V.A. EMERYVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. Agenda Date: April 24, 2014 Report Date: April 17, Emeryville Planning Commission

Transcription

1 EMERYVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: April 24, 2014 Report Date: April 17, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Emeryville Planning Commission Helen Bean, Director of Economic Development and Housing Economic Development and Housing Department Proposed Impact Fees BACKGROUND: On December 4, 2012, the City Council held a study session to provide staff direction on developing impact fees. At this meeting, staff reviewed how impact fees on new development were a tool that could offset the loss of redevelopment funding for capital improvements and affordable housing. At the time, the City had already retained Fehr & Peers to initiate an update of its transportation impact fee and staff was seeking direction on possible new impact fees for affordable housing, parks, and general government facilities. In 2007, the City had previously considered a parks and general government facilities fee, but did not move forward on imposing a fee because of the recession. In 2013, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute agreements with two consultants to develop impact fee reports for the affordable housing, general government facilities, and parks. In March 2013, the City retained Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to prepare an affordable housing impact fee report and in April 2013, the City retained Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to prepare two impact fee reports for General Government Facilities and Park and Recreation Facilities. The City also retained Willdan to prepare two additional memorandums pertaining to a comparison of development fees charged in local East Bay cities and a fee burden analysis comparing proposed fee amount to estimated development value. Staff presented the findings from these reports along with a review of the proposed impact fees to the City Council at a Study Session held on April 1, Staff has also presented this report to the Economic Development Committee and Housing Committee on April 2 and will present the report to the Parks and Recreation Committee on April 16 and to the Transportation Committee on April 22. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the attached reports and proposed fees and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will consider approving the reports and adopting the fees on May 20 th. V.A.

2 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION: This report summarizes the methodology and findings of five impact fee reports covering ( 1) transportation, (2) parks and recreation, (3) government facilities, (4) affordable housing for residential development and (5) affordable housing for non-residential development. The report also presents staff s recommended impact fees and sets forth policy considerations underlying this recommendation. Development Prototypes Seven hypothetical development scenarios are used to estimate proposed fees and compare existing and proposed fees to other cities. These prototypes represent typical development likely to occur in Emeryville and include the following: unit multifamily rental project, with an average unit size of 850 square feet unit multifamily owner occupied project, with an average unit size of 1,000 square feet unit (owner occupied) townhomes, with an average unit size of 1,400 square feet ,000 square foot office project ,000 square foot research and development project 6. 25,000 square foot retail/restaurant project, consisting of 20,000 square feet of retail and a 5,000 square foot restaurant; and 7. A 200 room hotel. Mitigation Act Impact Reports The process for establishing an impact fee requires the preparation of a study that fulfills the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections ), the law governing the imposition and administration of impact fees. Section of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall do all of the following: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified and that identification may be made by reference to a capital improvement plan, an applicable general or specific plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

3 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 3 The impact fee studies attached to this report are intended to satisfy the aforementioned requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and identify the maximum fee, or cap, that can justifiably be imposed on new development. The City Council may set the fee at any level up to the cap justified by the study. Currently, for traffic impact fees, the fee is imposed on both new development and the incremental increase in traffic resulting from changes of occupancy in existing buildings. Draft Transportation Impact Fee Study Emeryville currently has a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF), which was adopted by Ordinance No in September Traffic Mitigation Fee Studies have been prepared to implement the program with the most recent update being adopted on October 6, In October 2009, the City adopted a new General Plan that calls for a multi-modal transportation system, including public transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles. One of the actions in the General Plan implementation program is to update the Traffic Impact Fee to insure that new development pays its fair share toward a circulation system that optimizes travel by all modes. The City retained Fehr & Peers to prepare an update to the Traffic Impact Fee. The updated and renamed Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update is presented as Attachment 1. The revision gives all transportation modes (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile) equal emphasis. The methodology for calculating the maximum amount of the fee involves six steps, described below. Step 1: Project Identification. The transportation infrastructure needed to serve Emeryville by the General Plan time horizon of 2030 would consist of a variety of improvement projects including intersection improvements, roadway widening, pedestrian connections, new bicycle facilities, and transit infrastructure. The proposed updated TIF program includes projects identified in the General Plan (adopted October 2009), Sustainable Transportation Plan (adopted March 2012), Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (adopted May 2012), recently completed environmental studies, and other recent planning studies. Twenty-eight projects, with a total cost of about $101 million, have been identified to be included in the program. (See Table 3 of Attachment 1.) Step 2: Identify Existing Deficiencies. The Transportation Impact Fee can only be used to fund projects that serve the transportation demands generated by new development, and not to correct existing deficiencies. Since the current study is an update of the 1998 Traffic Mitigation Fee Study, the baseline for identifying existing deficiencies is Thus, existing conditions identified as deficient in the 1998 study have been backed out of the project costs that may be funded by the fee. Step 3: Calculate New Development. Different methodologies were used for traffic capacity enhancing projects (i.e., intersection and other street improvements) and non-capacity enhancing projects (i.e., bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects) to calculate the c ost of each project attributable to new developments. In combination with the existing deficiency analysis in Step 2, this results in a reduction of the total cost of the projects that can be funded by the TIF program to about $88 million. (See Table 6 of Attachment 1.)

4 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 4 Step 4: Anticipated New Emeryville Development. The General Plan includes population and employment growth forecasts for the year 2030 based on envisioned land use changes. About 3,800 new dwelling units and 2.5 million square feet of net new non-residential development are expected in Emeryville by 2030 to contribute to the fee program. (See Table 7 of Attachment 1.) Step 5: Calculate Trip Generation and Fee. Based on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the development calculated in Step 4 is expected to generate 7,030 new peak hour trips, including 5,650 new vehicle trips, 870 new transit trips, and 510 new bicycle and walking trips. Dividing the $88 million total cost of the program by these peak hour trips results in a maximum fee of $12,541 per trip. Step 6: Define Fee for Specific Land Use Types. To determine the maximum fee for specific land uses, the auto trip generating potential of each use was determined based on the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Although projects in Emeryville are expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than estimated by ITE, this method treats all projects equally within the City as they will likely have similar trip generating characteristics relative to each other. The fee for a specific land use is calculated by multiplying its estimated peak hour trips by the fee per trip from Step 5. For certain nonresidential uses such as retail and restaurants, this is then adjusted using a passby rate to determine the percentage of primary trips attributable to that land use. For example, trips to a store and restaurant are likely to be combined, so each land use is assigned 50% of the primary trip, and the fee is adjusted accordingly. To illustrate how the maximum fee is calculated for a specific use, the ITE PM peak hour trip rate for a supermarket is 9.48 trips per 1,000 square feet, and the percent primary trips is 45%. Dividing 9.48 trips by 1,000 square feet, and then multiplying by 45% yields a rate of PM peak hour trips per square foot. Multiplying this by the maximum fee of $12,541 per trip results in a maximum fee for a supermarket of $53.50 per square foot. The following table shows the maximum fee for certain common land uses. More detail, including additional land uses, can be found in Table 10 of Attachment 1. Table 1 Examples of Maximum Transportation Impact Fees for Various Land Uses Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate Percent Primary Trips Maximum Fee Single-Family Residence 1.00 per unit 100% $12,541 per unit Townhome/Condominium 0.52 per unit 100% $6,521 per unit Apartment 0.62 per unit 100% $7,775 per unit Live/Work 0.65 per unit 100% $8,151 per unit

5 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 5 Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate Percent Primary Trips Maximum Fee Day Care Center per 1,000 s.f. 100% $ per s.f. General Office 1.49 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $18.69 per s.f. Medical Office 3.57 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $44.77 per s.f. Research and Development 1.07 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $13.42 per s.f. General Retail 3.73 per 1,000 s.f. 50% $23.39 per s.f. Bank per 1,000 s.f. 35% $53.24 per s.f. Health Club 3.53 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $44.27 per s.f. Supermarket 9.48 per 1,000 s.f. 45% $53.50 per s.f. Convenience Market per 1,000 s.f. 30% $ per s.f. Quality Restaurant 7.49 per 1,000 s.f. 30% $28.18 per s.f. High Turnover Restaurant 9.85 per 1,000 s.f. 30% $37.06 per s.f. Fast Food Restaurant per 1,000 s.f. 50% $ per s.f. Hotel 0.6 per room 70% $5,267 per room Light Industry 0.97 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $12.16 per s.f. Manufacturing 0.73 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $9.15 per s.f. Warehousing 0.32 per 1,000 s.f. 100% $4.01 per s.f. Draft General Government Impact Facilities Impact Fee Study Willdan has prepared a Draft General Government Facilities Impact Fee Study, presented as Attachment 2, which calculates the maximum fee for general government facilities by applying a per capita cost of general government facilities to the occupancy rates of the various types of development. The occupancy rates are based on assumptions used in the General Plan. The per capita cost of general government facilities is estimated by dividing the estimated cost of existing facilities by the current service population. The service population includes both residents and employees. The share of employee service population is.31 of total employees due to lower service requirements. The maximum fee calculations are s summarized below:

6 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 6 Table 2 - General Government Facilities Impact Fee Study Methodology Total Estimated Cost of Government $63,565,586 Facilities 1 Existing Service Population Residents 10,196 Workers 6, of total 2 Total 16,500 Facility Standard Per Capita (cost/service population) Residents $3,852 Workers $1,194 Maximum Justified Fee (per capita x occupancy plus 2% administrative fee) Single family/townhome (1.86 persons/unit) $7,308 per unit Multifamily (1.79 persons/unit) $7,033 per unit Office (3.64 emp/1000 sf) $4,434 per 1000 sf Research and Development (2.5 emp/1000 sf) $3,045 per 1000 sf Hotel (1 emp/1000 sf) $1,218 per 1000 sf Retail/Restaurant (2.6 emp/1000 sf) $3,167 per 1000 sf Of note, staff is recommending not moving forward with this fee as there are no immediate planned government facilities identified to be funded by the fee. Draft Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study Willdan s Draft Parks and Facilities Fee Study is presented as Attachment 3. The park and recreational facilities fee is calculated applying the cost per capita of the service population for new park and recreation facilities to the same occupancy assumptions for various land use types as those used in the Draft General Facilities Impact Fee Report. Service population includes residents and employees, with employees discounted by 50% due to lower utilization of parkland. The cost per capita is developed by calculating the existing facility standard of acres of existing park per 1,000 of the service population and multiplying this standard by the 1 Government facilities are detailed in Table 3.2 of the General Government Facilities Impact Fee Report 2 Workers are weighted at.31 of residents based on a 40-hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week.

7 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 7 estimated cost per acre of developing new parkland. Using the existing per capita standard assures that the fee is not sized to address existing efficiencies. The maximum fee calculations are summarized below: Table 3 - Park and Recreation Facility Impact Fee Methodology Existing service population Residents 10,196 Workers 10,204.5 of total 3 Total 20,400 Existing acres parkland Existing Facility Standard (acres/1000 service population) 1.37 Cost per Acre $6,096,800 Cost/1000 service population (1.37 x cost per $8,362,000 acre) Cost/capita residential $8,362 Cost/capita worker $4,181.5 of total Maximum Justified Fee Single family/townhome (1.86 persons/unit) $15,553 per unit Multifamily (1.79 persons/unit) $14,968 per unit Office (3.64 emp/1000 sf) $15,219 per 1000 sf Research and Development (2.5 emp/1000 sf) $10,453 per 1000 sf Hotel (1 emp/1000 sf) $4,181 per 1000 sf Retail (2.0 emp/1000 sf) $8,362 per 1000 sf Restaurant (5 emp/1000 sf) $20,905 per 1000 sf Draft Residential Nexus Study and Non-Residential Jobs-Housing Nexus Study KMA has prepared a Draft Residential Nexus Study and a Draft Non-residential Job-Housing Nexus Study (Attachment 4 and Attachment 5), which identifies the maximum fee for affordable housing that could be applied to both multifamily rental residential and commercial development 3 Workers are weighted at.5 based on the assumption that parks are designed for and primarily used by residents and workers use parks more than government facilities. 4 Existing Acres of parkland are summarized in Table 3.2 of the Park and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Report

8 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 8 in Emeryville. Because the City s Affordable Housing Set Aside Ordinance applies to ownership projects, KMA has not included this housing type in the draft report. As with other impact fees, once the maximum amount is established through the fee study, the City Council can set the fee at any level under this cap. In the report, KMA identifies the demand for affordable housing created in Emeryville by jobs generated through purchases of households living in a 100-unit prototype rental project. To conduct this analysis, KMA used two models: the IMPLAN model, and a proprietary jobshousing nexus model. The IMPLAN model has been widely used in planning applications throughout the United States for more than 30 years. KMA has been using its proprietary jobs housing nexus model for over 25 years in similar impact fee reports. This analysis is conducted in a series of steps as set forth below. Gross Income in Project: The gross income of residential project occupants is estimated, relying on a market study that identifies the average rents of new Emeryville apartment units. KMA then assumes 30% of income is spent on rental housing costs to develop an estimated annual household income. Annual income, multiplied by 100 units in a prototype project, equals $9.9 million of gross income in the project. Jobs Generated by Expenditures: Gross household income, adjusted for income available for expenditures, is input to the IMPLAN model for Alameda County, an economic model that estimates the number of jobs created by household expenditures. The total number of jobs totals After an adjustment to account for changing industries, the report finds 35.9 jobs generated by project resident expenditures. New Jobs Converted to New Households: Total new jobs is converted to 22.3 households based on a U.S. Census factor of workers per household. Households by Income: KMA uses its proprietary model, which imports local wage and salary data from the California Employment Development Department to analyze the occupational distribution and compensation levels of new jobs generated and develops a household income distribution for very low, low, and moderate income households for the new households created by project resident expenditures. Of the 22.3 worker households, 8.64 are very low, 4.57 are low, and 4.96 are moderate income. Maximum Impact Fee: The maximum impact fee is calculated by multiplying an affordability gap per unit for very low, low and moderate income households by the number of worker households in each income group. The affordability gap per unit is the difference between the total development cost of an affordable unit and the unit value supported by affordable rents at each income level. The affordability gap for very low income units is slightly lower than that for low income units because additional sources of subsidy (mainly tax credits) are assumed to be available to offset the cost of providing

9 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 9 units for this income bracket. The resulting Total Nexus Cost of the project is then converted to a per unit fee by dividing by 100 the number of units in the project. Calculations of each of these steps are shown in Tables III through Table IV of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Report. A summary of these calculations is as follows: Table 4 Maximum Affordable Housing Impact Fee Multifamily Rental Residential Methodology Average Square Feet per Unit in Prototype 850 Annual Household Income by type of unit (assuming 30% of income spent on rent $99,000 Gross Income per 100 units $9,900,000 Jobs created by occupants' purchases 47.9 Less 25% Adjustment for Changing Industries 35.9 Number of Households of New Workers (1.63/household) 22.3 Household income distribution Very Low - under 50% AMI 8.64 Low - (50-80%) 4.57 Moderate (60-120%) 4.96 Above Moderate 4.17 Total Affordability Gap Per Unit Very Low - under 50% AMI $212,500 Low - (50-80%) $255,000 Moderate (80-120%) $115,000 Total Nexus Cost for 100 Units (affordable unit demand x affordability gap) Very Low - under 50% AMI $1,827,500 Low - (50-80%) $1,173,000 Moderate (80-120%) $575,000

10 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 10 Total Nexus Cost Per Unit (total gap per 100 units) Very Low - under 50% AMI $18,300 Low - (50-80%) $11,600 Moderate (80-120%) $5,700 Total $35,600 The fee on commercial development mitigates the demand for affordable rental housing generated by new jobs in Emeryville as a result of new commercial development. In each case, the cost of providing affordable housing to meet this demand is converted into fee per square foot. Based on employment density assumptions for each land use prototype, the analysis calculates the total number of jobs created in the project and coverts these jobs to worker households. Using the same methodology as that applied in the residential analysis, worker households are distributed into very low, low and moderate income categories for each separate land use prototype and expressed as the number of households required per 1,000 square feet of building area. This factor is multiplied by the affordability gap for each income level, and then divided by 1,000, to develop the per square foot fee that would be required to fund the affordable housing demand. These calculations are summarized below. Table 5 Maximum Affordable Housing Impact Fee - Commercial Development Methodology Office R&D Retail Mix Hotel Square Feet 100, ,000 25,000 70,000 Emp Density/1000 sf Jobs Created Jobs Created after Adjustment for Changing Industries Number of Households Number of Households by Income Very Low - under 50% AMI , Low - (50-80%) Moderate (80-120%) Over 120% Total

11 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 11 Number of Housing Units per 1000 SF of Building Area Very Low - under 50% AMI Low - (50-80%) Moderate (80-120%) Affordability Gap by Household Income Very Low - under 50% AMI $212,500 $212,500 $212,500 $212,500 Low - (50-80%) $255,000 $255,000 $255,000 $255,000 Moderate (80-120%) $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Nexus Cost per 1,000 SF Very Low - under 50% AMI $35.10 $10.00 $ $52.80 Low - (50-80%) $52.70 $22.40 $68.50 $22.40 Moderate (80-120%) $54.80 $34.40 $19.40 $9.10 Total $ $66.80 $ $89.30 Summary of Maximum Fees Supported by Impact Reports The maximum fee supported by the recommended Impact Reports described above is summarized below: Table 6 - Maximum Fees Supported by Impact Reports Multifamily Rental Multifamily Townhomes Office R&D Retail & Ownership Restaurant Mix Hotel per unit per unit per unit per sf per sf per sf per room Transportation $7,775 $6,521 $6,521 $18.69 $13.42 $24.64 $5,267 Parks and Recreation $14,968 $14,968 $15,553 $15.22 $10.45 $10.87 $1,463 Affordable $35,600 $0 $0 $ $66.80 $ $31,255 Housing Total $58,343 $21,489 $22,074 $ $90.67 $ $37,985

12 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 12 Policy Considerations for Establishing Impact Fees Establishing the actual impact fees to be applied to new development is the second stage of the process of imposing impact fees. Because the maximum fee identified in the Mitigation Fee Reports is so excessive, staff is proposing that the City Council set the actual fee on the basis of policy considerations outlined below. Balancing the need for funding public improvements and affordable housing with the need to maintain the City s competitive position in attracting new development, which includes a recognition of the strength of the real estate markets for respective types of development; Distributing the total impact fee burden so that sufficient funds will be generated by the fees to construct the range of public improvements and affordable housing; and Maintaining equity by charging new development a fee to cover demand generated by the projects. Emeryville s Fee Burden Compared to Neighboring Cities A fundamental consideration in establishing impact fees is balancing the City s need to fund improvements to serve future growth with the fee burden on new development. Fees that are too high may negatively affect the financial feasibility of projects, placing the City at a competitive disadvantage to neighboring communities. To assist with this analysis, Willdan has prepared a development fee comparison that calculates total fees in a wide range of East Bay cities including Emeryville, Berkeley, Oakland, El Cerrito, Albany, Alameda, Walnut Creek and Richmond. Willdan calculated fees charged to new development for the seven residential and non-residential prototype projects: 100-unit multifamily rental, 100-unit multifamily owner occupied, 100 townhomes, 100,000 square feet office, 150,000 square foot research and development, a 25,000 square foot retail/restaurant project, and a 70,000 square foot, 200 room hotel. Fees include development impact fees, plan review and inspection fees and permit fees. The fee comparison is presented as Attachment 6. Using a subset of Willdan s findings to analyze the most competitive cities to Emeryville for the various developments, it is clear that Emeryville s fee levels are currently below that of neighboring jurisdictions for both residential and commercial projects. For the residential, office, retail and hotel prototype projects, staff compared Emeryville s existing planning, permit, and impact fees with Berkeley, Oakland, and Walnut Creek. For the research and development prototype, staff used the average of Berkeley, Richmond, and Alameda as a basis for comparison. The results of this comparison are shown in the following table and presented in charts presented in Attachments 7 and 7a.

13 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 13 Table 7 Comparison of Emeryville Fees to Comparable Cities Prototype Emeryville Average Comparable Cities Difference Per Total unit/sf/room Multifamily units (100) $963,750 $2,318,031 -$1,354,281 -$13,543 Townhomes (100) $1,468,626 $3,735,389 -$2,266,763 -$22,668 Office - 100,000 sf $911,660 $1,661,759 -$750,099 -$7.50 R&D - 150,000 sf $1,333,709 $2,134,107 -$800,398 -$5.34 Retail Mix - 25,000 sf $262,474 $407,374 -$144,900 -$5.80 Hotel (200 rooms) $859,918 $1,335,219 -$475,301 -$2,377 While the above analysis shows the capacity to increase Emeryville s impact fees, an approach to evaluating the appropriate level of impact fees to set fees so that the proposed fees remain close to, or comparable with, competitive cities. Since these fees are included in the cost of projects that have been and are being developed in these cities, it is assumed that the fees are financially feasible. The strength of real estate markets is also a factor in considering the level of fees to charge to different types of development. Currently, the residential rental market is experiencing dynamic growth, with a total of 1,897 rental units either under construction or being planned in Emeryville. The average apartment rent in Emeryville has increased approximately 28% since 2010, from $1,800 to $2,300 per unit and vacancy rates are less than 5%. On the other hand, commercial markets have not yet fully recovered from the recession. Office and research and development markets have higher vacancy rates and are not demonstrating significant increases in rents. As of the 4 th quarter 2013, the office vacancy rate in Emeryville was 15.19%, resulting from two straight years of negative absorption in overall building occupancy. Since the third quarter 2009, rents have remained flat in the East Bay region. Similarly, in the 4 th quarter of 2013, Emeryville s bio-science, research and development space had a 13.5% vacancy rate and experienced negative absorption of 59,230 square feet. The retail market is slightly stronger. As of the 4 th quarter 2013, vacancy rates on the I-80 corridor were 5%. There has been positive absorption throughout the year and asking rents were trending upward. Overall, these real estate trends indicate that rental residential development can sustain higher fees than commercial. Recommended Impact Fees The recommended impact fee is based on the assumption that each development type pay its proportionate share of fees, while maintaining an overall comparable fee level with competitive

14 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 14 cities. In providing this recommendation, staff has attempted to distribute the total fee burden between each impact fee so sufficient revenue can be obtained to fund needed improvements. Recommendations are as follows: The Transportation and Parks and Recreation Impact Fees are proposed to be set at a flat percent of the maximum fee. Staff is proposing that the Transportation Impact Fee be set at 20% of the maximum and the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee be set at 25% of the maximum. This approach distributes the fees evenly between different types of development, while limiting the total fee burden charged. Staff is recommending a different approach in setting the affordable housing fee. Since multifamily rental residential is experiencing the strongest market and most significant growth, the recommended affordable housing fee is $20,000 per unit, approximately 56% of the maximum fee, while the fee on commercial projects is proposed to be minimized at $2.00 per square foot. Minimizing the commercial affordable housing fee reserves most of commercial development s impact fee capacity for the other fees, while maintaining overall comparability the fees in competitive cities. Multifamily Rental Table 8 - Recommended Impact Fees Retail & Multifamily Ownership Townhomes Office R&D Restaurant Mix Hotel Transportation $1,555 $1,304 $1,304 $3.74 $2.68 $4.93 $1,053 Parks and $3,742 $3,742 $3,888 $3.81 $2.61 $2.72 $366 Recreation Affordable $20,000 $0 $0 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $700 Housing Total $25,297 $5,046 $5,192 $9.54 $7.30 $9.65 $2,119 Comparability of Proposed Fees with Competitive Cities As set forth in this report, the methodology used to establish the fee is based on maintaining comparability with similar neighboring cities. The analysis used in this determination is discussed below. Residential Impact Fees Since the affordable housing impact fee represents the largest impact fee for residential rental projects, a comparison of other cities affordable housing impact fees provides insight as to an appropriate fee for Emeryville. To assist with this analysis, KMA assembled and summarized the affordable housing requirements for cities with similar type of multifamily

15 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 15 rental residential development: Berkeley, Walnut Creek and San Francisco. Oakland has no affordable housing impact fee. Findings from KMA s research are summarized below: o o o Rental projects in Berkeley are required to pay an impact fee (currently $28,000 per unit) or set aside 10% of units for households earning less than 50% of area median income. In Walnut Creek, rental projects are required to pay an impact fee current set at $15 per square foot, equating to a fee of $12,750 per 850 square foot unit in the prototype. San Francisco requires developers to pay an impact fee equal to $51,786 per unit in a 100-unit prototype or set aside 12% of units within a project or 20% of units at an offsite location. The average affordable housing impact fee in the three cities is $30,845 per unit, and $20,375 per unit if just Berkeley and Walnut Creek are considered. As such, staff and consultants are recommending the $20,000 per unit fee, matching the average of Berkeley and Walnut Creek, which can be considered the most comparable markets to Emeryville for multifamily rental housing. Commercial Impact Fees The proposed impact fees applied to the commercial prototype projects fall close to the average of comparable cities. Total Emeryville fees, including the proposed impact fees, range from 91 to 108 percent of the average as shown in the following table. Table 9 - Proposed Commercial Fees Compared to Comparable Cities Office R&D Retail & Hotel Restaurant Mix per sf per sf per sf per room Total Emeryville Fee - $1,764,960 $2,310,583 $413,937 $1,216,948 Proposed plus existing Per SF/Per Unit/Per Room $18 $15 $17 $6,085 Average Total Fees $1,661,759 $2,134,107 $407,374 $1,335,219 (Competitive Cities) Per SF/Per Unit/room $16.62 $14.23 $16.29 $6,676 Emeryville total as % of Average % % % 91.14%

16 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 16 Charts comparing the total proposed fees for each type of residential and commercial development with comparable cities are presented as Attachment 8 and Attachment 8a. Proposed Fees as Percent of Project Value According to Willdan, development fees can reasonably range from five to fifteen percent of project value, depending on the type of use and market conditions. Commercial development is typically more sensitive and therefore can support lower fees. Based on the strong market for rental residential development, fees can be sustained at the higher end of this range. Currently, Emeryville s fee range from 2.4% to 3.2% of the estimated project value for each prototype. Incorporating staff s proposed impact fees, total proposed fees fall within the range recommended by Willdan. Incorporating the proposed impact fees, total fees for the residential rental prototype are 10.13% of project value. The proposed fee increases for the remaining prototypes range from 3.47% to 5.71% of project value. This analysis is presented in Attachment 9. On-Site Compliance for Affordable Housing Developers can be provided an option to provide affordable housing on-site instead of paying an affordable housing impact fee, as long as there is a negotiated agreement consistent with the current law. Staff recommends that the City establish an onsite compliance option where the developer could provide low-income units on-site in lieu of paying the affordable housing impact fee. Staff also recommends that on-site compliance be targeted to providing low-income units. This recommendation is based on the fact that the City has a shortage of these units in its below market rate unit inventory. Of the total 606 below market rate rental units, approximately 70 percent are very low income and 14 percent are low income. Moderate income units are largely provided through the First Time Homebuyer Program and through the application of the Affordable Housing Set Aside Ordinance to ownership projects. Based on assumptions used in the City of Emeryville s affordability table, KMA calculated the affordability gap to provide a low-income unit in the 850 square foot market rate unit prototype. The affordability gap at 60% of area median income (low-income) for a 2.25 person household is estimated to be $290,000 per unit. The recommended $20,000 per unit would generate a total of $2 million from the 100-unit prototype project. Dividing $2 million by the $290,000 per unit cost, 6.9 units could be created in the project, thereby supporting an equivalent on-site compliance percentage of 6.9% low income units (Attachment 10).

17 Planning Commission Staff Report Impact Fees April 24, 2014 Page 17 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council accept the Impact Fee Studies and adopt the proposed fees. Attachment 1: Draft Transportation Impact Fee Study Attachment 2: Draft General Government Facilities Impact Fee Study Attachment 3: Draft Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study Attachment 4: Draft Residential Nexus Study Attachment 5: Draft Non-Residential Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Attachment 6: Development Fee Comparison Attachment 7 and 7a: Existing Fee Comparison Charts Residential and Commercial Attachment 8 and 8a: Proposed Fee Comparison Charts - Residential and Commercial Attachment 9: Proposed and Existing Fees as Percent of Value and Willdan Fee Burden Analysis Attachment 10: On-site Compliance Percentage

18

19 Draft CITY OF EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE Prepared for: City of Emeryville March 2014 Attachment 1 WC

20

21 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update Prepared for: City of Emeryville March 2014 WC

22

23 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 Purpose of the Fee Update... 1 Use of the Transportation Fee... 3 Methodology... 4 Organization of the Report FEE PROGRAM BACKGROUND... 5 Current Fee Level... 5 Current Fee Projects... 6 Proposed Fee Program LAND USE PROJECTIONS AND TRAFFIC FORECASTING Step 1 TIF Project Identification Step 2 Identify Existing Deficiencies Step 3 Calculate New Development Traffic Capacity Enhancing Projects Non-Capacity Enhancing Projects Step 4 Anticipated New Emeryville Development Step 5 Calculate Trip Generation and Fee Step 6 Define Fee for Specific Land Use Types Fee Exemptions FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Fee Revenue Other Funding Sources Comparison to Other Jurisdictions Fee Levels Other Fee Considerations... 37

24 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Appendices Appendix A: Current Fee Schedule Appendix B: Detailed Project Information Appendix C: Additional Funding Sources List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area... 2 List of Tables Table 1 Current (Established In 1998) Traffic Impact Fee... 5 Table TIF Project Benefit and Status... 6 Table Emeryville Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Update Preliminary Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates Table 4 Projects Considered But Ultimately not Included TIF Table 5 Growth in Population and Jobs Table 6 Allocation of Project Costs to Fee Program Table 7 Forecasted Growth in Emeryville Table 8 Growth in Trips from General Plan Build-Out Table 9 Fee Per Weekday Evening Peak Hour Trip Table 10 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Fee Per Trip Table 11 Sample Fees Based On Amount to Fully Fund TIF Table 12 Estimate Fee Revenue by Land Use Category Table 13 Fee Comparison Table Table 14 Percent of TIF Funded at Varying Fee Levels... 37

25 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the purpose of this report, including the legal requirements, analysis methodology, and report organization. PURPOSE OF THE FEE UPDATE This study serves as the technical foundation for an update of the City of Emeryville s Traffic Impact Fee, which was as established in 1990 by City Ordinance No. 90-8, and updated in The 1998 update primarily identified roadway capacity improvements that would need to be in place to accommodate projected development through The City has collected fees and constructed many of the improvements identified in the 1998 Traffic Impact Fee. Given that Emeryville is a built-out City with limited capacity for roadway widening to accommodate increased private vehicle trips, the updated fee program includes transportation projects that better accommodate all modes of travel, including bicycles, pedestrians and transit riders. This recognizes that improvements to one transportation system can benefit all modes of travel. For example, a bicycle trip that replaces a vehicle trip because of a better network of bicycle facilities reduces automobile congestion that would occur without a shift from vehicle to bicycle. This study updates and extends the fee calculations from 2010 to 2030, using year 2030 land use projections, and focuses on multi-modal capital projects to reflect the Emeryville General Plan, adopted in October 2009 (General Plan). The General Plan places a greater emphasis on a comprehensive transportation system that accommodates all transportation modes, with key goals of reducing travel demand by autos while enhancing the transportation system for travel by walking, bicycling, and transit. The goal is to increase travel choices in Emeryville while minimizing environmental impacts associated with vehicle travel. As the program is shifting emphasis from private automobile travel to a multi-modal perspective, the fee program is being renamed the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. This report documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees and the need for transportation infrastructure caused by anticipated development in Emeryville. Figure 1 shows the study area for the Emeryville Transportation Impact Fee program. The fee program includes multi-modal transportation infrastructure projects throughout the incorporated area of Emeryville. 1

26 San Francisco Bay City of Berkeley Frontage Rd Bolivar Dr Potter St Lacoste St Bay St Christie Ave Potter St 64th St Ashby Ave 67th St Overland Ave Shellmound St Anthony St Folger Ave 62nd St Horton St 66th St 65th St 64th St 63rd St Murray St Ocean Ave Doyle St Peabody Ln Beaudry St Vallejo St Carrison St Haskell St City of Oakland Idaho St 63rd St Acton St 61st St 61st Pl 60th St Boise St 62nd St 66th St 62nd St Prince St Woolsey St Alcatraz Ave Fairview St Harmon St Peladeau St 59th St Hollis St Marshall St 59th St Stanford Ave 57th St Doyle St Admiral Dr Commodore Dr Captain Dr Fremont St Aileen St 56th St 55th St Powell St 54th St 54th St 53rd St 54th St 53rd St Bay St 53rd St Spur Alley Doyle St 48th St 47th St 45th St Essex St Adeline St 52nd St 46th St 45th St 44th St Sherwin St 45th St Horton St Holden St Hollis St Park Ave Watts St 42nd St 43rd St 41st St 40th St 39th St Apgar St Projects Parks and Open Spaces Pedestrian Priority Zone ,000 Feet 80 City of Oakland Mandela Pkwy 580 MacArthur Blvd 37th St 36th St

27 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 USE OF THE TRANSPORTATION FEE Government Code (GC) requires that fee programs comply with specific basic requirements. These basic requirements are to: Identify the purpose of the fee The Emeryville TIF generates funds from new development to pay for the facilities identified as part of the General Plan, its EIR, and subsequent implementation documents such as the City of Emeryville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (adopted May 15, 2012) and Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan (March 2012) to accomplish the goal of minimizing future vehicle travel while enhancing the transportation system for walking, bicycling, and transit use. Identify how the fee will be used on the facilities to be funded through the fee Funds generated by the Emeryville TIF will be used to implement a range of projects and programs derived from the General Plan and its EIR. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed The fee would be imposed on future development projects in Emeryville commensurate with their projected level of auto trip generation without network enhancements based on trip generation rates from Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 9th Edition. Improvements to transportation facilities included in the fee are designed to improve the efficiency of the street network, reduce vehicle trips, and enhance the transportation system for walking, bicycling, and using transit. Shifting existing and new trips that would otherwise be made by a private auto to pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips improves the efficiency of the transportation system for all users and achieves General Plan goals such as avoiding pavement additions to the street network and minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with vehicle use. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed The fee program is designed to accommodate and mitigate the impact of future travel demand in line with the population and employment growth in Emeryville as a 71 percent increase in population and a 46 percent increase in jobs is forecast by Determine how there is reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of the facility) attributable to new development Because the fee will be charged based on auto trips generated by new development and is used to either 3

28 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 accommodate those trips or reduce existing auto trips such that the transportation system is able to accommodate future growth, there is a rational nexus between fee collection and fee usage. The improvements will also increase travel choices for the community as specified in the General Plan goals. The improvements in the fee program are not designed to fix existing deficiencies; rather they are designed to accommodate new development. GC has been updated since the 1998 Traffic Impact Fee was adopted and the code changes are reflected in this updated document. Key changes include amendments to the code to define transportation facilities for purposes of impact fee programs to include pedestrian, bicycle, transit and traffic calming projects as well as auto-capacity related infrastructure projects. Transportation Impact Fees for housing developments that are within a transit area (in Emeryville, this is the area approximately 1/2-mile around the Amtrak Station and approximately 1/2-mile around the 40th Street transit mall) and satisfy other requirements are subject to a reduced fee. METHODOLOGY This report documents the connection between land uses in an urban environment and benefits from a multi-modal transportation network. The nexus between these facilities and new development that will occur under the General Plan is based on the number of Auto Trips Generated (ATG). This approach was used because the main goal of the General Plan was to reduce vehicle travel and its associated adverse environmental impacts. The transportation facilities identified for inclusion in the TIF are designed to accomplish both of these goals and the need for these improvements can be tied directly to the ATG produced by new development. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This report contains a total of four chapters including this introductory chapter. Chapter 1 Introduction explains the purpose and describes the study area for the fee program. Chapter 2 Fee Program Background summarizes the current fee program and the context for the updated fee program. Chapter 3 Analysis Methodology and Results describes the methods and summarizes the results of the analysis used to establish the nexus. Chapter 4 Financing Considerations discusses the effect of the impact fees on the financing of the citywide transportation improvement program. A comparison of the resulting fee to other jurisdictions is also provided. 4

29 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March FEE PROGRAM BACKGROUND The City of Emeryville established a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee program in 1990 by City Ordinance No. 90-8, which was last updated in 1998 (Ord ). The nexus study supporting the fee program was titled Emeryville Traffic Mitigation Fee Study (Fehr & Peers, 1998). The fee was designed to fund capital projects to mitigate traffic impacts of new development, consistent with the 1993 General Plan. The fee was intended to maintain baseline level of service, as measured by volume to capacity ratios at intersections, and was not imposed to improve or correct service deficiencies in the baseline (1998) transportation network. The 1998 Traffic Impact Fee included 11 roadway projects, comprised of intersection widening, improved connections for all travel modes, infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists, transit facilities, and traffic signal equipment upgrades. As of 2014, all but three of the projects had been completed. The following provides information on the current fee levels and the status of Projects included in the current fee. CURRENT FEE LEVEL In the 1998 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study, the citywide fee was assessed at $ per new weekday evening peak hour vehicle trip. The fee was converted to a fee per residential dwelling unit and a fee per 1,000 square feet of non-residential uses based on ITE trip generation rates. Table 1 provides sample fees for residential, office and general retail developments based on the current traffic impact mitigation fee, which has not been updated since and is currently applied to projects within the City. A detailed table is provided in Appendix A. TABLE 1 CURRENT (ESTABLISHED IN 1998) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Land Use Traffic Fee 3 Apartment per dwelling unit $503 Office per 1,000 square feet 1 $895 to $1,968 Medical Office per 1,000 square feet $2,071 Research & Development Center per 1,000 square feet $784 General Retail per 1,000 square feet 1 $1,850 to $3,523 1 Adjusted for inflation, the 1998 fee would be approximately $1,354 in 2014 dollars, based on government consumer price index (CPI) data as of March Many jurisdictions in the Bay Area update the fee amount on an annual basis to reflect increases in construction costs. 5

30 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 1 CURRENT (ESTABLISHED IN 1998) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Land Use Traffic Fee 3 Restaurant per 1,000 square feet 2 $3,603 to $16,105 Hotel per room $334 Notes: 1. Traffic fee range is shown; actual fee would vary depending on the size of the project. 2. Traffic fee range is shown; actual fee would vary depending on the type of restaurant, with fast-food with drive-thru at the higher end of the range. 3. Based on a unit cost of $ per peak hour trip Source: City of Emeryville Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study, 1998 CURRENT FEE PROJECTS Table 2 presents the project list from the 1998 TIF and the current status of each project. TABLE TIF PROJECT BENEFIT AND STATUS Project Key Benefit Status Christie Avenue at Powell Street Shellmound Street at Christie Avenue Powell Street at Hollis Street 65th Street at Shellmound Street Powell Street at I-80 Eastbound Off Ramp Improves vehicle operations through the Powell/Christie loop area with enhanced lane channelization, traffic signal installation and coordination, and high visibility crosswalks and curb ramps. Improves vehicle operations with enhanced lane channelization, traffic signal modifications, and coordination as well as improved pedestrian connections and operations. Extending turn-pocket storage lengths on southbound Hollis Street to improve vehicle flow through the intersection and minimize vehicle queue spillback to adjacent intersection. Additional right turn-lane channelization separates bike and vehicle traffic while improving intersection operation for vehicles. Improves pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular operations and safety crossing the railroad tracks. Would provide additional vehicular capacity by widening the eastbound I-80 off-ramp to provide fourth lane (not complete), restriping eastbound approach to provide two through lanes and two left-turn lanes (not complete), and widening the eastbound on-ramp to provide two receiving lanes (complete). Complete Complete Complete Complete Partially Complete 6

31 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE TIF PROJECT BENEFIT AND STATUS Project Key Benefit Status 40th Street at Horton Street Horton-Landregan- Stanford Connections 40th Street at San Pablo Avenue Shellmound Street Corridor Hollis Street Corridor Signal Interconnect 40th Street Signal Coordination Signalize intersection and provide left-turn phasing (completed) to improve pedestrian access across 40th Street at the Emery-go- Round Stop, and improve vehicle access to/from the site street. Modify the southbound approach to provide southbound left-turn and through-right shared lane (not complete). Provides a new north/south connection for vehicle, transit, and bicycle traffic, and provides a direct connection to the Amtrak Station to serve transit riders. Widen Street and remove parking and bike lane to accommodate eastbound right-turn lane with overlap phase (not complete). Remove parking on east side of San Pablo Avenue to improve northbound left-turn channelization (complete). Benefit would improve transit access through the intersections and reduce vehicular delay. Improves vehicle and bicycle circulation through Emeryville, connecting areas west and east of the railroad as well as connections to BART to serve Emery-Go-Round; sidewalks, high visibility crossings, and curb ramps to improve pedestrian circulation; transit bus stops to serve transit riders. New traffic signals and traffic signal interconnect between adjacent signalized intersections optimizes vehicle flow. Remaining improvements include interconnect cable between 59th and 64th as well as 53rd to Park Avenue. Provides improved signal coordination to optimize vehicle flow. Partially Complete Complete Partially Complete Complete Complete Complete Source: 1998 TIF, and Fehr & Peers, PROPOSED FEE PROGRAM As shown in Table 2 above, the current fee program is primarily (though not exclusively) focused on projects that add vehicular capacity to the roadway system. Based on the policy direction from the General Plan, the updated fee program intends to incorporate transportation projects for all roadway users, not just motorists. The project list has therefore been expanded to include a range of transportation improvements, including roadway widening, intersection improvements, bikeways, pedestrian improvements, and transit projects throughout the city. 7

32 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Based on the General Plan, Emeryville s overall goals for transportation system are: A comprehensive transportation system (T-G-1) A transportation system that is efficient, safe, removes barriers (e.g. accessibility near freeways and rail lines), and optimizes travel by all modes. Universally accessible (T-G-2) A transportation system that meets the needs of all segments of the population, including youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income households. Multi-modal (T-G-3) A transportation system that eliminates the necessity of owning and/or driving personal vehicles because of the availability of convenient and accessible alternative modes of transportation. The General Plan provides the policy foundation for the proposed TIF. Examples of relevant policies include: Policy T-P-2 The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of city streets shall be based on a complete streets concept that enables safe, comfortable, and attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages and abilities. Policy T-P-6 To the extent allowed by law, the City s Traffic Impact Fee shall include bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and road improvements such that development pays its fair share toward a circulation system that optimizes travel by all modes. Policy T-P-12 The City will plan, upgrade, and maintain pedestrian crossings at intersections and mid-block locations by providing safe, well-marked crosswalks with audio/visual warnings, bulb-outs, and median refuges that reduce crossing widths. Policy T-P-23 On-street bike routes in the City s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan shall be designated as either Class II (bike lanes) or Class III (signed routes without lanes), as appropriate. These designations are not part of the General Plan and may be changed as circumstances dictate. Policy T-P-31 Develop and implement transit stop amenities such as pedestrian pathways approaching stops, benches, traveler information systems, shelters, and bike racks to facilitate transit stops as place-making destinations and further the perception of transit as an attractive alternative to driving. This proposed TIF is consistent with the City s goals and policies on sustainability and multi-modalism as presented in the General Plan. The General Plan Circulation element focuses on shifting away from autodominated transportation networks to expanding opportunity to travel by all modes, and providing Emeryville residents and workers more choice in how they travel; thereby reducing vehicle congestion. This increased emphasis on making alternative transportation modes a viable option will allow the City to work towards improving environmental quality through the reduction of emissions (particularly 8

