Paseo Santa Cruz (N), Hansen, Paseo Santa Cruz (S) Construct roundabouts $3,000,000 $3,000,000 No 100% 98% 100% $3,000,000 $3,000,000 39* Hopyard Road Hopyard @ Black
Redesign south side of intersection to allow 2 southbound through lanes through the intersection. $200,000 $200,000 No 100% 100% 100% $200,000 $200,000
40* Santa Rita Road at Amador High Modify design to allow southbound right turn lane into parking lot. Elevate bike lane $1,200,000 $1,200,000 No 100% 95% 100% $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $261,965,000 $270,855,000 $225,762,800 $233,144,000
41* Citywide Citywide Installation of new traffic signals $22,200,000 $22,200,000 No 100% $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000
42 Dublin Canyon Road Foothill Road to Canyon Meadow Circle Six foot bike lanes $350,000 $350,000 18% $63,000 $63,00043 Foothill Road Canyon Way to Castlewood Drive Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,250,000 $7,740,000 18% $225,000 $1,393,200 SUBTOTAL, Roadway Improvements
SUBTOTAL, New Traffic Signals
Bicycle and Pedestrian ImprovementsNew Traffic Signals
3

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 44 Hopyard Road I-580 WB Off-Ramp to Black Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,500,000 $9,290,000 18% $270,000 $1,672,200 45 Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive to Black Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $750,000 $4,650,000 18% $135,000 $837,00046 St Mary Street Division Street to Main Street Six foot bike lanes $40,000 $100,000 18% $7,200 $18,00047 Main Street Old Bernal Avenue to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes $30,000 $490,000 18% $5,400 $88,200 48 Abbie Street Main Street to First Street Six foot bike lanes $40,000 $40,000 18% $7,200 $7,20049 First Street Vineyard Avenue to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $380,000 $2,330,000 18% $68,400 $419,40050 Owens Drive Hopyard Avenue to W Las Positas Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $940,000 $5,810,000 18% $169,200 $1,045,80051 Stoneridge Drive Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,100,000 $1,900,000 18% $198,000 $342,000 52 W Las Positas Boulevard Santa Rita Road to Hacienda Drive Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $630,000 $3,870,000 18% $113,400 $696,600
53 W Las Positas Boulevard Dorman Road to Hopyard Road Five to five and a half foot bike lanes $70,000 $390,000 18% $12,600 $70,20054 Valley Avenue Sunol Boulevard to Case Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $190,000 $1,170,000 18% $34,200 $210,60055 Valley Avenue Hopyard Road to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $470,000 $5,030,000 18% $84,600 $905,40056 Valley Avenue Northway Road to Greenwood Road Six foot eastbound bike lanes $110,000 $110,000 18% $19,800 $19,80057 Valley Avenue Santa Rita Road to Stanley Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $400,000 $4,260,000 18% $72,000 $766,80058 Bernal Avenue Foothill Road to Pleasanton Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $470,000 $5,030,000 18% $84,600 $905,400
59 Bernal Avenue Kottinger Drive to Stanley Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $630,000 $3,870,000 18% $113,400 $696,60060 Sunol Boulevard Arlington Drive to I-680 Six foot bike lanes $110,000 $190,000 18% $19,800 $34,20061 Pleasanton Sunol Boulevard I-680 Interchange to Castlewood Drive Six foot bike lanes $70,000 $70,000 18% $12,600 $12,60062 Val Vista Community Park Trail Arroyo de la Laguna to Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive East bank:10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use $680,000 $1,090,000 18% $122,400 $196,200
63 Val Vista Community Park Trail Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive to Johnson Drive North/I-580 South and east banks:10 foot paved bikeway Compacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useIntersection/trail crossing at Stoneridge $1,710,000 $2,730,000 18% $307,800 $491,400
4

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 64 Val Vista Bridge Improvements Val Vista Community Park Trail & Arroyo de la Laguna Update bridge railing to meet Caltrans standards $140,000 $140,000 18% $25,200 $25,20065 Arroyo de la Laguna Arroyo Mocho to Arroyo del Valle East bank:10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use $1,870,000 $2,990,000 18% $336,600 $538,200
66 W Las Positas/Arroyo de la Laguna Trail Access Point Arroyo de la Laguna to W Las Positas Access gate and pathway from north side of W Las Positas Road $170,000 $170,000 18% $30,600 $30,60067 Arroyo de la Laguna Trail - South Extension Arroyo del Valle to near south end of Laguna Creek Lane 10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useRequires new bike/ped bridge at junction of Arroyo del Valle. Intersection improvements at Bernal Ave, Potential access points at Lylewood Drive, Bernal Avenue, and along Laguna Creek Lane $3,070,000 $3,070,000 18% $552,600 $552,600
68 Pleasanton Canal Bridge Improvements Alamo Canal Trail to Pleasanton Canal Change bridge railing to meet Caltrans standards, 55" height $110,000 $110,000 18% $19,800 $19,80069 Chabot Canal Owens Drive/Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station to W Las Positas Boulevard/Arroyo Mocho Trail
10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useIntersection Improvements at W Las Positas, Inglewood, Stoneridge, Gibraltar, Owens. Requires bridge at Arroyo Mocho. Provides between Arroyo Mocho Trail and DublinPleasanton BART, and Hart Middle School (Constrain: multiple mid-block crossings) $6,000,000 $6,000,000 18% $1,080,000 $1,080,000
70 Iron Horse Trail Between Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road Iron Horse Trail, intersection/trail crossing and signage improvements are needed; this area includes the intersection of W Las Positas with Stoneridge Drive and the Arroyo Mocho Trail with the Iron Horse Trail Corridor; construct bridge across Arroyo Mocho Trail $2,360,000 $4,120,000 18% $424,800 $741,600
71 Iron Horse Trail Busch Road to Stanley Boulevard
10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use from Busch Road, to Stanley Boulevard, at Shadow Cliffs Regional Park Entrance. Intersection/trail crossings improvements at Busch Road and Valley/Stanley intersection, and railroad crossing $12,360,000 $12,360,000 18% $2,224,800 $2,224,800
5

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 72 Tassajara Canal Rosewood Drive/I-580 to W Las Positas Boulevard/Arroyo Mocho Trail 10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useIntersection Improvements at Rosewood, Owens, Stoneridge, W Las Positas. Requires bridge at Arroyo Mocho. Study potential for crossing at I-580 to connect with Tassajara Creek Trail in Dublin, (constraints, multiple mid-block crossings, current adjacent land uses are commercial office/industrial parks which turn backs to canal with no access $3,450,000 $4,770,000 18% $621,000 $858,600
73 Arroyo Mocho Hopyard Road to City Limit near Busch Road South bank:
10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useProvides connection to future trails to Livermore
$4,770,000 $7,610,000 18% $858,600 $1,369,800
74 Arroyo Mocho Near Gulfstream Street to City Limit near Busch Road Access improvements from Fairlands Park and
Meadows Park neighborhoodsNorth bank:10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useProvides connection to future trails to Livermore
$1,570,000 $2,500,000 18% $282,600 $450,000
75 Arroyo Mocho Hopyard Road to Santa Rita Road Access Improvements from Parkside neighborhood $100,000 $100,000 18% $18,000 $18,00076 Arroyo Mocho - Fairlands Connector W Las Positas to Arroyo Mocho Trail In coordination with any future major redevelopment of the Nob Hill shopping center site at the SW corner of W Las Positas and Hopyard, provide a multi-use trail connecting from Fairlands Elementary School to the Arroyo Mocho trail. Consider new bike/pedestrian bridge for this connection $480,000 $760,000 18% $86,400 $136,800
77 Pleasanton Canal Arroyo de la Laguna to Hopyard Road North bank:10 foot paved bikewayCompacted soil/decompressed granite side path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian useProvides connection Tennis & Community Park and Pleasanton Sports & Recreation Park $1,190,000 $1,900,000 18% $214,200 $342,000
78 Pleasanton Canal Arroyo de la Laguna to Hopyard Road Trail Access Improvements $2,190,000 $3,110,000 18% $394,200 $559,80079 Pleasanton Sports & Recreation Park Hopyard Road to Omega Circle Trail Access Improvements $50,000 $50,000 18% $9,000 $9,000 80 Arroyo del Valle Main Street to Shadow Cliffs Regional Park Trail improvements per Community Trails Master Plan $4,280,000 $4,280,000 18% $770,400 $770,400 81 Main Street/Santa Rita to Stanley connector South end of Santa Rita frontage road to Stanley Boulevard Realign existing path on east side of Main Street south side of railroad. Add bike/ped crossing gate at the railroad crossing from Santa Rita frontage road southbound $680,000 $680,000 18% $122,400 $122,400
82 Regional Trail Bernal Avenue to Stanley Boulevard
10' concrete pedestrian/bike path6' decomposed granite multi-use path. Intersection/trail crossing improvements $2,790,000 $2,790,000 18% $502,200 $502,200
83 Regional Trail Bernal Avenue to City Limit near I-680 Class I Multi-Use Trail, connecting with
planned East Bay Regional Parks District Trail south. Provides route avoiding the Sunol Boulevard crossing of I-680
$1,700,000 $2,720,000 18% $306,000 $489,600
84 Interchanges I-580 (Foothill, Hopyard, Hacienda, Santa Rita and El Charro) and I-680 (Stoneridge, Bernal and Sunol) Interchange improvements for bikes $8,390,000 $8,390,000 18% $1,510,200 $1,510,200 85 Foothill Road - Foothill Road Bike Master Plan $60,000 $60,000 18% $10,800 $10,800 6