33 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 greenhouse gas emissions), encouraging healthier lifestyles, and supporting economic development within the city. The nexus analysis presented in the next chapter describes how this package of multi-modal transportation improvements was identified and calculates the fees that could be collected from new developments to fund these improvements. 9

34 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March LAND USE PROJECTIONS AND TRAFFIC FORECASTING This chapter describes the methods used to determine the nexus between new developments in Emeryville and the needed roadway and multi-modal improvements needed to serve new development. The focus of the fee program is developing a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system that would accommodate expected future travel demand while balancing the needs of all users. The technical analysis for this study was completed through a number of steps. Each is listed below, along with a brief description, how these steps were applied to Emeryville and the results of the fee calculations. STEP 1 TIF PROJECT IDENTIFICATION The transportation infrastructure needed to serve Emeryville in 2030 would consist of a variety of improvement projects including intersection improvements, roadway widening, pedestrian connections, new bikeways, and transit infrastructure. A variety of reference documents, including the General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Sustainable Transportation Plan, recently completed environmental documents, and other planning studies, have identified specific improvements that would provide the multi-modal network necessary to serve Emeryville in The following criteria were used to select the improvement projects to be included in the proposed TIF: Specific intersection and/or corridor improvements that would alleviate traffic congestion at locations throughout the City, as identified in recent environmental documents and other planning studies. Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects that would complete the network for these travel modes and make these modes more attractive, easy, and convenient alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel. Making alternative modes of transportation convenient, viable options through comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks can help reduce peak period traffic demand by providing Emeryville residents and workers travel mode choices. These improvements would also reduce traffic levels along congested corridors in Emeryville that cannot feasibly be mitigated with capacity enhancing improvements. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that help reduce peak period traffic demand. These measures would also reduce traffic levels along congested corridors in Emeryville that cannot feasibly be mitigated with capacity enhancing improvements. 10

35 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Table 3 describes 28 projects that are being considered for inclusion in the TIF along with a preliminary cost estimate for each project. For projects identified from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the cost was obtained from that document. For projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), costs were obtained from the CIP project fact sheets. The location of these projects was shown previously on Figure 1. These improvement projects, located throughout the City, consist of projects such as transit stop amenities, bicycle and pedestrian enhancements, new traffic signals and intersection widening, traffic signal upgrades to provide bicycle detection, as well as key connections in the City s bicycle network, pedestrian improvements, and transit projects. The infrastructure improvements projects included in the TIF are estimated to have an overall cost of about $101 million, when including design, environmental review, City staff time, and construction contingency. Appendix B provides detailed information about each project proposed to be included in the TIF. TABLE EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Map # Project Type Description Cost Bus Shelters $640,000 Real time signs $640, Citywide Transit Improvements Transit Add primary and secondary stop amenities at approximately 32 stops, 9 bus bulb-outs, signal modifications, additional transit vehicles and pedestrian enhancements (Bike/Ped Plan Projects T.1, T.3-T.17 and Emeryville Transit Study). Transit Vehicles $500,000 Bulbouts $360,000 Sidewalk Improvements Signal Modifications $100,000 $100,000 Bike racks $7,500 Total $2,347, Powell Street Multi-Modal Phase 1 Multi-modal Reconfigure Powell Street around Christie Avenue to better accommodate bicycles, pedestrians and transit vehicles enhancements (Bike/Ped Plan Projects B.9A and S.1A). $3,335,000 11

36 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Map # Project Type Description Cost 3. Christie Bay Trail Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Project includes 2 new crosswalks, traffic signal modifications and a multi-use path between Shellmound Street and Powell Street. (C.16, P.18, B.4) $480, ECCL Path Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Construct multi-modal path along western edge of ECCL campus between 53rd Street and 47th Street. (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.4, P.5). $750, South Bayfront Bridge and Horton Landing Park Paths Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Build the South Bayfront Bridge over railroad from Ohlone Way to Horton Landing Park. (Bike/Ped Plan Projects P.17, B.26). Construct new multi-use paths from Stanford Avenue at Horton Street o South Bayfront Bridge and east-west connection from Horton Street at 53rd to South Bayfront Bridge (Bike/Ped Plan Projects P.7, B.3). May be opportunities for partial Grant Funding. (CIP 2014) $14,549, San Pablo Avenue Mid-block Crossing Pedestrian Install HAWK Beacon at San Pablo Ave/ Yerba Buena Ave between 40th St and Adeline St. (Bike/Ped Plan Project C.9). $344, Shorebird Park Connections Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Improve existing sidewalk to accommodate multi-use path. At southwest corner of Access Road/ Frontage Road, reduce turning radius and realign pedestrian push button (Bike/Ped Plan Projects P.15 and SP.3). $220, Spur Alley Bicycle Treatments Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Extend bike route on Spur Alley from 53rd Street to Hollis and provide enhanced crossing treatments at 53rd, 45th and Doyle Streets (Bike/Ped Plan Projects B24, B.28, I.8, I.9, P.19, C.5, and C.17). B.24 $3,300 I.8 $320,500 I.9/C.17 $320,500 C.5/P.19/B.28 $256,000 Total $900, Railroad Quiet Zone Multi-modal Install 4 quadrant gates at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets (CIP 2014). $4,035,000 12

37 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Map # Project Type Description Cost 10. I-80/Powell Off Ramp Improvements Automobile Capacity Reconstruct off-ramp to provide dual left-turn and right-turn lanes on the off-ramp at Powell Street; reconstruct the southeast corner; widen the north side and provide enhanced bus stop (1998 TIF). $450, Christie Avenue/ Powell Street Automobile Capacity Widen the south side of Powell Street bridge and widen west side of Christie Avenue to accommodate second westbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane (Marketplace EIR). $4,600, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Includes implementation of minor projects identified in the bicycle and pedestrian master plan, including signage, striping, and directional signs. Example projects included are B.10, B.13, B.15, SP.2, SP.4, SP.5, I.4, B.16, S.12, S.10, B.12, B.23, I.7, B.22, SP.2, P.14. Individual project costs range from $500 to $20,000, with an average cost of less than $10,000. $300, th Street/ Horton Street Multi-Modal Restripe to provide southbound leftturn pocket and video detection for bicyclists (Pixar EIR). $59, th Street/Emery Street Automobile Capacity Eliminate parking to provide southbound left-turn lane and modify signal operations to provide protected north/south left-turn phasing (Site B Study). $87, Transit Center Plaza and Platform Extension Pedestrian Pedestrian Plaza between Amtrak Station and the proposed EmeryStation West office building. The Plaza will include new landscaping, hardscape, lighting and street furniture. (CIP 2014) $1,042,100 13

38 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Map # Project Type Description Cost 16. Public Parking and Bus Bays at Transit Center Transit Project would provide 125 public parking spaces for the Amtrak station and up to six bus bays for transit connections to the Amtrak station. (CIP 2014) Cost includes $4.230 million in remediation, which is not included in the fee calculations. $8,431, Doyle Street Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle Extend Bicycle Boulevard from 59th Street to 55th Street and install protected crossing of Powell Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.20, I.6, CIP 2014). $275, Hollis Street Sidewalk Pedestrian Widen sidewalks on Hollis Street from 45th Street to 53rd Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project S.6). $603, Adeline/San Pablo/ Macarthur/ Peralta "Star Intersection Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Construct landscaping and crossing improvements enhancements (Bike/Ped Plan Projects C.8 and I.5); May be able to obtain grant funding. $456, Ped-Bike Bridge over I-80: 65th St to Frontage Rd Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Build pedestrian/bicycle bridge over I- 80 to connect with Bay Trail (Bike/Ped Plan Projects C.1 and B.25). $18,500, Horton Street and Overland Avenue from 40th Street to 62nd Street Bicycle Improve function of north/south bicycle facilities through numerous treatments to prioritize bicycle travel over other modes (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.21). $2,015, Emeryville Greenway extension from Powell St south to Stanford Ave at Horton St Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Construct new pedestrian path (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.6, C.7) $1,350, th Street/ Harlan Street Signalization Multi-Modal Install traffic signal (CIP 2014, Bike/Ped Plan Project C.2). $290,000 14

39 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE EMERYVILLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION FEE UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES Map # Project Type Description Cost S.2 $593,000 S.3 $571, Sherwin Improvements Area Pedestrian Install sidewalks per the Park Avenue District Plan on portions of Sherwin Avenue, Halleck Street, Hubbard Street, Horton Street, and Holden Street in addition to crossing treatments (Bike/Ped Plan Project S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5, S.13, P.2, C.3, and C.2). S.4 $300,000 S.5 $663,200 S.13 $400,000 P.2/C.4 $314,600 C.3 $1,500 Total $2,843, Bike Sharing Program Bicycle Develop and implement Citywide bike sharing program (from Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan). $600, Bicycle Parking Bicycle Install bicycle parking at locations throughout City (from Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan). $200, Traffic Signal Enhancements Bicycle Install video detection for bicyclist at all signalized intersections (from Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan and CIP 2014). $490, Emery-go-Round Bus Yard Acquisition Transit Acquire a bus yard site for the Emerygo-Round (CIP 2014). $1,000,000 Total Project Costs $70,568,350 Soft Costs: Design, Environmental, Mobilization, Construction Administration, and Contingency (40%) $28,227,340 Preparation of Transportation Fee Study $200,000 City Administrative Costs (2%) $1,979,914 Total Cost $100,975,604 See Project Sheets for detailed information on each project. Source: Fehr & Peers,

40 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 The projects are identified by their primary mode of benefit, including bicycle, pedestrian, transit, automobiles, non-motorized multi-modal (such as Pedestrian 6% Transit 12% Bicycle 7% Automobile Capacity 2% shared-use paths), and multi-modal for all travel modes. The percentage of the fee allocated to each of the various Multi-Modal 13% project types is summarized in the chart to the right, which shows that multimodal non-motorized projects represents 60 percent of the total projects cost. This is primarily due to the high cost of the proposed South Bayfront and I-80 Multi-modal (nonmotorized) 60% bicycle/pedestrian bridges. During development of this administrative draft TIF, a number of improvements were considered, but ultimately not included in the TIF for a variety of reasons. These projects are summarized in Table 4. Grant funding has already been awarded from some projects, some have already been implemented, and other Projects will be conditioned on future adjacent development or are dependent on redevelopment of the surrounding area. TABLE 4 PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY NOT INCLUDED TIF Project Type Description Cost Notes 45th Street/Hollis Multi-Modal Install traffic signal (CIP 2014). $300,000 Project removed as it would be developer funded. Greenway at 65th, 66th, and 67th Street Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Install enhanced crossing treatments (Bike/Ped Plan Project I.1). $115,200 Project completed. Temescal Creek Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Construct pedestrian pathway from Temescal Park to San Pablo Avenue (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.11). $620,000 Project to be considered at a later date. 16

41 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 4 PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY NOT INCLUDED TIF Project Type Description Cost Notes 45th Street Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle Install bicycle boulevard signage and pavement markings between Horton Street and San Pablo Avenue (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.17). $7,500 Project completed. Joseph Emery Path Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Construct new multi-use path with redevelopment or modification of AC Transit facility and provide enhanced pedestrian crossings of the path and 45th and 47th Streets (Bike/Ped Plan Projects P.3, C.6, B.8, I.2). $792,800 Project to be considered with redevelopment Pickleworks Path Multi-modal (nonmotorized) North-south multi-use path connecting Doyle St to 53rd St at Pickleworks property (Bike/Ped Plan Projects P.5 and B.11). $260,000 Project requires right-ofway acquisition and is a long-term plan. Overland Multiuse Pathway Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Extend existing Class I bikeway on Overland Avenue from 65th Street to City Limits (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.7 and P.12). $198,200 Overland Avenue Sidewalk Pedestrian Construct a sidewalk south of 64th Street on the east side and north of 64th Street on the west side of Overland Ave (Bike/Ped Plan Project S.7). $712,800 62nd Street Bikeway Bicycle In conjunction with expansion of the Doyle-Hollis park, replace bike boulevard with Class I path (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.1b). $338,800 62nd Street Bikeway Bicycle Extend bike boulevard between Horton and Hollis Streets (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.1a). $1,300 17

42 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 4 PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY NOT INCLUDED TIF Project Type Description Cost Notes 59th Street Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle Install additional signing and pavement markings, in addition to video detection on 59th Street at Hollis Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.19). $15,000 Project completed. Horton Landing Park (South) Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Install a Class I path from Horton Landing Park to the intersection of Sherwin Avenue and Halleck Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project B.6); $640,000 To be completed with development of adjacent parcel. Yerba Buena Path Pedestrian Mid-block north-south pedestrian path between San Pablo Ave and Emery St at Pak N Sav (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.16). $67,500 Project on private property. Ex Pressions College Path Pedestrian Construct new path in conjunction with redevelopment connecting Christie Avenue at 65th Street with Shellmound Street at 66th Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.13). $202,500 Project requires redevelopment of adjacent parcels. 66th and 67th Street Sidewalks Pedestrian Construct sidewalks on 66th and 67th Streets between Shellmound Street and Hollis Street (Bike/Ped Plan Project S.8 and S.9). $798,400 Project requires redevelopment of adjacent parcels. Anna Yates Path Pedestrian Provide north-south pedestrian path through Anna Yates School Between 43rd and 41st Streets, south of Salem Street in Triangle neighborhood (Bike/Ped Plan Project P.10). $94,500 Project requires redevelopment of adjacent parcels. 18

43 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 4 PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY NOT INCLUDED TIF Project Type Description Cost Notes San Pablo Avenue from 36th St to 53rd St Pedestrian Consider greening study for San Pablo Avenue (e.g. installation of bioswales in bulb-outs at intersections) to improve aesthetic of street and reduce run-off, provide pedestrian improvements, and calm traffic. Install parklets where feasible (Bike/Ped Plan Project E.2). $1,800,000 East-west on 53rd St from Horton St to San Pablo Ave Multi-modal (nonmotorized) Opportunities to improve 53rd St and create Temescal Greenway, including bioswales, narrowing roadway and bicycle and pedestrian enhancements (Bike/Ped Plan Projects B.18, E.1). $2,318,100 Powell Street Multi-Modal Phase 2 Multi-modal Continued improvements around Powell Street/Christie Avenue to better accommodate bicycles, pedestrians and transit vehicles enhancements (Bike/Ped Plan Projects B.9B and S.1B, CIP 2014). $16,430,000 Horton Street Traffic Calming Bicycle Design and installation of traffic calming measures on Horton Street between 62nd Street and Sherwin Avenue to reduce traffic volumes below thresholds for bicycle boulevard. $56,800 Project overlaps with other planned projects. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Pedestrian Crossing enhancements at 43rd, 45th, and 47th Street at San Pablo Avenue, including RRFBs, bulbouts, median and signal modifications. (Projects C.11, C.12, C.13) $425,000 SR2S Grant funding identified. 40th Street Transit Zone Transit Install shared lane markings (SP.1). $10,200 Project Completed. Source: Fehr & Peers,

44 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 STEP 2 IDENTIFY EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The current TIF was established in 1990 by City Ordinance No. 90-8, and updated in This document serves as an update to the 1998 plan and carries forward improvements that have not yet been completed. Analysis contained in the 1998 TIF identified the Shellmound Way/Christie Avenue intersection as deficient. No other intersections with improvements included in the 1998 TIF were identified as being deficient in The General Plan EIR identified deficient operations at the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Powell Street and Powell Street/Christie Avenue intersection based on 2006 conditions. Deficient operations were defined as level of service E or F, indicating long delays, the potential for queue spillback between intersections and reduced mobility for roadway users, including automobiles and transit. A recent study of transit performance for the Emery-go-Round system identified significant delays traveling through the Powell/ Christie loop area which periodically delayed transit vehicles and created uncertainty in the schedule of buses that can affect the perceived reliability of transit systems and discourage ridership. With the adoption of the General Plan, the City eliminated the Level of Service D standard for vehicles, recognizing that developing a transportation system based on vehicle level of service with minimal regard for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit users creates a bias that unintentionally but inherently ignores overall mobility and conditions for non-auto road users and perpetuates a system that focuses on expanding vehicle capacity, which can reduce the quality of service for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, the General Plan also recognizes that some roadway enhancements are necessary to maintain vehicle flow for transit vehicles. The improvement identified at the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Powell Street in the 1998 has not been fully implemented and will be included in the updated TIF as fees have already been collected from other developments to implement this improvement. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the fee, this intersection is not considered deficient in the baseline condition. At the Christie Avenue/Powell Street intersection, improvements included in the 1998 TIF have been implemented. As this intersection was identified as deficient for the purposes of the baseline for this TIF, only a portion of the cost for identified improvements at this intersection will be allocated to new development. 20

45 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 STEP 3 CALCULATE NEW DEVELOPMENT By definition, a jurisdiction develops a fee program to charge fees to new developments to fund transportation improvements necessary to serve the demand and impacts generated by that new development in the jurisdiction. Thus, only the proportion of cost relative to the amount of usage to new development can be included in the fee program and charged to new developments. Different methodologies were used for traffic capacity enhancing projects (i.e., intersection and other street improvements) and non-capacity enhancing projects (i.e., bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects) to calculate the cost of each project attributable to new developments. Both methodologies are described below. TRAFFIC CAPACITY ENHANCING PROJECTS For traffic capacity enhancing projects, such as intersection improvements and roadway widening, an existing deficiency is identified at the Powell Street/Christie Avenue intersection. For projects at this intersection, the cost of the improvement is divided between existing traffic, traffic generated by non- Emeryville development, and traffic generated by new Emeryville development. For improvement projects on facilities that are not subject to an existing deficiency, the need for the improved facility is generated by new development rather than by existing transportation problems. Therefore, the cost of the improvement is divided between new non-emeryville development, and new Emeryville development. The Emeryville Travel Demand Model, developed for analyzing the General Plan, was used to estimate the proportion of existing traffic, new non-emeryville traffic, and new Emeryville City traffic using each capacity enhancing improvement project in 2030 where an existing deficiency was identified. See the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for additional details. NON-CAPACITY ENHANCING PROJECTS Non-capacity enhancing projects, such as bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would benefit both existing and new Emeryville residents and workers. Table 5 shows the existing and expected growth in number of residents and workers in Emeryville. New population and jobs are expected to be about 54 percent of the total residential population and employee population in

46 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 5 GROWTH IN POPULATION AND JOBS Existing Growth Total Growth Annual Growth Rate Population 2 9,727 6,873 16,600 71% 2.7% Jobs 3 20,552 9,448 30,000 46% 1.9% Total 30,279 16,321 46,600 54% 2.45% 1. Buildout population rounded to nearest hundred; employment rounded to nearest thousand. 2. Buildout population was calculated assuming 1.79 persons per household existing jobs calculated using ABAG projections for 2005 and 2010 employment. Source: Department of Finance 2008; ABAG Projections 2007; City of Emeryville, 2008; and Dyett & Bhatia, However, the shift of existing trips from auto modes to non-auto modes would increase available capacity for new vehicle trips on the roadway system and accommodate the vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by new development. Considering that the non-capacity enhancing projects would generally serve the local residents and workers, minimal non-emeryville usage is expected. Therefore, the cost of non-capacity enhancing projects is not allocated to non-emeryville growth. Table 6 shows the total cost of each improvement project and a breakdown of the cost allocated to existing deficiencies, Emeryville growth, regional (i.e., non-emeryville City) growth, and other considerations. For some projects, a portion of the cost includes soil remediation which is not included in the fee. Based on requirements of GC 66000, only the Emeryville growth share of the project may be included in the calculation of the TIF. The fee share of the project improvement cost that can be allocated to the TIF is about $88 million, corresponding to about 87 percent of the total cost of the improvement projects. This total includes approximately $62 million for construction costs, approximately $25 million for environmental review, design, contingency and other unknown costs that could arise (reflects 40 percent of the total preliminary construction cost estimate), and costs associated with development of the fee and City administrative costs. Note that right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in the fee. 22

47 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Map # TABLE 6 ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS TO FEE PROGRAM Project Type Total Cost Percent of Cost to Include in Fee Existing/Other Emeryville Growth Portion of Cost to include in Fee 1. Citywide Transit Improvements Transit $2,347,500 0% 100% $2,347, Powell Street Multi-Modal Phase 1 Multi-modal $3,350,000 0% 100% $3,350, Christie Bay Trail Multi-modal (non-motorized) $480,000 0% 100% $480, ECCL Path Multi-modal (non-motorized) $750,000 0% 100% $750, South Bayfront Bridge Multi-modal (non-motorized) $14,549,000 0% 100% $14,549, San Pablo Avenue Mid-block Crossing Pedestrian $344,100 0% 100% $344, Shorebird Park Connections Multi-modal (non-motorized) $220,000 0% 100% $220, Spur Alley Bicycle Treatments Multi-modal (non-motorized) $900,300 0% 100% $900, Railroad Quiet Zone Multi-modal $4,035,000 0% 100% $4,035, I-80/Powell Off Ramp Improvements Automobile Capacity $450,000 0% 100% $450, Christie Avenue/ Powell Street Automobile Capacity $4,600,000 85% 15% $690, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Multi-modal (non-motorized) $300,000 0% 100% $300, th Street/Horton Street Multi-Modal $59,500 0% 100% $59, th Street/Emery Street Automobile Capacity $87,000 0% 100% $87, Transit Center Plaza and Platform Extension Public Parking and Bus Bays at Transit Center Pedestrian $1,042,100 80% 20% $208,420 Transit $8,431, % 49.8% $4,200, Doyle Street Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle $275,000 0% 100% $275, Hollis Street Sidewalk Pedestrian $603,000 0% 100% $603, Adeline/San Pablo/ Macarthur/Peralta "Star Intersection Ped-Bike Bridge over I-80: 65th St to Frontage Rd Horton Street and Overland Avenue from 40th Street to 62nd Street Multi-modal (non-motorized) $456,000 0% 100% $456,000 Multi-modal (non-motorized) $18,500,000 0% 100% $18,500,000 Bicycle $2,015,000 0% 100% $2,015,000 23

48 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 Map # 22. TABLE 6 ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS TO FEE PROGRAM Project Type Total Cost Emeryville Greenway extension from Powell St south to Stanford Ave at Horton St Percent of Cost to Include in Fee Existing/Other Emeryville Growth Portion of Cost to include in Fee Multi-modal (non-motorized) $1,350,000 0% 100% $1,350, th Street/ Harlan Street Signalization Multi-Modal $290,000 0% 100% $290, Sherwin Area Improvements Pedestrian $2,843,850 0% 100% $2,843, Bike Sharing Program Bicycle $600,000 0% 100% $600, Bicycle Parking Bicycle $200,000 0% 100% $200, Traffic Signal Enhancements Bicycle $490,000 0% 100% $490, Emery-go-Round Bus Yard Acquisition Transit $1,000,000 0% 100% $1,000,000 Total Project Costs $70,568,350 $61,593,718 Contingency, Design Environmental Review and Other (40%) $28,227,340 $24,637,487 Preparation of Transportation Fee Study $200,000 $200,000 City Administrative Costs (2%) $1,979,914 $1,728,624 Total Cost $100,975,604 $88,159,829 Source: Fehr & Peers,

49 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 STEP 4 ANTICIPATED NEW EMERYVILLE DEVELOPMENT As part of the General Plan development effort, population and employment growth forecasts for the year 2030 were developed based on land use changes envisioned in the General Plan. Table 7 presents the existing and 2030 land use projections for the City. About 3,800 dwelling units and 2.5 million square feet of net-new non-residential development are expected in Emeryville over the next twenty years to contribute to the fee program. TABLE 7 FORECASTED GROWTH IN EMERYVILLE Residential (Units) Retail (SF) Hotel (SF) Office (SF) Industrial (SF) Approved Development , ,313, Gross New Development 2,930 1,075, ,600 1,569,700 76,200 Loss of Existing due to Redevelopment ,598-14, , ,377 Net New Development (A+B+C) 3, , ,225 2,372, ,177 Existing Development 5,988 2,441, ,500 4,852,118 4,132,675 City at ,755 3,082, ,725 7,225,078 3,353,498 Percent Change from Existing (2005) to 2030 Buildout 63% 26% 67% 49% -19% Notes: Office includes R&D development. Residential buildout rounded to nearest hundred; non-residential to nearest thousand. SF = Square feet Source: Dyett & Bhatia, (Approved Development as of November 2007; Existing Development as of 2005.) STEP 5 CALCULATE TRIP GENERATION AND FEE The level of development summarized in Table 7 is anticipated to generate trips by all modes of travel, including automobile, transit, walk and bike. As shown in Table 8, approximately 77,600 new daily trips could be made by planned development in Emeryville, including 61,000 new vehicle trips, 10,400 transit trips, and 6,200 bicycle and walking trips. On a peak hour basis, 5,650 new vehicle trips, 870 transit trips, and 510 bicycle and walking trips are expected. 25

50 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 8 GROWTH IN TRIPS FROM GENERAL PLAN BUILD-OUT Mode Time Period Existing General Plan Growth Total Weekday Daily 133,000 61, ,000 Automobile Weekday Peak 11,410 5,650 17,060 Saturday Peak 9,130 4,470 13,600 Weekday Daily 19,700 10,400 30,100 Transit Weekday Peak 2, ,900 Saturday Peak 1, ,290 Weekday Daily 10,800 6,200 17,000 Walk/Bike Weekday Peak 1, ,600 Saturday Peak ,350 Weekday Daily 163,500 77, ,100 Total Trips Weekday Peak 14,530 7,030 21,560 Saturday Peak 11,670 5,570 17,240 Source: City of Emeryville General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, As shown in the previous step, the Emeryville General Plan land use forecasts include both residential and non-residential uses. Non-residential uses are represented in terms of building area, measured in square feet. Residential uses are represented in terms of dwelling units. The total cost to be contributed by new developments (Step 3) is divided by the total net new trip generation (Step 5) to determine the appropriate fee amount per evening peak hour trip. Although the travel needs of Emeryville residents, employees and visitors are met by a variety of modes, the fee per trip is calculated based on the summation of all trip types as the ITE rates used to assign a fee per land use type does not include reductions to account for non-auto modes and this method treats all projects equally within the City as they will likely have similar trip generating characteristics relative to each other. As shown in Table 9, the cost of the fee program per evening peak hour trip is $12,541; for residential projects within a transit overlay district (see General Plan circulation map 3-1) a reduced fee (up to 25 percent of the fee associated with improvements related to the vehicle network, approximately 2 percent of the fee is solely related to vehicle improvements, while 13 percent of the fee partially related to automobiles although other modes of travel benefit as well) may be assessed if the following requirements of GC are met: 26

51 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 (1) The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station 2 and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length. (2) Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development. (3) The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less. To calculate the allowed fee reduction for Emeryville, the percent of the fee that is related to automobile improvements (15 percent) was multiplied by the maximum allowable reduction of 25 percent, resulting in a reduction of 3.75 percent from the base fee. If the fee was comprised of 100 percent projects that expanded automobile capacity, the fee reduction would be 25 percent. If a housing development does not satisfy the above characteristics, Emeryville may charge a fee that is proportional to the estimated rate of automobile trip generation associated with the housing development. The City of Emeryville has two designated transit overlay zones that generally meet the above requirements, the first is approximately 1/2-mile around the Amtrak Station and the second is approximately 1/2-mile around the 40th Street transit mall. However, each development project in and around that area would need to be evaluated to determine if the requirements of GC are met. Additionally, the code does allow a jurisdiction to adopt findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development in transit-overlay zones, even with these characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics. 2 Transit station means a rail or light-rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, or bus transfer station. Bus hub means an intersection of three or more bus routes, with a minimum route headway of 10 minutes during peak hours. 27

52 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 9 FEE PER WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR TRIP PM Peak Hour Trips 7,030 Fee Per Trip $12, Based on total fee from Table 6 and net-new trips from Table 8. Source: Fehr & Peers, STEP 6 DEFINE FEE FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE TYPES To determine the fee for specific uses that might be proposed with the City of Emeryville, the auto trip generating potential of each project based on use-specific trip generation rates as published in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition and estimates of pass-by trips for commercial developments from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition were used. Although projects in Emeryville are expected to generate fewer vehicle trips than estimated by ITE, this method treats all projects equally within the City as they will likely have similar trip generating characteristics relative to each other. The fee for specific land uses can be calculated by the following formulae for the PM peak hour: Developments outside Transit Overlay Zone [ ] [ ( )] Residential Developments in Transit Overlay Zone [ ] [ ( )] Table 10 summarizes the updated fees for the various land use categories based on the per trip fee calculations shown in Table 9 based on PM peak hour trip generation. As previously described, the fees for residential developments in the transit overlay district are reduced by 3.75 percent to account for lower automobile trip generation due to proximity to transit and better pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in that district. Approximately 15 percent of the total fee would benefit vehicles (includes projects related to automobile capacity as well as multi-modal projects) and the 25 percent reduction specified by CG was adjusted to reflect that only a portion of the fee would benefit automobile trips. 28

53 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 10 WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR FEE PER TRIP Land Use ITE Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate % Primary Trips 1 Based on Peak Hour Trip Rate 2 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single-Family % $12,541 Townhome/Condominium % $6,521 TH/Condo (Transit Zone) % $6,270 Apartment % $7,775 Apartment (Transit Zone) % $7,524 Office (per sq. foot) Standard Office % $18.69 Corporate HQ Building % $17.68 Medical Office % $44.77 Hospital % $11.66 R&D Center % $13.42 Retail/Commercial (per sq. foot) General Retail % $23.39 Restaurant Quality % $28.18 High Turnover % $37.06 Fast Food % $ Fast Food with Drive-Thru % $ Service Station (per pump) % $34,787 Self-Service Car Wash (per stall) % $34,737 Supermarket % $53.50 Convenience Market % $ Hotel (per room) % $5,267 Bank % $

54 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 10 WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR FEE PER TRIP Land Use ITE Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate % Primary Trips 1 Based on Peak Hour Trip Rate 2 Manufacturing (per sq. foot) Light Industry % $12.16 Manufacturing % $9.15 Warehousing % $4.01 Industrial Park % $10.66 Other (per sq. foot) Movie Theatre % $61.57 Tennis Court (per court) % $42,011 Health Club % $44.27 Day Care Center % $ Nursing Home % $9.28 Live Work (per unit) Live Work % $8, Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. 2. Based on a unit cost of $12,541 per weekday PM peak hour trip 3. Based on survey of live/work lofts in Oakland Land uses listed in Table 10 present basic land use designations that have been identified by the City of Emeryville as the most common. Calculations for land use designations not included in ITE Trip Generation can be based on other published rates, or developed through the preparation of a trip generation study, to be prepared under the direction of the planning director. Sample fees for various development types were calculated, as presented in Table 11, based on the fee schedule shown in Table 10. Based on the proposed fees shown in Table 10, a 100 unit apartment building could be required to pay $777,500 in transportation impact fees, in addition to any other fees that might be assessed by the City of Emeryville. 30

55 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 11 SAMPLE FEES BASED ON AMOUNT TO FULLY FUND TIF Land Use Type Size Units Transportation Impact Fee Residential Rental Multi-Family 100 Dwelling Units $777,500 Residential For Sale townhomes 100 Dwelling Units $652,100 Office 100,000 Square Feet $3,373,000 Research & Development (lab) 150,000 Square Feet $2,013,000 Hotel 200 Rooms $1,053,400 Mixed-Use Retail 20,000 Square Feet $467,800 Restaurant (quality) 5,000 Square Feet $140,900 Mixed-Use Total $608,700 Source: Fehr & Peers, FEE EXEMPTIONS The City may choose to exempt specific uses (such as day-care centers) from the fee or reduce the fee for other specific uses (such as below-market-rate housing). If fees for specific uses or developments are reduced, the fee for other land uses or the cost per DUE cannot increase because other types of land uses cannot be burdened with the fee share of the exempt or reduced uses based on the nexus requirements under Government Code Therefore, exempting land uses from the fee or reducing fees for specific uses means that the City must use alternative funds from other sources to generate the corresponding loss in fee revenue to pay for that portion of the fee. 31

56 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS This chapter describes the estimated fee revenue of the proposed TIF and other potential funding sources. Questions are also posed about the varying levels of TIF projects that could be funded if the fee was adjusted from presented in Chapter 3. ESTIMATED FEE REVENUE Table 12 summarizes the estimated fee revenue by the basic land use designations based on projections of growth between 2005 and 2030 and the fees described in the previous chapter. Residential fees would generate about $56.7 million and non-residential uses would generate about $17.4 million in revenue. Total revenue is estimated to equal about $83.5 million. This total is slightly less than the amount shown in Table 6 for a number of reasons as described below. Since the estimated fee revenue presented in Table 12 is based on the basic land use designations with the fee at the average of development type, the actual fee revenue collected over time may differ as specific development projects may be charged a different fee. Until precise development applications are known, the fee revenue estimates must be based on generalized land use categories. This calculation assumes that a fee credit for industrial development that converts to another use would be applied. However, depending on the length of time since an industrial use was actively in use, a credit against the existing trip generating potential of those sites may not be granted. The calculations also assume that approximately 1/3 of housing development would occur within a designated transit area and subject to a reduced fee. The City may choose to exempt specific uses (such as day-care centers) from the fee or reduce the fee for other specific uses (such as below-market-rate housing). If fees for specific uses or developments are reduced, the fee for other land uses or the cost per DUE cannot increase because other types of land uses cannot be burdened with the fee share of the exempt or reduced uses based on the nexus requirements under GC Therefore, exempting land uses from the fee or reducing fees for specific uses means that the City chooses to use alternative funds from other sources to generate the corresponding loss in fee revenue and pay for that portion of the fee. 32

57 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 12 ESTIMATE FEE REVENUE BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Transit Overlay Zone Outside Transit Overlay Zone Citywide Fee Growth Revenue Fee Growth Revenue Growth Revenue Residential Condo/Townhouse $6, $4,075,500 $6,521 1,234 $8,046,914 1,884 $12,122,414 Apartment $7, $4,890,600 $7,775 1,234 $9,594,350 1,884 $14,484,950 Subtotal $8,966,100 $8,966,461 $17,641,264 3,768 $26,607,364 Non-Residential Industrial (Light Industrial) $12.16 (779,177) ($9,474,792) -779,177 ($9,474,792) Office $ ,372,960 $44,350,622 2,372,960 $44,350,622 Retail 1 $ ,263 $12,660, ,263 $12,660,142 Restaurant 1 $ ,000 $3,706, ,000 $3,706,000 Hotel 2 $5,267 1,050 $5,530,350 1,050 $5,530,350 Subtotal $56,772,322 $56,772,322 Total Revenue $74,413,586 $83,379,686 Balance of TIF Fund $153,124 Total TIF Funds $83,532,810 Notes: 1. Of the expected 641,263 square feet of retail development, 100,000 square feet was assumed to be high-turnover sit-down restaurants for the purpose of this exercise. 2. The expected square footage from Table 7 was used to calculate number of rooms per hotel, assuming 300 square feet per room, inclusive of circulation areas and support facilities. Source: Fehr & Peers, OTHER FUNDING SOURCES As previously described, the updated TIF program, including balance of existing funds, would fund about 83 percent of the $101 million needed to fund transportation infrastructure envisioned by 2030 in Emeryville. As previously described, this is because development in Emeryville cannot be required to fund existing deficiencies or impacts caused by regional through traffic. This is the reasonable relationship (i.e., nexus) requirement specified in GC The difference between the projected fee revenue and the 33

58 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 actual cost of the capital improvements must be funded through other sources. Other potential funding sources include: Various regional, state, and federal grants and program Negotiated Development Agreements Gas taxes Sales taxes Assessment District Motor Vehicle license fees General funds Public/private partnerships Appendix C provides additional information related to the past funding sources the City of Emeryville has been able to use to fund infrastructure projects, including Measure B, Proposition 84, and Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants. COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS Table 13 provides a summary of traffic impact fees imposed by other jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area. Most jurisdictions use a similar methodology to determine their fee and fee allocation. Almost all the jurisdictions base their traffic impact fees on weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes or average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. In comparison to the other jurisdictions, the proposed traffic impact fees for the City of Emeryville are higher than other jurisdictions for both residential and commercial land uses. 34

59 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 13 FEE COMPARISON TABLE 1998 Emeryville Fee Study Comparison Table Current Fees Jurisdiction Single Family Residential (per DU) Multi-Family Residential (per DU) Retail/ Commercial (SF) Office (per SF) Industrial (per SF) Single Family Residential (per DU) Multi-Family Residential (per DU) Retail/ Commercial (SF) Office (per SF) Industrial (SF) Brentwood $10,746 $6,637 $4.37 $6.70 $4.63 Concord $2, $7.40 $ Daly City $189 $189 $ 1.04 $1,464 $1, Danville 1 $1,400 $980 $ 3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $2,258 $1,400 $4.50 $ Dublin (Downtown) 1 $3,836 - $ 8.40 $6.45 $2.58 Dublin (Eastern Dublin) 1 $3,836 - $ 8.40 $6.45 $2.58 Ranges from $2,167 for low-density (0-6units/acre) to $1,299 for high density (25.1+ units) Range from $8,833 for low-density (0-6 units/acre) outside Transit Areato $3,601 for high density (25.1+ units) in Transit Area '$216 (fee per daily trip) $772 (fee per daily trip) Fremont $951 - $ 7.75 $3.47 $0.92 $3,879 $3,009 $8.70 $10.77 $3.55 Half Moon Bay $1,390 $870 $ 3.55 $3.62 $1,570 $910 $4.74 $3.54 $0.91 Livermore 1 $2,036 - $ 5.19 $5.50 $2.04 $7,893 $2,258 - $3,821 (Downtown) $3,679 - $6,223 (Other) $9.71 (Downtown) $2.14 (Other) $13.72 $8.52 Martinez 2 $1,680 $1,175 $ 3.10 $4.40 $1.85 $1,444 $993 $1.45 $1.18 $0.64 Menlo Park $2,623 $1,610 $3.87 $3.87 $1.90 Napa 3 $1,781 $1,076 $2.82 $2.82 $1.23 $2,465 $1,669 $3.53 (Neighborhood), $7.36 (Downtown), $9.57 (Other) $4.11 (Downtown) $5.05 (Other) $1.80 Oakley $11,769 $7,180 $4.87 $7.25 $4.87 Palo Alto $2,627 $1,613 $3.88 $ Petaluma $3,007 $1,885 $2.48 $2.62 $1.00 $16,746 $10,215 $15.57 $16.08 $10.05 Pleasant Hill $1,964 $1,527 $4.90 $3.80 $1.65 $2,572 $2,062 $6.65 $5.65 $2.09 Pleasanton 1 $4,401 $3,080 $12.31 $5.86 $4.40 Redwood City (non-downtown) $1,499 $920 $3.04 $2.21 $

60 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 TABLE 13 FEE COMPARISON TABLE 1998 Emeryville Fee Study Comparison Table Current Fees Jurisdiction Single Family Residential (per DU) Multi-Family Residential (per DU) Retail/ Commercial (SF) Office (per SF) Industrial (per SF) Single Family Residential (per DU) Multi-Family Residential (per DU) Retail/ Commercial (SF) Office (per SF) Industrial (SF) Redwood City (downtown) $1,124 $690 $2.28 $1.66 $1.08 Richmond $3,156 $2,507 $6.43 $4.29 $2.60 $1,516 $1,212 $3.77 $3.32 $1.21 Sacramento $1, $0.53 $ San Jose $6, San Mateo $2,063 $1,527 $2.96 $1.05 $3,422 $2,101 $5.89 $3.14 $2.04 San Ramon $2,178 $1,466 $4.14 $4.86 $1.44 $733 $511 $2.09 $ Santa Rosa $3,740 $0.90 $1.05 $0.80 Ranges from $5,647 for low-density ( units/acre) to $3,363 for high density (18+ units) $2.95 to $9.29 $3.90 $2.39 Sunnyvale $1,805 $1,108 $3.34 $2.66 $1.32 Vacaville $4,297 $2,672 $2.31 $1.75 $1.28 $8,745 $5,421 $4.73 $3.59 $2.63 Vallejo 4 $2,545 $1,590 $1.40 $0.75 $4,571 $2,572 $2.22 $2.22 $1.13 Walnut Creek 3 $2,315 $1,040 $4.70 $6.20 $2,462 $1,477 $7.04 $ Emeryville $ $ $3.47 $1.94 $0.54 $12,541 $6,270 to $7,775 $23.39 $18.69 $9.15 Average $2, $1, $3.30 $3.42 $1.31 $4,197 $2,647 $5.15 $5.01 $ Projects in Danville, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Livermore are also subject to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, which equates to $2,170 per trip and funds regional roadway improvements. 2. Martinez has a 35% "Economic Stimulus Program" for certain applicants who had prior approval but have yet to be issued a building permit 3. Jurisdiction calculates a fee per trip 4. Vallejo includes provision to automatically adjust annually based on the ENR Construction Costs Index. Source: Available documentation of adopted fees for each jurisdiction, Fehr & Peers (2013). 36

61 City of Emeryville Draft Transportation Impact Fee Update March 2014 FEE LEVELS The percent of the TIF project list that could be funded at varying fee levels is detailed in Table 14. This information is provided to assist the City in identifying a fee level that funds the critical transportation infrastructure within the City, but does not result in a fee that discourages development from occurring in Emeryville. TABLE 14 PERCENT OF TIF FUNDED AT VARYING FEE LEVELS Question? Fee Level Total Funds Raised Percent of TIF Project List Funded How much could we raise if we kept the TIF at the current level based on PM peak hour trips? How much could we raise if we adjusted the fee for inflation based on PM peak hour trips? How much would we need to charge to fully fund the TIF based on PM peak hour trips? How much could we raise if we charged the Bay Area average fee per peak hour trip? $943 $6,629,290 8% $1,353 $9,511,590 11% $12,541 $88,159, % $4,200 $29,526,000 33% Source: Fehr & Peers, OTHER FEE CONSIDERATIONS The fee that was set in 1998 was based on construction prices and other conditions reflective of the economy in 1998 and has not been adjusted through the life of the 1998 TIF, reducing the ability to construct some projects identified in the TIF as construction prices increased from the original fee basis. Many jurisdictions update their fees on a regular basis based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Construction Cost Index and Building Cost index (ENR) such that the value of their fee program does not diminish over time. The City of Emeryville can adopt as part of the fee program a mechanism to increase the fee on a set schedule, with the option to set a maximum annual escalation rate. 37

62 APPENDIX A: CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE

63 TABLE A-1 CURRENT (ESTABLISHED IN 1998) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Land Use ITE Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate % Primary Trips 8 % Diverted & Pass-by Trips 8 Traffic Fee 9 Residential (per dwelling unit) Single-Family % 14% $ 819 Townhome/Condominium % 14% $ 438 Apartment % 14% $ 503 Office (per 1000 sq. feet) Standard Office Less Than 100,000 sq. feet % 23% $ 1, ,000 to 500,000 sq. feet % 23% $ 1,010 Greater Than 500,000 sq. feet % 23% $ 895 Corporate Headquarters Building % 23% $ 1,010 Medical Office % 40% $ 2,071 Hospital % 27% $ 633 Research & Development Center % 23% $ 784 Retail/Commercial (per 1000 sq. feet) General Retail Less Than 100,000 sq. feet % 53% $ 3, ,000 to 300,000 sq. feet % 53% $ 2,199 Greater Than 300,000 sq. feet % 46% $ 1,850 Small / Isolated Retail % 54% $ 1,766 Restaurant Quality % 49% $ 3,603 High Turnover % 49% $ 5,224 Fast Food % 49% $ 12,579 Fast Food with Drive-Thru % 49% $ 16,105 Service Station (per pump) % 79% $ 2,884

64 TABLE A-1 CURRENT (ESTABLISHED IN 1998) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Land Use ITE Land Use ITE PM Peak Hour Rate % Primary Trips 8 % Diverted & Pass-by Trips 8 Traffic Fee 9 Self-Service Car Wash (per stall) % 54% $ 2,512 Supermarket % 54% $ 4,994 Convenience Market % 54% $ 23,312 Hotel (per room) % 42% $ 334 Bank % 65% $ 13,872 Manufacturing (per 1000 sq. feet) Light Industry % 21% $ 730 Manufacturing % 21% $ 551 Warehousing % 21% $ 380 Industrial Park % 21% $ 686 Other (per 1000 sq. feet) Movie Theatre % 34% $ 2,366 Tennis Court (per court) % 54% $ 1,683 Health Club % 54% $ 1,866 Day Care Center % 54% $ 5,727 Nursing Home % 54% $ 156 Live Work (per unit) Live Work % $ Based on Average Rate of 50,000 sq. feet 2. Based on Average Rate of 300,000 sq. feet 3. Based on Average Rate of 700,000 sq. feet 4. Based on Average Rate of 50,000 sq. feet 5. Based on Average Rate of 200,000 sq. feet 6. Based on Average Rate of 500,000 sq. feet 7. Examples of a small / isolated retail are small hardware store, small furniture store, small apparel store, etc. 8. Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Based on a unit cost of $ per peak hour trip 10. Based on Emeryville Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Final Report, 1996 prepared by Korve Engineering, Inc. Source: City of Emeryville Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study, 1998

65 APPENDIX B: DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION

66 Projects San Francisco Bay Citywide Projects: Parks and Open Spaces Pedestrian Priority Zone Admiral Dr Commodore Dr Captain Dr ,000 Feet City of Berkeley Frontage Rd Powell St Bolivar Dr 7 Potter St Lacoste St 80 Bay St Christie Ave Potter St th St 11 Ashby Ave 67th St Overland Ave Shellmound St Anthony St City of Oakland Folger Ave Bay St 62nd St Horton St 5 66th St 65th St 64th St 63rd St Peladeau St Ocean Ave 59th St Hollis St 22 53rd St Sherwin St Murray St Horton St Doyle St 45th St Mandela Pkwy Holden St Peabody Ln Beaudry St Vallejo St 8 18 Spur Alley Hollis St Carrison St Haskell St City of Oakland Fremont St Doyle St Marshall St 54th St Park Ave 40th St 4 61st St 61st Pl 59th St Watts St 23 Idaho St 63rd St 60th St Stanford Ave Aileen St Acton St Boise St 62nd St 48th St 14 66th St 57th St 47th St 19 56th St 45th St nd St 55th St 54th St Essex St 53rd St Adeline St Apgar St Alcatraz Ave 37th St 36th St Prince St Woolsey St Doyle St 43rd St 39th St MacArthur Blvd Fairview St Harmon St 53rd St 42nd St 45th St 44th St 41st St 54th St 52nd St 46th St

67 1. Citywide Transit Stop Improvements Project Extents: Citywide Project Type: Transit Primary Stop Locations 65th Street / Shellmound Street (1) 59th Street / Horton Street / Hollis Street (3) Watergate Towers / Hilton Garden Inn (2) Christie Avenue / Shellmound Way (2) Hollis Street / 53rd Street (2) Bay Street / Shellmound Street / IKEA (2) San Pablo Avenue / 40th Street (10) Emery Street / 40th Street (3) Secondary Stop Locations Vallejo Street / 66th Street (1) Christie Avenue / 64th Street (2) Powell Street / Captain Drive (1) Horton Street / 40th Street (2) Hollis Street / 40th Street (2) Hollis Street / 63rd Street / 64th Street (2) Christie Avenue / Trader Joes (1) (x) = Total Stops Project Description: Add Primary and Secondary stop amenities at 15 Intersections: Shelters With benches at approximately 32 stops Additional landscaping (32 stops) and enhanced medians (2 stops) Real time bus information at approximately 32 stops Add bicycle parking at approximately 5 stops Provide additional sidewalk connections at approximately 5 stops Add additional transit vehicles to Emery-Go-Round fleet Modify traffic signals at: San Pablo Ave Park Ave Hollis Street Stanford Ave Provide bus bulb-outs at 9 stop locations Hollis Street 64th Street (stop 9) Hollis Street 63th Street (stop 14) Hollis Street 53th Street (stop 5 & 16) Hollis Street 45th Street (stop 4 & 17) 40th Street Emery Street (stop 3) 40th Street Hollis Street (stop 4) 40th Street Horton Street (stop 5) Pedestrian Priority Zone: Varies Street Typology: Varies Cost Estimate: Total Cost: $2,347, bus shelters with bench at $20,000 each 32 real time bus signs at $20,000 each 5 bike lockers at $1,000 each 10 inverted U racks at $250 each New Emery Go-Round transit vehicles at $500,000 Misc sidewalk improvements $100,000 9 bulbouts $360,000 2 signal modifications $100,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Projects T.1, T.3-T.17 Project Need: Many primary and secondary stop locations provide limited or no transit amenities; existing boardings at the above stops are sufficient to warrant provision of transit amenities. These amenities are necessary to attract additional choice riders to the system to reduce automobile trips. Many Emery Go-Round vehicles are observed to operate above capacity for portions of the day. Increased capacity is needed to accommodate additional ridership. Congestion on main transit streets delays transit vehicles. 1

68 2. Powell Street Multi-modal Improvement Phase I Project Extents: South side of Powell Street from Frontage Road to Shellmound Street Project Type: Multi-Modal Facility o Project Description: Interim stops for AC Transit Transbay buses including contemporary design, lighting, and proximity to sidewalk connections. Enhance visibility of the Bay Trail/sidewalk and landscape to improve pedestrian/bicycle access from Christie Avenue to Shellmound Street. This will include appropriate signage and markings for the Bay Trail adjacent to the Four Points by Sheraton. Project Need: Project accommodates transit, bicycles and pedestrians to support a complete streets concept at the main entryway to the City. It facilitates bike and pedestrian connections from the south to transit, specifically transbay bus service. Reconfigure south side Powell Bay Trail/sidewalk and landscape to a class I bike facility from Frontage Road to Christie Avenue. Including straightening the public walkway that runs along the north side of the Powell Street Plaza, and relocation of the monument sign. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Transit Street, Green Street Cost Estimate: $3,350,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project B9.a and S.1a; Powell Urban Design Plan Priority: High 2

69 3. Christie Avenue Bay Trail - OBAG Project Extents: Between Powell Street and Shellmound Street on the northern sidewalk along Christie Avenue. Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: The project will include two new crosswalks, traffic signal modifications and a Class 1 bike or multi-use path. A bike signal head may be added to the Christie Avenue and Shellmound Street intersection to accommodate turning movements by cyclists in the intersection. Striping will be added to facilitate cyclist and pedestrian crossings, with a new crosswalk from Trader Joe s across Christie Avenue and another new crossing on the north side of Christie Avenue across Shellmound Street. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit and Bicycle Cost Estimate: $480,000 Document Source: CIP ; Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project C.16, P.18, B.4 Priority: High Project Need: The new Bay Bridge bike path is creating demand for bike facilities along the Bay Trail in Emeryville. ABAG has identified improvements for the Christie Avenue gap as key to accommodate Bay Trail bikers. The East Bay Bicycle Coalition has identified the project as a top priority for OBAG grant funded bicycle improvements in Alameda County. Other: One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding has potentially been identified. 3

70 4. ECCL Path Project Extents: Between 47th Street and 53rd Street Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: Construct a path along the western boundary of the Emery Secondary School Campus with development of the ECCL Project. Project Need: Opportunity for improved north/south access; provides an alternative to San Pablo Avenue. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Local (47th)/Bike Boulevard (53rd) Cost Estimate: $750,000 Document Source: City of Emeryville Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Project P.4, B.5 Priority: Low 4

71 5. South Bayfront Bridge and Horton Landing Park Paths Project Extents: Horton Landing Park to Ohlone Way Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) Bridge Connection o Project Description: Build the South Bayfront Bridge over railroad from Ohlone Way to Horton Landing Park. Connect paths to 53rd Street and Stanford Avenue at Horton Street. Project Need: Railroad tracks are a major barrier between east and west sides of city. No connection over railroad tracks between major mixed-use destination at Bay Street and employment centers on Horton Street. Included in General Plan; Rank 7, Score 80, Priority High on Bike List. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Local Cost Estimate: $14,549,000 Document Source: City of Emeryville Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Projects P.17, B.26, P.7 and B.3, CIP 2014 Priority: High The Horton Landing Paths would connect the bridge to Stanford Avenue in the north and to 53rd Street in the east. 5

72 6. San Pablo Avenue Mid-block Crossing (Pak n Save) Project Extents: Adeline Street and 40th Street Project Type: Pedestrian Crossing o Project Description: The project would install a mid-block crossing on San Pablo Avenue at the Pak n Save Supermarket, at the Yerba Buena alignment. A HAWK beacon is recommended, but if undesired, consider a pedestrian actuated signal that is coordinated with the adjacent signalized intersections. Install high visibility crosswalk markings, curb extensions and curb cuts, and remove existing parking spaces and cut in the existing median to use as a pedestrian refuge. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street Cost Estimate: $344,100 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project C.9 Priority: High Project Need: Candidate location for a mid-block crossing to provide direct connection from pedestrian path in front of Pak N Save across San Pablo Avenue; this path is at the proposed location of a Green Street on Yerba Buena Avenue. Other: The crossing meets Caltrans warrants for the minimum distance between signalized intersections with at least 300 feet to the nearest signal. A prior study determined that the location does not meet Caltrans warrants for a pedestrian-actuated signal. 6

73 7. Shorebird Park Connections Project Extents: North-south path on west side of Frontage Rd from Powell Street to Shorebird Park Project Type: Multi-modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: Improve existing sidewalk to accommodate multi-use path, by replacing pavers with concrete or asphalt multi-use path and installing a landscaped buffer between Frontage Road and sidewalk path. At southwest corner of Access Road/Frontage Road, reduce turning radius and realign pedestrian push button Project Need: Opportunity to improve walking and bicycling conditions Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Connector Street Cost Estimate: $220,000 Document Source: City of Emeryville Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Projects P.15 and SP.3 Priority: High 7

74 8. Spur Alley Bicycle Treatments Project Extents: Spur Alley between 45th and Hollis Street Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: Extend bike route from 53rd to Hollis Street via easement Spur Alley / 53rd Street and Spur Alley / 45th Street Install high visibility marked crossing, landscaped/bioswale curb extensions or raised crosswalk, advance warning signage. Spur Alley / Doyle Street Connection Provide a Class I connection along the fence line of the parking lot. This would require an easement, and reconfiguration of parking or potential parking removal within private lots. Install crosswalk at 47th Street/Doyle Street/Spur Alley intersection Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Green Street Cost Estimate: $900,300 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Projects B.24, B.28, I.8, I.9, P.19, C.5, and C.17 Priority: High/Medium Project Need: The current bike route is an easement along Spur Alley between 45th, 53rd, and Hollis Street. It is unimproved shared space with parking and vehicle circulation. The project would improve Spur Alley separating bikes from vehicle users. At 45th and 53rd Street, the uncontrolled intersection has limited visibility and no advance warning of bicyclists and pedestrians using the Spur Alley corridor. Other: Spur Alley is privately owned. South of 53rd, the City has a 12-foot easement on west side of Spur Alley for bicycle/pedestrian access. Cars currently park on easement. Project Conditions of development allow parking in Spur Alley. 8

75 9. Railroad Quiet Zone Project Extents: Railroad tracks at 67th Street, 66th Street and 65rd Street Project Type: Mulit-Modal o Project Description: This project would install four-quadrant gates at the 65th Street, 66th Street and 67th Street at-grade crossings. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Not Applicable Cost Estimate: $4,035,000 Document Source: CIP 2014 Project Need: The project improves the safety of Quiet Zones in Emeryville. Quiet Zones are areas where trains cannot sound horns/whistles. Safety measures are needed to compensate for inability to use train horn/ whistles within the quiet zone. Four-quadrant gates provide improved safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit buses, and drivers at railroad tracks. 9

76 10. I-80/Powell Street Improvements Project Extents: I-80 EB Off-Ramp and Powell Street to Christie Avenue Project Type: Automobile Capacity o Project Description: Reconstruct the off-ramp to provide dual left-turn and dual right-turn lanes. The additional lane should be about 900 feet. Reconstruct the southeast corner of the Powell Street/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection improving the curb radii to 40 feet. Widen the north side of Powell Street 12 to 14 feet between Christie Avenue and Eastbound I-80 Ramps to align westbound Powell Street through lanes across the intersection with Eastbound I-80 Ramps. Widen the eastbound right-turn lane at the Powell Street/Christie Avenue intersection to 14 feet and construct a pedestrian median refuge on the west side of the Powell Street/ Christie Avenue intersection. This change requires right-of-way along the north side of Powell Street between Christie Avenue and the I-80 Eastbound On-Ramp. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Transit Street; Green Street Cost Estimate: $450,000 Document Source: Emeryville Marketplace Memo; 1998 TIF Project Need: Insufficient vehicle storage is currently provided to accommodate existing and projected vehicle queues on the off-ramp. This project was identified in the 1998 TIF and has yet to be constructed. The wider median improves westbound vehicle flow through the interchange and if facilitates vehicle flow for right turning traffic exiting the freeway. Other: The full length may interfere with truck circulation at Powell Plaza and so the complete benefit of this change may not occur until the Powell Plaza activities are redefined. The improvement can be phased so the first 400 feet can be constructed now and the additional length constructed with development changes at Powell Plaza. With the wider off-ramp, a bus stop may be provided on the ramp. 10

77 11. Christie Avenue / Powell Street Improvements Project Extents: Powell Street at Christie Avenue Project Type: Automobile Capacity o Project Description: Widen the south side of the Powell Street bridge by about 12 feet to provide two 250-foot left-turn lanes from westbound Powell Street to southbound Christie Avenue. This change requires right-of-way purchase along the south side of the bridge. Widen the west side of Christie Avenue about 12 feet to provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane (in addition to the shared left-through lane) on Christie Avenue approaching Powell Street. This change requires right-of-way along the gas station frontage and the Bay Bridge Plaza frontage. Project Need: Planned development triggers the need for a second westbound left-turn to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback and optimize intersection operations for all modes of travel. The additional left turn lane would accommodate projected cumulative growth in vehicular traffic. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Streets; Green Streets Cost Estimate: $4,600,000 Document Source: Marketplace EIR 11

78 12. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Implmentation Project Extents: Citywide Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Descriptions: This project will pay for minor cost bicycle and pedestrian improvements recommended in the adopted Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan or as recommended by the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee and City Council on a case-by-case basis. Improvements will include, but not be limited to, bicycle boulevard signs and stencils, pavement striping modifications, and installation of bike route or directional signs. Cost Estimate: $300,000 Document Source: CIP 2014, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Project Need: The project will close gaps where signs are needed to define bike routes linking other facilities and clarify facility types. It will bicycling safer and more enjoyable, and improve connections among residences, workplaces, stores, schools, parks and public facilities. Specific Projects: Specific projects include S.10, S.12, SP.2, SP.4, SP.5, B.10 (Phase 1), B.12, B.13, B.15, B.16, B.22, B.23, I.4, I.7, P.14 (Phase 1). Potential projects range from $500 to $20,000, with an average cost of less than $10,

79 13. 40th Street and Horton Street Left Turn Improvements Project Extents: 40th at Horton Project Type: Multi-Modal (all modes) o Project Description: The project would restripe the pavement on southbound Horton Street at 40th Street to allow for an exclusive left turn pocket. A video detection system would be installed at the signal to accommodate both vehicles and bicyclists; cost of video detection is included in Project 28. Project Need: Planned development would result in LOS E conditions for vehicles traveling through the intersection; improvement would result in LOS D or better operations and decreased vehicle queues on southbound Horton Street. The project installs a video detection system for both bicycle and vehicle traffic. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street Cost Estimate: $59,500 Document Source: Pixar EIR Other: Traffic volumes do not support implementing the project at this time. Other identified improvements include elimination of the eastbound left-turn pocket and construction of a median refuge for pedestrians. 13

80 14. 40th Street / Emery Street Intersection Improvements Project Extents: 40th Street at Emery Street Project Type: Automobile Capacity Project Description: Provide an exclusive southbound left turn lane on Emery Street approaching 40th Street, eliminating on-street parking on Emery Street north of 40th Street. Provide protected north/south lead/lag left-turn phasing. Project Need: Planned development would result in LOS E conditions for vehicles traveling through the intersection; improvement would result in LOS D or better operations and minimizes vehicle queue spillback. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street; Class II & III Cost Estimate: $87,000 Document Source: Bay Street Site B Draft Transportation Impact Study Report Other: On-street parking removal would be required; widening of Emery Street would allow for provision of bike lanes or on-street parking (may conflict with Emery Street Class III facilities). 14

81 15. Transit Center Plaza and Platform Extension Project Extents: Emeryville Amtrak Station and the proposed EmeryStation West office building, and an extension of the loading platform abutting the new bus bays in the Transit Center parking podium. Project Type: Pedestrian o Project Description: The plaza will create a public space and visual terminus of 59th Street focusing on the pedestrian bridge over the tracks. The pedestrian plaza will include new landscaping, hardscape, lighting and street furniture. Project Need: The plaza will enhance pedestrian connections by providing east/west pedestrian connections across the site from Horton Street Bicycle Boulevard (a Transit Priority Street) and 59th Stret to the pedestrian/ bicycle bridge. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Pedestrian-only Cost Estimate: $1,042,100 Document Source: CIP 2014 Other: FTA funding was allocated in 2008 that would provide $836,000. A 20 percent local match is required, which is included in the fee. The plaza will be deveopled after the adjacent EmeryStation West is completed. 15

82 16. Public Parking and Bus Bays - Transit Center Project Extents: Directly adjacent to the Amtrak Station Project Type: Multi-Modal o Project Description: The Transit Center project is a multi-modal, high-density project that includes both public and private components. The private use on the site will be office and laboratory space; the public uses promote mass transit and connect rail to bus travel modes, and include 125 public parking spaces and up to six bus bays serving Amtrak. The project will also include improvements to public plazas and enchance the linkage across the railroad by improving the existing pedestrian/bicycle bridge. Construction of the project will require remediation of the existing parking lot site, which is highly contaminated. Project Need: When completed, the project will remove contamination, enhance public space, improve Emeryville s mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connections, bring approximately 500 new high-quality jobs to Emeryville, and expand Emeryville s bio-technology presence in the region. The city has secured a $4.2 million State STIP grant. An additional $4.2 million in redevelopment funds is being sought from the successor agency, but the status is unknown. $4.23 million of the cost is for remediation, which is not included in the fee calculation. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Cost Estimate: $8,431,000 Document Source: CIP

83 17. Doyle Street Bicycle Boulevard Project Extents: 55th Street to 59th Street Project Type: Bicycle Boulevard o Project Description: Extend the existing bicycle boulevard on Doyle Street from 59th Street to 55th Street. Improvements include signage, stenciling and installing a protected crossing on Powell Street. i.e., HAWK or full traffic signal. Project Need: The Doyle Street bicycle boulevard from Ocean Avenue to 59th Street includes signage and stencils as well as curb extensions and roadway narrowing. Stop signs turned to favor bicycle boulevard traffic. South of 59th Street the boulevard is unimproved. The project would complete the bicycle boulevard on Doyle Street. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Green Street; Bicycle Boulevard Cost Estimate: $275,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project B.20 and I.6 Priority: Medium 17

84 18. Hollis Street Sidewalk Project Extents: 45th Street to 53rd Street Project Type: Pedestrian o Project Description: Widen sidewalks on Hollis Street (45th Street to 53rd Street) from about 5 feet to a minimum of 12 feet with street trees and lighting to match recommendations in Park Avenue District Plan. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street Cost Estimate: $603,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project S.6 Priority: Medium Project Need: The sidewalks are narrow on Hollis Street from 53rd to 45th Street while 53rd Street is a major east/west corridor for pedestrian travel through Emeryville. The project would improve the sidewalk, to enhance the walking experience and encourage additional walking trips. Other: Due to the transit and heavy vehicle use on Hollis Street, parking would likely need to be removed on one side of the street to make room for this improvement. Coordinate with potential redevelopment of adjacent parcels. 18

85 19. Safe Routes to Transit Star Intersection and 40th and San Pablo Avenue Intersection Improvments Project Extents: San Pablo Avenue between 40th Street and 36th/Adeline/MacArthur Project Type: Multi-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: The Safe Routes To Transit (SRTT) project includes pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to two intersections on San Pablo Avenue: the transit hub near 40th Street and the Star intersection at 36th/Adeline/MacArthur and San Pablo Avenue. Safety improvments include new crosswalks, bike lanes, video detection, sharrows, expansion of medians, and bulb-outs. A lead pedestrian phase (on east-west movement) of 2 seconds at 40th Street will be installed for evaluation. At the Star intersection, innovative treatments include a bike turning lane within the median, green bicycle lanes, and intersection crossing treatments. Project Need: San Pablo Avenue is a heavily traveled street with high traffic volumes, which presents hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. The number of residents living on or near to the intersections improved by the project is growing. Improvements will enable these residents to more safely access transit along San Pablo Avenue. Other: Design completed in the Fall of Bid is anticipated in Spring Construction is anticipated in Summer Grant funding may be available for this improvement. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street, Connector Street Cost Estimate: $456,000 Document Source: CIP ; Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project C.8 and I.5 Priority: High 19

86 20. I-80 / 65th Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Project Extents: Lacoste Street to Frontage Road Project Type: Non-Motorized Bridge Connection o Project Description: This project was being planned by the Redevelopment Agency and would construct a pedestrian and bicycle over crossing to connect with the Bay Trail at 65th Street from Lacoste Street to Frontage Road. The overcrossing would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Bay Trail without interacting with vehicle traffic along I-80 at the Ashby interchange. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Not Applicable Cost Estimate: $18,500,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Projects B.25 and C.1 Project Need: I-80 is a significant barrier to regional bicycle and pedestrian travel. Bridge would provide an additional east-west connection and is consistent with the General Plan. Bridge allows pedestrians / bicyclists to access Bay Trail without interacting with vehicles at the Ashby interchange. Other: This project was being planned by the Redevelopment Agency and alternative funding sources are being sought. 20

87 21. Horton Street and Overland Avenue from 40th Street to 62nd Street Project Extents: North-South on Horton Street and Overland Avenue from 62nd Street to 40th Street Project Type: Bicycle o Project Description: Opportunity to impove function of major north-south bicycle boulevard. The entire route is currently signed as bicycle boulevard. Bicycle boulevard pavement markings north of 62nd St and south of 53rd St. Bike lanes striped on Horton St from 62nd to 53rd St. Section from 59th St to Stanford Ave identified as Green Street and Transit Street in General Plan. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Bicycle Boulevard Cost Estimate: $2,015,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project B.21 Priority: High Project Need: Implement bicycle boulevard treatments as described in the bike/ped plan. Measure speeds and volumes Consider diversion at 62nd St, Stanford Ave, 45th St, and 40th St. Diversion to be installed on a trial basis only after evaluation with community input and traffic analysis. Reconfigure roadway between 59th St and Powell St to prevent loading/ parking in bike lanes. Widen to include bike lanes on both sides and loading zone on east side. Consider speed cushions, tables, split lumps, curb extensions, median islands and permanent speed feedback signs to reduce vehicle speeds. Improve bicycle detection at 40th St and 65th St Install 3-way stop at 62nd St and Horton Study measures to discourage through motor vehicle movement northbound on Horton at 40th St. Other: Included in General Plan; See also pedestrian Projects S.4 and S.7. 21

88 22. Emeryville Greenway Crossings at Hollis Street and Powell Street and Extension from Powell Street South to Stanford Avenue at Horton Street Project Extents: Emeryville Greenway between Hollis and Powell Streets, and from Powell Street to Stanford/Horton Streets Project Type: Mutli-Modal (non-motorized) o Project Description: Enhance Greenway crossing of Powell and Hollis Streets. Alternative A: Provide a raised crosswalk across the right-turn slip lane on the southwest corner and lengthen the refuge to improve pedestrian visibility and slow vehicles around the turn. Alternative B: Eliminate slip lane to provide protected signalized crossing for pathway users crossing. Project Need: Opportunity to create continuous path through city, completing one of the last gaps. Other: Grant funding may be available for a portion of the project cost. Extend greenway to the south to connect with Horton Landing Park at Stanford Avenue/Horton Street. Construct new ped path. Project designed. Pedestrian Priority Zone: No Street Typology: Pedestrian Path Cost Estimate: $1,350,000 Document Source: Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Projects, C.7, P.6; CIP Priority: Medium 22

89 23. 40th Street and Harlan Street Traffic Signal Project Extents: 40th Street at Harlan Street Project Type: Multi-Modal (all modes) o Project Description: The project would install a traffic signal across 40th street at Harlan Street. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Transit Street Class II & III Cost Estimate: $290,000 Document Source: CIP ; Emeryville Ped/Bike Plan Project C.2 Priority: Medium Project Need: This unsignalized intersection includes long crossing distances across 40th Street and a higher than average rate of vehicle / pedestrian collisions within Emeryville. The signal would provide additional controlled access for bicyclists and pedestrians to the surrounding commercial and residential properties and would provide an opportunity for enhanced bus stop connectivity. Other: 40th Street and Harlan Street now meet signal warrants for a traffic signal with a pedestrian crossing component. 23

90 24. Sherwin Area Improvements Project Extents: Halleck, Horton, Hubbard & Holden Streets Project Type: Pedestrian o Project Description: Install sidewalks per the Park Avenue District Plan on: North side of Sherwin Avenue between Halleck Street and Hubbard Street (S.13) $400,000 West side of Halleck Street between Park Avenue and Sherwin Avenue (S.2) $593,000 East side of Halleck St between Oakland Border and Park Avenue (S.2) East side of Hubbard Street between Oakland Border and Sherwin Ave (S.3) $571,550 West side of Hubbard Street between Oakland Border and Park Avenue (S.3) West side of Horton Street between Park Avenue and Sherwin Avenue (S.4) $300,000 Both sides of Holden Street between Park Avenue and 45th Street (S.5) $663,200 Construct a mid-block pedestrian path extending from Sherwin Avenue between Horton Street to Hollis Street (P.2) $314,600 Provide enhanced crossings at: Sherwin Avenue/Halleck Street (C.3) $1,500 Sherwin Avenue/Hubbard Street (C.3) Mid-block crossing on Holden Street (C.4) Cost combined with P.2 Pedestrian Priority Zone: Yes Street Typology: Green Streets with Local (Sherwin/Hubbard/Holden)/ Connector (Park/Halleck)/ and Bike Boulevard (Horton) designations Cost Estimate: $2,842,850 Document Source: City of Emeryville Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Projects Priority: Low Project Need: Sidewalk gaps. Other: Improvements may be conditioned on development when Sherwin-Williams Property Redevelops. Project Issues: Some of the improvements could be constructed when adjacent properties redevelop. 24

91 25. Bike Sharing Program Project Extents: Citywide Project Project Type: Bicycle o Project Description: Citywide bike sharing program with approximately 17 stations (approximately 10 bikes per station). Project Need: The project could generate 60,000 to 120,000 bike trips per year by providing additional non-motorized transportation options. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Not Applicable Street Typology: Not Applicable Cost Estimate: $600,000 Document Source: Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan 25

92 26. Bicycle Parking Project Extents: Citywide Project Project Type: Bicycle o Project Description: Install bicycle parking at various locations throughout the City. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Not Applicable Street Typology: Not Applicable Project Need: Lack of bicycle parking at activity centers reduces potential bicycle travel mode share. Accessible bicycle parking promotes bicycle use as an alternative to auto-bused trips. Cost Estimate: $200,000 Document Source: Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan Other: Annual cost estimated at $10,000 per year for installation of new facilities. 26

93 27. Traffic Signal Enhancements Project Extents: Citywide Project Type: Bicycle o Project Description: Install video detection at all signalized intersections in city that have not been upgraded (17 locations). Pedestrian Priority Zone: Not Applicable Street Typology: All Streets Cost Estimate: $490,000 Document Source: Emeryville Sustainable Transportation Plan and CIP 2014 Project Need: Existing signal detection at intersection does not adequately detect bicyclists. Project would provide video detection to decrease bicycle travel delay. When completed, all 26 of the city s traffic signals will have video detection. 27

94 28. Emery Go-Round Bus Yard Acquisition Project Extents: Northeast of I-580 / I-80 / I-880 Interchange Project Type: Transit o Project Description: The project acquires a bus yard site for the Emery Go-Round Shuttle through an agreement with the Emeryville Transportation Management Association (TMA). The City would purchase the property and resale or lease the land to the TMA. Pedestrian Priority Zone: Not Applicable Street Typology: Not Applicable Cost Estimate: $1,000,000 Document Source: CIP 2014 Project Need: The TMA leases a bus yard which is up for sale because of foreclosure. The TMA lease agreement includes a six-month notice of termination, therefore finding an alternative bus yard is imperative for continued operations of the Shuttle. A new and expanded facility is needed to provide enhanced service a local bus yard would improve reliability and reduce operating / maintenance costs. Other: Achieves climate change reductions. Shuttle funded by Emeryville Property Based Improvement District which includes City and commercial properties. 28

95 APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES

96 MEMORANDUM Date: To: July 15, 2011 Miroo Desai, City of Emeryville From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers Subject: Funding Sources for Emeryville Transportation Improvements WC This memorandumm outlines current and potential funding sources for transportation improvements within the City of Emeryville. A majority of existing financing for transportationn infrastructure projects in Emeryville comes through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP sets priorities for building the City's infrastructure. A majority of funding for the CIP currently comes from the City's Redevelopment Agency or existing Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program, with some funding also coming from the City's General Fund or federal, state, or regional grants. The future of Redevelopment Agencies throughout California is uncertain and it is likely that this funding source may not be a dependable source of revenue in the long-term as it may be significantly reduced starting in November The City's current TIF program funds are mostly spent, as it was planned to extend to This memorandum is part of the update to the TIF program to extend its useful life to 2030, consistent with the recently adopted General Plan. The updated TIF is planned to reflect community values as expressed in the General Plan to include funding for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects in the TIF program. PREVIOUS TIF FUNDING SOURCES AND EXPENDITURES This section summarizes funding sources that have been used previously for infrastructure projects by the City of Emeryville and TIF expenditures from the previous five years. Past Funding Sources Table 1 discussess the primary funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure in the City of Emeryville. This information was collected during a conversationn with City staff from the Economic Development and Housing Department, Public Works Department, and Planning Department on April 18 th, As shown in Table 1 and noted earlier, a majority of existing financing for transportation infrastructure projects comes from local sources including the Redevelopment Agency and the existing TIF. City staff noted the overall difficulty of getting regional or non-local funding due to Emeryville s small size and the lack of regional connections when compared to its larger neighbors. 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA (925) Fax (925)

97 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 2 of 12 TABLE 1 PAST FUNDING SOURCES Funding Source Local Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Condition of Development (COD) Countywide Measure B Regional Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Statewide Transportation Description Emeryville is split into two large redevelopment zones that cover the entire City except for the Marina. Redevelopment Agency funds are used for projects that requiree new right-of-way or to acquire land for large infrastructure projects funded. Due to proposed State changes to Redevelopment Agencies, the future of this funding source may not be viable in the long-term. The CIP is primarily funded through the Redevelopment Agency, grants, and General Plan funds. The CIP 2011 Update includes approximately $30 million in City funds and $245 million in Redevelopment Agency funds. In addition, approximately $9 million is included for infrastructure maintenance. Emeryville has included transportation improvements as a COD for developers. Improvements include new sidewalks or bicycle facilities along the project frontage, or intersection improvements to facilitate project site access. In commercial areas, property owners are required to maintain street trees and sidewalks along their frontage. The one half cent sales tax for Alameda that is often used to fund slurry seal portion of roadways each summer. The slurry seal projects can be combined with other transportation improvement projects such as roadway restriping or bicycle lanes. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the 2009 Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, to specify how the approximately $218 billion in anticipated federal, state, and local transportation funds will be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area. Eighty percent of these funds will be used to maintain and operate the existing transportation system. Due to the uncertainty of redevelopment funds, the City has submitted 12 to 15 pedestrian and bicycle related projects for inclusion in the RTP and subsequent eligibility for Federal funding. The City of Emeryville receives between $5,000 and Example Projects South Bayfront Bridge - $13 million in redevelopment fees used to secure bonds from tax increment Greenway: Redevelopment funds used to acquire property and conduct environmental cleanup. Key CIP projects shown in Table 3. Other projects include maintenance items such as street trees and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. Pixar Path, Bike Boulevard on 45 th Street, and 65 th Street bike lanes Adeline Street Reconstruction used Measure B funds I-80 / 65 th Street Bridge The City submitted a request for $13 million in the RTP

98 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 3 of 12 TABLE 1 PAST FUNDING SOURCES Funding Source Development Act Article 3 Description $7,000 in pass-through funds annually as a part of TDA Act 3. The City also receives $10,000 annually Example Projects through the related Transportation Fund for Clean Air. Bicycle Doyle Street Greenway was BTA grants are used for projects that improve the Transportation [partially] constructed using safety and convenience of bicycle commuting Account (BTA) Grant BTA Grants Proposition 84 Prop 84 funds have been used Urban Greening for Sustainable Communities Grant for some landscaping & Program planning projects National Federal Funding Funding for the planned Transit Federal earmarks throughh the SAFETEA-LU Center and Plaza [partially?]]] programs covered by a Federal Earmark Notes: Source: City of Emeryville, Fehr & Peers, 2011 TIF Revenues and Expenditures Table 2 shows the revenues that have been collected by the TIF program between 2005 and As shown in Table 2, a large number of reimbursements weree distributed in 2010 due to the program reaching the end of the TIF cycle. Since the development of the TIF in 1992, nearly $6 million has been brought into the TIF program. TABLE 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND REVENUES (FISCAL YEAR ) Total Traffic Impact Fees Interest $202,322 $54,684 $ 107,372 $64,740 $578,191 $74,990 $216,298 $108,459 $149,311 $82,459 $356,440 $27,025 $5,601,842 $648,567 Reimbursements Total Notes: $0 $257,006 $ (6,581) $ 165,530 $689,138 $1,342,319 $0 $324,757 ($439,673) ($207,903) ($2,583,363) ($275,197) ($2,199,898) $5,975, includes through June 30, Source: City of Emeryville, 2010 Table 3 shows the expenditures per year between 2005 and 2010, and the net TIF fund balance at the end of As shown in Table 3, after the reimbursements distributed in 2010 the net

99 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 4 of 12 balance of the TIF fund is just over $150,000. The updated TIF will provide the funds to continue the TIF program through the General Plan horizon year of TABLE 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND EXPENDITURES (FISCAL YEAR ) Powell St & I-80 E Off Ramp Update Traffic Fee Study Shellmound Loop Improvements Powell/Hollis Intersection Improvements Hollis St Interconnect Shellmound Signal Timing 40th Street Signal Design 40th & SPA Widening Shellmound Street Striping Horton Street Extension 65th Street Traffic Signal Powell Streetscapee Design Total Expenditures Revenues Over / (Under) Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,7377 $0 $22,7377 $234,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $318,517 $0 $373,223 ($207,693) Beginning Fund $1,601,302 $1,835,571 Balance, July 1 Ending Fund Balance, $1,835,571 $1,627,878 June 30 Notes: 1. See Table 2 for revenues. Source: City of Emeryville, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $679,043 $0 $679,043 Total $0 $ 0 $0 $34,959 $0 $ 0 $0 $54,988 $0 $ 0 $0 $1,967,995 $0 $ 0 $0 $185,559 $0 $ 0 $0 $73,049 $0 $ 0 $0 $142,9844 $0 $ 0 $0 $17,403 $0 $ 0 $0 $7,965 $0 $ 0 $0 $8,512 $0 $ 0 $0 $2,047,791 $0 $ 0 $0 $1,225,8988 $0 $17,,420 $37,567 $54,986 - $17,,420 $37,567 $5,822,0888 $663,276 $324,757 ($225,323) ($2,237,464) $153,124 $1,627,878 $2,291,154 $2,615,912 $2,390,589 N/A $2,291,154 $2,615,912 $2,390,589 $153,124 $153,124

100 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 5 of 12 ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES In addition to the proposed TIF, there are numerous funding sources at the local, countywide, regional, statewide, and federal levels that are potentially available to the City of Emeryville to implement the transportation infrastructure projects and programs. Below is a description of the most promising funding programs available for future projects. Most of the non-local sources are highly competitive and require staff time and resources to preparation applications and manage successful grants. Local Funding Sources Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The CIP sets priorities for building the City's infrastructure, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements. A majority of funding for the CIP currently comes from the City's Redevelopment Agency, with some funding also coming from the City's General Fund or federal, state, or regional grants. As noted earlier, Redevelopment Agency funding is uncertain in the future so this funding may not be a dependable source of revenue in the long-term. Mello-Roos Districts This is the common name for the Community Facilities District Act passed by the California State Legislature in This bill allows for local communities to establish Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) as a means for obtaining funding for such community services or infrastructure. CFDs include a special property tax that is above the normal property taxes for real estate owners within the district. This tax income can be used to cover the principle payments for bonds that the jurisdiction takes out to build new public infrastructure and services within that district. New infrastructure could include streets, pedestrian or bicycle amenities, or transit facilities. Private Financing Mechanisms New construction can be used to finance several key mechanisms: new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure through Developer financed infrastructure on- or off-site. This could include on-site pedestrian or bicycle connections to existing infrastructure or entirely new infrastructure in the project vicinity. Emeryville has used this mechanism to require Pixar to construct multi-use path between Park Avenue and 43rd Street. Create a Mello-Roos District as discussed previously. In addition to the upfront infrastructure costs, the financing for the maintenance of new facilities may be providedd for by private developments. Funding for long-term operations and maintenance can be financed through several mechanisms: Condition of approval that the new development maintains the infrastructure along the project frontage or in the project vicinity. It is currently the City s policy for retail uses to maintain sidewalks along the establishment s frontage. Require resident and employee transit or eco-pass for new developments. This would include monthly passess that are included in rental or homeowner fees and could provide

101 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 6 of 12 Implement parking pricing policies for on-street and off-street facilities. Revenue from meters or parking garages could be used to finance on-going maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local Gas Tax The City of Emeryville could support local incremental increases in the State gas tax at either the countywide or multi-county level. This gas tax increasess could be implemented in small three or four cent increments to support local transportation improvements. Other Funding Sources Local sales taxes, developer or public agency land dedications are other local options to generate funding for transportation projects. Creation of these potential sources usually requires substantial local support. Countywide Funding Sources Alameda County Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Measure B is a half-cent saless tax that was passed in 1986 and reaffirmed by voters in Funds are distributed throughh the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA). Seventy-five while twenty-five percent is is allocated to the Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Fund (CDF), whichh supports planning, projects and programs, including a competitive grant percent of these funds are distributed to cities and the County based on population, program. Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee The Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee was approved by the voters in 2010 and will generate approximately $11 million per year countywide. Five percent of these revenues are designated for pedestrian and bicycle projects, to be distributed based on population. In addition, 60 percent of the forecast funds are designated for Local Streets and Roads. Projects funded under this category must include complete streets elements in order to be eligible. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) is administering these funds and is currently, as of July 2011, drafting revised master agreements for local agencies that will govern the expenditure of these funds. Measure WW a source of funding for transit service to the development of an on-site bicycle station or rental facility. In 2008, Contra Costa and Alameda County voters approved EBRPD s Measure WW, the Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond. This extension of a similar 1988 bond measure allocates $33 million specifically to trail projects in the county. In addition, the measure will provide $48 million directly to cities, the county and special park and recreation districts for their park and transportation projects. recreation needs, including trails and other non-motorized Measure WW:

102 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 7 of 12 Regional Funding Sources Transportation for Livable Communities MTC created the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program in It provides technical assistance and funding to cities, counties, transit agencies and nonprofit organizations for capital projects and community-based planning that encourage multimodal travel and the revitalization of town centers and other mixed-use neighborhoods. The program funds projects that improve bicycling to transit stations, neighborhood commercial districts and other major activity centers. MTC s TLC program: tlc_grants.htm Climate Action Program In partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Conservationn Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, MTC is sponsoring a transportation- oriented Climate Action Program, designed to reduce mobile emissions through various strategies, including a grant program. The grant program will provide funding for bicycle projects through new Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs, with total funding expected to be approximately $400 million. This funding will be in addition to the state and federal Safe Routes to School programs and MTC s existing Safe Routes to Transit program. Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) SR2T is a grant-funding program that emerged out of the Bay Area's Regional Measure 2, which instituted a $1 toll increase on the Bay Area's seven state-owned toll bridges. Through the SR2T program, up to $20 million is to be allocated through 2013 on a competitive basiss to programs, planning efforts and capital projects designed to reduce congestion on toll bridges by improving bicycling and walking access to regional transit servicess that serve toll-bridge corridors. Funds can be used for secure bicycle storage at transit nodes; safety enhancements and barrier removal for pedestrian or bicycle access to transit; and system-wide transit enhancements to accommodate bicyclists. The SR2T program is administered by two nonprofit organizations, TransForm and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, with MTC serving as the fiscal agent. The program awarded approximately $12 million during its first three cycles, in 2005, 2007, and Applications for the 2011 funding cycle are due in August. The fifth and final funding cycle will occur in Bay Area Safe Routes to Transit funding program: Regional Bikeway Network Program MTC s Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area designates a regional bikeway network covering approximately 2,140 miles throughout the nine Bay Area counties. MTC has pledged $1 billion to fully fund this regional bikeway network (with the exception of links on toll bridges) and will create a funding program with the intention of completing construction of the network by This program was completed in 2009 and replaced the expired Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The Bay Trail through Emeryvillee is a part of the regional bikeway network. The South Bayfront Bridge and 65th Street Bridge are both identified for funding in the Plan.