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for Fee Program Roadway Explanation of Eligibility Percent Pleasanton Trips, from Model Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted Intersection/Segment Improvements 86 Downtown - Downtown Bike Master Plan $230,000 $370,000 18% $41,400 $66,600 87* West Las Positas Corridor Foothill to Fairlands Pedestrian and bicycle improvements identified in WLP Corridor plan $50,000,000 $50,000,000 No 23% $11,350,000 $11,350,00088* Stoneridge Mall Road Full loop Add sidewalk $510,000 $510,000 No 23% $115,770 $115,77089* Stoneridge Mall Road Full loop Add cycle track $3,780,000 $3,780,000 No 23% $858,060 $858,06090* Bernal Avenue Valley to Fire Station Add bike lane in the eastbound direction $110,000 $110,000 No 23% $24,970 $24,97091* Peters Avenue St. John to Old Bernal Construct two-way cycle track on west side of roadway $2,000,000 $2,000,000 No 23% $454,000 $454,000
92* Safety Corridors Santa Rita, Stoneridge Hopyard Convert to protected intersections $6,600,000 $6,600,000 No 23% $1,498,200 $1,498,20093* Stanley Boulevard Valley to City Limit Extend two-way cycle track / mixed use path design from intersection to the mixed use path that exists to the east of the BMX park
$880,000 $880,000 No 23% $199,760 $199,760
94* Citywide Trails Improve trail access by adding gates and paths from existing sidewalks $400,000 $400,000 No 23% $90,800 $90,800 $134,210,000 $193,840,000 $27,178,960 $37,912,360
95 Citywide -
Expand the City's ITS equipment and capabilities; update the City's Traffic Operations Center Hardware (computers, servers, switches, monitors, etc.); web integration and information dissemination project to provide information to public through various media (i.e., web, mobile, phone, etc.); includes 5 years of service $950,000 $950,000 18% $171,000 $171,000
96 Citywide -
Upgrade and update of approximately 70 traffic controllers to allow for Ethernet communications; upgrade system communication to Ethernet and establish communication to all signals; upgrade existing controller software to the latest version $1,620,000 $1,620,000 18% $291,600 $291,600
97* Citywide - Update to the existing traffic model $500,000 $500,000 23% $113,500 $113,500 $322,780,000 $391,300,000 $227,127,800 $245,242,400
$98,665,000 $98,665,000 $48,590,060 $48,590,060
$421,445,000 $489,965,000 $275,717,860 $293,832,460
Note: New projects added in the 2024 TIF Update are marked with asterisk symbol (*).

Remaining Project TOTAL
New Projects TOTAL
OVERALL TOTAL (Remaining + New Projects)
SUBTOTAL, Bicycle Improvements
Citywide Projects
7

APPENDIX C:

AƯordable Housing Income Limits

Appendix Table C-1
Alameda County 2024 Income Limits by Persons in HouseholdPleasanton Fee Update 12 3 4 5 6 7
Acutely Low Income 0% - 15% $16,350 $18,700 $21,000 $23,350 $25,200 $27,100 $28,950Extremely Low Income 30% $32,700 $37,400 $42,050 $46,700 $50,450 $54,200 $57,950Very Low Income 50% $54,500 $62,300 $70,100 $77,850 $84,100 $90,350 $96,550Low Income 60% $65,400 $74,730 $84,090 $93,420 $100,890 $108,360 $115,830Low Income 80% $84,600 $96,650 $108,750 $120,800 $130,500 $140,150 $149,800Median Income 100% $109,000 $124,550 $140,150 $155,700 $168,150 $180,600 $193,050Moderate Income 120% $130,800 $149,500 $168,150 $186,850 $201,900 $216,750 $231,700Moderate Income 150% $163,500 $186,825 $210,225 $233,550 $252,225 $270,900 $289,575 Sources: CA Department of Housing and Community Development; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Affordability Category
Maximum Percentage of
County Median
Number of Persons in Household

APPENDIX D:
/PO
3FTJEFOUJBM
-BOE
6TF
%FTDSJQUJPOT

Appendix Table D-1
Non-Residential Category Descriptions
Pleasanton Fee Study
Land Use Category Description and Examples NAICS SectorsCommercial/Retail Businesses selling or providing merchandise, entertainment, and personal services to the general public. Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, general merchandise stores, beauty salons, and gas stations. Food and drinking places are also included in this category. 44 and 45 - Retail Trade532 - Rental and Leasing Services722 - Food Services and Drinking Places812 - Personal and Laundry Services Lodging Lodging or short-term accommodations for travelers, vacationers, and others in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, resort hotels, and motels. Does not include short-term rentals. 721000 - Accommodation.

Office Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on professional, financial, scientific, and technical services. Examples include finance, insurance, real estate, law, engineering, medical offices, and science and technology. 51 - Information52 - Finance and Insurance53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532000 -Rental and Leasing Services)54 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises561 - Admin. and Support Services6211 - Offices of Physicians 6212 - Offices of Dentists6213 - Offices of Other Health Practitioners6214 - Outpatient Care Centers6215 - Medical and Diagonostic Laboratories Industrial/R&D Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on assembling, distributing, or repairing products; businesses focused on the testing and invention of new materials, products, or processes; and businesses engaged in the transformation of raw materials into consumable products. Examples include auto repair, self-storage facilities, and food/beverage products manufacturing. Additionally includes warehousing, and the storage and distribution of goods. 22 - Utilities23 - Construction31 - Manufacturing42 - Wholesale Trade484 - Truck Transportation493 - Warehousing & Storage811 - Repair and Maintenance Sources: City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/27/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\231000s\231081_Pleasanton_ImpactFee\CommercialLinkage\231081_PleasantonLinkage09042024.xlsb.xlsx\T3_Emp_Category_Def

APPENDIX E:

Occupation Distributions By Land Use Category

Appendix Table E-
Occupation and Wage Distribution - OfficePleasanton Fee Update Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HHManagement Occupations $190,189.69 12.08% $340,439.54 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $109,574.09 12.72% $196,137.62 Above ModerateComputer and Mathematical Occupations $143,171.62 9.73% $256,277.19 Above ModerateArchitecture and Engineering Occupations $126,733.41 4.35% $226,852.81 Above ModerateLife, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $117,113.42 3.35% $209,633.02 Above ModerateCommunity and Social Service Occupations $72,901.01 1.47% $130,492.81 Moderate Legal Occupations $177,265.53 1.93% $317,305.30 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $77,620.09 0.17% $138,939.96 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $107,865.12 2.99% $193,078.57 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $146,806.42 9.65% $262,783.50 Above ModerateHealthcare Support Occupations $58,401.33 4.56% $104,538.38 Median Protective Service Occupations $45,503.11 2.85% $81,450.57 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $42,081.80 0.31% $75,326.43 Low - 80%Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $49,239.19 5.76% $88,138.16 Low - 80%Personal Care and Service Occupations $45,408.38 0.49% $81,281.00 Low - 80%Sales and Related Occupations $95,622.38 6.17% $171,164.06 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support Occupations $59,331.54 14.75% $106,203.46 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $50,329.29 0.11% $90,089.43 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $81,943.93 0.69% $146,679.63 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $69,898.86 2.09% $125,118.97 ModerateProduction Occupations $50,311.25 1.54% $90,057.14 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $45,028.98 2.26% $80,601.87 Low - 80%Total or Weighted Average $107,955.58 100.00% $193,240.49 Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Oakland-FremontBerkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Office
[1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 51 - Information; 52 - Finance and Insurance; 53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532000 -Rental and Leasing Services); 54 -Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises; 561 - Admin. and Support Services; 6211 - Offices of Physicians; 6212 - Offices ofDentists; 6213 - Offices of Other Health Practitioners; 6214 - Outpatient Care Centers; and 621500 - Medical and Diagonostic Laboratories.

Income Category
HH Income at

Appendix Table E-
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Commercial/RetailPleasanton Fee Update Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HHManagement Occupations $113,984.36 4.15% $204,032.01 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $83,844.08 1.28% $150,080.90 Above ModerateComputer and Mathematical Occupations $110,151.18 0.27% $197,170.60 Above ModerateArchitecture and Engineering Occupations $108,059.95 0.02% $193,427.32 Above ModerateLife, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $72,681.78 0.01% $130,100.38 Moderate Community and Social Service Occupations $48,053.74 0.04% $86,016.19 Low - 80% Legal Occupations $103,257.95 0.02% $184,831.73 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $57,721.53 0.05% $103,321.53 Median Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $63,118.73 0.88% $112,982.53 MedianHealthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $99,977.79 1.72% $178,960.25 Above Moderate Healthcare Support Occupations $65,049.21 0.49% $116,438.09 Median Protective Service Occupations $46,978.54 0.32% $84,091.59 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $39,864.03 36.91% $71,356.62 Low - 60%Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $45,703.53 0.83% $81,809.32 Low - 80%Personal Care and Service Occupations $46,413.98 5.09% $83,081.02 Low - 80%Sales and Related Occupations $45,282.34 26.00% $81,055.40 Low - 80%Office and Administrative Support Occupations $52,341.58 5.40% $93,691.43 Low - 80%Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $42,195.83 0.14% $75,530.53 Low - 80%Construction and Extraction Occupations $68,067.59 0.19% $121,840.99 Median Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $63,064.55 2.63% $112,885.54 MedianProduction Occupations $46,988.54 2.23% $84,109.48 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $43,635.21 11.35% $78,107.02 Low - 80%Total or Weighted Average $48,833.76 100.00% $87,412.42 Sources: JobsEQ, 2021; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 44 and 45 - Retail Trade; 532000 - Rental and Leasing Services; 812000 - Personal and Laundry Services; and 722000 - Food Services and DrinkingPlaces.