103 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 8 of 12 Bay Trail Grants The San Francisco Bay Trail Project a non-profit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments provides grants to plan, design, and construct segments of the Bay Trail. The amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from year to year, depending on whether the Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. In recent years, grants have been made using funds from Proposition 84, the 2006 Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act; however, this is a limited-term source of funds. Bay Trail grants: Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) TFCA is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Eligible projects include including the purchase or lease of clean air vehicles; shuttle and feeder bus service to train stations; ridesharing programs to encourage carpool and transit use; bicycle facility improvements such as bike lanes, bicycle racks, and lockers; arterial management improvements to speed traffic flow on major arterials; smart growth projects; and transit information projects to enhance the availability of transit information. Grant awards are generally made on a first-come, first-served basis to qualified projects. Funding for projects is also available through the TFCA's County Program Manager Fund. Under that sub-program, 40 percent of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county's congestion management agency (CMA) for allocation (the Alameda County CMA in Emeryville s case). Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD. TFCA Bicycle Facility Program: /index.htm TFCA County Program Manager Fund: Proposition 84 Proposition 84 is administered by the California Strategic Growth Council and is known as the Urban Greening for Sustainable Communities Grant Program. This Proposition provides grants to local jurisdictions to createe new urban greening plans and projects that will guide the development of urban parks and landscaping. Grants from this source could be used to support green streets and landscape restoration projects. This grant source includes programs for both planning grants and project grants. The nd Cycle project concept applications were due in June 2011 with full grant applications due in Fall of A third cycle will be announced in 2012/ / R2.final_ pdf Statewide Funding Sources Below is a list of Statewide Funding sources available for transportation related improvements.

104 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 9 of 12 Proposition 1B Transportation Infrastructure Bond Proposition 1B is a statewide bond passed by the voters of Californiaa in 2006 to provide money for transportation improvements s. This money can be used for such activities as improving rail- matching funds for locally nominated projects. Proposition 1C Housing/Transit Oriented Development Bonds Proposition 1C is a statewide bond passed by the voters of California to provide money for affordable housing and transit oriented development. Of this bond, $850 million is available in highway crossings, retrofitting local bridges, modernizing transit services, as well as provide grants for the development of public infrastructure projects that facilitate or support infill housing construction. This program has been used previously to finance construction of roadways as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities to support affordable housing and transit oriented development. Transportation Enhancements (TE) Under the Transportation Enhancements program, California receives approximately $60 million per year from the federal government to fund projects and activities that enhance the surface transportation system. The program funds projects under 12 eligible categories, including the provision of bike lanes, trails, bicycle parking and other bicycling facilities; safety-education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; landscaping and other scenic beautification projects; and the preservation of abandoned railway corridors and their conversionn to trails for non-motorized transportation. In California, 75 percent of TE funding is distributed by the regional transportation planning agencies. For the Bay Area, MTC allocates the money through its TLC program. The remaining 25 percent is allocated by Caltrans at the district level. Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) The BTA is a Caltrans-administered program that provides funding to cities and counties for projects that improve the safety and convenience of bicycle commuting. Eligible projects include secure bike parking; bike-carrying facilities on transit vehicles; installation of traffic-control devices that facilitate bicycling; planning, design, construction and maintenance of bikeways that serve major transportation corridors; and elimination of hazards to bike commuters. In fiscal year 2010/ /11, the BTA provided $7. 2 million for projects throughout the state. To be eligible for BTA funds, a city or county must prepare and adopt a bicycle transportation plan that meets the requirements out-lined in Section of the California Streets and Highways Code. Bicycle Transportation Account: hq/localprograms/bta/btawebpage.htm Safe Routes to School (SR2S) California s Safe Routes to Schools program (SR2S) is a Caltrans-administeredthe year 2013). Eligible projects include bikeways, walkways, crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic-calming applications, and other infrastructure projects that improve the safety of walking and biking routes to elementary, middle and high schools, as well as incidental education, enforcement and encouragement activities. Planning projects, on the other hand, are not eligible. The most recent cycle of funding was released in April 2011, with approximately $42 million available for funding through grant-funding program established in 1999 (and extendedd in 2007 to 2013.

105 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 10 of 12 Caltrans Safe Routes to School program: Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 TDA Article 3 is perhaps the most readily available source of local funding for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle projects. TDA funds are derivedd from a statewide quarter-cent retail sales tax. This tax is returned to the county of origin and distributed to the cities and county on a population basis. Under TDA Article 3, two percent of each entity s TDA allocation is set aside for pedestrian and bicycle projects; this generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eligible projects include the design and constructionn of walkways, bike paths and bike lanes, and safety education programs. According to MTC Resolution 875, these projects must be included in an adopted general plan or pedestrian and bicycle plan and must have been reviewed by the relevant city or county pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee. MTC s Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria for the TDA Article www. mtc.ca.gov/funding/sta-tda/res-0875.doc 3 program: State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Every two years, the California Transportation Commission program funds for a variety of projects that relieve congestion on state highways and local streets, including transit construction projects. Seventy-five percent of STIP funds are distributed to the counties. The remaining 25 percent is programmed for intercity highway and rail improvements. Public Transportation Account (PTA) and State Transit Assistance (STA) Program PTA revenues accrue from a sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Fifty percent of all PTA revenues go to the STA Program, which provides funds for public transit operations and for regional transit projects. STA funds are allocated to the region based upon two factors: (1) fifty percent based on population and (2) fifty percent based on fare revenues from the prior fiscal year. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HISP) In 2009, the HISP replaced the Hazard Elimination Safety program which provided funds to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic collisions on public roads and highways. Cities and counties compete for HES funds by submitting candidate projects to Caltrans for review and analysis. Caltrans prioritizes these projects statewide and approves priority projects for funding through its annual HISP program plan. Historically, only about 20 percent of applications are approved for funding. In February 2011, Caltrans released the fourth cycle of projects approved for funding. The list contained 179 projects totaling nearly $75 million in federal funds. Federal Funding Sources Below is a list of Federal Funding sources available for transportation related improvements. Safe, LU) Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- SAFETEA-LU provides funding for roads, transit, safety, and environmental enhancements. Thesee are generally state and local improvements for highways and bridges that accommodate

106 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 11 of 12 additional modes of transit. Improvements include capital costs, publicly-owned intercity facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This legislation also includes a Safe Routes to School program, with funding for projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety around primary and middle schools. Cities, counties, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU funds. An 11.5 percent local match is equired for these funds. Several key SAFETEA-LU programs include the following: Surface Transportation Program Fund, Section 1108 (STP) STP are block grant funds that are used for roads, bridges, transit capital, and bicycle projects. SAFETEA-LU allows the transfer of funds from other SAFETEA-LU programs to the STP Fund. Cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and transit operators can apply for STP funds. National Highway System Fund (NHS) NHS funds provide for an interconnected system of principal arterial routes. The goal of the program is to afford access to major population centers, international border crossings, and transportation systems, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and inter-regional travel. Facilities must be located and designed pursuant to an overall plan developed by each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and state, and incorporated into the RTP. Both state and local governments can apply for NHS funds. A 20 percent local or state match is equired for these funds. Congestionn Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Section 1110 (CMAQ) CMAQ funds are available for projects that will help attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Projects must be located within jurisdictionss in non-attainment areas. Cities, counties, MPO, state, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU funds. An 11.5 percent local or state match is required for these funds. Note that this program will likely be discontinued. Transportation Enhancements Program, Section 1201 (TE) The TE Program is a 10 percent fund set aside from the STP. Projects must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system through function, proximity, or impact. This program has 12 activities that are eligible for funding. Local, regional, and state public agencies, special districts, non-profit and private organizations can apply for TE funds. Cities, counties, or transit operators must sponsor and administer the proposed projects. A 12 percent local match is required for these funds. Additional detail on this program is provided below, relating to the Statewide distribution from the TE Program. Bridge Repair and Replacement Program (BRRP) BRRP funds are available for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. Bridge projects must be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Cities may apply for these funds. National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 1112 Funds are available for recreational trails. Projects must be consistent with a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Projects include development of urban trail links, maintenance of existing trails, restoration of trails damaged by use, trail facility development, provision of access for peoplee with disabilities, administrative costs, environmental and safety education programs, acquisition of easements, fee simple title for property, and construction of new trails. Private individuals/organizations, cities, counties, and other governmental agencies can apply for these funds. There are no specific local match requirements for these funds.

107 Mirooo Desai July 15, 2011 Page 12 of 12 National Highway Safety Act, Section 402 The Highway Safety Program is a non- capital safety project grant program under whichh states may apply for funds for certain approved safety programs and activities. Eligible states must adopt a Highway Safety Plan (HSP) reflecting state highway problems. State departments, cities, counties, and school districts may apply for these funds. No local match is equired. Transit Enhancement Activity, Section 3003 The Transit Enhancement Activity fund can be used for a variety of transportation activities including improving pedestrian and bicycle access to mass transportation, landscape and scenic beautification, historic preservation, and environmental mitigation. Regional transportation planning agencies, state, and local agencies may apply for these funds. A 5 percent local match is required for these funds. Highway Safety, Research, and Development Fund, Section 2003 This fund can be used to study and research multi-modal transportation safety. Projects must be incorporated into the RTIP. Cities, counties, and state agencies can apply for these funds. A 25 percent local match is equired for these funds. Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants This fund can be used for to improve mass transit station areas including access to the station. States, regional, locall governments, and transitt operators can apply for these funds. A 10 percent local match is required for bicycle related projects using these funds. Safe Routes to Schools The Federal Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program, established by Section in SAFETEA- LU, is funded at approximately $150 million dollars annually, through Federal-aid highway funds. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apportions funds annually to each state, with California receiving on average, $23 million dollars per year. The program emphasizes the 5E s education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation; therefore, both infrastructure and programmatic projects are eligible for funding; however, only projects located within a two mile radius of elementary and middle schools are eligible. The third cycle of funds is expected to launch in early 2011 with a call for projects. No local match is required to receive program funds. Federal Safe Routes to School program: CONCLUSION With the future uncertain for Redevelopment Agencies, alternativee funding sources will be required to fund the planned transportation infrastructure in Emeryville. The updated TIF will be a key source for funding new transportation infrastructure projects but there are also a variety of other local, regional, statewide, and federal grants thatt are available. Potential local funding sources include creating a Mello-Roos district or using private development to fund specific projects or operations and maintenance. Regional, statewide, and federal funding mechanisms include a variety of grants available through Alameda County, the MTC, as well as the state and federal governments.

108

109 CITY OF EMERYVILLE GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL DRAFT MARCH 28, 2014 Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street Via Industria Lancaster, CA Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA Temecula, CA Orlando, FL Tel: (510) Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) Fax: (909) Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Attachment 2

110

111 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1 Facility Standards and Costs of Growth 1 Fee Schedule 1 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3 Public Facilities Financing In California 3 Organization of the Report 4 Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach 4 2. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS... 5 Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees 5 Land Use Types 5 Growth Projections for City of Emeryville 6 Occupant Densities 6 3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES... 8 Service Population 8 Facility Standards 8 Cost Allocation 10 Non-Fee Funding Required 11 Projected Fee Revenue 11 Fee Schedule IMPLEMENTATION Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 13 Inflation Adjustment 13 Reporting Requirements 13 Fee Accounting 13 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Purpose of Fee 15 Use of Fee Revenues 15 Benefit Relationship 16 Burden Relationship 16 Proportionality 16 i

112 Executive Summary This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to support future development within the City of Emeryville through It is the City s intent that the costs representing future development s share of these facilities and improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City s public facilities fee program all fall into the General Government category. Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to create fees that incorporate current facility plans to serve a 2030 service population. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. Facility Standards and Costs of Growth This fee analysis uses standards based on the City s policy decisions to determine the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. Depending on the facility standard, the City currently may or may not have sufficient facilities to serve existing development. If the City s existing facilities are below standard, a deficiency exists. In this case, the portion of the cost of planned facilities associated with correcting the deficiency must be allocated to non-fee funding sources. General government impact fees can only fund future facilities needed to accommodate new development at the adopted standard. Therefore, where appropriate, this study distinguishes between the share of planned facilities needed to accommodate growth and the share that will serve existing residents and businesses. New development can only fund its fair share of planned facilities. To ensure compliance with the law, this study ensures that there is a reasonable relationship between new development, the amount of the fee, and facilities funded by the fee. Fee Schedule Table E.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified general government fees based on the analysis contained in this report. The City may adopt any level of fees up to the maximum justified amount shown in the fee schedule. 1

113 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Land Use Fee Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit Single Family / Townhome $ 7,165 Multi-family - Rental or Condominium 6,895 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail $ 2,388 Office 4,346 Industrial 1,194 Research & Development 2,985 Hotel 1,194 Restaurant 5,970 Source: Table

114 1. Introduction This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Emeryville. This chapter explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following sections: Background and study objectives; Public facilities financing in California; Organization of the report; and Facility standards approach. Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective, public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to create fees that incorporate current capital facility plans to serve a 2030 service population for the City of Emeryville. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. Public Facilities Financing In California The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of growth pays its own way. This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. 3

115 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Organization of the Report The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 is devoted to documenting the maximum justified public facilities fee for general government facilities. Chapter 4 describes the fee implementation process. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections through 66025) are summarized in Chapter 5. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the replacement value of facilities per capita. The adopted facility standard is a critical component in determining development s need for new facilities and the amount of the fee. Standards determine new development s fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with the existing city infrastructure. The general government facilities fees calculated in this report use an existing inventory cost standard based on facility costs per capita to determine new development s fair share of planned facility costs. A cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case public safety, cultural, and public works facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard is based on the existing inventory of general government facilities. New development would fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided facilities to date. Thus there is no existing deficiency. The City has identified some but not all of the planned facilities to be funded by the fee through the 2030 planning horizon of this study. Facilities to be funded by the fee will be identified annually through the City s annual budgeting and CIP process. 4

116 2. Land Use Assumptions This chapter describes the projections of growth used in this study. The existing service population in 2013 is used as the base year of the study and the planning horizon is the year This chapter also describes the sources of the unit costs for land and buildings used in this study. Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees Estimates of the existing service population and projections of growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows: Estimates of total development in 2030 are used to determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate the future service population. Estimates of existing and new development are used to allocate the fair share of total planned facility costs between existing and new development. Land Use Types To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below. Single-family: Detached and attached one-family dwelling units. Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes, condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories. Retail: All commercial, and retail development. Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. Research and Development (R&D) All research and development, including biotech, development Hotel All hotel, motel, and resort development. Restaurant Any commercial development that serves food. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse with living quarters (a live-work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and multi-family uses. In these cases the public facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. The City should have the discretion to impose the general government facilities fee based on the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely matches the probable occupant density of the development. 5

117 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Growth Projections for City of Emeryville The base year for this study is the year The existing facilities in 2013 combined with the planned facilities in 2030 comprise the growth increment in our study. Population and dwelling unit data for 2013 was provided from the California Department of Finance Table E-5 for The California State Employment Development Department (EDD) provided employment estimates for Estimates of residents, dwelling units and employees in 2030 all come from the City s General Plan Draft EIR. Table 2.1 shows estimates of the growth in terms of residents, dwelling units, and workers. Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates and Projections 2013 Buildout (2030) Net Growth Residents 1 10,196 16,660 6,464 Dwelling Units 2 5,988 9,800 3,812 Employment 3 20,467 30,000 9,533 1 Excludes residents living in group quarters. 2 Total dw elling units show n, including single family, multifamily, condominiums and tow nhomes. 3 Represents jobs located w ithin the city (not employed residents). Sources: CA Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2013; CA Employment Development Department 2012; General Plan Draft EIR, Table ES-1, 2009; Willdan Financial Services. Occupant Densities Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population and amount of the fee. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional housing units for residential development, or building square feet for nonresidential development. The fee schedule must convert service population estimates into these measures of housing units or building square feet. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.2. The residential occupant density factors for both single-family and multi-family units is derived from data from US Census American Community Survey, adjusted by data from the Department of Finance. The nonresidential density factors for the retail, hotel, office, and industrial land uses were derived from information in Table ES-1 of the City s General Plan EIR, and Table 2-2 of the City s General Plan. The density for the restaurant land use was derived by Keyser Masrston Associates from the National Restaurant Association s 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations 6

118 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Report for limited service restaurants. The density for the research and development land use was derived from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition. Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions Residential Single Family / Townhome 1.86 Persons per dwelling unit Multi-family - Rental or Condominium 1.79 Persons per dwelling unit Nonresidential Retail 2.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 3.64 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 1.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Research & Development 2.50 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Hotel 1.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 5.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Sources: Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Tables B25024 and B25033; City of Emeryville; Keyser Marston Associates; 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations Report; Table ES-1 of the GP EIR and Table 2-2 of the General Plan; Institutie of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition; Willdan Financial Services. 7

119 3. General Government Facilities The purpose of the general government facilities fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of planned general government facilities. General government facilities include City Hall, corporation yard, fire facilities, police facilities, civic center and the child development center. Service Population Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general government facilities. Table 3.1: General Government Service Population Residents Workers 1 Population Service Existing (2013) 10,196 20,467 16,500 New Development ( ) 6,464 9,533 9,400 Total (2030) 16,660 30,000 25,900 Weighting factor Note: Figures for service population have been rounded. 1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek. Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. Facility Standards This study uses the City s existing inventory of general government facilities to calculate a facility standard. The standard is based on the replacement value of existing general government facilities per capita using the City s existing service population. Table 3.2 shows the existing building and land inventory for general government facilities in the City of Emeryville. 8

120 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Table 3.2: Existing General Government Facilitie Amount Cost 1 Total Cost (2013) City Hall Land 2.94 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 12,936,000 Old Town Hall 7,500 sq. ft ,253,300 New Building 16,840 sq. ft ,959,700 Subtotal $ 22,149,000 Corporation Yard Land 1.72 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 7,568,000 Building 47,743 sq. ft. 81 3,889,300 Subtotal $ 11,457,300 Fire Station #1 Land 0.79 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 3,475,000 Building 8,410 sq. ft ,067,200 Subtotal $ 5,542,200 Fire Station #2 Land 0.65 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 2,860,000 Building 15,548 sq. ft ,156,700 Subtotal $ 5,016,700 Police Station Land 1.17 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 5,149,000 Building 12,738 sq. ft ,336,686 Subtotal $ 14,485,686 Child Development Center Land 0.64 acres $ 4,400,000 $ 2,816,000 Building 11,600 sq. ft ,098,700 Subtotal $ 4,914,700 Total Existing Facilities $ 63,565,586 1 Land value based on the "Site Acquisition" cost per acre from the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, City of Emeryville, January 18, Building values based on values identified in 2008 Impact Fee Study, adjusted for inflation. Value of police station based on Sources: City of Emeryville Finance Department Cumulative Reports 8/28/13; Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, City of Emeryville, January 18, 2011; Engineering New s Record's Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services. Building values vary by facility to reflect the specific age and condition of each facility. Building values were originally estimated in 2008 for a development impact fee study in Emeryville, and adjusted for inflation to 2013 using Engineering News Record s Building Cost Index (BCI). The total value of the existing general government facilities is calculated to be roughly $63.6 million dollars. 9

121 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Planned Facilities The City plans to use general government facilities fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. A preliminary list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3. Additional facilities will have to be identified to be able to maintain the existing standard through the planning horizon. The City can identify facilities to be funded by the fee through its annual budgeting and CIP process. Table 3.3: Planned General Government Facilities Total Cost Planned Facilities Hollis Fire Station Expansion $ 6,925,000 Total Planned Facilities $ 6,925,000 Sources: City of Emeryville Life Cycle Cost Analysis; Willdan Financial Services. Cost Allocation Table 3.4 shows the existing facilities standard cost per capita for general government facilities, which is the per capita investment in general government facilities that new development must make to maintain its existing facility standards. This value is calculated by dividing the value of the existing general government facilities by the existing service population. Table 3.4: General Government Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities A $ 63,565,586 Existing Service Population B 16,500 Cost per Capita C = A / B $ 3,852 Facility Standard per Resident C $ 3,852 Facility Standard per Worker 1 D = C x ,194 1 Based on a w eighing factor of Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2; Willdan Financial Services. 10

122 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Non-Fee Funding Required The general government facilities fee revenue is equal to new development s need for future facilities. The fee was calculated using the existing standard of general government facilities, so non-fee funding is not required. There are no existing deficiencies. Projected Fee Revenue Table 3.5 estimates the general government facilities impact fee revenue generated through the planning horizon by multiplying the facility standard per capita, by the growth in service population. The general government facilities impact fee will generate approximately $36.2 million through The value of the identified planned facilities is subtracted from the fee revenue to determine the cost of yet-to-be identified facilities that are necessary to maintain the existing standard of general government facilities. The City will identify additional facilities to serve new development through its annual budgeting and CIP process. Table 3.5: Allocation of Planned Facility Costs to New Development Facility Standard per Capita A $ 3,852 Service Population Growth ( ) B 9,400 Total Projected Impact Fee Revenue C = A x B $ 36,208,800 Total Cost of Planned Facilities D $ 6,925,000 Additional Facilities To Be Identified E = C - D $ 29,283,800 Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 3.6 shows the general government facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). 11

123 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Table 3.5: General Government Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C / 1,000 Cost Per Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family / Townhome $ 3, $ 7,165 Multi-family - Rental or Condominiu 3, ,895 Nonresidential Retail $ 1, $ 2,388 $ 2.39 Office 1, , Industrial 1, , Research & Development 1, , Hotel 1, , Restaurant 1, , Fee per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services. 12

124 4. Implementation Impact Fee Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public meeting. A fourteen-day mailed public notice is required for those registering for such notification. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. Your legal counsel should inform you of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. This procedure must also be followed for fee increases. Inflation Adjustment Appropriate inflation indexes should be identified in a fee ordinance including an automatic adjustment to the fee annually. Separate indexes for land and construction costs should be used. Calculating the land cost index may require the periodic use of a property appraiser. The construction cost index can be based on the City s recent capital project experience or can be taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News-Record. To calculate prospective fee increases, each index should be weighed against its share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate. Reporting Requirements The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Fee Accounting The City should deposit fee revenues into separate restricted fee accounts for each of the fee categories identified in this report. Fees collected for a given facility category should only be expended on new facilities of that same category. Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP The City should commit all projected fee revenues and fund balances to specific projects in its Capital Improvements Program. These should represent the types of facilities needed to serve growth and described in this report. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The CIP also provides the documentation necessary for the City to hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient monies to complete a project. 13

125 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 14

126 5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings Fees are assessed and typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on new development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the imposition of facilities fees, the California State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code , establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fees. The Act requires local agencies to document five statutory findings when adopting fees. The five findings in the Act required for adoption of the maximum justified fees documented in this report are: 1) Purpose of fee, 2) Use of fee Revenues, 3) Benefit Relationship, 4) Burden Relationship, and 5) Proportionality. They are each discussed below and are supported throughout this report. Purpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee ( 66001(a)(1) of the Act). We understand that it is the policy of the City that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide general government facilities to new development. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged ( 66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be available to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding general government facilities. The total cost of general government facilities needed to serve future development are shown in Chapter 3 of this report. More thorough descriptions of certain planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are included in master plans, capital improvement plans, or other City planning documents or are available from City staff. The City may change the list of planned facilities to meet changing needs and circumstances of new development, as it deems necessary. The fees should be updated if these amendments result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development. Planned facilities to be funded by the fees are described in the Facilities Standards section of Chapter 3. 15

127 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study Benefit Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed ( 66001(a)(3) of the Act). We expect that the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development as described above under the Use of Fee Revenues finding. The City should keep fees in segregated accounts. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. Burden Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( 66001(a)(4) of the Act). Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. Facilities demand is determined as follows: The service population is established based upon the number of residents living in Emeryville plus the number of workers working in Emeryville. Service population correlates to the demand for general government facilities. One worker is weighted relative to one resident based on an analysis of the relative service demand between a worker and a resident. For each general government facilities, demand is measured in terms of a cost per capita standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions provides a description of how service population and growth projections are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards section of Chapter 3. Proportionality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed ( 66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated service population growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based 16

128 City of Emeryville General Government Facilities Fee Study on the project s size or increases in the number of dwelling units. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population, resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees can ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Projections, or the Service Population section for a description of how service population or dwelling units adjustment factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of Chapter 3 for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. 17

129 CITY OF EMERYVILLE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL DRAFT MARCH 28, 2014 Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street Via Industria Lancaster, CA Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN Oakland, CA Temecula, CA Orlando, FL Tel: (510) Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ Fax: (510) Fax: (909) Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Attachment 3

130

131 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1 Facility Standards and Costs of Growth 1 Fee Schedule 1 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3 Public Facilities Financing In California 3 Organization of the Report 4 Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach 4 2. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS... 5 Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees 5 Land Use Types 5 Growth Projections for City of Emeryville 6 Occupant Densities 6 3. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES... 8 Service Population 8 Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 9 Parkland Unit Costs 11 Improved Parkland Equivalent 12 Park Facility Standards 12 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 13 Parks Cost per Capita 13 Use of Fee Revenue 14 Fee Schedule IMPLEMENTATION Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 16 Inflation Adjustment 16 Reporting Requirements 16 Fee Accounting 16 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Purpose of Fee 18 Use of Fee Revenues 18 Benefit Relationship 19 Burden Relationship 19 Proportionality 19 i

132 APPENDIX A: WORKER DEMAND SURVEY Park Survey 21 ii

133 Executive Summary This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to support future development within the City of Emeryville through It is the City s intent that the costs representing future development s share of these facilities and improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City s public facilities fee program all fall into the parks and recreation facilities category. Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to create fees that incorporate current facility plans to serve a 2030 service population. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. Facility Standards and Costs of Growth This fee analysis uses standards based on the City s policy decisions to determine the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. Depending on the facility standard, the City currently may or may not have sufficient facilities to serve existing development. If the City s existing facilities are below standard, a deficiency exists. In this case, the portion of the cost of planned facilities associated with correcting the deficiency must be allocated to non-fee funding sources. Parks and recreation impact fees can only fund future facilities needed to accommodate new development at the adopted standard. Therefore, where appropriate, this study distinguishes between the share of planned facilities needed to accommodate growth and the share that will serve existing residents and businesses. New development can only fund its fair share of planned facilities. To ensure compliance with the law, this study ensures that there is a reasonable relationship between new development, the amount of the fee, and facilities funded by the fee. Fee Schedule Table E.1 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified parks and recreation facilities fees based on the analysis contained in this report. The City may adopt any level of fees up to the maximum justified amount shown in the fee schedule. 1

134 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Land Use Fee Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit Single Family / Townhome $ 15,553 Multi-family - Rental or Condominium 14,968 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Retail $ 8,362 Office 15,219 Industrial 4,181 Research & Development 10,453 Hotel 4,181 Restaurant 20,905 Source: Table

135 1. Introduction This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Emeryville. This chapter explains the study approach and summarizes results under the following sections: Background and study objectives; Public facilities financing in California; Organization of the report; and Facility standards approach. Background and Study Objectives The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective, public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to create fees that incorporate current capital facility plans to serve a 2030 service population for the City of Emeryville. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. Public Facilities Financing In California The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out: The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and Steep reductions in federal and state assistance. Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of growth pays its own way. This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption. 3

136 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Organization of the Report The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 is devoted to documenting the maximum justified public facilities fee for parks and recreation facilities. Chapter 4 describes the fee implementation process. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections through 66025) are summarized in Chapter 5. Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the replacement value of facilities per capita. The adopted facility standard is a critical component in determining development s need for new facilities and the amount of the fee. Standards determine new development s fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with the existing city infrastructure. The parks and recreation facilities fees calculated in this report use an existing inventory demand standard translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development s fair share of planned facility costs. A cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. New development would fund the expansion of facilities at the same rate that existing development has provided facilities to date. Thus there is no existing deficiency. The City has identified some but not all of the planned facilities to be funded by the fee through the 2030 planning horizon of this study. 4

137 2. Land Use Assumptions This chapter describes the projections of growth used in this study. The existing service population in 2013 is used as the base year of the study and the planning horizon is the year This chapter also describes the sources of the unit costs for land and buildings used in this study. Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees Estimates of the existing service population and projections of growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows: Estimates of total development in 2030 are used to determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate the future service population. Estimates of existing and new development are used to allocate the fair share of total planned facility costs between existing and new development. Land Use Types To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types used in this analysis are defined below. Single-family: Detached and attached one-family dwelling units. Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes, condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories. Retail: All commercial, and retail development. Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development. Research and Development (R&D) All research and development, including biotech, development Hotel All hotel, motel, and resort development. Restaurant Any commercial development that serves food. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse with living quarters (a live-work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and multi-family uses. In these cases the public facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. The City should have the discretion to impose the parks and recreation facilities fee based on the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely matches the probable occupant density of the development. 5

138 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Growth Projections for City of Emeryville The base year for this study is the year The existing facilities in 2013 combined with the planned facilities in 2030 comprise the growth increment in our study. Population and dwelling unit data for 2013 was provided from the California Department of Finance Table E-5 for The California State Employment Development Department (EDD) provided employment estimates for Estimates of residents, dwelling units and employees in 2030 all come from the City s General Plan Draft EIR. Table 2.1 shows estimates of the growth in terms of residents, dwelling units, and workers. Table 2.1: Population and Employment Estimates and Projections 2013 Buildout (2030) Net Growth Residents 1 10,196 16,660 6,464 Dwelling Units 2 5,988 9,800 3,812 Employment 3 20,467 30,000 9,533 1 Excludes residents living in group quarters. 2 Total dw elling units show n, including single family, multifamily, condominiums and tow nhomes. 3 Represents jobs located w ithin the city (not employed residents). Sources: CA Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2013; CA Employment Development Department 2012; General Plan Draft EIR, Table ES-1, 2009; Willdan Financial Services. Occupant Densities Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population and amount of the fee. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional housing units for residential development, or building square feet for nonresidential development. The fee schedule must convert service population estimates into these measures of housing units or building square feet. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.2. The residential occupant density factors for both single-family and multi-family units is derived from data from US Census American Community Survey, adjusted by data from the Department of Finance. The nonresidential density factors for the retail, hotel, office, and industrial land uses were derived from information in Table ES-1 of the City s General Plan EIR, and Table 2-2 of the City s General Plan. The density for the restaurant land use was derived by Keyser Masrston Associates from the National Restaurant Association s 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations 6

139 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Report for limited service restaurants. The density for the research and development land use was derived from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition. Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions Residential Single Family / Townhome 1.86 Persons per dwelling unit Multi-family - Rental or Condominium 1.79 Persons per dwelling unit Nonresidential Retail 2.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 3.64 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 1.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Research & Development 2.50 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Hotel 1.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 5.00 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. Sources: Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Tables B25024 and B25033; City of Emeryville; Keyser Marston Associates; 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations Report; Table ES-1 of the GP EIR and Table 2-2 of the General Plan; Institutie of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition; Willdan Financial Services. 7

140 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to fund the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development the The impact fee is based on maintaining the City s existing parkland standards. Service Population Park and recreation facilities in Emeryville serve both residents and employees working in the City. Therefore, demand for park and recreation facilities is based on the City s service population including residents and workers. In 2008, Willdan Financial Services (then MuniFinancial) conducted a survey of Emeryville park users to calculate the proper worker-weighting factor used to determine the parks service population. The results of the park survey yielded a ratio of 1.33 workers to residents. More information regarding the park survey can be found in the appendix of this study. Despite the survey indicating a worker-weighting factor of 1.33, this study uses a workerweighting factor of The 0.50 worker-weighting factor is used because: All other park user surveys we are aware of indicate a worker weighting factor of less than 1.0; Park and recreation facilities tend to be planned primarily to serve residents; and, The survey may have been biased towards overestimating worker use of parks because it was conducted during the lunch hour. The use of 0.50 as a worker-weighting factor is conservative, compared to the survey results, and reasonable, when compared to other surveys of park use. Table 3.1 provides estimates of the service population with a projection for the year Table 3.1: Park and Recreation Facilities Service Population Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2013) 10,196 20,467 20,400 New Development ( ) 6,464 9,533 11,200 Total (2030) 16,660 30,000 31,600 Weighting factor Note: Figures for service population have been rounded. 1 Workers are w eighted at 0.50 of residents. Sources: Tables 2.1 and A.1; Willdan Financial Services. 8

141 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory The City of Emeryville maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 3.2 summarizes the City s existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. 9

142 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Table 3.2: Park and Recreation Facilities Land Inventory Name Developed Acres Undeveloped Acres City Parks 61st Street Mini-Park/Doyle Civic Center Christie Avenue Park/59th Doyle-Hollis Park Stanford Avenue Park (Doyle) th Street Community Garden Undeveloped Site Subtotal Waterfront Park s Davenport Mini-Park (Powell/Anchor) Marina Park (3300 Powell) Point Emery (Frontage/Ashby) Shorebird Park Subtotal Greenways/Linear Park s Emeryville Greenway Horton Landing Park Pixar Pedestrian Path San Francisco Bay Trail Temescal Creek Park (48th St) Parcel D HSP/Greenway (@ 59th St.) Powell to Stanford Subtotal Special Use Facilities Big Daddy's Community Garden Community Organic Garden Park Avenue Plaza Recreation Center Senior Center / Veteran's Memorial Art & Cultural Center Subtotal Total Acreage Sources: Table 1, Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, City of Emeryville, January 18, 2011; Willdan Financial Services. 10

143 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Table 3.3 displays the City s investment in special use facilities. In this case, the value of the City s 12,500 square foot Senior Center is approximately $3.2 million, based on a unit cost assumption of $250 square feet per capita. Table 3.3: Special Use Facilities Inventory Amount Cost 1 Total Value Special Use Facilities Senior Center 12,500 sq. ft. 250 $ 3,159,300 Total Value of Special Use Facilities $ 3,159,300 Source: City of Emeryville; Engineering New s Record; Willdan Financial Services. Parkland Unit Costs Table 3.4 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition, standard park improvements, and special use facilities. The land value of $4.4 million per acre used throughout this report is based on the estimated value of land from the City s Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (2011). The value of special use facilities, in this case the Senior Center, is allocated across all parkland and added to the cost of land acquisition per acre, and the cost of standard park improvements to determine the total cost to develop an acre of parkland in the County. The park improvement cost per acre is based on the City s recent experience developing Doyle- Hollis Park. Table 3.4: Park and Recreation Facilities Unit Costs per Acre Calculation Costs Share Special Use Facilities A $ 3,159,300 Total Acres of Improved Parkland B Special Use Facilities Cost per Acre C = A / B $ 136,800 Park Improvement Cost 1 D 1,560,000 Subtotal - Park Improvements E = C + D $ 1,696,800 28% Land Acquisition Cost F 4,400,000 72% Total Per Acre Cost G = E + F $ 6,096, % 1 Based on cost to develop Doyle-Hollis Park. Sources: Table C-2, Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, City of Emeryville, January 18, 2011; City of Emeryville Finance Department Cumulative Reports 8/28/13, Willdan Financial Services. 11

144 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Improved Parkland Equivalent Before calculating the existing standards, unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. Table 3.5 details this conversion. The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved acre of land relative to an acre of unimproved parkland. Table 3.5: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent Type Acres Unimproved Parkland Acres A 6.78 Unimproved Land Share of Total Improved Parkland Co B 72% Equivalent Improved Acres C = A x B 4.88 Acres of Improved Parkland D Total Acres of Improved Parkland E = C + D Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Park Facility Standards Table 3.6 shows the existing parkland standard based on the parkland acreage shown in Table 3.2 and the existing residential population shown in Table 3.1. The City has an existing standard of 1.37 acres of parkland per 1,000 service population. Table 3.6: Park and Recreation Facilities Standards Type of Acreage Existing Inventory Standard Existing Acres of Parkland A Service Population B 20,400 Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) C = A / B x 1, Sources: Tables 3.1, and 3.5; Willdan Financial Services. 12

145 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development Table 3.7 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new development must fund the purchase and improvement of parkland acres, at a total cost of approximately $93.6 million. Table 3.7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Land Improvements Total Facility Needs Facility Standard (acres/1,000 service populatio A Service Population Growth ( ) B 11,200 11,200 11,200 Facility Needs (acres) C =(B/1,000) x A Parkland Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 4,400,000 $ 1,696,800 $ 6,096,800 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $ 67,584,000 $ 26,063,000 $ 93,647,000 Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands. Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6; Willdan Financial Service Parks Cost per Capita Table 3.8 shows the cost per capita of providing new park facilities at the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements and residents and workers. Table 3.8: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita Land Improvements Total Parkland Investment (per acre) $ 4,400,000 $ 1,696,800 $ 6,096,800 Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service populat Total Investment Per 1,000 capita $ 6,035,000 $ 2,327,000 $ 8,362,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Investment Per Capita $ 6,035 $ 2,327 $ 8,362 Investment Per Worker 3,018 1,164 4,181 Sources: Tables 3.4, and 3.6; Willdan Financial Services. 13

146 City ofemeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Use of Fee Revenue The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development. The City intends to use the fee revenue to purchase and develop the planned facilities listed in the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (2011). Table 3.9 displays the planned facilities identified in the Strategic Plan. In order to fully realize all of the planned facilities in the Strategic Plan, the City will need to fund approximately $66.2 million in costs with non-fee funding sources. Table 3.9: Planned Park Facilities Project Proposed Acres Planning Level Cost Estimate Site 1: Doyle Hollis Park Expansion Site 2: PG&E site West of Hollis between 45th and 53rd Site A: 1-80ped-bike bridge touchdown in Ashby Interchange Site B: West of Shellmound North of 65th Site C: North of 65th, East of RR tracks Site D: North of Powell, between Christie and 1-80 Site E: Stanford Ave, Park expansion West to Hollis Site F: Stanford Ave, Park expansion North to Powell Site G: Powell St. Plaza West of Shellmound, South of Powell Site H: Temescal Creek Park and Temescal Creek Greenway Site J: On Park Ave, West of Hollis Site K: East Bay Bridge Center, South of 40th, West of San Pablo SiteL: Triangle neighborhood East of San Pablo, North of 40th Emeryville Greenway Expansions Temescal Creek Greenway Expansions Total Cost - Planned Facilities 6.75 $ $ 38,930,888 36,776,183 1,329,075 3,291,575 6,054,575 3,000,325 4,315,950 3,241,675 5,897,300 65,856 3,204,200 17,590,050 3,250,800 25,797,972 7,135, ,882,185 Source: Table C-1, City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, January 18, Fee Schedule Table 3.10 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the costs per capita shown in Table

147 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Table 3.10: Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C / 1,000 Cost Per Base Fee per Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family / Townhome $ 8, $ 15,553 Multi-family - Rental or Condominium 8, ,968 Nonresidential Retail $ 4, $ 8,362 $ 8.36 Office 4, , Industrial 4, , Research & Development 4, , Hotel 4, , Restaurant 4, , Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential). Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.8; Willdan Financial Services. 15

148 4. Implementation Impact Fee Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public meeting. A fourteen-day mailed public notice is required for those registering for such notification. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. Your legal counsel should inform you of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. This procedure must also be followed for fee increases. Inflation Adjustment Appropriate inflation indexes should be identified in a fee ordinance including an automatic adjustment to the fee annually. Separate indexes for land and construction costs should be used. Calculating the land cost index may require the periodic use of a property appraiser. The construction cost index can be based on the City s recent capital project experience or can be taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News-Record. To calculate prospective fee increases, each index should be weighed against its share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate. Reporting Requirements The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Fee Accounting The City should deposit fee revenues into separate restricted fee accounts for each of the fee categories identified in this report. Fees collected for a given facility category should only be expended on new facilities of that same category. Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP The City should commit all projected fee revenues and fund balances to specific projects in its Capital Improvements Program. These should represent the types of facilities needed to serve growth and described in this report. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The CIP also provides the documentation necessary for the City to hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient monies to complete a project. 16

149 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 17

150 5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings Fees are assessed and typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on new development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the imposition of facilities fees, the California State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code , establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fees. The Act requires local agencies to document five statutory findings when adopting fees. The five findings in the Act required for adoption of the maximum justified fees documented in this report are: 1) Purpose of fee, 2) Use of fee Revenues, 3) Benefit Relationship, 4) Burden Relationship, and 5) Proportionality. They are each discussed below and are supported throughout this report. Purpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee ( 66001(a)(1) of the Act). We understand that it is the policy of the City that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide parks and recreational facilities to new development. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged ( 66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be available to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding parks and recreation facilities. An estimate of the amount of parkland needed to serve new development is identified in Chapter 3 of this report. More thorough descriptions of certain planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are included in master plans, capital improvement plans, or other City planning documents or are available from City staff. The City may change the list of planned facilities to meet changing needs and circumstances of new development, as it deems necessary. The fees should be updated if these amendments result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development. 18

151 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study Benefit Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed ( 66001(a)(3) of the Act). We expect that the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development as described above under the Use of Fee Revenues finding. The City should keep fees in segregated accounts. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. Burden Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( 66001(a)(4) of the Act). Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. Facilities demand is determined as follows: The service population is established based upon the number of residents living in Emeryville plus the number of workers working in Emeryville. Service population correlates to the demand for parks and recreation facilities. One worker is weighted at half the demand of one resident based on an analysis of the relative service demand between a worker and a resident. For parks and recreational facilities, demand is measured by a single facility standard (park acres per 1,000 service population) that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions provides a description of how service population and growth projections are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards sections of in Chapter 3. Proportionality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed ( 66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated 19

152 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study service population growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project s size or increases in the number of dwelling units. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population, resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees can ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Projections, or the Service Population section for a description of how service population or dwelling units adjustment factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of Chapter 3 for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. 20

153 Appendix A: Worker Demand Survey The worker demand weightings for park facilities were developed during various user intercept surveys carried out by MuniFinancial staff in September The following appendix describes the methodology used to arrive at the worker demand weighting factors. Park Survey The parks intercept survey was administered to all willing park-goers at three park locations through out the City of Emeryville on Thursday, September 21 st and Saturday, September 30 th, The parks surveyed are listed in the table below. Park users were asked if they came to the park that day because of proximity to work, home, or both? The MuniFinancial staff has initially tabulated the results of the survey. The results of the weekday survey (Thursday, September 21 st ) need to be multiplied by five to weight the results to represent the five weekdays. The results from the weekend survey (Saturday, September 30 th ) need to be multiplied by two to weight the results to represent the total visits for both weekend days. MuniFinancial made the adjustment of allocating 50 percent of responses to both to work responses and 50 percent of responses to both to home responses. The resulting estimate of total proximity to work responses were then divided by the current estimate of employees working within the city of Emeryville (excluding projected employment from pending entitled development projects) to derive park visits per employee. Park visits per resident were estimated by dividing the responses by the current resident population (excluding projected employment from pending entitled residential development projects). The resulting weighting factor for worker park use based on survey results is estimated at 1.33 times that of a resident. To be conservative, a worker weighting factor of 0.5 is used in this study. 21