Commercial/Retail
Oakland-FremontBerkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category Income Category
HH Income at

Appendix Table E-
Occupation and Wage Distribution - IndustrialPleasanton Fee Update Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HHManagement Occupations $170,068.19 8.09% $304,422.05 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $107,128.27 5.63% $191,759.60 Above ModerateComputer and Mathematical Occupations $150,750.78 2.34% $269,843.90 Above ModerateArchitecture and Engineering Occupations $126,716.77 3.75% $226,823.01 Above ModerateLife, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $100,708.55 0.72% $180,268.30 Above ModerateCommunity and Social Service Occupations $78,825.42 0.00% $141,097.51 Moderate Legal Occupations $224,628.17 0.07% $402,084.43 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $69,671.15 0.01% $124,711.37 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $86,811.16 0.78% $155,391.98 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $113,972.14 0.11% $204,010.12 Above ModerateHealthcare Support Occupations $69,978.63 0.01% $125,261.74 Moderate Protective Service Occupations $58,763.47 0.13% $105,186.61 Median Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $41,626.70 0.51% $74,511.79 Low - 60% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $52,033.86 0.58% $93,140.60 Low - 80%Personal Care and Service Occupations $47,839.93 0.01% $85,633.48 Low - 80%Sales and Related Occupations $88,773.80 5.87% $158,905.10 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support Occupations $60,870.71 9.10% $108,958.57 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $46,920.74 0.25% $83,988.12 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $81,208.86 19.00% $145,363.86 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $76,268.71 7.28% $136,521.00 ModerateProduction Occupations $60,443.04 21.87% $108,193.05 Median Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $53,036.54 13.89% $94,935.40 Low - 80% Total or Weighted Average $82,806.00 100.00% $148,222.75 Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 22 - Utilities; 23 - Construction; 42 - Wholesale Trade; 484 - Truck Transportation; 493 - Warehousing & Storage; and 811 - Repair and Maintenance % of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category Income Category
HH Income at
Industrial
Oakland-FremontBerkeley, CA MD
Average Wage

Appendix Table E-
Occupation and Wage Distribution - LodgingPleasanton Fee Update Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HHManagement Occupations $127,300.00 7.90% $227,867.00 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $72,100.00 2.32% $129,059.00 Moderate Computer and Mathematical Occupations $95,600.00 0.20% $171,124.00 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering Occupations $134,300.00 0.07% $240,397.00 Above ModerateLife, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $92,900.00 0.01% $166,291.00 Above ModerateCommunity and Social Service Occupations $70,700.00 0.03% $126,553.00 Moderate Legal Occupations $311,900.00 0.01% $558,301.00 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $74,500.00 0.10% $133,355.00 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $89,700.00 0.20% $160,563.00 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $121,600.00 0.01% $217,664.00 Above ModerateHealthcare Support Occupations $63,100.00 0.60% $112,949.00 Median Protective Service Occupations $47,700.00 1.96% $85,383.00 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $46,100.00 21.07% $82,519.00 Low - 80%Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $54,000.00 30.04% $96,660.00 Median Personal Care and Service Occupations $48,500.00 4.12% $86,815.00 Low - 80% Sales and Related Occupations $67,000.00 2.50% $119,930.00 Median Office and Administrative Support Occupations $48,900.00 19.34% $87,531.00 Low - 80% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $51,800.00 0.08% $92,722.00 Low - 80%Construction and Extraction Occupations $77,500.00 0.20% $138,725.00 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $67,500.00 5.91% $120,825.00 Median Production Occupations $53,100.00 2.44% $95,049.00 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $45,600.00 0.87% $81,624.00 Low - 80%Total or Weighted Average $58,598.75 100.00% $104,891.77 [1] Includes NAICS Sector: 721 - Accommodation.

Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Lodging
Oakland-FremontBerkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
HH Income at
Income Category

APPENDIX F:

Demographic Assumptions

Appendix Table F-1
Commercial Linkage Fee Demographic AssumptionsPleasanton Fee UpdateItem SourceDemographic AssumptionsHouseholds with Earnings 23,111 households American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022Workers per Household with Workers 1.79 persons American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022Persons per Working Household 3.40 persons American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022Pleasanton Workers Living in Pleasanton 9.0% of workers US Census Bureau "On The Map" 2021 data Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022;US Census Bureau "On The Map"; City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX G:

Housing Proformas

Appendix Table G-1
Market-Rate Protot\pes and Development Cost Assumptions Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update
Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
TenureParcel Size 1 acreDensity 5 units/acreUnit Size 3,000 sq.ft.Number of Bedrooms 4.0 per unitAmount of Parking 2.0 per unitDevelopment Costs Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $800,000Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $261,360 Subtotal, Land $1,061,360
Direct Construction Costs $200 per bldg. sq.ft. $600,000Parking Costs $0 per space $0Builder Fee 5.0% of direct const. costs $30,000 Subtotal, Direct Costs $630,000Development Impact Fees [1] $175,981 per unit $175,981Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $126,000Subtotal, Indirect Costs 48% of direct costs $301,981Total Construction Costs $1,993,341 [1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and marketSources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers Ownership
Single Family Detached
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-2
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost AssumptionsPleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update Item Per Unit
Development PrototypeTenureParcel Size 1 acreDensity 20 units/acre Unit Size 2,000 sq.ft.Number of Bedrooms 3.0 per unitAmount of Parking 2.0 per unitDevelopment Costs Land Costs $4,500,000 per acre $225,000Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $65,340 Subtotal, Land $290,340
Direct Construction Costs $225 per sq.ft. $450,000Parking Costs $0 per space $0Builder Fee 5.0% of direct const. costs $22,500 Subtotal, Direct Costs $472,500
Development Impact Fees [1] $97,722 per unit $97,722Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $94,500 Subtotal, Indirect Costs 41% of direct costs $192,222Total Construction Costs $955,062 Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers[1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements[2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Ownership
Single Family Attached Townhome
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-3
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost AssumptionsPleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update Item Per Unit
Development PrototypeTenureParcel Size 1 acreDensity 40 units/acreUnit Size 1,500 sq.ft.Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,500,000 per acre $112,500Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $32,670 Subtotal, Land $145,170
Direct Construction Costs $325 per sq.ft. $487,500Parking Costs $40,000 per space, wrap-style $60,000Builder Fee 5.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $27,375 Subtotal, Direct Costs $574,875Development Impact Fees [1] $65,550 per unit $65,550Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $114,975Subtotal, Indirect Costs 31% of direct costs $180,525Total Construction Costs $900,570 Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers[1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements[2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and marketstudy; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Ownership
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost AssumptionsPleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update Item Per Unit
Development PrototypeTenureParcel Size 1 acreDensity 75 units/acreUnit Size 800 sq.ft.Number of Bedrooms 1.0 per unit Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $5,000,000 per acre $66,667Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $17,424 Subtotal, Land $84,091
Direct Construction Costs $325 per sq.ft. $260,000Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $75,000Builder Fee 5.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $16,750 Subtotal, Direct Costs $351,750
Development Impact Fees [1] $60,692 per unit $60,692
Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $70,350
Subtotal, Indirect Costs 37% of direct costs $131,042Total Construction Costs $566,883 Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers[1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements[2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and marketstudy; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Multifamily Attached Podium
Assumptions
Rental

Water and Wastewater
Connection Fee Study
October 17, 2024
City of
Pleasanton

EXHIBIT B

This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

445 S Figueroa Street, Suite 1925
Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.raftelis.com

October 17, 2024
Tamara Baptista
Deputy Director of Business Services, Operations Services Department City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Subject: Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study
Dear Ms. Baptista,
Raftelis is pleased to provide this Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study Report (Report) for the City of Pleasanton (City).

The major objectives of the study include the following:
x Review the current connection fee structure and propose updates to reflect the current state of the water and wastewater systems and future capital improvements as well as industry standards x Provide subject matter expertise in the methodology used to calculate the proposed connection fee schedules
x Confirm that proposed connection charges are fair to both future users and existing users who have invested and reinvested in the water and wastewater systems This Report summarizes the analyses, key assumptions, results, and proposed fees.

It has been a pleasure working with you, and we thank you and the City staff for their support during the study.