154 City of Emeryville Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Study A.1: City Of Emeryville Park Users Survey Number of patrons at park because of: Work Residence Both Survey Date: Thursday, September 21, 2006, 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm 61st Street Mini Park Stanford Ave Park Marina Park Total Adjustment Factor Weighted Weekday Visits Survey Date: Saturday, Septemeber 30, 2006, 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm 61st Street Mini Park Stanford Ave Park 7 - Marina Park Total Adjustment Factor Weighted Weekend Visits Weekend and Weekday Weighted Visits Allocation of "Both" Response Service Population 20,300 8,700 1,000 Visits per worker or resident ,000 Visits Per Capita Workers Residents Worker Weighting Factor 1.33 Note: These parks were selected based on their similarity to future parks to be built. Source: MuniFinancial. 22

155 DRAFT DRAFT Residential Nexus Study Prepared for: City of Emeryville Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. March 2014 Attachment 4

156 DRAFT Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 I. MARKET RATE UNITS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME 5 II. THE IMPLAN MODEL 9 III. THE KMA JOBS HOUSING NEXUS MODEL 12 IV. MITIGATION COSTS 25 List of Tables Table I-1: Income Available for Expenditures 7 Table I-2: New Market Rate Rental Household Summary 8 Table II-1: IMPLAN Model Output 11 Table III-1: Net New Households and Occupation Distribution 19 Table III-2a: Very Low Income Employee Households Generated 20 Table III-2b: Low Income Employee Households Generated 21 Table III-2a: Moderate Income Employee Households Generated 22 Table III-2a: Above Moderate Income Employee Households Generated 23 Table III-3: Impact Analysis Summary Employee Households Generated 24 Table IV-1: Affordability Gap: Very Low Income Households 31 Table IV-2: Affordability Gap: Low Income Households 32 Table IV-3: Affordability Gap: Moderate Income Households 33 Table IV-4: Supported Fee Nexus Summary Per Unit 34 Appendix A: Asking Apartment Rents 35 Appendix B: Average Annual Worker Compensation

157 DRAFT INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) has prepared this Residential Nexus Analysis for the City of Emeryville. The report has been prepared to support a housing impact type fee to be levied on new rental housing development in Emeryville. Fee revenues will be used to assist in the development of affordable housing units in Emeryville. The nexus analysis addresses market rate rental projects and quantifies the linkages between new market rate units and the demand generated by the residents of the new units for additional affordable housing in Emeryville. Background and Context The City of Emeryville adopted an Affordable Housing Set Aside (AHSA) Ordinance in 1990, the key terms were embodied in Article 62, Chapter 4 of Title 9 in the Emeryville Municipal Code. The ordinance requires that all new residential units for rent, for sale and live work in projects of thirty or more units set aside a portion of the units for low and moderate income households. The percentage of affordable units for for-sale projects is 20% at moderate income level and for rental units is 15% at a mix of low and very low income rent levels. Through implementation of the AHSA, substantial numbers of affordable units have been produced in Emeryville since the 1990 adoption. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled in the Palmer case (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. the City of Los Angeles) that any local restrictions on rents must comply with State rent control statutes, most particularly the Costa Hawkins Act which provides that the landlord may set initial and long term rent rates, except in the case of negotiated agreement with the city in which the city provides some form of direct contribution either in the form of financial benefit or regulatory relief. In summary, the Palmer decision precludes jurisdictions from requiring that rental units be set aside at Below Market rent, as with the AHSA, absent some form of financial or regulatory assistance being provided by the local jurisdiction. Since this ruling, many cities and counties have adopted Housing Impact Fees, consistent with the provisions of California Code et. eq. as a means of requiring rental units to contribute to local affordable housing programs. To meet the provisions of the California Code governing impact fees, a nexus analysis is advisable to demonstrate and quantify the impacts generated by the new rental units. This nexus analysis provides the City of Emeryville the necessary documentation in support of such an impact fee. In most of the period since the Palmer ruling, the apartment development market has been inactive in Emeryville as it has been in most of California, due primarily to the Great Recession. With the apartment market strengthening, City wishes to pursue an impact fee to require rental projects to contribute to affordable housing programs, while for sale projects will continue to be subject to the 1990 AHSA Ordinance. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

158 DRAFT Historically, a large share of development projects in Emeryville have been developed under California Redevelopment Law with terms negotiated between the City/Agency and developer that address extraordinary costs, such as those associated with site remediation and necessary infrastructure as well as affordable units. Per Palmer, the City will be able to continue to negotiate terms for projects pursuant to the provisions of the ruling. The City of Emeryville is also reexamining and restructuring its affordable housing programs in response to the end of Redevelopment in California. The end of Redevelopment is substantially reducing the financial resources available to jurisdictions for affordable housing in California; in Emeryville the reduction in resources for housing is particularly severe. The Nexus Concept At its most simplified level, the underlying nexus concept is that the newly constructed units represent new households in Emeryville. These households represent new income in Emeryville that will consume goods and services, either through purchases of goods and services or by consuming governmental services. New consumption translates to new jobs; a portion of the jobs are at lower compensation levels, low compensation jobs translate to lower income households that cannot afford market rate units in Emeryville and therefore need affordable housing. Methodology and Models Used The methodology or analysis procedure for this nexus analysis starts with the rental rate of a new market rate rental unit, and moves through a series of linkages to the gross income of the household that rented the unit, the income available for expenditures on goods and services, the jobs associated with the purchases and delivery of those services, the income of the workers doing those jobs, the household income of the workers, and, ultimately, the affordability level of the housing needed by the worker households. The steps of the analysis from household income available for expenditures to jobs generated were performed using the IMPLAN model, a model widely used for the past 35 years to quantify the impacts of changes in a local economy, including employment impacts from changes in personal income. From job generation by industry, KMA used its own jobs housing nexus model to quantify the income of worker households by affordability level. To illustrate the linkages by looking at a simplified example, we can take an average household that rents an apartment at a certain rent level. From that rent level, we estimate the gross income of the household and the portion of income available for expenditures. Households will purchase or consume a range of goods and services, such as purchases at the supermarket or services at the bank. Purchases in the local economy in turn generate employment. The jobs generated are at different compensation levels. Some of the jobs are low paying and as a result, even when there is more than one worker in the household, there are some lower and moderate income households who cannot afford market rate housing in Emeryville. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

159 DRAFT The IMPLAN model quantifies jobs generated as establishments that serve new residents directly (e.g., supermarkets, banks or schools), jobs generated by increased demand at firms which service or supply these establishments, and jobs generated when the new employees spend their wages in the local economy and generate additional jobs. The IMPLAN model estimates the total impact combined. Net New Underlying Assumption An underlying assumption of the analysis is that households that rent new units represent net new households in Emeryville. If renters have relocated from elsewhere in the city, vacancies have been created that will be filled. An adjustment to new construction of units would be warranted if Emeryville were experiencing significant demolitions or loss of existing housing inventory. Since the analysis addresses net new households in Emeryville and the impacts generated by their consumption expenditures, it quantifies net new demands for affordable units to accommodate new worker households. As such, the impact results do not address nor in any way include existing deficiencies in the supply of affordable housing. Geographic Area of Impact The analysis quantifies impacts occurring within Alameda County. The IMPLAN model computes the jobs generated within the County and sorts out those that occur beyond the county boundaries. The KMA Jobs Housing Nexus Model analyzes the income structure of jobs and their worker households, without assumptions as to where the worker households live. In summary, the KMA nexus analysis quantifies all the job impacts occurring within Alameda County and related workers households. Job impacts, like most types of impacts, occur irrespective of political boundaries. And like other types of impact analyses, such as traffic, impacts beyond city boundaries are experienced, are relevant, and are important. See Addendum for further discussion. Affordability Tiers The nexus analysis addresses the following three income or affordability tiers: Very Low Income (under 50% of the Area Median Income or AMI) Low Income (50% to 80% AMI) Moderate Income (80% to 120% AMI) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

160 DRAFT Report Organization The report is organized into four sections as follows: Section I presents information regarding the new market rate rental units and the estimated household income of the renters of those units. Section II describes the IMPLAN model which is used in the nexus analysis to translate household income into the estimated number of jobs in retail, restaurants, healthcare, and other sectors serving new residents. Section III presents the linkage between employment growth associated with residential development and the need for new lower income housing units required in each of the three income categories. Section IV quantifies the nexus or mitigation cost based on the cost of delivering affordable units to new worker households in each of the three lower income categories. Disclaimers This report has been prepared using the best and most recent data available at the time of the analysis. Local data and sources were used wherever possible. Major sources include the U.S. Census Bureau: the American Community Survey, California Employment Development Department and the IMPLAN model. While we believe all sources utilized are sufficiently sound and accurate for the purposes of this analysis, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. assumes no liability for information from these and other sources. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

161 DRAFT I. MARKET RATE UNITS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME This section describes the units in typical market rate apartment projects in Emeryville and the income of the renter households. These units are representative of apartment projects proposed or likely to be built in Emeryville over the next several years. Household income is estimated based on the amount necessary for the rent payments for the new market rate units and becomes the basis for the input to the IMPLAN model described in Section II of this report. This is the starting point of the chain of linkages that connect new market rate rental units to incremental demand for affordable residential units. This section provides a summary of the typical rental units and household income. Recent Housing Market Activity and Prototypical Units The City of Emeryville provided KMA with information on built and proposed apartment projects in Emeryville. KMA also undertook a market survey of projects. The survey was taken in the summer of 2013 when the market was becoming more active and rents were rising. The results of the market survey are presented in Appendix A and summarized below. The main objective of the survey was to establish current rents per unit and per square foot for the various rental project types recently developed, or expected to be developed in the future. Emeryville does not experience significant variation in the apartment residential projects built within the city. Unit sizes and rent levels do not vary significantly as they do in larger jurisdictions where there is more variation in density of construction and more variation in market strength from one geographic subarea to another. As a result, we concluded that one apartment prototype would be sufficient. The typical apartment in Emeryville is identified as: Unit size Unit rent 850 sq. ft. / two bedrooms $2,465 per month, or $2.90 sq. ft. per month Income of Renter Households The next step in the analysis is to determine the income of the households renting the new units in Emeryville. Household income for renter households is estimated based on the assumption that rent represents, on average, 30% of gross household income, a percentage that is consistent with the average for Alameda County reported by the Census of 28.9% 1. While slightly above the average from the Census, the 30% factor was selected for consistency with the California American Community Survey. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

162 DRAFT Health and Safety Code standard for relating income to affordable rent levels 2. Selection of 30% produces a lower estimate of gross household income and lower resulting nexus conclusions than if the exact average from the Census at 28.9% were used; therefore, this represents a conservative approach for purposes of the nexus analysis. While leasing agents and landlords may permit rental payments to represent a slightly higher share of total income, use of the 30% factor, which is representative of the average, is appropriate. Further, many renters will choose to spend less than 30% of their income on rent where possible, since, unlike an ownership situation, the unit is not viewed as an investment with value enhancement potential. The resulting relationship is that annual household income is 3.3 times annual rent. The estimated gross household incomes of the renter of the typical new unit in Emeryville is: Annual Household Income of Renter Household: $99,000 The nexus analysis is conducted on 100-unit building modules for ease of presentation, and to avoid awkward fractions. Income Available for Expenditures The input into the IMPLAN model used in this analysis is the net income available for expenditures. To arrive at income available for expenditures, gross income must be adjusted for Federal and State income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, savings, and payments on household debt. Per KMA correspondence with the producers of the IMPLAN model (IMPLAN Group LLC), other taxes including sales tax, gas tax, and property tax are handled internally within the model as part of the analysis of expenditures. Table I-1 at the end of this section shows the calculation of income available for expenditures. Income available for expenditures is estimated at approximately 71% of gross income in the case of the rental units and the income of the renter households. The estimate is based on a review of data from the Internal Revenue Service and California Franchise Tax Board tax tables. After deducting income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, savings, and repayment of other debt, the estimated income available for expenditures is 71% or $70,300 per year. This is the factor used to adjust from gross income to the income available for expenditures for input into the IMPLAN model. As indicated above, other forms of taxation such as sales tax are handled internally within the IMPLAN model. The nexus analysis is conducted on 100-unit building modules for ease of presentation, and to avoid awkward fractions. Table I-2 summarizes the conclusions of this section and calculates the household income for the 100-unit building modules. Income available for expenditures for the 100 units is $7,030,000. This is the input into the IMPLAN model. 2 Health and Safety Code Section defines affordable rent levels based on 30% of income. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

163 TABLE I-1 INCOME AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURES RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT APARTMENT Gross Income 1 100% (Less) Federal Income Taxes (avg. rate) 2 9.5% (Less) Average State Income Tax Rate 3 4% (Less) FICA Tax Rate % (Less) Savings and other deductions 5 8% Percent of Income Available for 71% Expenditures 6 [Input to IMPLAN model] Notes: 1 Gross income after deduction of taxes and savings. Income available for expenditures is the input to the IMPLAN model which is used to estimate the resulting employment impacts. 2 Reflects average tax rates (as opposed to marginal) based on U.S. Internal Revenue Services, Tax Statistics, Table 3.2 Returns with Total Income Tax: Total Income Tax as a Percentage of Adjusted Gross Income, by Selected Marital Status and Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2011 (2011 tax year is the most recent available). Average tax rates apply of 9.5% applies to AGI of $75,000 to $100, Average tax rate estimated by KMA based on marginal rates per the California Franchise Tax Board and ratios of taxable income to gross income estimated based on U.S. Internal Revenue Service data. The higher average tax rates applicable to single or married filing separately tax filers is applied in the analysis so as to produce a conservative (likely understated) estimate. 4 For Social Security and Medicare. 5 6 Household savings including retirement accounts like 401k / IRA and other deductions such as interest costs on credit cards, auto loans, etc, necessary to determine the amount of income available for expenditures. The 8% rate used in the analysis is based on the average over the past 20 years computed from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, Table 2.1 "Personal Income and It's Disposition." Deductions from gross income to arrive at the income available for expenditures are consistent with the way the IMPLAN model and National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) defines income available for personal consumption expenditures. Income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, and savings are deducted; however, property taxes and sales taxes are not. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 7

164 DRAFT TABLE I-2 NEW MARKET RATE RENTAL HOUSEHOLD SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA APARTMENT PROTOTYPE 100 Unit Per Unit Per Sq.Ft. Building Module Units 100 Units Building Sq.Ft. (net rentable area) ,000 Rent Monthly $2,465 $2.90 /SF $247,000 Annual $29,580 $34.80 /SF $2,958,000 Rent to Income Ratio Gross Household Income $99,000 $9,900,000 Income Available for Expenditure 1 71% of gross $70,300 $7,030,000 Notes: (1) Represents net income available for expenditures after income tax, payroll taxes, and savings. See Table I-1 for derivation. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 8

165 DRAFT II. THE IMPLAN MODEL Consumer spending by residents of new housing units will create jobs, particularly in sectors such as restaurants, health care, and retail, which are closely connected to the expenditures of residents. The widely used economic analysis tool, IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning), was used to quantify these new jobs by industry sector. IMPLAN Model Description The IMPLAN model is an economic analysis software package now commercially available through the IMPLAN Group, LLC. IMPLAN was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and has been in use since 1979 and refined over time. It has become a widely used tool for analyzing economic impacts for a broad range of applications from major construction projects to natural resource programs. IMPLAN is based on an input-output accounting of commodity flows within an economy from producers to intermediate and final consumers. The model establishes a matrix of supply chain relationships between industries and also between households and the producers of household goods and services. Assumptions about the portion of inputs or supplies for a given industry likely to be met by local suppliers, and the portion supplied from outside the region or study area are derived internally within the model using data on the industrial structure of the region. The output or result of the model is generated by tracking changes in purchases for final use (final demand) as they filter through the supply chain. Industries that produce goods and services for final demand or consumption must purchase inputs from other producers, which in turn, purchase goods and services. The model tracks these relationships through the economy to the point where leakages from the region stop the cycle. This allows the user to identify how a change in demand for one industry will affect a list of over 400 other industry sectors. The projected response of an economy to a change in final demand can be viewed in terms of economic output, employment, or income. Data sets are available for each county and state, so the model can be tailored to the specific economic conditions of the region being analyzed. This analysis utilizes the data set for Alameda County. As will be discussed, much of the employment impact is in local-serving sectors, such as retail, eating and drinking establishments, and medical services. A significant portion of these jobs will be located in Emeryville or nearby. In addition, the employment impacts will extend throughout the County and beyond based on where jobs are located that serve Emeryville residents. In fact, Emeryville is part of the larger Bay Area economy and impacts will likewise extend throughout the region. However, consistent with the conservative approach taken in the nexus analysis, the analysis focuses on the impacts that occur within Alameda County. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

166 DRAFT Application of the IMPLAN Model to Estimate Job Growth The IMPLAN model was applied to link income to household expenditures to job growth. Employment generated by the expenditures of residents is analyzed for a module of 100 apartment units to simplify communication of the results and avoid awkward fractions. The IMPLAN model distributes spending among various types of goods and services (industry sectors) based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark input-output study, to estimate employment generated. The Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks expenditure patterns by income level. IMPLAN utilizes this data to reflect the pattern by income bracket. Job creation, driven by increased demand for products and services, was projected for each of the industries that will serve the new households. The employment generated by this new household spending is summarized below. Jobs Generated Per 100 Rental Units Apartment Annual Household Expenditures, 100 Units $7,030,000 Total Jobs Generated, 100 Units 47.9 Table II-1 provides a detailed summary of employment generated by industry. The table shows industries sorted by projected employment. Estimated employment is shown for each IMPLAN industry sector representing 1% or more of total employment. The jobs that are generated within the County are heavily retail jobs, jobs in restaurants and other eating establishments, and in services that are provided locally such as health care. The jobs counted in the IMPLAN model cover all jobs, full and part time, similar to the U.S. Census and all reporting agencies (unless otherwise indicated). Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

167 TABLE II-1 IMPLAN MODEL OUTPUT EMPLOYMENT GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT Per 100 Market Rate Units APARTMENT Gross Income of New Residents (in 100 Market Rate Units) 1 $7,030,000 % of Jobs Jobs Generated by Industry 2 Retail Stores - Food and beverage 1.7 4% Retail Stores - General merchandise 1.7 3% Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts 1.0 2% Retail Stores - Miscellaneous 1.0 2% Retail Stores - Clothing and accessories 1.0 2% Retail Stores - Health and personal care 0.7 1% Retail Stores - Building and garden supply 0.5 1% Retail Nonstores - Direct and electronic sales 0.5 1% Subtotal Retail % Offices of physicians and dentists 3.0 6% Private hospitals 2.6 5% Nursing and residential care facilities 1.9 4% Medical and diagnostic labs and outpatient care 0.7 2% Subtotal Health Care % Food services and drinking places % Real estate including property management 1.7 4% Private household operations 1.6 3% Wholesale trade businesses 1.3 3% Individual and family services 1.2 2% Civic, social, professional organizations 0.8 2% Other private educational services 0.8 2% Elementary and secondary schools 0.8 2% Personal care services 0.8 2% Employment services 0.7 2% Banking and depository credit 0.7 1% Home health care services 0.6 1% Securities, investments, and related 0.6 1% Automotive repair and maintenance 0.5 1% Services to buildings and dwellings 0.5 1% Child day care services 0.5 1% Grantmaking and social advocacy organizations 0.4 1% Colleges, universities, and professional schools % All Other Total Number of Jobs Generated % 1 Estimated employment generated by household expenditures within 100 prototypical market rate rental units. Employment estimates are based on the IMPLAN Group's economic model, IMPLAN, for Alameda County. 2 For Industries representing more than 1% of total employment. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 11

168 DRAFT III. THE KMA JOBS HOUSING NEXUS MODEL This section presents a summary of the analysis linking the employment growth associated with rental development, or the output of the IMPLAN model (see Section II), to the estimated number of lower income housing units required in each of three income categories. Analysis Approach and Framework The analysis approach is to examine the employment growth for industries related to consumer spending by residents in the 100-unit apartment buildings. Then, through a series of linkage steps, the number of employees is converted to households and housing units by affordability level. The findings are expressed in terms of numbers of affordable units per 100 market rate units. The analysis addresses the affordable unit demand associated with rental units in Alameda County. The table below shows the 2013 Alameda County Area Median Income (AMI), as well as the income limits for the three categories that were evaluated: Very Low (up to 50% of AMI), Low (50 to 80% of AMI), and Moderate (80 to 120% of AMI). The income definitions used in the analysis are those published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits for Alameda County Household Size (Persons) Very Low (30% - 50% AMI) $32,750 $37,400 $42,100 $46,750 $50,500 $54,250 Low (50%-80% AMI) $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,250 $71,550 $76,850 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $78,550 $89,750 $101,000 $112,200 $130,150 $139,150 Median (100% of Median) $65,450 $74,800 $84,150 $93,500 $101,000 $108,450 The analysis is conducted using a model that KMA developed and has applied to similar evaluations in many other jurisdictions. The model inputs are all local data to the extent possible, and are fully documented in the following description. Analysis Steps The tables at the end of this section present a summary of the nexus analysis steps for the prototype units. Following is a description of each step of the analysis. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

169 DRAFT Step 1 Estimate of Total New Employees Table III-1 commences with the total number of employees associated with the new market rate rental units. The employees were estimated based on household expenditures of new residents using the IMPLAN model (see Section II). Step 2 Changing Industries Adjustment and Net New Jobs The local economy, like that of the U.S. as a whole, is constantly evolving. In the Oakland Fremont Hayward Metropolitan Division (defined as Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), over the past twenty years, employment in manufacturing sectors of the economy has continued to decline along with employment in State and Federal government, telecommunications, and banking. Defense related employment has also declined from around 12,000 jobs twenty years ago to near zero today. Jobs lost over the last decade in these declining sectors were replaced by job growth in other industry sectors. Step 2 makes an adjustment to take these declines, changes and shifts within all sectors of the economy into account recognizing that jobs added are not 100% net new in all cases. A 25% adjustment is utilized based on the long term shifts in employment that have occurred in some sectors of the local economy and the likelihood of continuing changes in the future. Long term declines in employment experienced in some sectors of the economy mean that some of the new jobs are being filled by workers that have been displaced from another industry and who are presumed to already have housing locally. Existing workers downsized from declining industries are assumed to be available to fill a portion of the new retail, restaurant, health care, and other jobs associated with services to residents. This is a conservative assumption given some displaced workers may exit the workforce entirely by retiring rather than seek a new job in one of the industries serving new residents. The 25% downward adjustment used for purposes of the analysis was derived from California Employment Development Department data on employment by industry in Alameda and Contra Costa County over the twenty year period from 2012 to The 2012 data set reflects a higher unemployment rate at 9% than the 6.6% unemployment rate in 1992 which will tend to overstate any long term declines since the 2012 data also reflects some cyclical or short term declines relative to the 1992 employment data. Over this period, approximately 38,000 jobs were lost in declining industry sectors. Over the same period, growing and stable industries added a total of 158,000 jobs. Figures are adjusted to exclude losses in department of defense employment given there are almost no defense jobs left in the area and so continuing declines in this sector is not expected to be a factor in the in the future. The figures are used to establish a ratio between jobs lost in declining industries to jobs gained in growing and stable industries at 25% 3. The 25% factor is applied as an adjustment in the analysis, effectively assuming one in 3 The 25% ratio is calculated as 38,000 jobs lost in declining sectors excluding defense divided by 158,000 jobs gained in growing and stable sectors = 23.9% (rounded to 25%). Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

170 DRAFT every four new jobs is filled by a worker down-sized from a declining industry and who already lives locally. Step 3 Adjustment from Employees to Employee Households This step (Table III-1) converts the number of employees to the number of employee households, recognizing that there is, on average, more than one worker per household, and thus the number of housing units in demand for new workers is reduced. The workers-perworker-household ratio eliminates from the equation all non-working households, such as retired persons, students, and those on public assistance. The County average of 1.61 workers per worker household (from the U. S. Census Bureau American Community Survey) is used for this step in the analysis. The number of jobs is divided by 1.61 to determine the number of worker households. This ratio is distinguished from the overall number of workers per household in that the denominator includes only households with at least one worker. If the average number of workers in all households were used, it would have produced a greater demand for housing units. The 1.61 ratio covers all workers, full and part time. Step 4 Occupational Distribution of Employees The occupational breakdown of employees is the first step to arrive at income level. The output from the IMPLAN model provides the number of employees by industry sector, shown in Table II-1. The IMPLAN output is paired with data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2012 Occupational Employment Survey (OES) to estimate the occupational composition of employees for each industry sector. Step 4a - Translation from IMPLAN Industry Codes to NAICS Industry Codes The output of the IMPLAN model is jobs by industry sector using IMPLAN s own industry classification system which consists of 440 industry sectors. The OES occupation data uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Estimates of jobs by IMPLAN sector must be translated into estimates by NAICS code for consistency with the OES data. The NAICS system is organized into industry codes ranging from two- to six-digits. Two-digit codes are the broadest industry categories and six-digit codes are the most specific. Within a two-digit NAICS code, there may be several three-digit codes and within each three digit code, several four-digit codes, etc. A chart published by IMPLAN relates each IMPLAN industry sector with one or more NAICS codes, with matching NAICS codes ranging from the two-digit level to the five-digit level. For purposes of the nexus analysis, all employment estimates must be aggregated to the four digit NAICS code level to align with OES data which is organized by fourdigit NAICS code. For some industry sectors, an allocation is necessary between more than one four-digit NAICS code. Where required, allocations are made proportionate to total employment at the national level from the OES. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

171 DRAFT The table below illustrates analysis Step 4a in which employment estimates by IMPLAN Code are translated to NAICS codes and then aggregated at the four digit NAICS code level. The examples used are Child Day Care Centers and Food and Drinking Places. The process is applied to all the industry sectors. Illustration of Model Step 4a. A. IMPLAN Output by IMPLAN Industry Sector B. Link to Corresponding NAICS Code Jobs IMPLAN Sector Jobs NAICS Code Jobs C. Aggregate at 4-Digit NAICS Code Level % Total Employment 4-Digit NAICS Child day care services Child day care services % 6244 Child day care services Food and Drinking Places Food and Drinking Places % 7225 Restaurants and Other Eating Places % 7223 Special Food Services % 7224 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Step 4b Apply OES Data to Estimate Occupational Distribution Employment estimates by four-digit NAICS code from step 4a are paired with data on occupational composition within each industry from the OES to generate an estimate of employment by detailed occupational category. As shown on Table III-1, new jobs will be distributed across a variety of occupational categories. The three largest occupational categories are office and administrative support (16%), sales (15%), and food preparation and serving (14%-15%). Step 4 of Table III-1 indicates the percentage and number of employee households by occupation associated with 100 market rate rental units. Step 5 Estimates of Employee Households Meeting the Lower Income Definitions In this step, occupations are translated to employee incomes based on recent Alameda County wage and salary information from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The wage and salary information summarized in Appendix B provided the income inputs to the model. For each occupational category shown in Table III-1, the OES data provides a distribution of specific occupations within the category. For example, within the Food Preparation and Serving Category, there are Supervisors, Cooks, Bartenders, Waiters and Waitresses, Dishwashers, etc. In total there are over 100 detailed occupation categories included in the analysis as shown Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

172 DRAFT in Appendix B. Each of these over 100 occupation categories has a different distribution of wages which was obtained from EDD and is specific to workers in Alameda County as of For each detailed occupational category, the model uses the distribution of wages to calculate the percent of worker households that would fall into each income category. The calculation is performed for each possible combination of household size and number of workers in the household. For households with more than one worker, individual employee income data was used to calculate the household income by assuming multiple earner households are, on average, formed of individuals with similar incomes. The table below illustrates Step 5 as applied to food preparation and serving workers. Annual compensation for food preparation and serving workers in Alameda County as of 2013 is distributed 4 around a mean of $21,500. For households with one worker, 100% are estimated to qualify as Very Low. For households with two or more workers between 37% and 100% are estimated to qualify as Very Low depending on the household size. For households with three or more workers, only larger households with than six or more people are estimated to qualify as Very Low. Step 5 Illustration for Food Preparation and Serving Worker Households Percent Qualifying as Very Low for Each Possible Household Size / No. of Workers Combination Percent of Worker Households That Would Qualify as Very Low For Each Possible Combination of Household Size and No. of Workers Applying 2013 Income Limits for Alameda County HH Size 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person Limit $32,750 $37,400 $42,100 $46,750 $50,500 $54,250 No. Workers in Household 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 N/A 37% 61% 77% 100% 100% 3 or more 5 N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 21% The step illustrated above is repeated around 300 times for each of the over 100 detailed occupations and at each of the three affordable income tiers. At the end of Step 5, the nexus model has established a matrix indicating the percentages of households that would qualify in the affordable income tiers for every detailed occupational category and every potential combination of household size and number of workers in the household. Step 6 Distribution of Household Size and Number of Workers In this step, the model examines the demographics of Alameda County in order to develop probability factors for each potential combination of household size and number of workers. 4 In addition to the mean compensation, EDD reported 25 th, 50 th, and 75 th percentile compensations are utilized. 5 Census data aggregates households with three or more workers; therefore, a corresponding aggregation is necessary for purposes of the analysis. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

173 DRAFT The table below presents the probability factors used in the model. The factors represent the probability that a worker is a member of a household of a given size and number of workers. Step 6: Probability Factors for Combinations of Number of Workers and Household Size Household Size (Persons) No. Workers in Household N/A or more N/A N/A Note: probability factors sum to Probability factors are specific to Alameda County and are derived from the American Community Survey. Application of these probability factors accounts for the following: Households have a range in size and a range in the number of workers. Large households generally have more workers than smaller households. The result of Step 6 is a distribution of Alameda County working households by number of workers and household size. Step 7 Estimate of Number of Households that Meet Size and Income Criteria Step 7 is the final step to calculate the number of worker households meeting the size and income criteria for the three affordability tiers. The calculation combines the matrix of results from Step 5 on percentage of worker households that would meet the income criteria at each potential household size / no. of workers combination, with Step 6, the probability of a worker household having a given household size / number of workers combination. The result is the percentage of households that fall into each affordability tier. The percentages are then multiplied by the number of households from Step 3 to arrive at number of households in each affordability tier. Tables III-2a through III-2d show the result after completing Steps 5, 6, and 7 for each income tier. Summary Findings Table III-3 indicates the results of the analysis. The table presents the number of households generated in each affordability category and the total number over 120% of Area Median Income. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

174 DRAFT The findings in Table III-3 are presented below. The table shows the total demand for affordable housing units associated with 100 market rate rental units. New Worker Households by Income Level per 100 Market Rate Apartment Units Very Low (Under 50% AMI) 8.6 Low Income (50%-80% AMI) 4.6 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) 5.0 Total, Less than 120% AMI 18.2 Greater than 120% AMI 4.2 Total, New Households 22.3 Housing demand for new worker households earning less than 120% of AMI is 18.2 units for every 100 market rate apartments in Emeryville. Housing demand is distributed across the lower income tiers with the greatest number of households in the under 50% of AMI tier. The finding that the jobs associated with consumer spending tend to be low-paying jobs where the workers will require housing affordable at the lower income levels is not surprising. As noted above, direct consumer spending results in employment that is concentrated in lower paid occupations including food preparation, administrative, and retail sales. See Appendix B for detail. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

175 TABLE III-1 NET NEW HOUSEHOLDS AND OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT APARTMENT Step 1 - Employees Step 2 - Adjustment for Changing Industries (25%) 35.9 Step 3 - Adjustment for Number of Households (1.61) Step 4 - Occupation Distribution Management Occupations 4.0% Business and Financial Operations 3.5% Computer and Mathematical 1.2% Architecture and Engineering 0.3% Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.3% Community and Social Services 2.0% Legal 0.6% Education, Training, and Library 3.3% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 1.6% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 8.3% Healthcare Support 4.8% Protective Service 1.3% Food Preparation and Serving Related 15.1% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint. 5.8% Personal Care and Service 5.5% Sales and Related 15.1% Office and Administrative Support 15.6% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.1% Construction and Extraction 0.8% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 3.6% Production 1.7% Transportation and Material Moving 5.4% Totals 100.0% Notes: 1 2 Management Occupations 0.9 Business and Financial Operations 0.8 Computer and Mathematical 0.3 Architecture and Engineering 0.1 Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.1 Community and Social Services 0.4 Legal 0.1 Education, Training, and Library 0.7 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 0.4 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 1.9 Healthcare Support 1.1 Protective Service 0.3 Food Preparation and Serving Related 3.4 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint. 1.3 Personal Care and Service 1.2 Sales and Related 3.4 Office and Administrative Support 3.5 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.0 Construction and Extraction 0.2 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 0.8 Production 0.4 Transportation and Material Moving 1.2 Totals 22.3 Estimated employment generated by household expenditures within 100 prototypical market rate units. Employment estimates based on economic model, IMPLAN. Adjustment from number of workers to households using average of 1.61 workers per worker household derived from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 2010 to Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 19

176 DRAFT TABLE III-2a VERY LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS 1 GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Per 100 Market Rate Units APARTMENT Step 5 & 6 - Very Low Income Households (under 50% AMI) within Major Occupation Categories 2 Management 0.01 Business and Financial Operations 0.01 Computer and Mathematical - Architecture and Engineering - Life, Physical and Social Science - Community and Social Services - Legal - Education Training and Library 0.13 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media - Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 0.01 Healthcare Support 0.41 Protective Service - Food Preparation and Serving Related 2.46 Building Grounds and Maintenance 0.57 Personal Care and Service 0.74 Sales and Related 1.72 Office and Admin 0.91 Farm, Fishing, and Forestry - Construction and Extraction - Installation Maintenance and Repair 0.12 Production - Transportation and Material Moving 0.51 Very Low Income Households - Major Occupations 7.59 Very Low Inc. Households 1 - all other occupations 1.05 Total Very Low Income Households Includes households earning from zero through 50% of Alameda County Area Median Income. 2 See Appendix B for additional information on occupations and wage data. Note that the model places individual employees into households. Many households have multiple income sources and therefore household income is higher than the wages shown in Appendix B Table 1. The distribution of the number of workers per worker household and the distribution of household size are based on American Community Survey data. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 20

177 DRAFT TABLE III-2b LOW-INCOME EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS 1 GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Per 100 Market Rate Units APARTMENT Step 5 & 6 - Low Income Households (50% - 80% AMI) within Major Occupation Categories 2 Management 0.03 Business and Financial Operations 0.06 Computer and Mathematical - Architecture and Engineering - Life, Physical and Social Science - Community and Social Services - Legal - Education Training and Library 0.16 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media - Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 0.06 Healthcare Support 0.28 Protective Service - Food Preparation and Serving Related 0.67 Building Grounds and Maintenance 0.35 Personal Care and Service 0.29 Sales and Related 0.74 Office and Admin 0.89 Farm, Fishing, and Forestry - Construction and Extraction - Installation Maintenance and Repair 0.16 Production - Transportation and Material Moving 0.32 Low Income Households - Major Occupations 4.01 Low Inc. Households 1 - all other occupations 0.55 Low Income Households Includes households earning from 50% through 80% of Alameda County Area Median Income. 2 See Appendix B for additional information on occupations and wage data. Note that the model places individual employees into households. Many households have multiple income sources and therefore household income is higher than the wages shown in Appendix B Table 1. The distribution of the number of workers per worker household and the distribution of household size are based on American Community Survey data. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 21

178 DRAFT TABLE III-2c MODERATE INCOME EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS 1 GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Per 100 Market Rate Units APARTMENT Step 5 & 6 - Moderate Income Households (80-120% AMI) within Major Occupation Categories 2 Management 0.18 Business and Financial Operations 0.25 Computer and Mathematical - Architecture and Engineering - Life, Physical and Social Science - Community and Social Services - Legal - Education Training and Library 0.27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media - Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 0.33 Healthcare Support 0.31 Protective Service - Food Preparation and Serving Related 0.16 Building Grounds and Maintenance 0.30 Personal Care and Service 0.15 Sales and Related 0.66 Office and Admin 1.16 Farm, Fishing, and Forestry - Construction and Extraction - Installation Maintenance and Repair 0.31 Production - Transportation and Material Moving 0.28 Moderate Income Households - Major Occupations 4.35 Moderate Inc. Households 1 - all other occupations 0.60 Total Moderate Income Households Includes households earning from 80% through 120% of Alameda County Area Median Income. 2 See Appendix B for additional information on occupations and wage data. Note that the model places individual employees into households. Many households have multiple income sources and therefore household income is higher than the wages shown in Appendix B Table 1. The distribution of the number of workers per worker household and the distribution of household size are based on American Community Survey data. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 22

179 TABLE III-2d ABOVE MODERATE INCOME EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS 1 GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Per 100 Market Rate Units DRAFT APARTMENT Step 5 & 6 - Above Moderate Income Households (over 120% AMI) within Major Occupation Categories 2 Management 0.66 Business and Financial Operations 0.46 Computer and Mathematical - Architecture and Engineering - Life, Physical and Social Science - Community and Social Services - Legal - Education Training and Library 0.15 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media - Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 1.40 Healthcare Support 0.04 Protective Service - Food Preparation and Serving Related 0.00 Building Grounds and Maintenance 0.03 Personal Care and Service 0.02 Sales and Related 0.18 Office and Admin 0.45 Farm, Fishing, and Forestry - Construction and Extraction - Installation Maintenance and Repair 0.19 Production - Transportation and Material Moving 0.06 Above Moderate Inc. Households - Major Occupations 3.67 Above Moderate Inc. Households 1 - all other occupations 0.51 Total Above Moderate Income Households Includes households earning above 120% of Alameda County Area Median Income. 2 See Appendix B for additional information on occupations and wage data. Note that the model places individual employees into households. Many households have multiple income sources and therefore household income is higher than the wages shown in Appendix B Table 1. The distribution of the number of workers per worker household and the distribution of household size are based on American Community Survey data. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 23

180 DRAFT TABLE III-3 IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS GENERATED RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEMAND IMPACTS PER 100 MARKET RATE UNITS Number of New Households 1 APARTMENT Under 50% Area Median Income % to 80% Area Median Income % to 120% Area Median Income 5.0 Subtotal through 120% of Median 18.2 Over 120% Area Median Income 4.2 Total Employee Households 22.3 Percent of New Households 1 Under 50% Area Median Income 39% 50% to 80% Area Median Income 20% 80% to 120% Area Median Income 22% Subtotal through 120% of Median 81% Over 120% Area Median Income 19% Total Employee Households 100% Notes 1 Households of retail, education, healthcare and other workers that serve residents of new market rate units. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 24

181 DRAFT IV. MITIGATION COSTS This section takes the conclusions of the previous section on the number of households in the lower income categories associated with the market rate units and identifies the total cost of assistance required to make housing affordable. This section puts a cost on the units for each income level to produce the total nexus cost. A key component of the analysis is the size of the gap between what households can afford and the cost of producing new housing in Emeryville known as the affordability gap. Affordability gaps are calculated for each of the three categories of area median income: Very Low (under 50% of median), Low (50% to 80%), and Moderate (80% to 120%). The following summarizes the analysis of mitigation cost which is based on the affordability gap or net cost to deliver units that are affordable to worker households in the lower income tiers. Detailed affordability gap calculations are presented in Tables IV-1 through IV-3 at the end of this section. For housing impact fee application, or any kind of fee in lieu of onsite units within a project, the concept is that the units will be built in Emeryville with assistance from the City by an affordable housing developer, mostly likely a non-profit housing developer. As a result, the unit and development cost may not be exactly the same as the market rate product in the same city. City Assisted Affordable Unit Prototypes For estimating the affordability gap, there is a need to match a household of each income level with a unit type and size according to governmental regulations and City practices and policies. For the Very Low and Low Income tiers, the assumption is that households would be accommodated in rental units. Moderate Income households are assumed accommodated in condominiums or other type ownership unit. KMA reviewed the development program for several recent affordable rental developments assisted by the Cities of Emeryville and Oakland, and concluded that, on average, the new affordable rental units have 2.0 bedrooms. The affordable ownership units are assumed to be small condominium units with a mix of unit sizes averaging 1.5 bedrooms per unit. The analysis assumes 4% tax credit financing for the Very Low income units only. The City of Emeryville recently assisted with the development of the Ambassador, a 68-unit apartment project targeted to Very Low income households completed by Resources for Community Development in early KMA reviewed the development pro forma for this project to inform the affordability gap analysis. In addition, KMA reviewed the development cost experience of several recent affordable developments in Oakland. KMA also drew from our extensive experience with affordable housing development throughout the Bay Area to ensure that the development program and costs experienced by the Ambassador project are fairly typical, and therefore appropriate for use as a prototype going forward. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

182 DRAFT Affordable Rent Levels Affordable rent levels are a function of the income level for which the unit is aimed to be affordable; affordable rent levels are estimated by KMA in accordance with the City s methodology and the tax credit program, as appropriate For the Very Low income unit, the maximum rents published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee were utilized. The published rents include utilities, so KMA subtracted out a utility allowance based on those utilized in the Ambassador project. The two-bedroom Very Low Income unit is assumed to rent for $959 per month, after utilities. See Table IV-1 for more detail on the calculation of this rent level. For the Low Income unit, the maximum affordable rent was calculated based on the City s standard of 30% of household income available for rent and utilities. Per the City s direction, household income for the purposes of setting the rent is assumed to equal 80% of median, which is the maximum income for the Low Income category (this creates a conservative estimate of the affordability gap). Household size is determined by the number of bedrooms plus one, so the two-bedroom unit is assumed to be occupied by a three-person household. KMA calculated the gross rents based on the 2013 California Housing and Community Development Department s (HCD) income limits, and used the same utility allowance as the Very Low income units. In the table below, the affordable rents for the Low Income category are calculated. Calculation of Affordable Rents: Low Income 2 Bedroom Area Median Income (AMI), 3-Person Household $84,150 Household 80% of AMI $67,320 Maximum Housing Cost (30% of Monthly Household Income) $1,683 Utility Allowance $ (44) Affordable Rent Net of Utilities $1,639 For more information on the calculation of this rent level, see Table IV-2. The rent level as defined above (by unit size and income category) governs what the building owner may charge for a particular Low Income unit. Affordable Sales Price For the condominium affordable to Moderate Income households, KMA calculated the affordable sales price for the average 1.5 bedroom unit using the City of Emeryville s 2013 affordable sales prices. Per the City s direction, the affordable sales price is targeted to a household earning 110% of median; this is less than the maximum income level for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