Sincerely,

Brian Bass
Project Manager

This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

5 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...................................... 7 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 7 ECONOMIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 7 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS ............................ 8 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ............................................................... 9 CONNECTION FEE METHODOLOGIES .............................................................. 9 Buy-In Method .............................................................................................................................9 Incremental Cost Method ......................................................................................................... 10 Hybrid Method........................................................................................................................... 10 Recommended Methodology ................................................................................................... 11 SYSTEM VALUE AND EQUIVALENT UNITS ..................................... 11 WATER CONNECTION FEE .............................................................................. 11 System Value ............................................................................................................................ 11 Equivalent Units........................................................................................................................ 11 Incremental Unit Cost ............................................................................................................... 12 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE ................................................................. 12 System Value ............................................................................................................................ 12 Equivalent Units........................................................................................................................ 12 Incremental Unit Cost ............................................................................................................... 13 PROPOSED CONNECTION FEES ...................................................... 14 WATER CONNECTION FEE .............................................................................. 14 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE ................................................................. 16

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 6
This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

7 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Introduction
Connection fees are also commonly known as developer fees, development impact fees, capacity fees, tap fees, and system development charges, among others. This report uses the term connection fees reflecting the nomenclature used by the City. Connection fees are one-time capital charges assessed against new development to recover the proportional share of capital facility investment previously constructed by a utility (or to be constructed) to accommodate growth. Connection fees are codified in the California Government Code Sections 66000-60025.

Connection fees must reflect the link between the fee imposed on, and the benefit received by, a new connection to the system. The fee charged may not exceed the reasonable share of costs associated with providing the service.

Broadly, utilities use one of three different methodologies to calculate capacity fees: Buy-In, Incremental, and Hybrid. Variations of each are dictated by local community and system characteristics and policy objectives.

Utilities have broad latitude in the method and approach used to calculate fees, provided the fees reflect the cost and do not exceed the reasonable costs for providing service to the connection. These fees are designed to be proportional to the burden placed on the system by new connections.

Background and Legal
Framework
Background of the Study
The City revised its water connection fees in 1992, wastewater connection fees in 2008, and recycled water connection fees in 2015. The adopted connection fees have not consistently been adjusted annually for inflation.

The City engaged Raftelis in 2024 to conduct a connection fee study to examine the existing approach against alternatives that may better reflect current community conditions, system characteristics, and policy objectives.

Raftelis worked collaboratively with City staff throughout the study to calculate the proposed connection fees.

This report documents the findings, analyses, and proposed changes to the City’s water and wastewater connection fees. The updated connection fees documented in this report are in accordance with the rules and regulations of California State Government Code Section 66013. This report is the formal technical documentation supporting modifications to the water and wastewater connection fees within the City’s service area, including data sources, methodology, results, and comparisons.

Economic and Legal Framework
For publicly owned systems, most of the assets are typically paid for by the contributions of existing customers through rates, charges, securing debt, and taxes. In service areas that incorporate new customers, the infrastructure developed by previous customers is generally extended towards the service of new customers. Existing customers’ investment in the existing system capacity allows newly connecting customers to take advantage of unused surplus capacity. To further economic equality among new and existing customers, new connectors will typically “Buy-In” to the existing and pre-funded facilities based on the existing assets, effectively putting them on par with existing customers. In other words, the new users are buying into the existing system based on the replacement costs of existing assets to continue providing the same service level to new customers through repairs, expansions, and upgrades to the system.

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 8
The basic economic philosophy behind connection fees is that those who receive utility from the product should pay for service costs. To effect fair distribution of the system's value, the charge should reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of providing capacity to new users and not unduly burden existing users through a comparable rate increase. Accordingly, many utilities make this philosophy one of their primary guiding principles when developing their connection fee structure.

The philosophy that service should be paid for by those who receive utility service is often referred to as “growthshould-pay-for-growth.” The principle is summarized in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M26: Water Rates and Related Charges:
“The purpose of designing customer-contributed-capital system charges is to prevent or reduce the inequity to existing customers that results when these customers must pay the increase in water rates that are needed to pay for added plant costs for new customers. Contributed capital reduces the need for new outside sources of capital, which ordinarily has been serviced from the revenue stream. Under a system of contributed capital, many water utilities are able to finance required facilities by use of a ‘growth-pays-for-growth’ policy.” This principle, in general, applies to water and wastewater systems. In the excerpt above, customer-contributed capital system charges are equivalent to connection fees.

Legal Framework and California Requirements
In establishing connection fees, it is important to understand and comply with local laws and regulations governing establishing, calculating, and implementing connection fees. The following sections summarize Raftelis’ understanding1
of the regulations applicable to developing connection fees for the City.

Connection fees must be established based on a reasonable relationship to the costs and benefits of the development or expansion. Courts have long used a standard of reasonableness to evaluate the legality of development charges.

The basic statutory standards governing connection fees are embodied by California Government Code Sections 66013, 66016, 66022, and 66023. Government Code Section 66013 contains requirements specific to determining utility development charges:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount the fee or charge in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.” Section 66013 also includes the following general requirements:
x Local agencies must follow a process set forth in the law, making certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the charge; they must establish a nexus, or relationship, between a development project and the improvement being financed with the charge.
x The capacity charge revenue must be segregated from the General Fund to avoid commingling of connection fees and the General Fund.
1 Raftelis does not practice law, nor does it provide legal advice. Our discussion provides a general overview of Raftelis’ understanding as utility rate and charges practitioners and is labeled “Legal Framework and California Requirements” for literary convenience only. The City should consult with its legal counsel for clarification and/or specific guidance.

9 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Methodology Overview
A connection fee is a one-time charge paid by a newly connecting water or wastewater system customer for the cost of backbone facilities necessary to provide water system capacity to that new customer. New customers are directly impacted when the City requires them to mitigate the costs of backbone facilities. If the impacts are cumulative over time, then the impact is indirectly addressed by the payment of connection fees. Backbone facilities are built in advance with the capacity needed for new customers, and as customers connect and use this capacity, they are expected to pay their fair share of those costs. Revenues generated by this charge are used to pay for growthrelated water and wastewater facilities. Backbone facilities refer to those components of the system that are necessary to provide service to all customers. Water backbone facilities include sources of supply, treatment, pumping, major water transmission lines, and daily storage; and wastewater backbone facilities include conveyance, pumping, and treatment.

A connection fee may be developed as a single charge for the entire backbone system or as individual charges for each backbone component. The City has historically calculated the capacity fee as a single charge, which is the most common approach across California. The City’s water connection fees have historically been charged by meter size. The City’s wastewater connection fees have historically been charged by a unit factor, which differs by customer class. Residential customers are charged per dwelling unit, while non-residential customers are charged per square foot with some exceptions, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are charged per square foot, and churches and hotels/motels, which are charged per seat and per room, respectively. Under specific conditions, the City Building Official has the discretion to adjust a connection fee based on historical water usage, among other factors.

Connection Fee Methodologies
The method for calculating connection fees generally utilizes one of the following three approaches: Buy-In, Incremental, or Hybrid. The Buy-In approach is designed to recover the historical costs of plant investment in proportion to the amount of built capacity, some of which is available for new growth. The Incremental approach is designed to recover the costs of future growth-related projects and the additional capacity those projects will yield. The Hybrid approach combines aspects of the buy-in and incremental approaches. It is appropriate where some remaining capacity is available in the existing system and new future facilities are required for development.

BUY-IN METHOD
The “Buy-In Method” is backward-looking and based on the premise that new customers are entitled to service at the same cost as existing customers. Under this approach, new customers pay only an amount equal to the current system value, either using the original cost or replacement cost as the valuation basis and either deducting the value of depreciation or not. This net investment, or value of the system, is then divided by the current system capacity to determine the Buy-In cost per unit.

For example, if the existing system has 100 units of equivalent 3/4" meters and the new connector uses a 3/4" meter, then the new customer would pay 1/100 of the total value of the existing system. The new connector has “bought in” to the existing system by contributing this connection fee. The new user has effectively acquired a financial position on par with existing customers and will face future capital re-investment on an equal financial footing with those customers. This approach is suitable when: (1) an agency has built most or all of its facilities and only a small, or no, portion of future facilities are required for additional development, (2) an agency does not have a detailed adopted long-term capital improvement plan, or (3) an agency’s “build-out” date is so far out in the future that it is

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 10
difficult to project growth and required facilities with precision accurately. Figure 1 shows the framework for calculating a Buy-In connection fee.

Figure 1: Formula for Buy-In Approach

INCREMENTAL COST METHOD
The Incremental Cost Method is forward-looking and states that new development (new users) should pay for the additional capacity and expansions necessary to accommodate them. This method is typically used when specific capital improvements are needed to facilitate growth for new development. Under the Incremental-Cost Method, growth-related capital improvements are allocated to new development based on their estimated usage or capacity requirements, irrespective of the value of past investments made by existing customers.

For instance, if it costs X dollars ($X) to provide water for 100 3/4” meter equivalent connection and a new connector uses one of those equivalent units, then the new user would pay $X/100 to connect to the system. In other words, new customers pay the incremental cost of capacity based on the estimated cost of the new facilities.

This method is generally used when detailed future facilities have been identified to meet the capacity required to serve new customers and limited existing system capacity is available for development. While California Code 66013 (b)(3) does not define a specific period to include future projects, these periods can be as long as a master planning period. Figure 2 shows the framework for calculating an incremental cost connection fee.

Figure 2: Formula for Incremental-Cost Approach

HYBRID METHOD
The hybrid method is typically used where some capacity is available to serve new growth, but additional expansion is necessary to accommodate new development. Under the hybrid method, the connection fee is based on the existing capacity value and the costs of necessary expansions (i.e., the Buy-In component and the Incremental-cost component). Capital improvements that expand system capacity to serve future customers may be included proportionally to the percentage of the cost specifically required for expansion of the system versus the percentage of cost incurred in repair and replacement of existing capacity (and therefore benefitting existing users).

Figure 3: Formula for Hybrid Approach summarizes the framework for calculating the Hybrid connection fee.

11 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Figure 3: Formula for Hybrid Approach

RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY
Since new capacity is currently being constructed to meet expansion needs, and the existing capacity is insufficient for new development, the City selected the Incremental approach, which is forward-looking.

System Value and Equivalent
Units
This section details the calculation of the per-unit costs for the Incremental approach.

Water Connection Fee

SYSTEM VALUE
The cost basis for determining the Incremental, or expansion, system value was provided by City Staff. The $22.3 million valuation includes all expansion-related capital expenses identified in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan dated November 2023 and adopted by the City in May 2024. These expenses are the share of the City’s water capital improvement plan that are allocated to future users. The growth-related expenses identified in the new water master plan are used for the water system value.

The 1992 water master plan had specific costs applicable to N. Pleasanton District 2B; thus, a separate connection fee was calculated for those customers. A future review of the water connection fees will use a hybrid approach and reevaluate the backbone water costs applicable to N. Pleasanton District 2B customers. Therefore, the City’s existing water connection fees for N. Pleasanton District 2B customers should be used until this future analysis using the hybrid approach has been completed.

EQUIVALENT UNITS
To determine the Incremental component, the second step is to determine the capacity that can be served by the expansion improvements above. The expansion CIP projects are estimated to add approximately 6.06 million gallons per day (MGD) per the East Pleasanton Specific Plan and Tri-Valley Municipal and Industrial Water Demand Study. The single-family residential (SFR) equivalent capacity demand is calculated by taking the gallon per day (GPD) demand for a typical single-family home and multiplying it by the SFR maximum day peaking factor to obtain the GPD maximum day demand2
. This value is used to divide the GPD additional capacity to calculate the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. This calculation is detailed in Table 1. 2 SFR demand and peaking factors were identified in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan, November 2023.

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 12
Table 1: Projected Water SFR Equivalents
Line No. Description Derivation Values
Future Water System Capacity
1 Future Capacity (MGD) - 6.06
2 Future Capacity (GPD) Line 1 x 1,000,000 6,060,000
SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
3 GPD Demand - 390
4 Max Day Peaking Factor - 1.9
5 GPD Max Day Demand Line 3 x Line 4 741
6 SFR Equivalent Units Served Line 2 / Line 5 8,178

INCREMENTAL UNIT COST
The Incremental unit cost for an SFR equivalent is the quotient of the Incremental system valuation divided by the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. The Incremental unit cost component is $2,721.29 per SFR equivalent unit. Table 2 shows the unit cost calculation.

Table 2: Water Incremental Unit Cost Calculation
Line No. Fee Calculation Derivation Values
1 Expansion CIP - $22,255,100
2 SFR Equivalent Units Served Table 1 8,178
3 SFR Equivalent Unit Fee Line 1 / Line 2 $2,721.29
Wastewater Connection Fee

SYSTEM VALUE
The cost basis for determining the Incremental, or expansion, system value was provided by City Staff. The $5.0 million valuation includes expansion projects related to upsizing pipes in the system, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Wastewater Incremental System Value
Line No. System Valuation Derivation Values
1 Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge
Mall - $3,000,000
2 Project 4: Upsize Pipes on Kamp and Stoneridge
Drive - $2,019,000
3 Total Expansion CIP Line 1 + Line 2 $5,019,000

EQUIVALENT UNITS
To determine the Incremental capacity fee, the next step is to determine the demands that can be served by the expansion improvements above. The SFR equivalent capacity demand for wastewater is calculated by multiplying the SFR demand based on billed water consumption times a return to sewer factor to estimate the amount of water usage entering the wastewater system. The return to sewer factor calculation is outlined in Table 4. The City provided the estimated billed water consumption in hundred cubic feet (HCF) and the number of wastewater accounts for previous financial planning work. Table S1101 (2022: ACS 1-Year Estimates) from the U.S. Census Bureau is used for the average family size. The flow per day is based on California Water Code Section 10608.20 (b) (2) (A). The SFR equivalent capacity demand calculation is outlined in Table 5.

13 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 4: Wastewater Return to Sewer Factor
Line No. Description Derivation Values
1 Estimated billed water consumption
for SFR (HCF) - 3,012,950
Estimated wastewater flow for SFR
2 Wastewater Accounts - 19,235
3 Household density - 3.4
4 Flow per day (GPD) - 55
5 Estimated wastewater flow (HCF) Line 2 x Line 3 x Line 4 x 365 / 748 1,755,194
6 Return to Sewer Factor Line 1 / Line 5 0.58
Table 5: Wastewater SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
Line No. Description Derivation Values
SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
1 GPD Flow - 390
2 Return to Sewer Factor Table 4 0.58
3 Estimated GPD Demand Line 1 x Line 2 227
The demands that the expansion improvements can serve are calculated by dividing the future capacity by the SFR equivalent capacity demand. The expansion CIP projects are estimated to add 2.05 MGD. This calculation is detailed in Table 6.

Table 6: Wastewater Projected SFR Equivalents
Line No. Description Derivation Values
Future Wastewater System Capacity
1 Future Capacity (MGD) - Project 3 - 1.6
2 Future Capacity (MGD) - Project 4 - 0.45
3 Future Capacity (MGD) - Total Line 1+ Line 2 2.05
4 Future Capacity (GPD) Line 3 x 1,000,000 2,050,000
SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
5 Estimated GPD Demand Table 5 227
6 SFR Equivalent Units Served Line 4 / Line 5 9,023

INCREMENTAL UNIT COST
The Incremental unit cost for an SRF equivalent is the quotient of the Incremental system valuation divided by the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. The Incremental unit cost component is $556.24 per SFR equivalent. Table 7 shows the unit cost calculation.

Table 7: Wastewater Incremental Unit Cost Calculation
Line No. Fee Calculation Derivation Values
1 Total Expansion CIP Table 3 $5,019,000
2 SFR Equivalent Units Served Table 6 9,023
3 SFR Equivalent Unit Fee Line 1 / Line 2 $556.24

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 14
Proposed Connection Fees
Water Connection Fee
Table 8 compares the proposed fee calculated under this approach by meter size to the existing capacity fee. Fees are levied per meter size. Meter size is a common approach for assessing water connection fees. This approach is popular because it is easy to administer and explain to customers. Using the meter size approach, connection fees are increased based on the size or capacity of the meter. The projected water connection fees shown in Table 8 below are calculated for each meter size using the meter capacity ratio normalized to the 5/8” meter size. For example, if a 1-inch meter has 2.5 times the flow capacity of a 5/8-inch meter, the connection fee will be 2.5 times higher. The City of Pleasanton currently installs meters from three manufacturers – Diehl, Sensus, and Kamstrup.

New meters installed in the future will be either Sensus, Kamstrup, Master Meter, Metron Farnier, or Metron Spectrum. These meters have different meter capacities for each meter size. Table 8 shows the meter capacities, resulting meter ratios, and proposed rates by meter size for each manufacturer. Table 9 shows the proposed water connection fees for N. Pleasanton Improvement District 2B are the same as the existing fees.

15 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 8: Proposed Water Incremental Unit Charge Connection Fee and Existing Connection Fee Ultrasonic
Proposed Fees –
Diehl/Sensus Meters
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch - Diehl 22 0.9 $2,394.74 $1,200.00 $1,194.74
5/8 inch - Sensus 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,200.00 $1,521.29
3/4 inch - Diehl 32 1.3 $3,483.25 $1,800.00 $1,683.25
3/4 inch - Sensus 35 1.4 $3,809.81 $1,800.00 $2,009.81
1 inch - Diehl 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1 inch - Sensus 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1-1/2 inch - Diehl 100 4.0 $10,885.17 $6,000.00 $4,885.17 1-1/2 inch - Sensus 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $6,000.00 $11,416.27 2 inch - Sensus 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $19,200.00 -$1,783.73 2 inch - Diehl 170 6.8 $18,504.79 $19,200.00 -$695.21
3 inch - Sensus 500 20.0 $54,425.84 $21,000.00 $33,425.84 4 inch - Sensus 1000 40.0 $108,851.68 $60,000.00 $48,851.68 6 inch - Sensus 2000 80.0 $217,703.35 $120,000.00 $97,703.35 8 inch - Sensus 2700 108.0 $293,899.53 $210,000.00 $83,899.53 10 inch - Sensus 4000 160.0 $435,406.71 $330,000.00 $105,406.71 Proposed Fees -
Kamstrup Meters
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,200.00 $1,521.29
3/4 inch 35 1.4 $3,809.81 $1,800.00 $2,009.81
1 inch 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1-1/2 inch 120 4.8 $13,062.20 $6,000.00 $7,062.20
2 inch 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $19,200.00 -$1,783.73
3 inch 350 14.0 $38,098.09 $21,000.00 $17,098.09
4 inch 700 28.0 $76,196.17 $60,000.00 $16,196.17
6 inch 1600 64.0 $174,162.68 $120,000.00 $54,162.68
8 inch 2800 112.0 $304,784.70 $210,000.00 $94,784.70
10 inch 4500 180.0 $489,832.55 $330,000.00 $159,832.55
12 inch 5500 220.0 $598,684.22
Proposed Fees -
Metron Spectrum
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 x 3/4 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,800.00 $921.29
Positive Displacement
Proposed Fees -
Master Meter (BLMJ)
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 20 0.8 $2,177.03 $1,200.00 $977.03
3/4 inch 30 1.2 $3,265.55 $1,800.00 $1,465.55
1 inch 50 2.0 $5,442.58 $3,000.00 $2,442.58
Proposed Fees -
Metron Farnier
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 20 0.8 $2,177.03 $1,200.00 $977.03
3/4 inch 30 1.2 $3,265.55 $1,800.00 $1,465.55
1 inch 70 2.8 $7,619.62 $3,000.00 $4,619.62