183 DRAFT Moderate Income category (120% of median) but consistent with many state and local programs, including the former redevelopment program. The City calculates the affordable sales prices by bedroom size. Because the condominium units average 1.5 bedrooms, KMA took the midpoint between the 1-bedroom and the 2- bedroom sales price. The maximum affordable sales price for a 1.5 bedroom unit at 110% of Area Median Income is $285,000. Affordability Gaps In a nexus study, the affordability gap is the amount of subsidy dollars required to bridge the difference between total development costs and the value of the affordable unit. The unit value of an affordable rental unit is calculated by capitalizing the net operating income generated by the unit. The unit value of an affordable ownership unit is the affordable sales price. For the Very Low income units, the affordability gap is calculated slightly differently because we assume that these units will receive tax credit financing. For these units, KMA estimates the total sources of funds (including permanent debt, tax credits and a deferred developer fee) and compares that to the total development costs; the difference is the affordability gap, or the amount of additional subsidy dollars necessary to make the project feasible. a. Development Costs For the purposes of the nexus analysis, KMA prepared an estimate of total development cost for typical affordable rental units. Total development costs include land, direct construction, all fees and permits, financing and other indirect costs, including profit. KMA drew this estimate from the development pro forma for the Ambassador project, a recent affordable rental development in Emeryville with total development costs of $400,000 per unit. KMA also reviewed the development cost experience of several recent affordable housing projects in Oakland; those projects all had higher development costs, in the $450,000 - $550,000 range per unit. KMA concluded that the experience of the Ambassador project is a reasonable, and perhaps conservative, estimate of total development costs. The City has not recently assisted with the development of affordable condominium units. For the purposes of this analysis, therefore, KMA uses an estimate of the market rate sales price for new condominium units in Emeryville as a proxy for total development costs. However, no new market rate condominiums have been developed recently in Emeryville (the Bridgewater project is the only condominium project currently being marketed, although that project is a conversion from rental units). KMA reviewed the development program for two recent condominium projects in Oakland Uptown Place and Broadway Grand to approximate a new condominium in Emeryville. In addition, KMA gathered resale data for the Vue 46 project in Emeryville, which are condominiums that were built in From this market research, KMA estimates that a 1.5- bedroom condominium unit in Emeryville would have a development cost of $400,000. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

184 DRAFT For many new developments, particularly City-assisted developments, total development costs could be higher than those estimated here. The conservative estimate of development costs results in a lower supportable nexus amount. b. Unit Values To calculate the value of the restricted rental units, KMA first estimated the Net Operating Income generated by the units. The first step is to convert monthly gross rent to an annual gross rent by multiplying by 12. Annual gross rent is then adjusted for vacancy rates during turnover, and then operating costs are netted out. Lost income due to vacancy is estimated at 5% of gross rents. Operating costs cover management, property taxes, and certain other expenses. Based on KMA s experience reviewing operating budgets for affordable apartment projects proposed or built in the local area, the operating expenses are estimated at $6,000 per unit per year including replacement reserves but excluding property taxes. Property taxes are estimated at 1.25% of the unit s capitalized value (Very Low income units are assumed to be owned by a non-profit general partner and therefore exempt from property taxes). Net Operating Income is calculated by netting out vacancy, operating costs and property taxes from the gross income generated by the unit. For the Low Income units, the Net Operating Income is capitalized at 7.5% to estimate the value of the restricted units. The Low Income two-bedroom unit has a capitalized value of $145,000. For the Very Low Income units, the Net Operating Income is used to estimate the amount of permanent debt the project can support, given conservative underwriting assumptions. Additional sources of funds include the market value of 4% tax credits (estimated based on the Ambassador project in Emeryville) and the deferred developer fee. Altogether, these Sources of Funds total $187,500. For the Moderate Income units, the unit value is the affordable sales price, or $285,000. The results are summarized below and shown in Tables IV-1, IV-2 and IV-3. Supported Unit Values/Affordable Price Net Operating Income Unit Value Very Low Income $5,218 per year $187,500 * Low Income $10,880 per year $145,000 Moderate Income n/a $285,000 The affordable units do not generate enough value to cover the total development costs of the unit. The resulting gap between unit value and development costs is referred to as the Affordability Gap. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

185 DRAFT c. Affordability Gaps The affordability gap conclusions are presented in Tables IV-1, IV-2 and IV-3, and summarized below. Affordability Gaps Income Level Unit Value Development Cost Affordability Gap Very Low Income Low Income $187,500 $145,000 $400,000 $400,000 $212,500 $255,000 Moderate Income $285,000 $400,000 $115,000 These affordability gaps represent the mitigation cost to the City per affordable unit, by income level. They are entered into the nexus analysis to calculate the maximum supported impact fees. Total Linkage Costs The last step in the linkage fee analysis marries the findings on the numbers of households in each of the lower income ranges associated with the 100 market rate apartment units to the affordability gaps, or the costs of delivering housing to them in Emeryville. Table IV-4 summarizes the analysis. The Affordability Gaps are drawn from the prior discussion. The Total Nexus Cost per Market Rate Unit shows the results of the following calculation: the affordability gap times the number of affordable units demanded per market rate unit. (Demand for affordable units for each of the income ranges is drawn from Table III-3 in the previous section and is adjusted to a per-unit basis from the 100 unit building module.) The total nexus costs for apartment rental units are as follows: Nexus Per Market Rate Unit and for 100 Units Income Category Affordability Gap Number of 100 Units Per Unit Units Total Very Low (0% - 50% AMI) $212, $18,300 $1,827,500 Low (50%-80% AMI) $255, $11,600 $1,173,000 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $115, $5,700 $575,000 Total Nexus Costs $35,600 $3,575,000 The Total Nexus Costs, or Mitigation Costs, indicated above, may also be expressed on a per square foot level. The square foot area of the prototype unit used throughout the analysis becomes the basis for the calculation. The results per square foot are as follows: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

186 DRAFT Total Nexus Cost Per Net Sq. Ft. Income Category Affordability Gap Apartment Prototype Size 850 SF Very Low (0% - 50% AMI) $212,500 $21.53 Low (50%-80% AMI) $255,000 $13.65 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $115,000 $6.71 Total Nexus Costs $41.88 Note: Costs presented are based on net rentalable square footage. To convert the findings from net rentable square feet to gross building area, a building efficiency factor would need to be applied to account for exterior hallways and other non-rentable areas. These costs express the total linkage or nexus costs for the new market rate apartment developments in the City of Emeryville. These total nexus costs represent the ceiling for any requirement placed on market rate rental development. The totals are not recommended levels for fees; they represent only the maximums established by this analysis, below which fees or other requirements may be set. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (residential).docx

187 DRAFT TABLE IV-1 AFFORDABILITY GAP: VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AFTER 4% TAX CREDIT FINANCING RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. Affordable Rent Average Number of Bedrooms (1) 50% AMI 2 Bedrooms Maximum Rent per CTCAC $1,003 (Less) Utility Allowance (2) ($44) Maximum Monthly Rent per CTCAC $959 II. Net Operating Income (NOI) Per Unit Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) Monthly $959 Annual $11,508 Other Income $300 (Less) Vacancy 5% ($590) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $11,218 (Less) Operating Expenses (3) ($6,000) (Less) Property Taxes 1.25% exempt (4) Net Operating Income (NOI) $5,218 III. Capitalized Value and Affordability Gap I. Net Operating Income (NOI) $5,218 II. Sources of Funds Supportable Debt $63,000 Market Value of 4% Tax Credits $121,000 Deferred Developer Fee $3,500 III. Total Sources of Funds $187,500 IV. (Less) Total Development Costs (5) ($400,000) V. Affordability Gap ($212,500) (1) Average unit size based on the Ambassador project. (2) Utility allowances from Alameda County Housing Authority. (3) Includes replacement reserves. (4) Assumes non-profit general partner. (5) Development costs based on the Ambassador affordable project (includes prevailing wages). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Affordability Gaps ; VL rentals with TC Page 31

188 DRAFT TABLE IV-2 AFFORDABILITY GAP: LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. Affordable Rent 60% AMI (1) 80% AMI Average Number of Bedrooms (2) 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms Average Household Size 3 Persons per HH 3 Persons per HH Household Income $50,490 $67,320 Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% Monthly Housing Cost $1,262 $1,683 (Less) Utility Allowance ($44) ($44) (3) Maximum Monthly Rent $1,218 $1,639 II. Net Operating Income (NOI) Per Unit Per Unit Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) Monthly $1,218 $1,639 Annual $14,619 $19,668 Other Income $300 $300 (Less) Vacancy 5% ($746) ($998) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $14,173 $18,970 (Less) Operating Expenses (4) ($6,000) ($6,000) (Less) Property Taxes 1.25% ($1,320) ($2,090) Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,853 $10,880 III. Capitalized Value and Affordability Gap I. Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,853 $10,880 II. Target Return on Investment 7.50% 7.50% III. Total Capitalized Value $91,000 $145,000 IV. (Less) Total Development Costs (5) ($400,000) ($400,000) V. Affordability Gap ($309,000) ($255,000) gap with AMI used in the analysis (1) The California Health and Safety code standard sets rent levels for Low Income households at 60% of AMI. The Emeryville nexus analysis calculates the affordability gap assuming rents are set at 80% of AMI. This is a conservative assumption, as it results in a lower affordability gap and lower resulting maximum supported fee levels. (2) Average unit size based on the Ambassador project. (3) Utility allowances from Alameda County Housing Authority. (4) Includes replacement reserves. (5) Development costs based on the Ambassador affordable project (includes prevailing wages). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Affordability Gaps ; rentals - Low Page 32

189 DRAFT TABLE IV-3 AFFORDABILITY GAP: MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. City-Assisted Affordable For-Sale Prototype Building Type Density Multi-family Condominiums 80 du/ac Number of Bedrooms 1.5 Unit Size 1,000 SF II. Affordable Sales Price III. Affordability Gap Market Rate Sale Price $400,000 Household Size 2.5 person HH 110% of Median Income $79,475 Maximum Affordable Sales Price (1) $285,000 Market Rate Sale Price $400,000 (Less) Affordable Price ($285,000) Affordability Gap $115,000 (1) Based on City of Emeryville's methodology and assumptions, adjusted for household size. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Affordability Gaps ; Mod for sale Page 33

190 TABLE IV-4 SUPPORTED FEE / NEXUS SUMMARY PER UNIT RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT TOTAL NEXUS COST PER MARKET RATE UNIT 4 Household Income Level Affordability Gap APARTMENT Under 50% Area Median Income $212,000 1 $18,300 50% to 80% Area Median Income $255,000 2 $11,600 80% to 120% Area Median Income $115,000 3 $5,700 Total Supported Fee / Nexus $35,600 TOTAL NEXUS COST PER SQUARE FOOT 5 Unit Size (SF) APARTMENT 850 SF Household Income Level Under 50% Area Median Income $ % to 80% Area Median Income $ % to 120% Area Median Income $6.71 Total Supported Fee / Nexus $41.88 Notes: 1 Assumes rental units. Represents the remaining affordability gap after 4% tax credits. 2 Affordability gap based on rental unit and computed based on rents affordable to the top of the income tier at 80% AMI, producing a lower affordability gap than would result from applying the Health and Safety code standard for setting rents at 60% AMI for Low-Income rental units. 3 Affordability gap for moderate income households based on ownership units priced at 110% AMI. 4 Nexus cost per unit computed by multiplying affordable unit demand per 100 units from Table III-4 by the affordability gap and dividing by 100 units. 5 Computed by dividing the nexus cost per unit by the square footage of the unit. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Residential Nexus model; 3/19/2014; dd Page 34

191 DRAFT APPENDIX TABLES

192 APPENDIX A ASKING APARTMENT RENTS CITY OF EMERYVILLE DRAFT Sq. Ft. Low Rent High Rent Low $/Sf High $/SF Avenue Christie Avenue Studio BD/ 1 BA 714 $2,127 $3,237 $2.98 $ BD/ 1 BA 789 $2,215 $3,252 $2.81 $ BD/ 1 BA 863 $2,555 $3,625 $2.96 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,073 2 BD/ 2 BA 1,073 $3,002 $4,154 $2.80 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,340 3 BD/ 2 BA 1, $2,475 $3,567 $2.89 $4.18 Archstone Emeryville 6401 Shellmound St Studio 486 $1,491 $1,491 $3.07 $3.07 Studio 530 $1,628 $1,628 $3.07 $3.07 Studio 575 $1,654 $1,683 $2.88 $2.93 Studio 635 $1,819 $1,819 $2.86 $ BD/ 1 BA 695 $1,965 $2,085 $2.83 $ BD/ 1 BA 935 $2,501 $2,651 $2.67 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,204 3 BD/ 2 BA 1,120 $2,890 $2,926 $2.58 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,168 $2,972 $2,972 $2.54 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,340 $3,186 $3,186 $2.38 $ $2,234 $2,271 $2.77 $2.81 Bridgecourt Apartment Homes th St 1 BD/ 1 BA 554 $1,600 $1,600 $2.89 $ BD/ 1 BA 788 $1,700 $1,700 $2.16 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,015 $2,000 $2,000 $1.97 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,179 $2,700 $2,700 $2.29 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,088 $2,000 $2,000 $1.84 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,268 $2,700 $2,700 $2.13 $ $2,117 $2,117 $2.21 $2.21 Bay Street Apartments by Windsor 5684 Bay St 1 BD/ 1 BA 714 $2,120 $3,235 $2.97 $ BD/ 1 BA 895 $2,465 $3,120 $2.75 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,033 $2,545 $3,720 $2.46 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,039 $2,790 $3,390 $2.69 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,036 $2,940 $3,540 $2.84 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,424 $3,290 $4,440 $2.31 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,250 $3,315 $4,140 $2.65 $3.31 1,056 $2,781 $3,655 $2.67 $3.53 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Apartment Rents Page 36

193 DRAFT Sq. Ft. Low Rent High Rent Low $/Sf High $/SF Icon at Doyle 5540 Doyle St 1 BD/ 1 BA 810 $2,013 $2,013 $2.49 $ BD/ 1 BA 890 $2,017 $2,017 $2.27 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,025 $2,142 $2,142 $2.09 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,275 $2,100 $2,100 $1.65 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,250 $3,154 $3,154 $2.52 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,290 $3,158 $3,193 $2.45 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,450 $3,190 $3,190 $2.20 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,600 $3,293 $3,293 $2.06 $2.06 1,199 $2,633 $2,638 $2.21 $2.22 Icon at Park 1401 Park Ave 1 BD/ 1 BA 735 $1,981 $2,081 $2.70 $ BD/ 1 BA 745 $2,092 $2,287 $2.81 $ BD/ 1 BA 840 $2,050 $2,050 $2.44 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,000 $2,625 $2,725 $2.63 $ BD/ 1 BA 960 $1,976 $1,976 $2.06 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,125 $2,340 $2,340 $2.08 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,380 $2,349 $2,349 $1.70 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,490 $2,371 $2,371 $1.59 $ BD/ 1 BA 1,145 $2,261 $2,261 $1.97 $ BD/ 1.5 BA 1,160 $2,237 $2,237 $1.93 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,240 $2,456 $2,456 $1.98 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,330 $2,995 $2,995 $2.25 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,662 $3,437 $3,437 $2.07 $ BD/ 2 BA 1,850 $4,053 $4,053 $2.19 $2.19 1,190 $2,516 $2,544 $2.17 $2.21 Source: Project websites; Apartmentguide.com; Forrent.com (July 2013). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\emeryville Apartment Rents Page 37

194 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 2 AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013 JOBS GENERATED BY NEW RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Resident Services Occupation 3 Compensation 1 Group 2 Workers Page 1 of 4 Management Occupations Chief Executives $199, % 0.1% General and Operations Managers $132, % 1.3% Sales Managers $141, % 0.2% Administrative Services Managers $101, % 0.2% Financial Managers $144, % 0.3% Food Service Managers $51, % 0.2% Medical and Health Services Managers $113, % 0.3% Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers $85, % 0.3% Social and Community Service Managers $74, % 0.2% Managers, All Other $134, % 0.1% All other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $120, % 0.7% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $120, % 3.9% Business and Financial Operations Occupations Human Resources Specialists $74, % 0.2% Labor Relations Specialists $81, % 0.1% Management Analysts $103, % 0.2% Training and Development Specialists $86, % 0.1% Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $86, % 0.2% Business Operations Specialists, All Other $89, % 0.5% Accountants and Auditors $80, % 0.6% Financial Analysts $98, % 0.2% Personal Financial Advisors $81, % 0.2% Loan Officers $83, % 0.2% All Other Business and Financial Operations Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $85, % 1.0% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $85, % 3.4% Education, Training, and Library Occupations Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary $57, % 0.1% Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education $33, % 0.4% Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education $71, % 0.3% Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education $71, % 0.1% Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education $71, % 0.2% Self-Enrichment Education Teachers $51, % 0.3% Substitute Teachers $41, % 0.1% Teachers and Instructors, All Other, Except Substitute Teachers $60, % 0.2% Teacher Assistants $32, % 0.5% All Other Education, Training, and Library Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $50, % 0.8% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50, % 3.2% Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\ k Emeryville ; 3/19/2014; dd Page 38

195 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 2 AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013 JOBS GENERATED BY NEW RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Resident Services Occupation 3 Compensation 1 Group 2 Workers Page 2 of 4 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Pharmacists $131, % 0.3% Physicians and Surgeons, All Other $190, % 0.4% Registered Nurses $115, % 2.5% Dental Hygienists $98, % 0.3% Pharmacy Technicians $47, % 0.4% Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses $60, % 0.8% All Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $105, % 3.4% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $105, % 8.1% Healthcare Support Occupations Home Health Aides $29, % 1.0% Nursing Assistants $35, % 1.5% Dental Assistants $40, % 0.5% Medical Assistants $37, % 0.8% All Other Healthcare Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $34, % 0.9% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $34, % 4.7% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers $31, % 1.0% Cooks, Fast Food $19, % 0.7% Cooks, Restaurant $26, % 1.3% Food Preparation Workers $22, % 0.9% Bartenders $22, % 0.7% Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $21, % 3.9% Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop $20, % 0.5% Waiters and Waitresses $21, % 3.1% Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers $19, % 0.5% Dishwashers $21, % 0.6% Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop $20, % 0.5% All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $22, % 1.0% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $22, % 14.8% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers $47, % 0.2% Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $31, % 2.9% Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $29, % 0.7% Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $31, % 1.4% All Other Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations (Avg. All Cat $32, % 0.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $32, % 5.6% Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\ k Emeryville ; 3/19/2014; dd Page 39

196 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 2 AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013 JOBS GENERATED BY NEW RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Resident Services Occupation 3 Compensation 1 Group 2 Workers Page 3 of 4 Personal Care and Service Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers $42, % 0.2% Nonfarm Animal Caretakers $25, % 0.3% Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $22, % 0.2% Amusement and Recreation Attendants $22, % 0.3% Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $29, % 0.9% Childcare Workers $23, % 0.7% Personal Care Aides $22, % 1.4% Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors $50, % 0.3% Recreation Workers $28, % 0.3% All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $27, % 0.8% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $27, % 5.4% Sales and Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $49, % 1.5% Cashiers $26, % 3.9% Counter and Rental Clerks $33, % 0.6% Retail Salespersons $28, % 5.8% Sales Representatives, Services, All Other $71, % 0.4% Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientifi $73, % 0.6% All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $34, % 1.9% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $34, % 14.7% Office and Administrative Support Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers $62, % 1.0% Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $45, % 1.1% Customer Service Representatives $43, % 1.4% Receptionists and Information Clerks $34, % 1.2% Stock Clerks and Order Fillers $29, % 1.8% Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants $60, % 0.5% Medical Secretaries $41, % 0.7% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $43, % 1.5% Office Clerks, General $37, % 2.1% All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $41, % 3.9% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $41, % 15.3% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers $80, % 0.3% Automotive Body and Related Repairers $51, % 0.2% Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $50, % 0.8% Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists $58, % 0.1% Tire Repairers and Changers $31, % 0.1% Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $45, % 1.1% All Other Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $51, % 0.9% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $51, % 3.5% Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\ k Emeryville ; 3/19/2014; dd Page 40

197 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 2 AVERAGE ANNUAL WORKER COMPENSATION, 2013 JOBS GENERATED BY NEW RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Resident Services Occupation 3 Compensation 1 Group 2 Workers Page 4 of 4 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Bus Drivers, School or Special Client $35, % 0.4% Driver/Sales Workers $34, % 0.4% Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $44, % 0.7% Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers $37, % 0.6% Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs $29, % 0.2% Parking Lot Attendants $27, % 0.2% Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43, % 0.2% Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $24, % 0.3% Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand $31, % 1.2% Packers and Packagers, Hand $23, % 0.4% All Other Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $33, % 0.7% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $33, % 5.3% 87.9% 1 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data for Alameda County, updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. 3 Including occupations representing 3% or more of the major occupation group Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department, IMPLAN Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Residential tables\ k Emeryville ; 3/19/2014; dd Page 41

198

199 DRAFT DRAFT Non-Residential Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Prepared for: City of Emeryville Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. March 2014 Attachment 5

200 DRAFT Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION I: THE NEXUS CONCEPT 3 SECTION II: JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS 7 SECTION III: TOTAL HOUSING NEXUS COSTS 21 APPENDIX A: DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS FACTORS IN RELATION TO NEXUS CONCEPT 25 APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING TECHNICAL TABLES 29 APPENDIX C: AFFORDABILITY GAPS 47 APPENDIX D: OVERLAP ANALYSIS 55 List of Tables Table II-1: Net New Households and Occupation Distribution by Building Type 14 Table II-2A: Estimate of Qualifying Households by Income Level: up to 50% of Median 15 Table II2B: Qualifying Households by Income Level: 51%-80% of Median 16 Table II2C: Qualifying Households by Income Level: 81%-120% of Median 17 Table II2D: Qualifying Households by Income Level: over 120% of Median 18 Table II-3: Worker Households by Affordability Level 19 Table II-4: Housing Demand Nexus Factors per Sq.Ft. of Building Area 20 Table III-1: Total Housing Nexus Cost 24 Appendix B Table 1: Income Limits 30 Appendix B Table 2: 2012 National Office Worker Distribution by Occupation 31 Appendix B Table 3: Office Worker Occupations 2013 Average Annual Compensation 32 Appendix B Table 4: 2012 National Retail Worker Distribution by Occupation 35 Appendix B Table 5: Retail Worker Occupations 2013 Average Annual Compensation 36 Appendix B Table 6: 2012 National Restaurant Worker Distribution by Occupation 38 Appendix B Table 7: Restaurant Worker Occupations 2013 Average Annual Compensation 39 Appendix B Table 8: 2012 National Hotel Worker Distribution by Occupation 40 Appendix B Table 9: Hotel Worker Occupations 2013 Average Annual Compensation 41 Appendix B Table 10: 2012 National R&D/BioTech Worker Distribution by Occupation 43 Appendix B Table 11: R&D/BioTech Worker Occupations 2013 Average Annual Compensation 44 Appendix C Table 1: Affordability Gap: Very Low Income Households After 4% Tax Credit Financing 52 Appendix C Table 2: Affordability Gap: Low-Income Households 53 Appendix C Table 3: Affordability Gap: Moderate Income Households 54

201 DRAFT INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes an analysis of the linkages between non-residential development in Emeryville and the demand for additional affordable housing. The analysis, which demonstrates support for a Housing Impact Fee, has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates for the City of Emeryville in accordance with a contractual agreement. The City of Emeryville does not currently have a housing impact fee levied on non-residential development. Residential development in Emeryville has been subject to the City s Affordable Housing Set Aside (AHSA) Ordinance, adopted in 1990, which requires a specified share of all units be deed restricted for low to moderate income households. This residential program is being updated and altered to meet changes in the legal environment since KMA is preparing a Residential Nexus Analysis as part of the revision and update program This nonresidential analysis supports expansion of the affordable housing program to include fees on non-residential development. The affordable housing program is also being expanded and revised in response to the end of redevelopment in California, which generated substantial resources for affordable housing in Emeryville. Purpose The purpose of a nexus analysis is to quantify and document the linkages among construction of new work place buildings (office, retail, etc.), the employees that work in them, and the demand for affordable housing. Since jobs in all buildings cover a range in compensation levels, and the households of the workers range in size, there are needs at all affordability levels. This analysis quantifies the need at the moderate and lower income affordability levels associated with each type of workplace building. This analysis is conducted to meet the requirements of several U. S. Supreme Court decisions and California Code Section et seq. (which is sometimes referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act ). Such analyses are called linkage or nexus analyses. Analysis Scope and Organization The workplace buildings that are the subject of this analysis represent a cross section of typical commercial buildings developed in Emeryville in recent years and expected to be built in the near term future. For purposes of the analysis, the following building types were identified: Office Retail / Restaurant Hotel Research & Development / Biotech Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

202 DRAFT For consistency among analyses being conducted at this time, the prototypes tested in the nonresidential analysis are the same as those selected for the analyses being conducted by Willdan Financial Services for other types of fees. The household income categories addressed in the analysis are the same as those in the AHSA program and the Residential Nexus Analysis also being prepared by KMA at this time. Data Sources and Qualifications The analyses in this report have been prepared using the best and most recent data available. Local and current data was used whenever possible. Sources such as the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census, the 2010 Census, and California Employment Department data were used extensively. Other sources and analyses when used are noted in the text and footnotes. While we believe all sources utilized are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the analyses, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. assumes no liability for information from these and other sources. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

203 DRAFT SECTION I: THE NEXUS CONCEPT Introduction This section outlines the nexus concept and some of the key issues surrounding the linking of new non-residential development to the demand for affordable residential units in the City of Emeryville. The nexus analysis and discussion focus on the relationships among development, growth, employment, income of workers and demand for affordable housing. The analysis yields a connection between new construction of the types of buildings in which there are workers and the need for additional affordable housing, a connection that is quantified both in terms of number of units and the amount of subsidy assistance needed to make the units affordable. The Legal Basis and Context The first jobs-housing linkage programs were adopted in the cities of San Francisco and Boston in the mid-1980s. To support the linkage, the City of San Francisco commissioned an analysis to show the relationships, or what might now be characterized as an early version of a nexus analysis. Since that time there have been several court cases and California statutes that affect what local jurisdictions must demonstrate when imposing impact fees on development projects. The most important U.S. Supreme Court cases are Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard (Oregon). The rulings on these cases, and others, help clarify what governments must find in the way of the nature of the relationship between the problem to be mitigated and the action contributing to the problem. Here, the problem is the lack of affordable housing and the action contributing to the problem is building workspaces that mean more jobs and worker households needing more affordable housing. Following the Nollan decision in 1987, the California legislature enacted AB 1600 which requires local agencies proposing an impact fee on a development project to identify the purpose of the fee, the use of the fee, and to determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee s use and the development project on which the fee is imposed. The local agency must also demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee amount and the cost of mitigating the problem that the fee addresses. Studies by local governments designed to fulfill the requirements of AB 1600 are often referred to as AB 1600 or nexus studies. One court case that involved housing linkage fees was Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City of Sacramento. The commercial builders of Sacramento sued the City following the City s adoption of a housing linkage fee. Both the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Sacramento and rejected the builders petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the case, letting stand the lower court s opinion. Since the Sacramento case in 1991 there have been several additional court rulings reaffirming and clarifying the ability of California cities to adopt impact fees. A notable case was The San Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

204 DRAFT Remo Hotel v. the City and County of San Francisco, which upheld the impact fee levied by the City and County on the conversion of residence hotels to tourist hotels and other uses. The court found that a suitable nexus, or deleterious impact, had been demonstrated. In 2009, in the Building Industry Association of Central California v. the City of Patterson, the Court invalidated the City s fee because a valid nexus linking the impact of the proposed project to the fee, had not been demonstrated. In 2010, a court ruling upheld most of the impact fees levied by the City of Lemoore, in Southern California. Of note relevant to housing impact fees was the judges opinion that a fee may be established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability.the fact that specific construction plans are not in place does not render the fee unreasonable. In other words, cities do not have to identify specific affordable housing projects to be constructed at the time of adoption. In summary, the case law at this time appears to be fully supportive of jobs housing impact fees. The Nexus Methodology An overview of the basic nexus concept and methodology is helpful to understand the discussion and concepts presented in this section. This overview consists of a quick walk through of the major steps of the analysis. The nexus analysis links new commercial buildings with new workers in the City; these workers demand additional housing in proximity to the jobs, a portion of which needs to be affordable to the workers in lower income households. The methodology utilized in this analysis is a micro analysis that examines individual buildings. The micro nexus analysis readily lends itself to quantification that serves as a basis for the nexus cost, or the maximum fee amount for each building type. To illustrate the micro nexus analysis, very simply, we can walk through the major calculations of the analysis. We begin by assuming a prototypical building of some specific size and then make calculations as follows: We estimate the total number of employees working in the building based on average employment density data. We use occupation and income information for typical job types in the building to calculate how many of those jobs pay compensation at the levels addressed in the analysis. Compensation data is from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and is specific to Alameda County as of Worker occupations by building type are derived from the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We know from the Census that many workers are members of households where more than one person is employed and there is also a range of household sizes; we use factors derived from the Census to translate the number of workers into households of various size represented in each income category. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

205 DRAFT Then, we calculate how many of the Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-Income households are associated with the building and divide by the building size to arrive at coefficients of housing units per square foot of building area. In the last step, we multiply the number of lower income households per square foot by the costs of delivering housing units affordable to these income groups. The Relationship Between Construction and Job Growth Employment growth does not have one cause. Many factors underlie the reasons for growth in employment in a given region; these factors are complex, interrelated, and often associated with forces at the national and international levels. One of the factors is the delivery of new workspace buildings. The nexus argument does not make the case that the construction of new buildings is solely responsible for growth. However, new construction is uniquely important, first, as one of a number of parallel factors contributing to growth, and second, as a unique and essential condition precedent to growth. As to the first, construction itself encourages growth. When the state economy is growing, the most rapidly growing areas in the state are those where new construction is vigorous as a vital industry. In regions such as the Bay Area where multiple forces of growth exist, the development industry frequently serves as a proactive force inducing growth to occur or be attracted to specific geographic areas or locations by providing new work spaces, particularly those of a speculative nature. Second, workplace buildings bear a special relationship to growth, different from other parallel causes, in that buildings are a condition precedent to growth. Job growth does not occur in modern service economies without buildings to house new workers. Unlike other factors that are responsible for growth, buildings play the additional unique role in that growth cannot occur without them for a sustained period of time. Conversely, it is well established that the inability to construct new workplace buildings will constrain or even halt job growth. Discount for Changing Industries The local economy, like that of the U.S. as a whole, is constantly evolving. In the Oakland, Fremont, Hayward Metropolitan Division (defined as Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), over the past twenty years, employment in manufacturing sectors of the economy has continued to decline along with employment in State and Federal government, telecommunications, and banking. Defense related employment has also declined from around 12,000 jobs twenty years ago to near zero today. Jobs lost over the last decade in these declining sectors were replaced by job growth in other industry sectors. The analysis makes an adjustment to take these declines, changes and shifts within all sectors of the economy into account, recognizing that jobs added are not 100% net new in all cases. A 25% adjustment is utilized based on the long term shifts in employment that have occurred in Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

206 DRAFT some sectors of the local economy and the likelihood of continuing changes in the future. Long term declines in employment experienced in some sectors of the economy mean that some of the new jobs are being filled by workers that have been displaced from another industry and who are presumed to already have housing locally. Existing workers downsized from declining industries are assumed to be available to fill a portion of the new retail, restaurant, health care, and other jobs associated with services to residents. This is a conservative assumption given some displaced workers may exit the workforce entirely by retiring rather than seek a new job in one of the industries serving new residents. The 25% downward adjustment used for purposes of the analysis was derived from California Employment Development Department data on employment by industry in Alameda and Contra Costa County over the twenty year period from 2012 to The 2012 data set reflects a higher unemployment rate at 9% than the 6.6% unemployment rate in 1992 which will tend to overstate any long term declines since the 2012 data also reflects some cyclical or short term declines relative to the 1992 employment data. Over this period, approximately 38,000 jobs were lost in declining industry sectors. Over the same period, growing and stable industries added a total of 158,000 jobs. Figures are adjusted to exclude losses in Department of Defense employment given there are almost no defense jobs left in the area and so continuing declines in this sector is not expected to be a factor in the future. The figures are used to establish a ratio between jobs lost in declining industries to jobs gained in growing and stable industries at 25%. The 25% factor is applied as an adjustment in the analysis, effectively assuming one in every four jobs in a building is filled by a worker down-sized from a declining industry and who already lives locally. See the table below for additional information on the derivation of the 25% adjustment factor for declining industries: Adjustment for Declining Industries Jobs Lost in Declining Industries ( )* (37,900) Jobs Created in Growing Industries ( ) 158,000 Ratio of Jobs Lost/Gained in Declining Industry Sectors versus Growing Industry Sectors 23.9% Adjustment for Declining Industries (Rounded) 25% *Excluding Department of Defense jobs, which were almost entirely eliminated over that time period. Further job loss in that sector cannot occur and therefore these jobs are not included. Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD) Other Factors and Assumptions Appendix A provides a discussion of other specific factors in relation to the nexus concept including housing needs of the existing population, multiplier effects, non-duplication between a residential housing impact fee and a non-residential housing impact fee, changes in labor force participation, commuting, and economic cycles. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

207 DRAFT SECTION II: JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS This section presents a summary of the analysis of the linkage between four types of workplace buildings and the estimated number of worker households in the income categories that will, on average, be employed within those buildings. This section should not be read or reproduced without the narrative presented in the previous sections. Analysis Approach and Framework The analysis establishes the jobs housing linkages for individual building types or land use activities, quantifying the connection between employment growth in Emeryville and affordable housing demand. The analysis approach is to examine the employment associated with the development of workplace building prototypes. Then, through a series of linkage steps, the number of employees is converted to households and housing units by affordability level. The findings are expressed in terms of numbers of households related to building area. In the final step, we convert the numbers of households for an entire building to the number of households per square foot level. For ease of understanding, KMA conducts the analysis on prototype buildings. The prototypes were developed by Willdan Financial Services, in their fee analysis conducted for the City (Revised Development Fee Comparison, Willdan Financial Services, November 8, 2013). The prototypes are based on recent development activity in the City and are designed to represent what will likely be built in Emeryville in the near-term future. The four prototypes are as follows: Office a 100,000 square foot office building. Retail / Restaurant 20,000 square feet of retail space and 5,000 square feet of restaurant space Hotel a 70,000 square foot, 200-room hotel. Research & Development (R&D) / Biotech a 150,000 square foot building. While the prototypes represent particular examples within the categories, each category covers a wide variety of building types and together, the four categories are designed to encompass most new buildings to be constructed by the private sector in the near-term future in Emeryville. The Office category is designed to represent the range of office tenants locating in Emeryville, from small professional offices and medical offices to headquarters of companies, including Pixar. The Retail / Restaurant category encompasses the full range of retail categories, restaurants, movie theaters, as well as other entertainment uses. The Hotel category also includes motels and extended stay hotels. The R&D / Biotech category is intended to cover office and laboratory structures focused on research and development in physical, engineering and life sciences, including biotechnology. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

208 DRAFT Household Income Limits The analysis estimates demand for affordable housing focusing on three household income categories: Very Low, Low and Moderate Income. Household income criteria for these affordability categories are published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For a four-person household, the maximum qualifying income levels for 2013 in Alameda County are: Household Income Definitions (Alameda County, 2013) Income Category Percent of Median 1 Income Range (Four Person Household) Very Low Income 0% to 50% of Median $0 to $46,750 Low Income 51% to 80% of Median $46,751 to $66,250 Moderate Income 81% to 120% of Median $66,251 to $112,200 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. The above income categories are set and utilized by HUD and HCD for most housing programs. Income definitions for other household sizes are presented in Appendix B Table 1. When workers form households, their income, either alone or in combination with other workers, produces the household income. In addition, of course, there may be children and/or other household members who are not employed. According to HUD, as published by HCD, the annual median income of a four-person household in Alameda County for 2013 was $93,500. Analysis Steps The analysis is conducted using a model that KMA has developed for application in many jurisdictions for which the firm has conducted similar analyses. The model inputs are all local data to the extent possible, and are fully documented. Tables II-1 through II-4 at the end of this section summarize the nexus analysis steps for the four building types. Following is a description of each step of the analysis: Step 1 Estimate of Total New Employees The first step in Table II-1 identifies the total number of direct employees who will work at or in the building type being analyzed. Average employment density factors are used to make the conversion. 1 Percentage range for Low Income households presented as 51% to 80% but technically all households earning from just above 50% through 80% of Area Median Income are included. The same is true for the Moderate income category. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

209 DRAFT The employment density estimates for office, hotel and retail space were based upon the assumptions underlying the General Plan; these assumptions were developed by the City s consultants Fehr & Peers. The assumptions are consistent with those employed in other impact fee studies being prepared at this time. The employment density estimate for restaurant space was derived from the 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations Report produced by the National Restaurant Association. (The employment densities for retail and restaurant spaces were established separately and then weighted to establish an overall employment density for that prototype.) For R&D/Biotech spaces, KMA utilized the Association of Bay Area Government s estimate of employment density from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5 th Edition. Average densities are computed based on gross building area taking into account the lobby, corridors, restrooms, etc. Vacancy is also built into the employment density factors: Office 3.6 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. This figure was derived from the General Plan. Retail / Restaurant 2.6 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. This is a weighted average between retail space (2.0 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area) and restaurant space (5.0 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area). The retail figure was derived from the General Plan as well, and it includes a range of retail types. The restaurant figure was derived from the 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations Report and applies to limited service restaurants. Full service restaurants at various price points all have more employees per 1,000. KMA selected the low end of the density range applicable to limited service restaurants to be conservative. Hotel 1.0 employee per 1,000 square feet. This employment density is derived from the General Plan. R&D / Biotech 2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. All density factors are averages and individual uses can be expected to be fairly divergent from the average from time to time. The City may wish to include a provision in the ordinance for a waiver or a custom impact fee in cases where employment densities vary greatly from the average. As discussed above, KMA conducted the analysis on prototype buildings, using the same size building as the other fee analyses. The prototypes facilitate the presentation of the nexus findings, as it allows us to count jobs and housing units in whole numbers that can be readily communicated and understood. At the conclusion of the analysis, the findings are divided by building size to express the linkages per square foot, which are very small fractions of housing units. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

210 DRAFT Step 2 Adjustment for Changing Industries This step is an adjustment to take into account any declines, changes and shifts within all sectors of the economy and to recognize that new space is not always 100% equivalent to net new employees. As discussed in Section I, a 25% adjustment is utilized to recognize the longterm shifts in employment occurring in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the likelihood of continuing changes to the local economy. For demolition of existing structures, the City may wish to provide a credit or offset to the fee when demolition of existing structures occurs as part of a project. Typically, the fee would only be charged against net new space added by a project. Step 3 Adjustment from Employees to Employee Households This step (Table II-1) converts the number of employees to the number of employee households that will work at or in the building type being analyzed. This step recognizes that there is, on average, more than one worker per household, and thus the number of housing units in demand for new workers must be reduced. The workers per household characteristic provides the link between the number of employees and the number of households associated with the employees. Worker households are defined as those households with one or more persons with work related income, including the selfemployed, as reported in the American Community Survey (ACS). In other words, worker households are distinguished from total households in that the universe of worker households does not include elderly or other households in which members are retired or do not work for other reasons. Student households and unemployed households on public assistance are also excluded from worker households. The number of workers per household in a given geographic area is a function of household size, labor force participation rate and employment availability, as well as other factors. According to the ACS, the number of workers per worker household in Alameda County was Since workers in the City of Emeryville live all over Alameda County and beyond, the County average is used in the analysis. Step 4 Occupational Distribution of Employees The occupational breakdown of employees is the first step to arriving at income levels. Using the 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Estimates, a cross matrix of industries and occupations, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), we are able to estimate the occupational composition of employees in the five types of buildings. The occupations that reflect the expected mix of activities in the new buildings are presented in Appendix B Tables 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (the occupations for retail and restaurants are presented separately). Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

211 DRAFT Office buildings industry mix has been tailored to reflect the industry base in Alameda County and Emeryville, in particular. The industry mix has been customized based on employment by industry sector in Alameda County using California Employment Development Department data. The mix was further customized to reflect the significant presence of Pixar in Emeryville. Employment is concentrated in the motion picture production, computer systems design and information services industries. Medical offices and professional services are also represented. Occupation categories applicable to the Office industry mix in Emeryville encompass a range of management, business and financial, computer and mathematical, architecture and engineering occupations, among others. Administrative support occupations comprise 23% of all Office related employment. Retail employment consists of predominantly sales related occupations (54%), with office and administrative support occupations making up an additional 17%. These two occupation categories together account for 71% of retail workers. The remaining 29% of retail workers are in occupations that include food preparation, personal care and service, transportation, and production. Occupation categories are based upon a mix of Retail uses tailored to Alameda County based on current employment levels reported by EDD. The retail category includes movie theaters. Restaurant employment is dominated by food preparation and serving occupations (92%). The remaining 8% of occupations includes management, sales, and other occupations. Retail and restaurant employment is then weighted according to the square footage of each use in the prototype (20,000 square feet of retail, 5,000 square feet of restaurant space); the weighted employment result is presented in Table II-1. Hotels employ workers primarily from three main occupation categories: building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (maid service, etc.), food preparation and serving related, and office and administrative support, which together make up 77% of Hotel workers. Other Hotel occupations include personal care, management, sales, production and maintenance and repair. R&D / Biotech occupations include life, physical and social science occupations (26%), architecture and engineering occupations (17%), computer and mathematical occupations (12%) and management occupations (11%). Business and financial occupations, and office administration and support occupations each make up an additional 10% of R&D/Biotech occupations. The numbers in Step #4 (Table II-1) indicate both the percentage of total employee households and the number of employee households in the prototype buildings. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

212 DRAFT Step 5 Estimated Employee Household Income In this step, occupation is translated to income based on recent Alameda County wage and salary information for the occupations associated with each building type. This step in the analysis calculates the number of employee households that fall into each income category for each size household. The following is a summary of the worker compensation levels for the three top occupation groups by building type. The percentages refer to the share of employment within the building in the occupation group. Appendix B, Tables 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 show the more detailed wage and salary information that were used as the income inputs to the model. Worker compensations used in the analysis assume full time employment (40 hours per week). Alameda County Worker Compensations by Building Type (2013) % of Building Type Major Occupation Group Employment in Building Average Annual Worker Compensation (based on full time) Office Office and administrative support 23% $44,400 Computer and Mathematical 16% $97,000 Business and Financial 13% $87,300 Retail/Restaurant Food preparation and serving 38% $22,700 Sales and related occupations 34% $30,500 Office and administrative support 11% $35,700 Hotel R&D/ Biotech Building and grounds cleaning 32% $30,800 and maintenance Food preparation and serving 25% $23,700 Office and administrative support 20% $30,500 Life, Physical and Social 26% $84,500 Science Architecture and Engineering 17% $105,100 Computer and Mathematical 12% $103,100 Source: California Employment Development Department, 2012 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, Wages 1st Quarter The occupations with the lowest compensation levels are in Retail / Restaurant and Hotel buildings. Individual employee income data was used to calculate the number of households that fall into these income categories by assuming that multiple earner households are, on average, formed of individuals with similar incomes. The model recognizes some households have multiple incomes while others do not. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