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 16
Table 9: Proposed and Existing N. Pleasanton Improvement District 2B Water Connection Fees Proposed Fees –
Sensus Meters
Proposed
$/Meter Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch $460.00 $460.00 $0
3/4 inch $690.00 $690.00 $0
1 inch $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $0
1-1/2 inch $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0
2 inch $7,360.00 $7,360.00 $0
3 inch $8,050.00 $8,050.00 $0
4 inch $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $0
6 inch $46,000.00 $46,000.00 $0
8 inch $80,500.00 $80,500.00 $0
10 inch $126,500.00 $126,500.00 $0
Proposed Fees –
Kamstrup Meters
Proposed
$/Meter Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
1-1/2 inch $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0
2 inch $7,360.00 $7,360.00 $0
3 inch $8,050.00 $8,050.00 $0
4 inch $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $0
6 inch $46,000.00 $46,000.00 $0
8 inch $80,500.00 $80,500.00 $0
10 inch $126,500.00 $126,500.00 $0
Wastewater Connection Fee
Table 10 compares the proposed fees by factor calculated under this approach to the existing capacity fee. Fees are assessed per SFR equivalent dwelling units (EDU), and EDU factor ratios are based on those previously developed by the City. The EDU factor ratios also match the connection fee factor ratios used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). This agency processes and treats all sewage from the City. The Projected connection fees shown in Table 10 below are calculated for each customer class using their respective SFR EDU factor ratio.

17 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 10: Proposed Wastewater Incremental Unit Charge Connection Fee and Existing Connection Fee Proposed Fees EDU Ratio Factor Proposed Fee Existing Fee Difference ($) Residential
Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 per house/unit $556.24 $500.00 $56.24 Auxiliary (Secondary) Dwelling Unit 0.004 per square foot $2.22 $2.00 $0.22 Townhome, Townhouse, Duet, Duplex 1.00 per unit $556.24 $500.00 $56.24 Condominium 0.75 per unit $417.18 $375.00 $42.18
Apartment, Mobile Home 0.66 per unit $367.12 $330.00 $37.12 Regular (low)
Auditoriums 0.0091 per seat $5.06 $4.55 $0.51
Auto body shops/Auto dealers 0.0005 per square foot $0.28 $0.25 $0.03 Banks, Financial Offices 0.0003 per square foot $0.16 $0.14 $0.02 Barber shops / Beauty shops 0.0014 per square foot $0.76 $0.68 $0.08 Bars, Cocktail lounges, taverns (w/o dining) 0.0016 per square foot $0.89 $0.80 $0.09 Bowling alleys 0.0014 per square foot $0.78 $0.70 $0.08 Car washes 0.0077 per square foot $4.29 $3.86 $0.43
Churches 0.0227 per seat $12.64 $11.36 $1.28
Delicatessen 0.0032 per square foot $1.79 $1.61 $0.18
Dental Clinic 0.0041 per square foot $2.28 $2.05 $0.23
Dry Cleaners 0.0020 per square foot $1.13 $1.02 $0.11
Gas Stations 0.0021 per square foot $1.19 $1.07 $0.12
General Retail/ Commercial 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Gyms, Health Clubs 0.0019 per square foot $1.06 $0.95 $0.11 Hospital 1.1364 per bed $632.09 $568.18 $63.91
Hotels, Motels (no dining facilities) 0.5909 per room $328.68 $295.45 $33.23 Institutional (Resident) 0.4545 per bed $252.83 $227.27 $25.56 Laundries, coin-operated 0.5909 per machine $328.68 $295.45 $33.23 Laundries, full service (commercial) 0.0045 per square foot $2.53 $2.27 $0.26 Market - Dry Goods 0.0009 per square foot $0.48 $0.43 $0.05 Medical Clinic 0.0017 per square foot $0.93 $0.84 $0.09 Medical/ Dental Complex 0.0010 per square foot $0.56 $0.50 $0.06 Office Buildings 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Parks/ Rec
Country Club 0.3182 per person $176.98 $159.09 $17.89
Picnic Park 0.0455 per person $25.29 $22.73 $2.56
Pool 0.0455 per person $25.29 $22.73 $2.56
Tennis Courts, w/ toilet & shower 0.4545 per court $252.83 $227.27 $25.56 Plant Nursery 0.0004 per square foot $0.20 $0.18 $0.02
Printers 0.0006 per square foot $0.36 $0.32 $0.04
Public Agencies 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Recreational vehicle R.V. Park 0.5454 per RV $303.39 $272.72 $30.67 Schools (excluding cafeteria)
W/o showers 0.0682 per student $37.92 $34.09 $3.83
With showers 0.0909 per student $50.56 $45.45 $5.11
Theaters 0.0091 per seat $5.06 $4.55 $0.51
Veterinary Hospital 0.0015 per square foot $0.86 $0.77 $0.09 Warehouse/distribution 0.0001 per square foot $0.08 $0.07 $0.01 Regular (medium)

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 18
Proposed Fees EDU Ratio Factor Proposed Fee Existing Fee Difference ($) Banquet Facilities - intermittent use 0.0012 per square foot $0.68 $0.61 $0.07 Business with cafeteria 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Cafeteria 0.0025 per square foot $1.37 $1.23 $0.14
Hotels/Motels with dining facilities 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Restaurant, Fast Food 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Restaurant, Full Service 0.0025 per square foot $1.37 $1.23 $0.14 School with cafeteria 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Regular (high)
Bakeries/ Donut Shops/ Ice Cream Shops 0.0028 per square foot $1.57 $1.41 $0.16 Car washes w/ steam cleaning 0.0018 per square foot $1.01 $0.91 $0.10 Markets with garbage disposals 0.0077 per square foot $4.29 $3.86 $0.43 Mortuaries 0.0009 per square foot $0.48 $0.43 $0.05
Industrial (other)
Wastewater Flow Gallons per day $2.45 $2.27 $0.18

CITY OF PLEASANTON

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
IX. WATER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
E. Water Connection Fees - City (Eff 02.15.2025)
Meter Size Meter Capacity Meter Ratio
Meter Connection
Fee
N. Pleasanton
Improvement Dist 2B
5/8" 20 0.8 $2,177
5/8" 22 0.9 $2,449 $460.00
5/8" 25 1 $2,721
3/4" 30 1.2 $3,266
3/4" 32 1.3 $3,483 $690.00
3/4" 35 1.4 $3,810
1" 50 2 $5,443
1" 55 2.2 $5,987 $1,150
1" 70 2.8 $7,620
1-1/2" 100 4 $10,885 $2,300
1-1/2" 160 6.4 $17,416
2" 160 6.4 $17,416 $7,360
2" 170 6.8 $18,505
3" 350 14 $38,098
3" 500 20 $54,426 $8,050
4" 700 28 $76,196
4" 1000 40 $108,852 $23,000
6" 1600 64 $174,163
6" 2000 80 $217,703 $46,000
8" 2700 108 $293,899 $80,500
8" 2800 112 $304,784
10" 4000 160 $435,406 $126,500
10" 4500 180 $489,832
12" 5500 220 $598,684
use or addition
requiring
"Grey" Denotes meter is not currently available contact Public Works for update.

Amounts DO NOT include water
meter installation fees, which are
revised periodically based on
current costs for labor & materials
as authorized in Section B "Water
Meter & Installation Fees".

For each single family house, or any other use that is determined by the City Engineer or the Engineer's duly appointed representative to have a water demand equivalent to that of a single-family house, for normal domestic-type water uses only, there shall be a connection fee charged for each service connection as indicated in the following table. This shall be the minimum charge for all uses. For all other uses, for each service connection, a charge shall be made as established in the following table depending on the size of the meter capacity required for that service connection as determined by the City Engineer or his duly appointed representative.Minimum size is 5/8" meter.

Fees From: Raftelis Water Connection Fee Study - October 17, 2024 For any larger service connection, the City Engineer or his duly appointed representative will determine the charge; or a battery of meters may be used at the City Engineer's option.