213 DRAFT Step 6 Estimate of Household Size Distribution In this step, household size distribution is input into the model in order to estimate the income and household size combinations that meet the income definitions established by HUD and the State, as used by the City. The household size distribution utilized in the analysis is that of Alameda County since the City draws workers from throughout the County. Step 7 Estimate of Households that meet HUD Size and Income Criteria For this step the KMA model incorporates a matrix of household size and income to establish probability factors for the two criteria in combination. For each occupational group a probability factor was calculated for each household income and size level. This step is performed for each occupational category and multiplied by the number of households. Tables II-2A through II-2D show the results after completing Steps #5, #6, and #7. The calculated numbers of households that meet size and income criteria are shown in Tables II-2A for the Very Low Income category, Table II-2B for Low Income, Table II-2C for Moderate Income and Table II-2D for the Above Moderate income category. Table II-3 provides a summary for all of the income tiers. Summary by Income Level Table II-3 indicates the results of the analysis for income categories for the four prototypical buildings. The table presents the number of households in each affordability category, the total number up to 120% of median, and the remaining households earning over 120% of median. Table II-3 also presents the percentage of total new worker households that fall into each income category. As indicated, over 97% of Retail / Restaurant and 93% of Hotel worker households are below the 120% of median income level. By contrast, in Office buildings, only about 51% of worker households fall below 120% of median and in R&D/Biotech buildings, only 37% of worker households. Summary by Square Foot Building Area The analysis thus far has worked with prototypical buildings. In this step, the conclusions are translated to a per-square-foot level and expressed as coefficients. These coefficients state the portion of a household, or housing unit, by affordability level for which each square foot of building area is associated (see Table II-4). This is the summary of the housing nexus analysis, or the linkage from buildings to employees to housing demand, by income level. We believe that it is a conservative approximation (understates at the low end) of the households by income/affordability level associated with these building types. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

214 DRAFT TABLE II-1 NET NEW HOUSEHOLDS AND OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION BY BUILDING TYPE JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Step 1 - Estimate of Number of Employees OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX Size of Prototypical Building (Sq.Ft) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH 70, ,000 Employee Density Factor (employees per 1,000 SF) Number of Employees Step 2 - Number of Employees after Changing Industries Adjustment (25%) Step 3 - Adjustment for Number of Households (1.61) Step 4 - Occupation Distribution (1) Management Occupations 9.6% 2.0% 4.5% 11.4% Business and Financial Operations 12.2% 0.4% 1.5% 9.8% Computer and Mathematical 14.7% 0.2% 0.1% 12.0% Architecture and Engineering 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 17.2% Life, Physical, and Social Science 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 26.1% Community and Social Services 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Legal 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% Education, Training, and Library 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 11.5% 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 7.1% 0.6% 0.0% 2.0% Healthcare Support 3.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% Protective Service 0.2% 0.3% 1.8% 0.6% Food Preparation and Serving Related 0.2% 38.1% 24.7% 0.1% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint. 0.4% 0.7% 32.0% 0.4% Personal Care and Service 0.5% 3.7% 4.0% 0.3% Sales and Related 5.3% 34.0% 2.1% 1.8% Office and Administrative Support 22.2% 10.7% 20.2% 9.6% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Construction and Extraction 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 1.0% 1.0% 5.0% 1.4% Production 1.1% 3.1% 2.1% 3.2% Transportation and Material Moving 0.9% 4.2% 1.1% 0.5% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Management Occupations Business and Financial Operations Computer and Mathematical Architecture and Engineering Life, Physical, and Social Science Community and Social Services Legal Education, Training, and Library Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Healthcare Support Protective Service Food Preparation and Serving Related Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint Personal Care and Service Sales and Related Office and Administrative Support Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Construction and Extraction Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Production Transportation and Material Moving Totals Notes: (1) See Appendix B for more information on how the percentages were derived. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-1 Households; 3/5/2014; dd Page 14

215 TABLE II-2A ESTIMATE OF QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Analysis for Households Earning up to 50% of Median DRAFT OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Prototypical Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant 70, ,000 Step 5, 6, & 7 - Households Earning up to 50% of Median (1) Management Business and Financial Operations Computer and Mathematical Architecture and Engineering Life, Physical and Social Science Community and Social Services Legal Education Training and Library Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Healthcare Support Protective Service Food Preparation and Serving Related Building Grounds and Maintenance Personal Care and Service Sales and Related Office and Admin Farm, Fishing, and Forestry Construction and Extraction Installation Maintenance and Repair Production Transportation and Material Moving HH earning up to 50% of Median - major occupations HH earning up to 50% of Median - all other occupations Total Households Earning up to 50% of Median Notes: (1) See Appendix B for additional information on Major Occupation Categories. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-2 Households; 3/5/2014; dd Page 15

216 DRAFT TABLE II-2B ESTIMATE OF QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Analysis for Households Earning Between 50% and 80% of Median OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Prototypical Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant 70, ,000 Step 5, 6, & 7 - Households Earning Between 50% and 80% of Median (1) Management Business and Financial Operations Computer and Mathematical Architecture and Engineering Life, Physical and Social Science Community and Social Services Legal Education Training and Library Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Healthcare Support Protective Service Food Preparation and Serving Related Building Grounds and Maintenance Personal Care and Service Sales and Related Office and Admin Farm, Fishing, and Forestry Construction and Extraction Installation Maintenance and Repair Production Transportation and Material Moving HH earning 50%-80% of Median - major occupations HH earning 50%-80% of Median - all other occupations Total Households Earning 50%-80% of Median Notes: (1) See Appendix B for additional information on Major Occupation Categories. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-2 Households50-80; 3/5/2014; dd Page 16

217 DRAFT TABLE II-2C ESTIMATE OF QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Analysis for Households Earning Between 80% and 120% of Median OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Prototypical Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant 70, ,000 Step 5, 6, & 7 - Households Earning Between 80% and 120% of Median (1) Management Business and Financial Operations Computer and Mathematical Architecture and Engineering Life, Physical and Social Science Community and Social Services Legal Education Training and Library Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Healthcare Support Protective Service Food Preparation and Serving Related Building Grounds and Maintenance Personal Care and Service Sales and Related Office and Admin Farm, Fishing, and Forestry Construction and Extraction Installation Maintenance and Repair Production Transportation and Material Moving HH earning 80%-120% of Median - major occupations HH earning 80%-120% of Median - all other occupations Total Households Earning 80%-120% of Median Notes: (1) See Appendix B for additional information on Major Occupation Categories. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-2 Households80-120; 3/5/2014; dd Page 17

218 TABLE II-2D ESTIMATE OF QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Analysis for Households Earning Over 120% of Median DRAFT OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Prototypical Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant 70, ,000 Step 5, 6, & 7 - Households Earning Over 120% of Median (1) Management Business and Financial Operations Computer and Mathematical Architecture and Engineering Life, Physical and Social Science Community and Social Services Legal Education Training and Library Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Healthcare Support Protective Service Food Preparation and Serving Related Building Grounds and Maintenance Personal Care and Service Sales and Related Office and Admin Farm, Fishing, and Forestry Construction and Extraction Installation Maintenance and Repair Production Transportation and Material Moving HH Earning Over 120% of Median - major occupations HH Earning Over 120% of Median - all other occupations Total Households Earning Over 120% of Median Notes: (1) See Appendix B for additional information on Major Occupation Categories. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-2 Households 120+; 3/5/2014; dd Page 18

219 TABLE II-3 WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Prototypical Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 20,000 Retail; 5,000 Restaurant 70, ,000 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME TIER (1) Up to 50% Median Income % to 80% Median Income % to 120% Median Income Subtotal to 120% AMI Above 120% of Median Total New Worker Households PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME TIER Up to 50% Median Income 9.9% 61.1% 53.4% 4.0% 50% to 80% Median Income 12.3% 22.2% 23.0% 7.6% 80% to 120% Median Income 28.4% 13.9% 17.0% 25.7% Subtotal to 120% AMI 50.6% 97.2% 93.4% 37.3% Above 120% of Median 49.4% 2.8% 6.6% 62.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Notes: (1) See Appendix B on compensation levels. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-3 Affordability; 3/5/2014; dd Page 19

220 DRAFT TABLE II-4 HOUSING DEMAND NEXUS FACTORS PER SQ.FT. OF BUILDING AREA JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA OFFICE Number of Housing Units per Square Foot of Building Area (1) RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Up to 50% Median Income % to 80% Median Income % to 120% Median Income Total Notes: (1) Calculated by dividing number of household in Table II-3 by the square footage of each prototypical building to convert to households per 1 sq. ft. of building. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; II-4 Demand; 3/5/2014; dd Page 20

221 DRAFT SECTION III: TOTAL HOUSING NEXUS COSTS This section takes the conclusions of the previous section on the number of households in the Very Low, Low, and Moderate income categories associated with each building type and identifies the total cost of assistance required to make housing affordable. This section puts a cost on the units at each income level to produce the total nexus cost. A key component of the analysis is the size of the gap between what households can afford and the cost of producing additional housing in Emeryville, known as the affordability gap. The analysis utilizes the same affordability gaps as the Residential Nexus Analysis, also conducted by KMA. For both analyses, the assumption is that the City will assist in the development of affordable units at development cost levels based on the City s recent experience. For Very Low and Low Income households, KMA assumes that the City will provide rental units; for Moderate Income households, the City will assist in providing ownership units. For the Very Low Income and Low Income tiers, the affordability gaps are calculated based upon rents affordable to households at the top of each income tier. For the Moderate Income tier, the affordable sales price is calculated for a household earning 110% of Median Income. Tax credit financing is assumed for the Very Low income tier, but not the Low Income tier. Additional information regarding the derivation of the affordability gaps may be found in Appendix C of this report. Affordability Gaps Very Low (0% - 50% AMI) ($212,500) Low Income (51% - 80% AMI) ($255,000) Moderate Income (81% - 120% AMI) ($115,000) Source: KMA; see Appendix C. AMI = Area Median Income Total Nexus Costs The last step in the nexus fee analysis relates the findings on the numbers of households at each of the lower income ranges associated with the four types of buildings to the affordability gaps, or the costs of delivering affordable housing for them in Emeryville. Table III-1 summarizes the analysis. The Affordability Gaps are described above. Demand for affordable units at each of the lower income ranges that is generated per square foot of building area is drawn from Table II-4 in the previous section. At the right, the Nexus Cost per Square Foot shows the results of the calculation: affordability gap times the number of units per square foot of building area. The total nexus costs for the four building types are as follows: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

222 DRAFT Total Nexus Cost Per Square Foot of Building Area Office Retail / Restaurant Hotel R&D / Biotech $ psf $ psf $89.30 psf $66.80 psf Note: Nexus findings are not recommended fee levels. See Table III-1 for detail. These costs express the total linkage or nexus costs per square foot for the four building types. These total nexus costs represent the ceiling for any requirement placed on new construction for affordable housing. The totals are not recommended levels for fees; they represent only the maximums established by this analysis, below which fees or other requirements may be set. These total nexus or mitigation costs are high in Alameda County due to the low compensation levels of many jobs, coupled with the high cost of developing residential units. The comparatively high median income for Alameda County is also a factor because more households fall into one of the lower affordability tiers given the comparatively high income thresholds to qualify. These factors are especially pronounced with the Retail / Restaurant category yielding a very high nexus cost. California Employment Development Department data for 2013 indicates compensation for Retail workers in Alameda County averages approximately $32,000 per year and for Restaurant workers, approximately $24,000 annually. This means many workers qualify as Very Low Income (four-person households earning $46,750 and below 2 ); as shown in Table II-3, 61% of Retail/Restaurant workers fall in the Very Low Income category. Virtually all Retail/Restaurant employee households earn less than 120% of median. Hotel workers have similar compensation levels (averaging $33,000 annually); however, since there are fewer employees per square feet of building area, the resulting mitigation costs are much lower on a per square foot basis. For Office and R&D/Biotech, workers average approximately $82,000 and $94,000 annually, respectively. This is about three times the average compensation for Retail / Restaurant and Hotel workers. The higher compensation levels result in a far lower affordable housing nexus cost for Office and R&D/Biotech as compared to Retail / Restaurant. Conservative Assumptions In establishing the total nexus cost many conservative assumptions were employed in the analysis that result in a total nexus cost that may be considerably understated. These conservative assumptions include: 2 Income criteria vary by household size. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

223 DRAFT Only direct employees are counted in the analysis. Many indirect employees are also associated with each new workspace. Indirect employees in an office building, for example, include security, delivery personnel, and a whole range of others. Hotels do have many of these workers on staff, but hotels also contract out a number of services that are not taken into account in the analysis. Trends in new Office space are for more open office floor plans which can accommodate higher employment densities. Increased densities can yield around twice as many employees in a given amount of space than the estimates applied for purposes of the analysis. Annual incomes for workers reflect full time employment based upon the California Employment Development Department s convention for reporting the compensation information. Of course many workers work less than full time; therefore, annual compensations used in the analysis are probably overstated, especially for retail and hotel, which tend to have a high number of part time employees. Affordability gaps are based upon rents affordable to households at the top of each income range (except for Moderate, which is based on 110% of median). If the mid-point of the income ranges had been used, affordability gaps would have been larger, increasing the resulting nexus costs. In addition, the affordability gap for Very Low income households assumes the availability of 4% tax credit financing, which reduces the affordability gap that needs to be filled. In summary, many less conservative assumptions could be made that would result in higher nexus costs. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

224 TABLE III-1 TOTAL HOUSING NEXUS COST JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA DRAFT INCOME CATEGORY Affordability Gap Nexus Cost Per Sq.Ft. of Building Area 4 OFFICE RETAIL / RESTAURANT MIX HOTEL R&D / BIOTECH Up to 50% Median Income $212,000 1 $35.10 $ $52.80 $ % to 80% Median Income $255,000 2 $52.70 $68.50 $27.40 $ % to 120% Median Income $115,000 3 $54.80 $19.40 $9.10 $34.40 Total $ $ $89.30 $66.80 Notes: 1 Assumes rental units. Represents the remaining affordability gap after 4% tax credits. 2 Affordability gap based on rental unit and computed based on rents affordable to the top of the income tier at 80% 3 Affordability gap for moderate income households based on ownership units priced at 110% AMI. 4 Calculated by multiplying housing demand factors per square foot of building area from Table II-4 by the affordability gap. Figures are rounded to the nearest $0.10. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; III-1 Model Summary; 3/5/2014; dd Page 24

225 DRAFT APPENDIX A: DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS FACTORS IN RELATION TO NEXUS CONCEPT

226 DRAFT This appendix provides a discussion of various specific factors and assumptions in relation to the nexus concept to supplement the overview provided in Section I. Addressing the Housing Needs of a New Population vs. the Existing Population The City of Emeryville, in its Housing Element, has clearly documented that the housing needs of existing lower income households are not being met. This existing housing shortage, especially at the lowest income levels, is manifested in numerous ways such as payment of far more than 30% of income for rent as set forth in federal and state guidelines, overcrowding, and other factors that are extensively documented by the Census and other reports. This nexus study does not address the housing needs of the existing population. Rather, the study focuses exclusively on documenting and quantifying the housing needs of new households where an employee works in a new workplace building. Local analyses of housing conditions have found that new housing affordable to lower income households is not being added to the supply in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of new employee households. If this were not the case and significant numbers of units were being added to the supply to accommodate the Low to Moderate income groups, or if residential units in the city were experiencing significant long term vacancy levels, particularly in affordable units, then the need for new units would be questionable. Substitution Factor Any given new building in the City of Emeryville may be occupied partly or even perhaps totally, by employees relocating from elsewhere in the city. Buildings are often leased entirely to firms relocating from other buildings in the same jurisdiction. However, when a firm relocates to a new building from elsewhere in the region, there is a space in an existing building that is vacated and occupied by another firm. That building in turn may be filled by some combination of newcomers to the area and existing workers. Somewhere in the chain there are jobs new to the region. The net effect is that new buildings accommodate new employees, although not necessarily inside of the new buildings themselves. Indirect Employment and Multiplier Effects The multiplier effect refers to the concept that the income generated by a new job recycles through the economy and results in additional jobs. The total number of jobs generated is broken down into three categories direct, indirect and induced. In the case of the nexus analysis, the direct jobs are those located in the new workspace buildings that would be subject to the linkage fee. Multiplier effects encompass indirect and induced employment. Indirect jobs are generated by suppliers to the businesses located in the new workspace buildings. Finally, induced jobs are generated by local spending on goods and services by employees. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

227 DRAFT Multiplier effects vary by industry. Industries that draw heavily on a network of local suppliers tend to generate larger multiplier effects. Industries that are labor intensive also tend to have larger multiplier effects as a result of the induced effects of employee spending. Theoretically, a jobs-housing nexus analysis could consider multiplier effects although the potential for double-counting exists. The potential for double counting exists to the extent indirect and induced jobs are added in other new buildings in jurisdictions that have jobs housing linkage fees. KMA chooses to omit the multiplier effects (the indirect and induced employment impacts) to avoid potential double-counting and make the analysis more conservative. In addition, the nexus analysis addresses direct inside employment only. In the case of an office building, for example, direct employment covers the various managerial, professional and clerical people that work in the building; it does not include the security guards, the delivery services, the landscape maintenance workers, and many others that are associated with the normal functioning of an office building. In other words, any analysis that ties lower income housing to the number of workers inside buildings will continue to understate the demand. Thus, confining the analysis to the direct employees does not address all the lower income workers associated with each type of building and understates the impacts. Changes in Labor Force Participation In the 1960s through the 1980s, there were significant increases in labor force participation, primarily among women. As a result, some of the new workers were reentering the labor force and already had local housing, thus reducing demand for housing associated with job growth. In earlier nexus analyses, KMA would adjust the analysis to account for this. However, increases in participation rates by women have stabilized and even declined slightly and labor force participation rates for men have been on a downward trajectory since As such, an adjustment for increase in labor force participation is no longer warranted in a nexus analysis. Commuting Workers in Emeryville commute from throughout the Bay Area. Nexus analyses sometimes make a downward adjustment based on commuting. A commute adjustment reduces the findings based on an assumed portion of housing needs satisfied by other jurisdictions. Such an adjustment is not required for nexus purposes; all housing demand generated by a project may be included in the nexus. No adjustment for commuting has been reflected in the analysis. Non-Duplication: Existing Housing Impact Fee and Proposed Rental Housing Impact Fee Emeryville is considering adoption of an Affordable Housing Impact fee supported by a nexus analysis based upon a similar analytical framework as this jobs-housing nexus analysis. Under certain circumstances the two analyses could count some of the same jobs. KMA has Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

228 DRAFT conducted an analysis of potential double-counting of jobs; this analysis is contained in Appendix D and it concludes that no double-counting would occur if the programs are implemented at the levels currently under consideration by the City. Economic Cycles An impact analysis of this nature is intended to support a one-time impact requirement to address impacts generated over the life of a project (generally 40 years or more). Short-term conditions, such as a recession or a vigorous boom period, are not an appropriate basis for estimating impacts over the life of the building. These cycles can produce impacts that are higher or lower on a temporary basis. Development of new workspace buildings tends to be minimal during a recession and generally remains minimal until conditions improve or there is confidence that improved conditions are imminent. When this occurs, the improved economic condition will absorb existing vacant space and underutilized capacity of existing workers, employed and unemployed. By the time new buildings become occupied, current conditions will have likely improved. To the limited extent that new workspace buildings are built during a recession, housing impacts from these new buildings may not be fully experienced immediately, though, the impacts will be experienced at some point. New buildings delivered during a recession can sometimes sit vacant for a period after completion. Even if new buildings are immediately occupied, overall absorption of space can still be zero or negative if other buildings are vacated in the process. Jobs added may also be filled in part by unemployed or underemployed workers who are already housed locally. As the economy recovers, firms will begin to expand and hire again filling unoccupied space as unemployment is reduced. New space delivered during the recession still adds to the total supply of employment space in the region. Though the jobs are not realized immediately, as the economy recovers and vacant space is filled, this new employment space absorbs or accommodates job growth. Although there may be a delay in time, the fundamental relationship between new buildings, added jobs, and housing needs remains over the long term. In contrast, during a vigorous economic boom period, conditions exist in which elevated impacts are experienced on a temporary basis. As an example, compression of employment densities can occur as firms add employees while making do with existing space. Compressed employment densities mean more jobs added for a given amount of building area. Boom periods also tend to go hand-in-hand with rising development costs and increasing home prices. These factors can bring market rate housing out of reach from a larger percentage of the workforce and increase the cost of delivering affordable units. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

229 DRAFT APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING TECHNICAL TABLES

230 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 1 INCOME LIMITS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Household Size 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6 + person Household Income Limit Very Low (50% AMI) $32,750 $37,400 $42,100 $46,750 $50,500 $54,250 Low (80% of AMI) $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,250 $71,550 $76,850 Moderate (120% of AMI) $78,550 $89,750 $101,000 $112,200 $130,150 $139,150 Median (100% of AMI) $65,450 $74,800 $84,150 $93,500 $101,000 $108,450 AMI = Area Median Income Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development FY 2013 Income Limits for Alameda County. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Jobs Housing Nexus ; appendix 1 income Limits; 3/5/2014; dd Page 30

231 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE NATIONAL OFFICE WORKER DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATION JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Major Occupations (2% or more) 2012 National Office Industry Occupation Distribution 1 Management Occupations 1,438, % Business and Financial Operations Occupations 1,877, % Computer and Mathematical Occupations 2,263, % Architecture and Engineering Occupations 956, % Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 945, % Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 1,111, % Healthcare Support Occupations 602, % Sales and Related Occupations 791, % Office and Administrative Support Occupations 3,338, % All Other Office Occupations 1,089, % INDUSTRY TOTAL 14,414, % 1 Occupational distribution weighted to reflect the industry mix of Emeryville and Alameda County, using data from the California Employment Development Department Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Office ; Major Occupations Matrix; 3/5/2014; dd Page 31

232 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 3 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 2013 OFFICE WORKER OCCUPATIONS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Office Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 1 of 3 Management Occupations Chief Executives $199, % 0.5% General and Operations Managers $132, % 2.7% Marketing Managers $155, % 0.6% Sales Managers $141, % 0.6% Administrative Services Managers $101, % 0.4% Computer and Information Systems Managers $157, % 1.3% Financial Managers $144, % 1.0% Architectural and Engineering Managers $166, % 0.5% Managers, All Other $134, % 0.6% All Other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $128, % 1.7% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $142, % 10.0% Business and Financial Operations Occupations Human Resources Specialists $74, % 0.8% Management Analysts $103, % 2.2% Training and Development Specialists $86, % 0.5% Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $86, % 1.4% Business Operations Specialists, All Other $89, % 1.7% Accountants and Auditors $80, % 2.6% Financial Analysts $98, % 0.7% All Other Business and Financial Operations (Avg. All Categories) $82, % 3.2% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $87, % 13.0% Computer and Mathematical Occupations Computer Systems Analysts $97, % 2.4% Computer Programmers $98, % 1.8% Software Developers, Applications $109, % 3.2% Software Developers, Systems Software $117, % 2.0% Web Developers $78, % 0.5% Network and Computer Systems Administrators $92, % 1.2% Computer Network Architects $109, % 0.7% Computer User Support Specialists $60, % 1.8% Computer Network Support Specialists $81, % 0.6% All Other Computer and Mathematical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $96, % 1.6% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $97, % 15.7% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Office ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 32

233 DRAFT % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Office Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 2 of 3 Architecture and Engineering Occupations Architects, Except Landscape and Naval $99, % 0.6% Surveyors $97, % 0.2% Civil Engineers $101, % 1.1% Computer Hardware Engineers $119, % 0.3% Electrical Engineers $112, % 0.4% Electronics Engineers, Except Computer $102, % 0.3% Environmental Engineers $103, % 0.2% Industrial Engineers $105, % 0.3% Mechanical Engineers $104, % 0.5% Engineers, All Other $110, % 0.3% Architectural and Civil Drafters $64, % 0.5% Civil Engineering Technicians $72, % 0.2% Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians $61, % 0.3% Surveying and Mapping Technicians $70, % 0.2% All Other Architecture and Engineering Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $98, % 1.4% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $96, % 6.6% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations Multimedia Artists and Animators $88, % 0.3% Graphic Designers $62, % 0.6% Producers and Directors $113, % 1.0% Public Relations Specialists $75, % 0.4% Editors $51, % 0.2% Media and Communication Workers, All Other $53, % 0.2% Audio and Video Equipment Technicians $49, % 0.2% Photographers $33, % 0.3% Film and Video Editors $69, % 0.4% All Other Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media (Avg. All Categories) $59, % 2.9% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $69, % 6.6% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Dentists, General $160, % 0.6% Family and General Practitioners $193, % 0.3% Physicians and Surgeons, All Other $190, % 0.7% Veterinarians $105, % 0.3% Registered Nurses $115, % 1.0% Dental Hygienists $98, % 1.2% Veterinary Technologists and Technicians $38, % 0.5% Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses $60, % 0.4% Medical Records and Health Information Technicians $50, % 0.3% All Other Healthcare and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $104, % 2.4% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $112, % 7.7% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Office ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 33

234 DRAFT % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Office Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 3 of 3 Healthcare Support Occupations Dental Assistants $40, % 1.9% Medical Assistants $37, % 1.5% Medical Transcriptionists $42, % 0.2% Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal Caretakers $29, % 0.4% All Other Healthcare Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $37, % 0.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38, % 4.2% Sales and Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers $89, % 0.3% Advertising Sales Agents $58, % 0.4% Insurance Sales Agents $89, % 0.8% Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents $97, % 0.2% Sales Representatives, Services, All Other $71, % 1.4% Sales Representatives, Technical and Scientific Products $100, % 0.5% Sales Representatives, Except Technical and Scientific Products $73, % 0.5% Telemarketers $29, % 0.5% All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $45, % 0.8% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $70, % 5.5% Office and Administrative Support Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers $62, % 1.7% Bill and Account Collectors $44, % 0.7% Billing and Posting Clerks $44, % 1.1% Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $45, % 2.2% Customer Service Representatives $43, % 3.1% Receptionists and Information Clerks $34, % 2.0% Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants $60, % 1.3% Medical Secretaries $41, % 1.4% Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $43, % 2.3% Office Clerks, General $37, % 2.8% All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $43, % 4.6% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44, % 23.2% Weighted Average Annual Wage - All Occupations $82, % 1 Including occupations representing 3% or more of the major occupation group. 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 3 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data applicable to Alameda County updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Office ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 34

235 DRAFT APPENDIX TABLE NATIONAL RETAIL WORKER DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATION JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Major Occupations (2% or more) 2012 National Retail Industry Occupation Distribution Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 581, % Personal Care and Service Occupations 721, % Sales and Related Occupations 6,512, % Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2,073, % Production Occupations 582, % Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 692, % All Other Retail Occupations 1,020, % INDUSTRY TOTAL 12,183, % Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Retail ; Major Occupations Matrix; 3/5/2014; dd Page 35

236 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 5 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 2013 RETAIL WORKER OCCUPATIONS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Retail Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 1 of 2 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers $31, % 0.4% Cooks, Short Order $25, % 0.1% Food Preparation Workers $22, % 1.2% Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $21, % 1.7% Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop $20, % 0.9% All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $22, % 0.4% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $22, % 4.8% Personal Care and Service Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers $42, % 0.3% Nonfarm Animal Caretakers $25, % 0.8% Motion Picture Projectionists $24, % 0.1% Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $22, % 0.6% Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $29, % 2.8% Manicurists and Pedicurists $18, % 0.5% Skincare Specialists $49, % 0.2% Personal Care and Service Workers, All Other $40, % 0.1% All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $28, % 0.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $28, % 5.9% Sales and Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $49, % 6.5% Cashiers $26, % 18.2% Retail Salespersons $28, % 26.1% All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $45, % 2.6% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $31, % 53.5% Office and Administrative Support Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers $62, % 1.1% Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $45, % 0.9% Customer Service Representatives $43, % 1.9% Receptionists and Information Clerks $34, % 0.5% Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks $34, % 0.9% Stock Clerks and Order Fillers $29, % 9.3% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $43, % 0.4% Office Clerks, General $37, % 1.0% All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $43, % 1.1% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35, % 17.0% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compnsation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Retail ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 36

237 DRAFT % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Retail Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 2 of 2 Production Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers $69, % 0.3% Assemblers and Fabricators, All Other $30, % 0.1% Bakers $29, % 0.6% Butchers and Meat Cutters $37, % 1.1% Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $29, % 0.2% Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $25, % 1.1% Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $24, % 0.4% Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $35, % 0.1% Photographic Process Workers and Processing Machine Operators $34, % 0.2% All Other Production Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $40, % 0.7% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $34, % 4.8% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Driver/Sales Workers $34, % 0.3% Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers $37, % 0.6% Parking Lot Attendants $27, % 0.7% Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $23, % 0.3% Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand $31, % 1.9% Packers and Packagers, Hand $23, % 1.5% All Other Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $40, % 0.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $30, % 5.7% Weighted Average Annual Wage - All Occupations $32, % 1 Including occupations representing 2% or more of the major occupation group. 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 3 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data applicable to Alameda County updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compnsation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Retail ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 37

238 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE NATIONAL RESTAURANT WORKER DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATION JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Major Occupations (2% or more) 2012 National Restaurant Industry Occupation Distribution Management Occupations 191, % Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 8,173, % Sales and Related Occupations 255, % All Other Restaurant Occupations 315, % INDUSTRY TOTAL 8,935, % Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Restaurant ; Major Occupations Matrix; 3/5/2014; dd Page 38

239 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 7 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 2013 RESTAURANT WORKER OCCUPATIONS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Restaurant Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Management Occupations General and Operations Managers $132, % 0.6% Food Service Managers $51, % 1.5% All Other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $128, % 0.1% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $75, % 2.1% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers $31, % 6.5% Cooks, Fast Food $19, % 5.4% Cooks, Restaurant $26, % 9.6% Food Preparation Workers $22, % 4.3% Bartenders $22, % 2.6% Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $21, % 26.5% Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop $20, % 2.6% Waiters and Waitresses $21, % 21.5% Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers $19, % 2.8% Dishwashers $21, % 4.2% Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop $20, % 3.4% All Other Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $22, % 2.2% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $22, % 91.5% Sales and Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $49, % 0.1% Cashiers $26, % 2.7% All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $45, % 0.1% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $27, % 2.9% Weighted Average Annual Wage - All Occupations $24, % 1 Including occupations representing 2% or more of the major occupation group. 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 3 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data applicable to Alameda County updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Restaurant ; Compensation; 3/5/2014; dd Page 39

240 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE NATIONAL HOTEL WORKER DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATION JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Major Occupations (2% or more) 2012 National Hotel Occupation Distribution (1) Management Occupations 66, % Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 364, % Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 471, % Personal Care and Service Occupations 58, % Sales and Related Occupations 30, % Office and Administrative Support Occupations 298, % Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 74, % Production Occupations 31, % All Other Hotel Related Occupations 79, % INDUSTRY TOTAL 1,475, % Notes (1) Excludes casino hotels Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Hotel ;Major Occupations Matrix; 3/5/2014 Page 40

241 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 9 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 2013 HOTEL WORKER OCCUPATIONS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Hotel Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 1 of 2 Management Occupations General and Operations Managers $132, % 1.0% Sales Managers $141, % 0.4% Administrative Services Managers $101, % 0.2% Financial Managers $144, % 0.2% Food Service Managers $51, % 0.5% Lodging Managers $55, % 1.8% Managers, All Other $134, % 0.1% All Other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $128, % 0.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $92, % 4.5% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations Chefs and Head Cooks $49, % 0.7% First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers $31, % 1.3% Cooks, Restaurant $26, % 3.3% Food Preparation Workers $22, % 0.9% Bartenders $22, % 2.0% Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food $21, % 1.0% Waiters and Waitresses $21, % 7.3% Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $24, % 2.2% Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers $19, % 2.4% Dishwashers $21, % 1.6% Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop $20, % 0.9% All Other Food Preparation and Serving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $22, % 1.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $23, % 24.7% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers $47, % 1.9% Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $31, % 2.0% Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $29, % 27.1% Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $31, % 0.8% All Other Building and Grounds Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $33, % 0.1% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $30, % 32.0% Personal Care and Service Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers $42, % 0.2% Amusement and Recreation Attendants $22, % 0.6% Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room Attendants $20, % 0.1% Baggage Porters and Bellhops $25, % 1.4% Concierges $27, % 0.7% Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors $50, % 0.1% Recreation Workers $28, % 0.4% Personal Care and Service Workers, All Other $40, % 0.1% All Other Personal Care and Service Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $28, % 0.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $27, % 4.0% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Hotel ;Compensation; 3/5/2014 Page 41

242 % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation Hotel Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Sales and Related Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $49, % 0.1% First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers $89, % 0.1% Cashiers $26, % 0.6% Retail Salespersons $28, % 0.3% Sales Representatives, Services, All Other $71, % 0.9% All Other Sales and Related Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $45, % 0.2% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50, % 2.1% Office and Administrative Support Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers $62, % 1.5% Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $45, % 1.1% Customer Service Representatives $43, % 0.4% Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $23, % 14.4% Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and Travel Clerks $36, % 0.5% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $43, % 0.4% Office Clerks, General $37, % 0.5% All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $43, % 1.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $30, % 20.2% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $45, % 4.5% All Other Installation, Maint., and Repair Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $54, % 0.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $46, % 5.0% Production Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers $69, % 0.0% Bakers $29, % 0.1% Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $25, % 1.8% Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $77, % 0.1% All Other Production Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $40, % 0.0% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $28, % 2.1% Weighted Average Annual Wage - All Occupations $33, % 1 Including occupations representing 2% or more of the major occupation group. 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 3 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data applicable to Alameda County updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Hotel ;Compensation; 3/5/2014 Page 42

243 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE NATIONAL R&D / BIOTECH WORKER DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATION JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA Major Occupations (2% or more) 2012 National R&D / Biotech Occupation Distribution Management Occupations 65, % Business and Financial Operations Occupations 56, % Computer and Mathematical Occupations 68, % Architecture and Engineering Occupations 98, % Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 149, % Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 11, % Office and Administrative Support Occupations 54, % Production Occupations 18, % All Other R&D / Biotech Related Occupations 48, % INDUSTRY TOTAL 571, % Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\R&D (Biotech) ;Major Occupations Matrix; 3/5/2014 Page 43

244 DRAFT APPENDIX B TABLE 11 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPENSATION, 2013 R&D / BIOTECH WORKER OCCUPATIONS JOBS HOUSING NEXUS ANALYSIS CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation R&D / Biotech Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 1 of 3 Management Occupations Chief Executives $199, % 0.3% General and Operations Managers $132, % 2.2% Marketing Managers $155, % 0.5% Sales Managers $141, % 0.3% Administrative Services Managers $101, % 0.4% Computer and Information Systems Managers $157, % 1.0% Financial Managers $144, % 0.6% Industrial Production Managers $133, % 0.3% Human Resources Managers $133, % 0.3% Architectural and Engineering Managers $166, % 1.6% Natural Sciences Managers $166, % 2.1% Managers, All Other $134, % 1.0% All Other Management Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $128, % 0.8% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $148, % 11.4% Business and Financial Operations Occupations Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products $70, % 0.8% Compliance Officers $84, % 0.8% Human Resources Specialists $74, % 0.5% Logisticians $81, % 0.5% Management Analysts $103, % 1.1% Training and Development Specialists $86, % 0.6% Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $86, % 0.9% Business Operations Specialists, All Other $89, % 2.1% Accountants and Auditors $80, % 1.2% Budget Analysts $86, % 0.2% Financial Analysts $98, % 0.5% All Other Food Preparation and Serving Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $82, % 0.6% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86, % 9.8% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\R&D (Biotech) ;Compensation; 3/5/2014 Page 44

245 % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation R&D / Biotech Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Computer and Mathematical Occupations Computer and Information Research Scientists $134, % 0.5% Computer Systems Analysts $97, % 1.1% Information Security Analysts $104, % 0.3% Computer Programmers $98, % 1.0% Software Developers, Applications $109, % 2.5% Software Developers, Systems Software $117, % 2.5% Database Administrators $86, % 0.3% Network and Computer Systems Administrators $92, % 0.9% Computer Network Architects $109, % 0.4% Computer User Support Specialists $60, % 0.5% Computer Network Support Specialists $81, % 0.3% Computer Occupations, All Other $87, % 0.5% Operations Research Analysts $90, % 0.3% Statisticians $97, % 0.6% All Other Building and Grounds Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $96, % 0.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $103, % 12.0% Architecture and Engineering Occupations Aerospace Engineers $124, % 2.3% Biomedical Engineers $99, % 0.6% Chemical Engineers $129, % 0.6% Computer Hardware Engineers $119, % 1.7% Electrical Engineers $112, % 1.1% Electronics Engineers, Except Computer $102, % 1.4% Industrial Engineers $105, % 1.4% Mechanical Engineers $104, % 2.5% Nuclear Engineers $137, % 0.4% Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians $61, % 0.8% Mechanical Engineering Technicians $61, % 0.6% Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other $85, % 0.8% All Other Architecture and Engineering Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $98, % 3.1% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $105, % 17.2% Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations Biochemists and Biophysicists $82, % 2.4% Microbiologists $91, % 0.8% Biological Scientists, All Other $88, % 0.7% Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists $105, % 6.0% Physicists $110, % 1.0% Chemists $81, % 3.1% Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health $80, % 0.6% Physical Scientists, All Other $115, % 0.7% Biological Technicians $52, % 3.1% Chemical Technicians $56, % 1.4% Social Science Research Assistants $57, % 0.7% All Other Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $82, % 5.5% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $84, % 26.1% Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\R&D (Biotech) ;Compensation; 3/5/2014 Page 45

246 % of Total % of Total 2013 Avg. Occupation R&D / Biotech Occupation 1 Compensation 2 Group 3 Workers Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Physicians and Surgeons, All Other $190, % 0.1% Veterinarians $105, % 0.0% Registered Nurses $115, % 0.3% Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists $86, % 0.3% Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians $57, % 0.5% Veterinary Technologists and Technicians $38, % 0.1% Medical Records and Health Information Technicians $50, % 0.1% Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $93, % 0.2% Occupational Health and Safety Technicians $60, % 0.1% All Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $104, % 0.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $88, % 2.0% Office and Administrative Support Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers $62, % 0.5% Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $45, % 0.7% Customer Service Representatives $43, % 0.4% Receptionists and Information Clerks $34, % 0.2% Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $53, % 0.4% Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks $34, % 0.3% Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants $60, % 2.0% Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $43, % 2.1% Data Entry Keyers $36, % 0.2% Office Clerks, General $37, % 1.4% All Other Office and Administrative Support Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $43, % 1.3% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $46, % 9.6% Production Occupations First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers $69, % 0.3% Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers $39, % 0.1% Team Assemblers $32, % 0.5% Assemblers and Fabricators, All Other $30, % 0.3% Machinists $51, % 0.4% Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders $56, % 0.1% Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and Still Machine Setters, Operators, $50, % 0.1% Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers $44, % 0.5% Medical Appliance Technicians $56, % 0.1% Production Workers, All Other $31, % 0.2% All Other Production Occupations (Avg. All Categories) $40, % 0.8% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $43, % 3.2% Weighted Average Annual Wage - All Occupations $94, % 1 Including occupations representing 2% or more of the major occupation group. 2 The methodology utilized by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) assumes that hourly paid employees are employed full-time. Annual compensation is calculated by EDD by multiplying hourly wages by 40 hours per work week by 52 weeks. 3 Occupation percentages are based on the 2012 National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment survey compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wages are based on the 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data applicable to Alameda County updated by the California Employment Development Department to 2013 wage levels. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; California Employment Development Department Compensation Data for Alameda County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\R&D (Biotech) ;Compensation; 3/5/2014 Page 46

247 DRAFT APPENDIX C: AFFORDABILITY GAPS

248 DRAFT A key component of the nexus analysis is the size of the gap between what households can afford and the cost of producing new housing in Emeryville, known as the affordability gap. In this section, we document the calculation of the affordability gaps used in the nexus analysis. I. City-Assisted Prototypes For estimating the affordability gap, there is a need to match a household of each income level with a unit type and size according to governmental regulations and City practices and policies. The City of Emeryville intends to assist in the production of rental units for households in the Very Low (less than 50% of median income) and Low (50 80% of median income) income categories, and the production of ownership units for households in the Moderate (80% - 120% of median income) income category. KMA reviewed the development program for several recent affordable rental developments assisted by the Cities of Emeryville and Oakland, and concluded that, on average, the new affordable rental units have 2.0 bedrooms. The affordable ownership units are assumed to be small condominium units with a mix of unit sizes averaging 1.5 bedrooms per unit. The analysis assumes 4% tax credit financing for the Very Low income units only. The City of Emeryville recently assisted with the development of the Ambassador, a 68-unit apartment project targeted to Very Low income households developed by Resources for Community Development. KMA reviewed the development pro forma for this project to inform the affordability gap analysis. In addition, KMA reviewed the development cost experience of several recent affordable developments in Oakland. KMA also drew from our extensive experience with affordable housing development throughout the Bay Area to ensure that the development program and costs experienced by the Ambassador project are fairly typical, and therefore appropriate for use as a prototype going forward. II. Affordable Rent Levels Affordable rent levels are a function of the income level for which the unit is aimed to be affordable; affordable rent levels are estimated by KMA in accordance with the City s methodology and the tax credit program, as appropriate For the Very Low income unit, KMA utilized the maximum rents published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The published rents include utilities, so KMA subtracted out a utility allowance based on those utilized in the Ambassador project. The two-bedroom Very Low Income unit is assumed to rent for $959 per month, after utilities. See Appendix C Table 1 for more detail on the calculation of this rent level. For the Low Income unit, KMA calculated the maximum affordable rent based on the City s standard of 30% of household income available for rent and utilities. Per the City s direction, household income for the purposes of setting the rent is assumed to equal 80% of median, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 48 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