EXHIBIT C

CITY OF PLEASANTON

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
X. SEWER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
B. Local Sewer Connection Fees (Eff 02.15.2025)

RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Dwelling Unit per house
Auxiliary (Secondary) Dwelling Unit per Square Foot
Townhome, Townhouse, Duet, Duplex per unit
Condominium per unit
Apartment, Mobile Home per unit
REGULAR (low strength wastewater)
Auditoriums per seat
Auto body shops/ Auto dealers per square foot
Banks, Financial Offices per square foot
Barber shops/ Beauty shops per square foot
Bars, Cocktail lounges, taverns (w/o dining) per square foot Bowling alleys per square foot
Car washes per square foot
Churches per seat
Delicatessen per square foot
Dental Clinic per square foot
Dry Cleaners per square foot
Gas Stations per square foot
General Retail/ Commercial per square foot
Gyms, Health Clubs per square foot
Hospital per bed
Hotels, Motels (no dining facilities) per room
Institutional (Resident) per bed
Laundries, coin-operated per machine
Laundries, full service (commercial) per square foot
Market - Dry Goods per square foot
Medical Clinic per square foot
Medical/ Dental Complex per square foot
Office Buildings per square foot
Pleasanton Local Fee
$556
$2.22
$556
$417
$367
$5.06
$0.28
$0.16
$0.76
$0.89
$0.78
$4.29
$12.64
$1.79
$2.28
$1.13
$1.19
$0.12
$1.06
$632.09
$328.68
$252.83
$328.68
$2.53
$0.48
$0.93
$0.56
$0.12
Pleasanton Local Fee
X. Sewer: 1 of 2

CITY OF PLEASANTON

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
REGULAR (low strength wastewater) continued
Parks/ Rec
Country Club per person
Picnic Park per person
Pool per person
Tennis Courts, w/ toilet & shower per court
Plant Nursery per square foot
Printers per square foot
Public Agencies per square foot
Recreational vehicle R.V. Park per RV
Schools (excluding cafeteria)
W/o showers per student
With showers per student
Theaters per seat
Veterinary Hospital per square foot
Warehouse/distribution per square foot
REGULAR (medium strength wastewater)
Banquet Facilities - intermittent use per square foot
Business with cafeteria per square foot
Cafeteria per square foot
Hotels/Motels with dining facilities per square foot
Restaurant, Fast Food per square foot
Restaurant, Full Service per square foot
School with cafeteria per square foot
REGULAR (high strength wastewater)
Bakeries/ Donut Shops/ Ice Cream Shops per square foot
Car washes w/ steam cleaning per square foot
Markets with garbage disposals per square foot
Mortuaries per square foot
INDUSTRIAL (other):

Wastewater Flow gallons per day
lbs per day
SS (Suspended Solids) lbs per day
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
$1.01
$176.98
$25.29
$25.29
$252.83
$0.20
$0.36
$0.12
$303.39
$1.51
$1.37
$1.51
$1.51
$1.37
$37.92
$50.56
$5.06
$0.86
$0.08
$1.51
$4.29
$0.48
$1.57
All other non-residential users or special use (users with above-normal discharge of flow, BOD, and SS) shall be assessed a connection fee on a case-by-case basis based on average day peak month flow, BOD, and SS to be discharged to the sewer system as follows:

Fees From: Raftelis Wastewater Connection Fee Study - October 17, 2024 n/a
n/a
n/a
$0.68
X. Sewer: 2 of 2

XI. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Eff. 02.15.2025
A. Capital Facilities Fee (includes Quimby Act)
Residential (dwelling unit)
Single-family detached
Units 825-4,499 square feet per sq. ft. 11.87 $
Units 824 square feet or less per unit 9,786 $
Units 4,500 square feet or greater per unit 53,419 $
Single-family attached (Townhome, duet, etc.)
Units 825-4,499 square fee per sq. ft. 11.87 $
Units 824 square feet or less per unit 9,786 $
Units 4,500 square feet or greater per unit 53,419 $
Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium)
Units 418-1,599 square feet per sq. ft. 23.48 $
Units 417 square feet or less per unit 9,786 $
Units 1,600 square feet or greater per unit 37,570 $
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) e.g. In-law, Aupair, etc Less than 749 sq. ft. per sq. ft. $0
750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to a detached single-family dwelling or townhome 750- 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 2.97 $
> 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 5.93 $
750- 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 5.87
> 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 11.74
Non-Residential
Office per sq. ft. 10.15 $
Retail/Commercial per sq. ft. 6.93 $
Industrial per sq. ft. 3.04 $
Hotel/Motel (per Room) per room 508 $
B. Affordable Housing Fee
Residential Single-family detached (over 1,500 sq ft) per sq. ft $42.10 Single-family attached (Townhome, Duet, etc) per sq.ft. $42.10 Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium) per sq. ft. $42.21 Accessory Dwelling Unit( In-law, Aupair, etc..) $0.00
Non-Residential Office per sq.ft. $2.49
Retail/Commercial per sq.ft. $1.49
Industrial per sq.ft. $4.13
Hotel/Motel per room $514.36
Applicable to all new construction and non-residential additions exceeding 200 sq ft., and as specified in PMC Chapter 3.22
PMC 3.22.040 Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area.

For all ADU/JADUs, the required fee shall be the lesser of either: 1) The stated fee per square foot for an ADU/JADU multiplied by the square footage of the ADU/JADU, or 2) The stated fee per square foot for the primary unit type, multiplied by the square footage of the ADU/JADU, multiplied by the number that represents the proportionate square footage of the ADU/JADU, compared to the size of the primary unit. 750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to a multi-family (apartment or condominium) dwelling PMC 17.40.070, Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year, based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area.

Applicable to all residential and non-residential projects as specified in PMC Chapters 17.40 and 17.44 XI. Development: 1 of 2

C. Transportation Development Fee
Residential
Single-family detached
Units 825-4,499 square feet per sq. ft. 8.23 $
Units 824 square feet or less per unit 6,781 $
Units 4,500 square feet or greater per unit 37,017 $
Single-family attached (Townhome, Duet, etc.)
Units 825-4,499 square fee per sq. ft. 8.23 $
Units 824 square feet or less per unit 6,781 $
Units 4,500 square feet or greater per unit 37,017 $
Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium)
Units 418-1,599 square feet per sq. ft. 12.47 $
Units 417 square feet or less per unit 5,196 $
Units 1,600 square feet or greater per unit 19,947 $
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) e.g. In-law, Aupair, etc Less than 749 sq. ft. per sq. ft. $0
750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to a detached single-family dwelling or townhome 750- 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 2.06 $
> 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 4.12 $
750- 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 3.12 $
> 1,000 sq ft per sq. ft. 6.24 $
Non-Residential
Office $ 10.15
Retail/Commercial $ 15.88
Industrial $ 5.77
Hotel/Motel (per Room) per room 4,159 $
Other See PMC 3.26.050 per trip 14,585 $
Applicable to all new construction and non-residential additions exceeding 200 sq ft., and as specified in PMC Chapter 3.26 750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to a multi-family (apartment or condominium) dwelling For all ADU/JADUs, the required fee shall be the lesser of either: 1) The stated fee per square foot for an ADU/JADU multiplied by the square footage of the ADU/JADU, or 2) The stated fee per square foot for the primary unit type, multiplied by the square footage of the ADU/JADU, multiplied by the number that represents the proportionate square footage of the ADU/JADU, compared to the size of the primary unit.

PMC 3.26.040 Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area.

XI. Development: 2 of 2

Amendments to Master Fee Schedule City Council, December 17, 2024 Exhibit A, Master Fee Schedule, Page 2

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 3.22 – CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE, 3.26 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND 14.04 – REGULATION OF WATER

SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEES OF THE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, on November 3, 1998, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton adopted Ordinance 1764, adding Chapter 3.22 - Public Facilities Fee to the Pleasanton Municipal Code; and which chapter and fee was retitled in 2019 to the Capital Facilities Fee; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1765, adding Chapter 3.26 - Traffic Development Fee to the Pleasanton Municipal Code; and which chapter and fee was retitled in 2019 to Transportation Development Fee; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1966, the City Council adopted Ordinance 466 to establish connection charges for connection to the City of Pleasanton water system and related policies related to the extension of the system and developers obligations thereto; and which provisions have been amended and updated over time, and incorporated into the Pleasanton Municipal Code as part of Chapter 14.04 - Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive update of the Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee, and Sewer and Water Connection Fee, as detailed in the Fee Update and Nexus Study for the City of Pleasanton Development Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, and the City of Pleasanton Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study prepared by Raftelis; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted the abovereferenced nexus studies and amendments to the various fees; and WHEREAS, amendments to Chapters 3.22, 3.26, and 14.04 are necessary to align with the studies and to incorporate various technical amendments to provide consistency between the chapters, and clarify and update various administrative provisions of the various fees; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The City Council finds the adoption of this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because there is no potential for it to result in a physical change in the environment, either directly or indirectly, in that the various amendments pertain to administrative provisions of existing impact fees and metering of water connections.

Additionally, it is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a ATTACHMENT 2

Ordinance No.

significant effect on the environment and contains no provisions that will directly or indirectly result in a physical change in the environment.

Section 2: Approves the amendments to Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapters

3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee; 3.26 – Transportation Development Fee; and 14.04 - Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Section 3: Consistency. The ordinance is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Pleasanton Municipal Code.

Section 4: This resolution shall become effective 30 days following its passage.

Section 5: The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 123 Main Street, Pleasanton California.

Section 6. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton on December 17, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

______________________________
Karla Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

CHAPTER 3.22

CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE
§ 3.22.010. Purpose.

The city council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the general plan will result in unacceptable decreases in public services. To prevent these undesirable consequences, public facilities must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the city. The city council acknowledges that the demand for public facilities is shared by new development as well as by existing development. The proposed capital facilities fee (formerly known as the public facilities fee) apportions the cost of the necessary public improvements among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated demand that each group of users places upon public facilities. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.020. Terms and definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated in this section:
"Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development.
"Development" means:

1. New residential unit(s), including conversion of or addition to an existing unit to that results in greater than one unit.

2. New commercial, office, and industrial development.

3. Additions to existing commercial, office and industrial development greater than 200 gross square feet.
"Future growth" means the total amount of potential new development in the city permitted under the general plan. Future growth is expressed in terms of gross square footage for industrial and commercial development, and in terms of the number of dwelling units for residential development, and the residential and employee population associated with such new development.
"Gross floor area" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 18.08.195 of this code. "Land use category" means any of the following specified land uses:

1. Residential:
a. Single-family detached;
b. Single-family attached (townhouse);
c. Multi-family (apartment, condominium);
d. Accessory dwelling or junior dwelling unit.

2. Office.

3. Commercial/retail.

4. Industrial/warehouse.

5. Lodging

6. Other
“Master fee schedule” means the document providing the current list of fees and charges for services and permits approved by the city council, which is on file with the city clerk. "Public facilities" means those improvements necessary to provide public safety, community facilities, park improvements and general municipal facilities identified in the Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated September 2018 adopted by the city council and as amended from time to time time,, and other improvements in connection therewith, as may be determined by the city council from time to time, which are not otherwise provided by, or required of, development within the city pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. Public facilities shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental, inspection, construction management and other services required in connection with the implementation of this chapter and the construction of the foregoing improvements. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.030. Applicability.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, adoptedo this chapter applies to, and the e capital facilities fee required under this chapter is payable with respect to each development within the city for which a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued on or after the effective date of the fee as adopted in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.040. Amount of fee.

A. The amount of the capital facilities fee shall be determined by the building division or planning division prior to issuance of the building permit or other entitlement or approval for development if a building permit is not required. , Calculation of the fee shall be based upon the applicable rate for each land use category identified in section 3.22.020 and specified in the master fee schedule, multiplied by the gross square footage or number of units in the development, as specified in the master fee schedule.master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).

B. In the event a developer is not satisfied with the calculation of the fee by the building division or planning division, he or she may request that the type of land use and the amount of the capital facilities fee required of the development be determined by the community development director.

C. The developer shall be notified in writing of the community development director's determination about the type of land use and the capital facilities fee applicable to the development. Such determination shall be made within 30 days of the community development director's receipt of the report request and any other additional materials reasonably requested to assist in making the determination. The developer may appeal the determination of the community development director to the city council in accordance with

the provisions of Section 3.22.100 of this chapter.

D. The amount of the fee shall be subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1st of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco—Bay Area.

E. The amount of the fee shall be reviewed periodically, but not less than every at least every four eight years or more frequently if specified by state law.

E.F. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.22.050. Payment of fee.

A. The full amount of the fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. For those instances where a developer receives an entitlement or approval for development, but is not required to seek a building permit from the city, the capital facilities fee shall be payable within 30 days of final action on the development entitlement or approval.

B. No city official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection, as the case may be, for a development until the capital facilities fee, with respect to such development required by this chapter, is paid in accordance with this section.

B.

C. If the developer has appealed the determination of the fee, and such appeal is pending at the time he or she applies for a building permit, the developer must pay the capital facilities fee to receive a building permit, but may do so under protest. If the developer's appeal is successful, and the fee is subsequently reduced, the developer shall be refunded the difference within 30 days.

D. The city shall not accept prepayments of the capital facilities fee, unless prepayment is authorized in a development agreement or other agreement. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.060. Credits.

If the developer desires to construct a public facility, the developer and the city may enter into an agreement regarding a credit against capital facilities fees due, as provided in this section. The City shall require such agreement to be recorded against the property.

A. Eligibility.

1. To be eligible for credit, each of the following must be satisfied:
a. The construction for which credit is given must be a public facility which would otherwise be constructed by the city using capital facilities funds. b. The public improvement must appear in the city council adopted 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan or Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan for public facilities or improvements, as such plans may be amended from time to time.

c. The land on which the work is done must be owned by the city, offered for dedication to the city through a recorded document, or be owned by or offered for dedication to a public agency that would offer general public access to the facility or land.
d. The developer shall have improvement plans for the work approved by the city engineer and shall provide a bond, cash deposit or other type of security as required by the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Pleasanton’s Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable provision of the Pleadsanton Municipal Code, before beginning construction.

2. The developer and the city shall enter into a written subdivision or other agreement with respect to the credit, which shall be recorded against the property. The agreement shall include the amount of the credit which will be given (or for unusual projects, the exact method of calculating the credit), when the credit will be given, and to which lots it will apply. aA
§ 3.22.070. Reimbursements.

A. General.

1. If the credit for improvements due under Section 3.22.060 of this chapter exceeds the required capital facilities fee for development, the developer is eligible for reimbursement from the capital facilities fund.

2. To be eligible for reimbursement, the following must be satisfied:
a. The developer is eligible for credit under Section 3.22.060 of this chapter; and b. The credit due exceeds the required capital facilities fee.

B. Development or Other Agreement. The terms of a written development or other agreement regarding reimbursement for public facilities shall supersede the terms of this section.

C. Time and Manner of Reimbursement.

1. The community development director shall determine the exact amount of reimbursement at the time the improvements are accepted by the city.

2. Until repaid, the reimbursement amount shall accrue simple interest commencing upon acceptance of the improvements by the city. Simple interest shall accrue each year on January 1st in an amount equal to the percentage change to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco—Bay Area. Reimbursement payments will be applied first to interest and then to principal.

3. The total amount of reimbursement, net of credits, shall be set one time upon acceptance of the improvements. The annual percentage amount of reimbursement shall be set one time, upon acceptance of the improvements, by establishing a percentage equal to: the percentage value of the reimbursement amount compared to the value of all eligible improvements; such set percentage shall then be multiplied by the total of all capital facilities capital facilities fees collected in the preceding year to produce a pro rata payment for each year.

4. In the event that the amount to be reimbursed to developers pursuant to this section, or

pursuant to a development or other agreement, exceeds the amount of capital facilities fees received by the city in the preceding calendar year, the city council shall take action to apportion the available fee revenue to developers entitled to reimbursement pursuant to this section in a manner which the council determines is reasonable for that calendar year.

5. The city council may elect, in its absolute discretion, to provide reimbursement at a faster rate than provided in this section, based upon fees collected and available.

6. The reimbursement shall be paid one time each calendar year.

7. The right to reimbursement shall not run with the land, but shall be personal to the developer. The developer may assign his or her right to reimbursement to another by filing a written notarized assignment with the city clerk. It is the developer's or assignee's responsibility to keep the city clerk advised of a current address. If the city cannot locate a developer or assignee to send a reimbursement payment after reasonable diligence, the amount of the reimbursement for that year is forfeited, and the unclaimed funds shall be returned to the capital facilities fee fund.

B. Calculation of Credit.

1. General.
a. The community development director, or designee, ("director") shall calculate the amount of credit to be given based upon the approved improvement plans and using cost estimates (which are based on recent city project bids for similar work).

The cost of any right-of-way to be purchased shall be based upon an appraisal done by a licensed appraiser, approved by the city, at the developer’s expense, with said costs eligible for credit..
b. For nonstandard improvements, the credit shall be calculated based on information provided by the developer (such as bids or other documents verifying costs) for the community development director's review and approval.
c. The calculation of costs shall be based only on work which is eligible for credit under subsection A of this section. No credit shall be given for the cost of constructing improvements otherwise required by direct development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. The amount of credit includes construction costs and the cost of engineering.

2. Assessment Districts, Benefit Area and Community Facilities Districts. If development occurs within an assessment district, fee benefit area, community facilities district, or otherwise is subject to an assessment, fee or special tax collected specifically to defray the costs of providing or constructing public facilities, the amount of credit is equal to that portion of the estimated construction cost of the public facilities included in the assessments, fees or special taxes which will be contributed by the development.

C. Reimbursement When Credit Exceeds Fee. When the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the developer's capital facilities fee, the developer may be eligible for reimbursement of costs under Section 3.22.090 of this chapter.

D. How and When Credit is Given.

1. If a developer is eligible for credit, the community development director shall calculate the credit pursuant to subsection B of this section, and determine the number of residential units or residential square footage, or office, commercial/retail, or industrial/warehouse square footage for which developer shall receive a credit. No interest shall accrue on the amount of the credit.

2. For a residential subdivision, the lots or units to which the credit will apply shall be precisely identified; and the entitlement to the credit recorded in the office of the county recorder if the developer desires to sell, transfer, or assign the lots prior to obtaining a building permit.

E. Appeal. Any determination of the community development director under this section is subject to appeal by the developer to the city council pursuant to Section 3.22.100 of this chapter.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.070. Exemptions.

Unless a development agreement or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the capital facilities fee otherwise required by this chapter:

A. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one-to-one basis of dwelling units, including expansion of such units. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one-to-one basis, of dwelling units, including expansion that does not result in the creation of additional dwelling units.

A.B.

C. Commercial, office or industrial development consisting of the repair or replacement of structures, provided, that such repair or replacement does not result in any conversion or change in land use, or any enlargement of gross floor area beyond that of the previous structure.

D. Additions, extensions or enlargements of an existing commercial, office/retail, or light industrial/warehouse structure which, in any calendar year, do not increase the gross floor area of the structure by 200 square feet or more.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.080. Use of funds.

The fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall, except for temporary investments, be placed in a separate fund in a manner to avoid commingling of the fees with other revenues or funds of the city, and shall be used solely for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the public facilities identified by the city council in the capital facilities master plan or facilities included in the city's capital improvement program as described in Section 3.22.060.A.1.b. Any interest income