249 DRAFT which is the maximum income for the Low Income category (this creates a conservative estimate of the affordability gap). Household size is determined by the number of bedrooms plus one, so the two-bedroom unit is assumed to be occupied by a three-person household. KMA calculated the gross rents based on the 2013 California Housing and Community Development Department s (HCD) income limits, and used the same utility allowance as the Very Low income units. In the table below, the affordable rents for the Low Income category are calculated. Calculation of Affordable Rents: Low Income 2 Bedroom Area Median Income (AMI), 3-Person Household $84,150 Household 80% of AMI $67,320 Maximum Housing Cost (30% of Monthly Household Income) $1,683 Utility Allowance $ (44) Affordable Rent Net of Utilities $1,639 For more information on the calculation of this rent level, see Appendix C Table 2. The rent level as defined above (by unit size and income category) governs what the building owner may charge for a particular Low Income unit. III. Affordable Sales Price For the condominium affordable to Moderate Income households, KMA calculated the affordable sales price for the average 1.5 bedroom unit using the City of Emeryville s 2013 affordable sales prices. Per the City s direction, the affordable sales price is targeted to a household earning 110% of median; this is less than the maximum income level for the Moderate Income category (120% of median) but consistent with many state and local programs, including the former redevelopment program. The City calculates the affordable sales prices by bedroom size. Because the condominium units average 1.5 bedrooms, KMA took the midpoint between the 1-bedroom and the 2- bedroom sales price. The maximum affordable sales price for a 1.5 bedroom unit at 110% of Area Median Income is $285,000. IV. Affordability Gaps In a nexus study, the affordability gap is the amount of subsidy dollars required to bridge the difference between total development costs and the value of the affordable unit. The unit value of an affordable rental unit is calculated by capitalizing the net operating income generated by the unit. The unit value of an affordable ownership unit is the affordable sales price. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 49 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

250 DRAFT For the Very Low income units, the affordability gap is calculated slightly differently because we assume that these units will receive tax credit financing. For these units, KMA estimates the total sources of funds (including permanent debt, tax credits and a deferred developer fee) and compares that to the total development costs; the difference is the affordability gap, or the amount of additional subsidy dollars necessary to make the project feasible. a) Development Costs For the purposes of the nexus analysis, KMA prepared an estimate of total development cost for typical affordable rental units. Total development costs include land, direct construction, all fees and permits, financing and other indirect costs, including profit. KMA drew this estimate from the development pro forma for the Ambassador project, a recent affordable rental development in Emeryville with total development costs of $400,000 per unit. KMA also reviewed the development cost experience of several recent affordable housing projects in Oakland; those projects all had higher development costs, in the $450,000 - $550,000 range per unit. KMA concluded that the experience of the Ambassador project is a reasonable, and perhaps conservative, estimate of total development costs. The City has not recently assisted with the development of affordable condominium units. For the purposes of this analysis, therefore, KMA uses an estimate of the market rate sales price for new condominium units in Emeryville as a proxy for total development costs. However, no new market rate condominiums have been developed recently in Emeryville (the Bridgewater project is the only condominium project currently being marketed, although that project is a conversion from rental units). KMA reviewed the development program for two recent condominium projects in Oakland Uptown Place and Broadway Grand to approximate a new condominium in Emeryville. In addition, KMA gathered resale data for the Vue 46 project in Emeryville, which are condominiums that were built in From this market research, KMA estimates that a 1.5-bedroom condominium unit in Emeryville would have a market value of $400,000. For many new developments, particularly City-assisted developments, total development costs could be higher than those estimated here. The conservative estimate of development costs results in a lower supportable nexus amount. b) Unit Values To calculate the value of the restricted rental units, KMA first estimated the Net Operating Income generated by the units. The first step is to convert monthly gross rent to an annual gross rent by multiplying by 12. Annual gross rent is then adjusted for vacancy rates during turnover, and then operating costs are netted out. Lost income due to vacancy is estimated at 5% of gross rents. Operating costs cover management, property taxes, and certain other expenses. Based on KMA s experience reviewing operating budgets for affordable apartment projects proposed or built in the local area, the operating expenses are estimated at $6,000 per unit per Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 50 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

251 DRAFT year including replacement reserves but excluding property taxes. Property taxes are estimated at 1.25% of the unit s capitalized value (Very Low income units are assumed to be owned by a non-profit general partner and therefore exempt from property taxes). Net Operating Income is calculated by netting out vacancy, operating costs and property taxes from the gross income generated by the unit. For the Low Income units, the Net Operating Income is capitalized at 7.5% to estimate the value of the restricted units. The Low Income two-bedroom unit has a capitalized value of $145,000. For the Very Low Income units, the Net Operating Income is used to estimate the amount of permanent debt the project can support, given conservative underwriting assumptions. Additional sources of funds include the market value of 4% tax credits (estimated based on the Ambassador project in Emeryville) and the deferred developer fee. Altogether, these Sources of Funds total $187,500. For the Moderate Income units, the unit value is the affordable sales price, or $285,000. The results are summarized below and shown in Appendix C Tables 1, 2 and 3. Supported Unit Values Net Operating Income Unit Value Very Low Income $3,366 per year $187,500 * Low Income $10,880 per year $145,000 Moderate Income n/a $285,000 *Total Sources of Funds, which includes permanent debt, tax credits and deferred developer fee. As shown in the table above, the affordable units do not generate enough value to cover the total development costs of the unit. The resulting gap between unit value and development costs is referred to as the Affordability Gap. c) Affordability Gaps The affordability gap conclusions are presented in Appendix C Tables 1, 2 and 3, and summarized below. Affordability Gaps Income Level Unit Value Development Cost Affordability Gap Very Low Income Low Income $187,500 $145,000 $400,000 $400,000 $212,500 $255,000 Moderate Income $285,000 $400,000 $115,000 These affordability gaps represent the mitigation cost to the City per affordable unit, by income level. They are entered into the nexus analysis to calculate the maximum supported impact fees. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 51 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

252 DRAFT APPENDIX C TABLE 1 AFFORDABILITY GAP: VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AFTER 4% TAX CREDIT FINANCING RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. Affordable Rent Average Number of Bedrooms (1) 50% AMI 2 Bedrooms Maximum Rent per CTCAC $1,003 (Less) Utility Allowance (2) ($44) Maximum Monthly Rent per CTCAC $959 II. Net Operating Income (NOI) Per Unit Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) Monthly $959 Annual $11,508 Other Income $300 (Less) Vacancy 5% ($590) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $11,218 (Less) Operating Expenses (3) ($6,000) (Less) Property Taxes 1.25% exempt (4) Net Operating Income (NOI) $5,218 III. Capitalized Value and Affordability Gap I. Net Operating Income (NOI) $5,218 II. Sources of Funds Supportable Debt $63,000 Market Value of 4% Tax Credits $121,000 Deferred Developer Fee $3,500 III. Total Sources of Funds $187,500 IV. (Less) Total Development Costs (5) ($400,000) V. Affordability Gap ($212,500) (1) Average unit size based on the Ambassador project. (2) Utility allowances from Alameda County Housing Authority. (3) Includes replacement reserves. (4) Assumes non-profit general partner. (5) Development costs based on the Ambassador affordable project (includes prevailing wages). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Affordability Gaps ; VL rentals with TC Page 52

253 DRAFT APPENDIX C TABLE 2 AFFORDABILITY GAP: LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. Affordable Rent 60% AMI (1) 80% AMI Average Number of Bedrooms (2) 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms Average Household Size 3 Persons per HH 3 Persons per HH Household Income $50,490 $67,320 Income Allocation to Housing 30% 30% Monthly Housing Cost $1,262 $1,683 (Less) Utility Allowance ($44) ($44) (3) Maximum Monthly Rent $1,218 $1,639 II. Net Operating Income (NOI) Per Unit Per Unit Gross Scheduled Income (GSI) Monthly $1,218 $1,639 Annual $14,619 $19,668 Other Income $300 $300 (Less) Vacancy 5% ($746) ($998) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $14,173 $18,970 (Less) Operating Expenses (4) ($6,000) ($6,000) (Less) Property Taxes 1.25% ($1,320) ($2,090) Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,853 $10,880 III. Capitalized Value and Affordability Gap I. Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,853 $10,880 II. Target Return on Investment 7.50% 7.50% III. Total Capitalized Value $91,000 $145,000 IV. (Less) Total Development Costs (5) ($400,000) ($400,000) V. Affordability Gap ($309,000) ($255,000) gap with AMI used in the analysis (1) The California Health and Safety code standard sets rent levels for Low Income households at 60% of AMI. The Emeryville nexus analysis calculates the affordability gap assuming rents are set at 80% of AMI. This is a conservative assumption, as it results in a lower affordability gap and lower resulting maximum supported fee levels. (2) Average unit size based on the Ambassador project. (3) Utility allowances from Alameda County Housing Authority. (4) Includes replacement reserves. (5) Development costs based on the Ambassador affordable project (includes prevailing wages). Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Affordability Gaps ; rentals - Low Page 53

254 DRAFT APPENDIX C TABLE 3 AFFORDABILITY GAP: MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CA I. City-Assisted Affordable For-Sale Prototype Building Type Density Multi-family Condominiums 80 du/ac Number of Bedrooms 1.5 Unit Size 1,000 SF II. Affordable Sales Price III. Affordability Gap Market Rate Sale Price $400,000 Household Size 2.5 person HH 110% of Median Income $79,475 Maximum Affordable Sales Price (1) $285,000 Market Rate Sale Price $400,000 (Less) Affordable Price ($285,000) Affordability Gap $115,000 (1) Based on City of Emeryville's methodology and assumptions, adjusted for household size. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\Emeryville Affordability Gaps ; Mod for sale Page 54

255 DRAFT APPENDIX D: NON-DUPLICATION BETWEEN POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE PROGRAMS

256 DRAFT The City of Emeryville is currently considering establishing impact fees on non-residential and residential rental construction to help mitigate the impacts of the new buildings on the demand for affordable housing the City. KMA conducted both a Non-Residential Nexus Analysis and a Residential Nexus; in this appendix, KMA conducts an overlap analysis to determine whether any double-counting of impacts is possible. To briefly summarize the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis (which is a jobs-housing nexus analysis), the logic begins with jobs located in new workplace buildings such as office buildings, retail spaces and hotels. The nexus analysis then identifies the compensation structure of the new jobs depending on the building type, the income of the new worker households, and the housing affordability level of the new worker households, concluding with the number of new worker households in the lower income affordability levels. In the Residential Nexus Analysis, the logic begins with the households renting new market rate apartments. The purchasing power of those households generates new jobs in the local economy. The nexus analysis quantifies the jobs created by the spending of the new households and then identifies the compensation structure of the new jobs, the income of the new worker households, and the housing affordability level of the new worker households, concluding with the number of new worker households in the lower income affordability levels. Some of the jobs that are counted in the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis are also counted in the Residential Nexus Analysis. The overlap potential exists in jobs generated by the expenditures of City residents, such as expenditures for food, personal services, restaurant meals and entertainment. Many jobs counted in the residential nexus are not addressed in the jobs housing analysis at all. For example, school and government employees are counted in the residential nexus analysis but are not counted in the jobs housing analysis which is limited to private sector office buildings, hotel, retail/restaurant, and research and development projects. Theoretically, there is a set of conditions in which 100% of the jobs counted for purposes of the Non-Residential Nexus are also counted for purposes of the Residential Nexus Analysis. For example, a small retail store or restaurant might be located on the ground floor of a new apartment building and entirely dependent upon customers from the apartments in the floors above. The commercial space on the ground floor pays the Non-Residential fee and the apartments would pay a Residential Impact fee. In this special case, the two programs mitigate the affordable housing demand of the very same workers. The combined requirements of the two programs to fund construction of affordable units must not exceed 100% of the demand for affordable units generated by employees in the new commercial space. Complete overlap between jobs counted in the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis and jobs counted in the Residential Nexus Analysis could occur only in a very narrow set of circumstances. The following analysis demonstrates that the combined mitigation requirements do not exceed the nexus even if every job counted in the Residential Nexus Analysis is also counted in the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 56 \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

257 DRAFT Non-Residential Requirement as a Percent of Nexus The Non-Residential Nexus Analysis calculates the maximum mitigation amount supported by the analysis. For the purposes of the overlap analysis, we are assuming a fee of $2.00 per square foot for non-residential development. If the City ultimately selects a higher fee level, the overlap analysis should be rerun at the higher fee level. Total Nexus Amount Illustrative Fee Percent of Nexus Office $ $ % Retail / Restaurant $ $ % Hotel $89.30 $ % R & D / Biotech $66.80 $ % The conclusion is that a fee level of $2.00 per square foot represents 1% to 3% of the nexus cost. So, the Non-Residential fee at $2.00 mitigates less than 3% of the demand for affordable units generated by the new non-residential space. Residential Requirement under Consideration as a Percent of Nexus City Staff is considering recommending an affordable housing impact fee for new rental development in the City. The fee currently under consideration by Staff is $20,000 per market rate unit. The table below compares the supported nexus amounts for apartment buildings with a $20,000 fee level. Proposed Fee as Percent of Maximum Nexus Amount, Apartment Units Maximum Nexus Amount $35,600 Proposed Fee $20,000 Fee as Percent of Nexus 56% The conclusion is that the affordable housing impact fee under consideration by City Staff is equal to 56% of the maximum supported by the Residential Nexus analysis. Combined Requirements within Nexus A Non-Residential housing fee of $2.00 per square foot is at 1% to 3% of the supported nexus amount and the Residential housing fee under consideration of $20,000 per unit for new apartments is 56% of the supported nexus amount. Therefore, the combined affordable housing mitigations would not exceed the nexus even if there were 100% overlap in the jobs counted in the two nexus analyses. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\Sf-fs2\wp\12\12090\002\ (non residential).docx

258

259 Memorandum To: Helen Bean, City of Emeryville From: James Edison and Carlos Villarreal, Willdan Financial Services Date: March 11, 2014 Re: REVISED Development Fee Comparison Willdan Financial Services was retained by the City of Emeryville to conduct an analysis of the overall fees amounts charged to new development in other local Bay Area cities. Specifically, the analysis examines the aggregate impact of plan check fees, permit fees, school developer fees and development impact fees on seven prototype development projects. While a fee comparison analysis should not be used as a tool to justify maximum fee amounts, it does provide a reference point indicating how the fees charged in a given area compare to those in neighboring or similar communities. In the case of Emeryville, the existing level of service standards combined with high land costs justify extremely high development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, the City could use this analysis to inform setting a fee at a level below the maximum allowed and focuses on an evaluation of the average fees charged in neighboring jurisdictions and the financial impact of fees on development projects. Approach and Methodology The cities analyzed in this study include: City of Emeryville (population 10,269); City of Berkeley (population 115,716); City of Oakland (population 399,326); City of El Cerrito (population 23,910); City of Albany (population 18,430); City of Alameda (population 75,126); City of Walnut Creek (population 65,684); and, City of Richmond (population 105,562). The fee data collected for each city is based on the development scenarios shown in Table 1. Note that these development scenarios constitute hypothetical rather than actual projects Harrison Street, Suite 430 Tel. (510) Oakland, California Fax (510) Attachment 6

260 March 11, 2014 Page 2 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison The City identified seven prototypical development projects to estimate fees for because these projects represent typical development likely to take place in Emeryville. The prototypical projects vary across land use, building size, and market value. Additionally, the square footages used in the development scenarios do not include any land that surrounds buildings. Willdan Financial Services primarily estimated fees through the information found in each City s most current Master Fee Schedule. Willdan used each City s municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions to estimate the fees charged to new development. When necessary, Willdan confirmed fee calculation estimates with appropriate City staff. In some cases, fees charged will also vary by geography within a city. In these cases, Willdan Financial Services used fee amounts that represent the most typical type or location of development for a given city. Table 1: Poject Prototype Assumptions Residential Multi- 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, 20,000 Hotel Rooms Dwelling Units Hotel Rooms Project Size (Sq. Ft.) 1 85, , , , ,000 25,000 70,000 Cost per Square Foot 2 $ 195 $ 195 $ 195 $ 194 $ 193 $264 Rest. $138 Com. $ 234 Construction Valuation $ 16,575,000 $ 19,500,000 $ 27,300,000 $ 19,400,000 $ 28,950,000 $ 4,080,000 $ 16,380,000 Type of Construction V-1hr over I V-1hr over I V-1hr over I I I I I Number of Stories Grading (Cubic Yards) 188, , , , ,000 13, ,556 townhome. Hotel square footage based on assumption of 350 square feet per room, including for location. Sources: rsmeansonline.com; Willdan Financial Services. Fees by Jurisdiction The following tables show the full range of fees charged to new development in each of the cities surveyed. Note that the range of fees charged varies by jurisdiction. Tables 2 through 9 show the current fees charged to new development for the cities included in the analysis.

261 March 11, 2014 Page 3 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 2: Existing Fees to New Development (City of Emeryville) Residential Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental 100 Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Research & Office 100,000 Development 20,000 Commercial Hotel sq.ft. 150,000 sq.ft. sq. ft. Rooms Development Impact Fees Sewer Connection Fee 1 $ 118,500 $ 118,500 $ 118,500 $ 17,775 $ 26,781 $ 7,110 $ 142,200 Traffic Impact Fee 2 50,300 43,800 43, , ,600 89,675 66,800 School District Facilities Development Fee 3 252, , ,800 47,000 70,500 11,750 32,900 Art In Public Places 4 82,875 97, , , ,535 40, ,800 Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 504,125 $ 556,800 $ 714,600 $ 363,465 $ 511,416 $ 149,335 $ 405,700 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Review Fee 5 $ 86,190 $ 101,400 $ 141,960 $ 102,799 $ 154,198 $ 21,216 $ 85,176 Energy Conservation Review Fee 6 16,575 19,500 27,300 19,769 29,654 4,080 16,380 Microfiche 7 1,326 1,560 2,184 1,582 2, ,310 Fire Department Fees 8 46,410 54,600 76,440 55,353 83,030 11,424 45,864 Technology Fee 9 16,575 19,500 27,300 19,769 29,654 4,080 16,380 Building Standards Commission Fee , , General Plan Maintenance Fee 11 82,875 97, ,500 98, ,268 20,400 81,900 Subtotal, Plan Check, Inspection Fees $ 250,614 $ 294,840 $ 412,776 $ 298,908 $ 448,362 $ 61,690 $ 247,666 Permit Fees Building Permit Fee 12 $ 132,600 $ 156,000 $ 218,400 $ 158,152 $ 237,228 $ 32,640 $ 131,040 Electrical Permit Fee 13 26,520 31,200 43,680 31,630 47,446 6,528 26,208 Plumbing Permit Fee 14 23,868 28,080 39,312 28,467 42,701 5,875 23,587 Mechanical Permit Fee 15 22,542 26,520 37,128 26,886 40,329 5,549 22,277 S.M.I.P. 17 3,481 4,095 2,730 4,151 6, ,440 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 209,011 $ 245,895 $ 341,250 $ 249,287 $ 373,931 $ 51,449 $ 206,552 Total Fees $ 963,750 $ 1,097,535 $ 1,468,626 $ 911,660 $ 1,333,708 $ 262,474 $ 859,918 1 Sew er connection fee of $237 per trap or $1,185 per dw elling unit. 2 Traffic fee of $503 per apartment, $438 per condo, $1,010 per 1,000 sq. ft. of office, $3,523 per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail, $3,603 per sq. ft. of restaurant, $784 per sq. ft. of research center and $334 per hotel room. 3 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $2.97 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.47 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 4 Applicable to commercial projects > $300,000 valuation. Artwork or in-lieu fee of 1% of value. 5 Plan review fee equal to 65% of building permit fee for nonresidential and 50% of building permit fee for residential. 6 Energy conservation fee equal to 12.5% of building permit fee. 7 Microfiche charge for projects valued over $ 100,000 equal to 1% of building permit fee. 8 Applicable to new construction and T.I. Equal to 35% of building permit fee. 9 Technology fee equal to 0.1% of project valuation. 10 Fee of $1.00 per $ 25,000 valuation 11 General plan standards fee equal to 0.5% of valuation. 12 Building permit fee equal to 1% of valutaion to $50,000, 0.75% of valuation to $250,000, 0.50% of valuation over $250,000. Sprinkler and sprinkler plan check fees included. 13 Electrical permit fee equal to 20% of building permit fee. 14 Plumbing permit fee equal to 18% of building permit fee. 15 Mechanical permit fee equal to 18% of building permit fee. 16 Residential <= 3 story = or of the valuation. Sources: City of Emeryville; Willdan Financial Services.

262 March 11, 2014 Page 4 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 3: Fees to New Development (City of Berkeley) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 20,000 Commercial sq. ft. Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees Sewer Connection 1 $ 132,439 $ 132,439 $ 132,439 $ 12,055 $ 18,082 $ 4,822 $ 96,436 Housing Mitigation Fee 2 2,800,000-2,921, , , , ,000 Child Care Mitigation Fee , ,000 25,000 70,000 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 2,932,439 $ 132,439 $ 3,054,002 $ 512,055 $ 768,082 $ 129,822 $ 446,436 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Check 5 $ 237,045 $ 278,872 $ 390,412 $ 277,442 $ 414,007 $ 58,366 $ 234,256 Design Review 6 10,494 10,494 10,494 10,494 10,494 10,494 10,494 Traffic Engineering 7 126, , , , ,246 26, ,541 California Senate Bill 1473 Fee (Blgd. Strds.) , , Building Permit Filing Fee Zoning Review for Building Project Environmental Health Plan Check Fee Community Planning Fee 5 18,234 21,452 30,032 21,342 31,847 4,490 18,020 California Title 24 Energy Fee 5 43,762 51,484 72,076 51,220 76,432 10,775 43,247 California Title 24 Disability Access Fee 5 43,762 51,484 72,076 51,220 76,432 10,775 43,247 Fire Life and Safety Plan Check Fee 5 25,528 30,032 42,044 29,878 44,585 6,286 25,228 Sustainable Development Fee 5 21,881 25,742 36,038 25,610 38,216 5,388 21,624 Subtotal, Plan Check, Inspection Fees $ 528,301 $ 597,363 $ 831,987 $ 594,355 $ 881,619 $ 134,210 $ 503,514 Permit Fees Building Permit 5 $ 364,684 $ 429,034 $ 600,634 $ 426,834 $ 636,934 $ 89,794 $ 360,394 Use Permit 8 6,683 6,683 6,683 6,683 6,683 6,683 6,683 Building Permit Technology Fee 5 18,234 21,452 30,032 21,342 31,847 4,490 18,020 California Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee 5 1,658 1,950 2,730 4,074 6, ,440 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 391,259 $ 459,119 $ 640,079 $ 458,933 $ 681,543 $ 101,824 $ 388,537 Total Fees $ 3,851,999 $ 1,188,921 $ 4,526,067 $ 1,565,343 $ 2,331,244 $ 365,855 $ 1,338,487 1 Assumes 824 drainage fixture units (DFU) for the 100 unit residential projects, 75 DFU for office, 112 DFU for R&D, 30 DFU for retail mix and 600 DFU for hotel. Fee of $ per DFU. 2 Fee for nonresidential based on Housing Mitigation fee of $4 per square foot. Residential fee of $28,000 per rental unit. 3 Fee only charged to nonresidential development at a rate of $1 per square foot. 4 Developer is exempt from this fee if appropriate number of affordable units are offered on site (20%). If the developer elects to pay the fee it w ould be an additional $2.9 million for the 100 unit ow ner occupied scenario, and $5.2 million for the 100 tow nhome scenario. 5 Charge estimated based on construction valuation and land use type using the City's online permit fee estimator. 6 Fee includes staff review, preliminary committee review and final committee review. Includes $50 records management fee for each stage of review. 7 Fee based on project valuation. 8 Assumes Tier 2 use permit. Base fee show n. Includes 15% Community Planning Fee, $1,025 Public Hearing Fee, $50 Records Management Fee, and base Traffic Engineering Review fee. Sources: Land Use Planning Fees (Effective July 16, 2012), City of Berkeley; Willdan Financial Services.

263 March 11, 2014 Page 5 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 4: Fees to New Development (City of Oakland) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 20,000 Commercial sq. ft. Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees School Developer Fee 1 $ 272,000 $ 320,000 $ 448,000 $ 51,000 $ 76,500 $ 12,750 $ 35,700 Jobs / Housing , , , ,800 Fire Services Impact Fee 3 425, , , , , , ,000 Sewer Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 697,000 $ 820,000 $ 1,148,000 $ 1,025,000 $ 1,537,500 $ 256,250 $ 717,500 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Inspection 5 $ 95,905 $ 112,724 $ 157,574 $ 112,149 $ 167,061 $ 24,059 $ 94,784 Plan Check Process 6 120, , , , ,223 32, ,322 General Plan Update 7 16,575 19,500 27,300 19,400 28,950 4,080 16,380 Process Coordination 8 13,427 15,781 22,060 15,701 23,389 3,368 13,270 Zoning Inspections 9 10,000 10,000 10,001 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Fire Review 10 62,338 73, ,423 72, ,590 15,638 61,609 Site Plan 11 1,572 1,572 1,572 1,572 1,572 1,572 1,572 Address Bedroom Tax 12 30,000 30, Application Records Management 14 64,977 75, , , ,942 25,551 82,678 Technology Enhancement 15 35,909 41,811 55,975 58,655 87,284 14,120 45,690 Subtotal, Plan Check Fees $ 451,572 $ 521,873 $ 674,916 $ 537,360 $ 793,180 $ 130,887 $ 445,473 Permit Fees S.M.I.P 16 $ 3,481 $ 4,095 $ 5,733 $ 4,074 $ 6,080 $ 41 $ 3,440 Elect., PLBG, and Mech. Permit 17 57,543 67,634 94, , ,757 46, ,984 Certificate of Occupancy Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 61,286 $ 71,991 $ 100,540 $ 219,661 $ 327,099 $ 46,495 $ 185,686 Total Fees $ 1,209,858 $ 1,413,864 $ 1,923,456 $ 1,782,021 $ 2,657,778 $ 433,632 $ 1,348,659 1 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $3.20 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.51 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 2 Jobs / housing fee based on a cost of $4.74 per sq. ft. of non-residential development. 3 Charged at $5 per square foot for new construction. 4 The City of Oakland charges a sew er mitigation fee. Fee amount determined by City Engineer. 5 Sew er mitigation fees assessed based on Engineering Review findings. 6 Approximately 123% of Inspection. Also includes geologists fee. 7 Based on 0.01% of building valuation. 8 Based on 14% of inspection cost. 9 Flat rate. 10 Based on 65% of inspection cost. 11 Includes charge for parking spaces. 12 $100 per bedroom, assumes average of 3 bedrooms per unit. 13 Includes filing and routing. Based on project value of $2,001 or greater. 14 Equal to 9.5% of permit and plan check fees. 15 Equal to 5.25% of permit and plan check fees. 16 Buildings one to three stories in height, except hotels and motels, $10 per $100,000 valuation. All other buildings $21 per $100,000 valuation. 17 Equal to 20% of permit fee for each trade (electric, mechanical and plumbing). 18 Flat rate. Sources: Master Fee Schedule, Effective: July 17, 2012, City of Oakland; Willdan Financial Services.

264 March 11, 2014 Page 6 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 5: Fees to New Development (City of El Cerrito) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 20,000 Commercial sq. ft. Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees 1 School Developer Fee 2 $ 333,200 $ 392,000 $ 548,800 $ 42,000 $ 63,000 $ 10,500 $ 29,400 WCCTAC Subregional Transportation 3 164, , , , ,500 45, ,800 Construction Tax Art in Public Places 5 165, , , , ,500 40, ,800 Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 664,175 $ 752,295 $ 987,268 $ 587,361 $ 879,529 $ 96,994 $ 586,194 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Check 6 $ 47,967 $ 56,367 $ 79,168 $ 35,165 $ 52,665 $ 13,278 $ 13,278 Inspection 7 28,522 33,472 46,672 25,401 37,901 19,050 19,050 Calif. Building Standards Commission , , Subtotal, Plan Check Fees $ 77,152 $ 90,619 $ 126,932 $ 61,342 $ 91,724 $ 32,491 $ 32,983 Permit Fees S.M.I.P 9 $ 1,658 $ 1,950 $ 2,730 $ 3,880 $ 5,790 $ 816 $ 3,276 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 10 22,764 22,764 22,764 22,764 22,764 22,764 22,764 Planned Development 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,870 Use Permit 11 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 4,445 Grading 12 3,954 4,677 3,231 7,088 10,705 2,025 2,025 Encroachment Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 47,765 $ 48,781 $ 48,115 $ 53,122 $ 58,649 $ 44,995 $ 47,455 Total Fees $ 789,092 $ 891,695 $ 1,162,315 $ 701,825 $ 1,029,902 $ 174,481 $ 666,633 1 The City of El Cerrito does not charge development impact fees. Fees noted in this section are charged and administered by other agencies. 2 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $3.92 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.42 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 3 Fees charged at $1,648 per multifamily unit, $1,964 per hotel room, $3.51 per square foot of office and $1.82 per square foot of retail space. 4 Construction tax equal to 0.5% of total permit fees charged to new constructions and additions. 5 Art in public places fee equal to 1% of total project valuation for projects over $250, Includes electric, mechanic, and electric permits. Based on project size and construction type. See Master Fee Schedule p Includes grading plan check, issuance, and inspection charges. Based on project size and construction type. See Master Fee Schedule p Administration fee equal to $1.00 per $25, (or fraction thereof) of project valuation. 9 Fee is equal to the construction value x for residential development, and equal to the construction value x for commercial development. 10 If required. 11 Based on residential rate for properties greater than 11 units, and on nonresidential rate for properties greater than 10,000 square feet. 12 Includes grading plan check, issuance, and inspection charges. 13 Includes encroachment issuance and permit charges. Sources: Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY , City of El Cerrito; Willdan Financial Services.

265 March 11, 2014 Page 7 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 6: Fees to New Development (City of Albany) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 20,000 Commercial sq. ft. Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees School Developer Fee 1 $ 252,450 $ 297,000 $ 415,800 $ 47,000 $ 70,500 $ 11,750 $ 32,900 Parkland Dedication (In-Lieu) 2 691, ,938 2,767, Capital Facilities Impact 3 84,000 84,000 84,100 65,000 97,500 16,250 45,500 Storm Drain Impact 4 8,500 10,000 14,000 10,000 15,000 2,500 7,000 Sewer Connection 5 1,166 1,166 1,166 13,667 20,500 5, ,332 Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 1,038,066 $ 1,257,104 $ 3,282,870 $ 135,667 $ 203,500 $ 35,967 $ 194,732 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Check 6 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 $ 7,400 Fire Inspection 7 1,026 1,026 1, Building Standards Administration Fee , , Subtotal, Plan Check Fees $ 9,089 $ 9,206 $ 9,518 $ 8,202 $ 8,584 $ 7,589 $ 8,081 Permit Fees Construction Permit 8 $ 71,464 $ 84,304 $ 229,294 $ 100,889 $ 151,981 $ 17,295 $ 50,759 S.M.I.P 10 3,481 4,095 5,733 4,074 6, ,440 Use Permits 11 1,974 1,974 1,975 1,974 1,974 1,974 1,974 Miscellaneous Permit Fees Electric, Plumbing and Mech. Permits 12 16,142 18,983 26,558 18,983 28,452 4,779 13,301 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 93,190 $ 109,485 $ 263,690 $ 126,049 $ 188,617 $ 24,585 $ 69,604 Total Fees $ 1,140,345 $ 1,375,795 $ 3,556,078 $ 269,918 $ 400,701 $ 68,141 $ 272,417 1 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $2.97 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.47 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 2 Assumes fair market value of $659,000 per acre of parkland. 3 Fee is $840 per dw elling unit, or $0.65 per square foot of nonresidential. 4 Storm drain impact fee is equal to $0.10 per square foot for both residential and nonresidential development. 5 Sewer connection fee of $1,166 per dwelling unit, and $182 per nonresidential fixture. 6 Plan check fee estimated based on cost per hour of $ Assumes 80 hours of review per project. 7 Fee for multi-family development includes a $154 administrative fee; fees for non-residential developments represent minimum fees, additional fees are determined by the Fire Chief. 8 Administration fee equal to $1.00 per $25, (or fraction thereof) of project valuation 9 Construction valuation for the purposes of calculating construction permit cost, is based on valuation data provided in the City's Master Fee Schedule. 10 Buildings one to three stories in height, except hotels and motels, $10 per $100,000 valuation. All other buildings $21 per $100,000 valuation. 11 Based on major use permit. Additional cost may apply. 12 Based on rate of $5.90 per 100 square feet for each type of permit (electrical, plumbing, and mechanical). Sources: Master Fee Schedule (Effective July 3, 2012), City of Albany; Willdan Financial Services.

266 March 11, 2014 Page 8 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 7: Fees to New Development (City of Alameda) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 20,000 Commercial sq. ft. Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees Affordable Housing In-Lieu 1 $ 1,716,102 $ 1,716,102 $ 1,716,102 $ 421,000 $ 631,500 $ 53,500 $ 216,200 School Developer Fee 2 272, , ,000 51,000 76,500 12,750 35,700 Citywide Development 3 360, , , , , , ,900 Community Planning 4 49,725 58,500 81,900 58,200 86,850 12,240 49,140 Dwelling Unit Tax 5 153, , , Sewer Connection 6 98,900 98,900 98,900 74, ,263 29, ,400 Improvement Tax 7 165, , , , ,500 40, ,800 Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 2,816,277 $ 2,902,302 $ 3,131,702 $ 1,375,375 $ 2,061,113 $ 299,460 $ 1,462,140 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Check 8 $ 6,404 $ 6,404 $ 6,404 $ 7,659 $ 11,489 $ 2,770 $ 6,164 Inspection 9 19,858 19,858 19,858 10,536 15,806 8,818 24,151 Design Review Subtotal, Plan Check Fees $ 26,605 $ 26,605 $ 26,605 $ 18,538 $ 27,638 $ 11,931 $ 30,658 Permit Fees Permit Center Processing Fee 11 $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 Excavation & Grading 1,736 1,914 1,558 2,506 3, ,558 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 1,782 $ 1,960 $ 1,604 $ 2,552 $ 3,440 $ 446 $ 1,604 Total Fees $ 2,844,664 $ 2,930,867 $ 3,159,912 $ 1,396,464 $ 2,092,190 $ 311,837 $ 1,494,402 1 Fee per unit of 17,161 used to estimate affordable housing in-lieu fees for residential units. Nonresidential fees based on rate of $4.21 per square foot. Affordable housing fees are typically negotiated through a development agreement for large projects. Note that the city is currently updating its fees, and aims to adopt updated fees in September School fees are calculated based on a cost of $3.20 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.51 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 3 Citywide development fee is $3,607 per multi family unit, $5.77 per sq. ft. of office and industrial space, and $6.02 per sq. ft. of retail development in the West End District. 4 Equal to 0.3% of construction valuation. 5 Tax of 1,531 per unit. 6 Based on fee of $989 per connection. 7 Equal to 1% of construction valuation. 8 Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Permit fees are included in the Plan Check fee. 9 Inspection fees are based on the square footage of the project, per the Master Fee Schedule. 10 Base fee show n. Additional time may be required to complete review. Developers are charged for time and materials for any review above the listed amount. 11 Flat fee. Sources: Master Fee Schedule July 2012 June 2013, City of Alameda; Willdan Financial Services.

267 March 11, 2014 Page 9 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 8: Fees to New Development (City of Walnut Creek) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Office 100,000 sq.ft. Research & Development 150,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, 20,000 Commercial Hotel Rooms Development Impact Fees School Impact Fees 1 $ 272,000 $ 320,000 $ 448,000 $ 51,000 $ 76,500 $ 12,750 $ 35,700 Public Arts In-lieu Fee 2 165, , , , ,500 40, ,800 Traffic Impact Fees 3 150, , , , , , ,600 Property Development Tax 4 15,750 15,750 15,750 6,000 9,000 1,500 4,200 Commercial Linkage Fees 5 425, , , , ,000 Inclusionary Housing Fees 6-1,485,000 2,085, Parkland Dedication Acreage and/or Fee 7 400, ,000 1,200, Total - Development Impact Fees $ 1,429,000 $ 2,966,250 $ 4,172,250 $ 1,181,000 $ 1,770,000 $ 314,550 $ 930,300 Plan Review & Inspection Fees Plan Review 8 $ 64,826 $ 75,795 $ 105,045 $ 75,420 $ 111,232 $ 17,970 $ 64,095 Electric Review 9 25,120 29,371 40,705 29,225 43,103 6,963 24,837 Plumbing Review 9 25,120 29,371 40,705 29,225 43,103 6,963 24,837 Mechanical Review 9 25,120 29,371 40,705 29,225 43,103 6,963 24,837 Green Building Code Plan Review 10 14,019 16,391 22,716 16,310 24,054 3,886 13,861 Building Permit Planning Division Review 16,579 19,385 26,865 19,289 28,448 4,596 16,392 Technology Fee ,656 81, ,580 81, ,270 19,430 69,303 Waste Management Fee Building Division Training Fee 12 3,516 4,111 5,698 4,091 6, ,477 General Plan Update Fee 13 16,575 19,500 27,300 19,400 28,950 4,080 16,380 CALGreen Fees , , Engineering Department Review 15 16,579 19,385 26,865 19,289 28,448 4,596 16,392 Application Processing Fee Subtotal, Plan Check, Inspection Fees $ 349,226 $ 325,862 $ 451,727 $ 324,248 $ 478,352 $ 77,036 $ 275,516 Permit Fees Building Permit 17 $ 64,826 $ 75,795 $ 105,045 $ 75,420 $ 111,232 $ 17,970 $ 64,095 Consolidated Elect., Plumb., and Mech. Permit 18 35,654 41,687 57,775 41,481 61,178 9,883 35,252 S.M.I.P. 19 3,481 4,095 5,733 4,074 6, ,440 Green Building Code Permit Fee 20 10,048 11,748 16,282 11,690 17,241 2,785 9,935 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 114,009 $ 133,325 $ 184,835 $ 132,665 $ 195,731 $ 31,047 $ 112,722 Total Fees $ 1,892,235 $ 3,425,437 $ 4,808,811 $ 1,637,913 $ 2,444,083 $ 422,633 $ 1,318,537 1 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $3.20 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.51 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. 2 Public Arts In-Lieu fee equal to 1% of the construction valuation of a major project. 3 Traffic impact fees are $1,505 per multifamily unit, $4.30 per square foot of office and industrial space, and $5.38 per square foot of retail. 4 Assumes three bedrooms per unit. Fee of $0.06 per square foot charged to nonresidential. 5 Fee is estimated at $5 per square foot of nonresidential and multifamily development. 6 Fee is estimated at $15 per square foot of residential development. 7 Fee is estimated at $4,000 per bedroom. 8 Equal to cost of building permit. 9 The plan review fee for electrical, plumbing and engineering w ork shall be 25% of the sum of the building, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical permits. 10 Green building code plan review fee equal to 10% of combined permits. 11 Technology surcharge fee equal to 5 percent of the combined total of permit and plan review fees 12 Building department training fee equal to 1.25 percent of the combined total of permit fee and plan review fees. 13 Equal to 1% of building valuation. 14 Administration fee equal to $1.00 per $25, (or fraction thereof) of project valuation. 15 Equal to 15% of building and trade permits. 16 Maximum f ee of $ Building permit fee based on base rate of $6, plus $3.75 for every additional $1,000 of building valuation. 18 Equal to 55% of cost of building permit. 19 Buildings one to three stories in height, except hotels and motels, $10 per $100,000 valuation. All other buildings $21 per $100,000 valuation. 20 Equal to 1% of building and trade permits. Sources: Fees and Charges for Fiscal Years , and Permit and Developer Fee Summary (Based on Fee Schedule, Adopted June 19, 2012), City of Walnut Creek; Willdan Financial Services.

268 March 11, 2014 Page 10 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 9: Fees to New Development (City of Richmond) Fee Categories 100 Multi- Family Units - Rental Residential Multi- Family Units - Owner Occupied Townhomes Nonresidential Retail Mix 5,000 sq. ft. Office Research & Development Restaurant, 20,000 Hotel ,000 sq.ft. 150,000 sq.ft. Commercial Rooms Development Impact Fees Park/Open Space $ 454,800 $ 454,800 $ 454,800 $ - $ - $ - $ - Traffic Fee 125, , , , ,400 38, ,720 Community/Aquatic Center 109, , , Storm Drainage 30,700 30,700 30,700 59, ,050 7,870 55,090 Library 150, , ,100 33,300 30,300 2,020 14,140 Police Facilities 16,700 16,700 16,700 24,000 36,000 2,400 16,800 Fire Facilities 14,200 14,200 14,200 20,900 31,350 2,090 14,630 Subregional Transportation Mit. Fee Prog 183, , , , ,250 10,155 2,191 Sewer 233, , , , ,950 26, ,310 School Impact Fees 1 272, , ,000 51,000 76,500 12,750 35,700 Subtotal, Development Impact Fees $ 1,590,600 $ 1,638,600 $ 1,766,600 $ 1,108,300 $ 1,858,800 $ 102,575 $ 595,581 Plan Check & Inspection Fees Landscape Plan Check $ 4,224 4,915 4,915 9,782 14, $ 4,178 Comprehensive Planning 29,321 34,496 34,496 34,318 51, ,976 PC Engineering Site Plan Review 1,304 1,304 1,304 1,304 1,304 2,608 1,304 Plan Check All Others 6,762 6,762 6,762 6,762 6, ,762 P-3 New per SF 11,404 15,804 11,404 16, ,104 Grading Inspection Plumbing Fixture Plan Review Grading Plan Review 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 PC Energy Convservation Site Review 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 2,610 1,305 Subtotal, Plan Check Fees $ 45,974 $ 63,243 $ 67,643 $ 67,933 $ 94,840 $ 43,230 $ 53,687 Permit Fees Building Permit $ 9,468 $ 9,468 $ 9,468 $ 9,468 $ 9,468 $ 18,936 $ 9,468 CAL Admin Revolving Fund , Cost to Administer SB Filing 3 or more Ress Adds & all others Occupancy Program Fee , Certificate of Occupancy 6,000 6, SMIP Commercial 3,481 4,095 4,095 4,074 6,080 1,714 3,440 Electrical Permit 2,508 2,508 2,508 2,508 2,508 5,016 2,508 Plumbing Permit 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 6,128 3,064 Mechanical Permit 1,737 1,737 1,737 1,737 1,737 3,474 1,737 Subtotal, Permit Fees $ 22,094 $ 28,825 $ 28,825 $ 22,860 $ 25,247 $ 37,775 $ 22,106 Total Fees $ 1,658,667 $ 1,730,668 $ 1,863,068 $ 1,199,093 $ 1,978,887 $ 183,580 $ 671,373 Note: All fee estimates and calculations provided by the City of Richmond, except for the school district fees, calculated by Willdan Financial Services. 1 School fees are calculated based on a cost of $2.63 per sq. ft. for residential development and $0.42 per sq. ft. for non-residential development. Source: City of Richmond. Fees Comparison Summary by Land Use Tables 10 through 16 and the corresponding Figures 1 through 7 below present a summary of fees charged to new development by city and development type. Multifamily Rental Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the multifamily rental development prototype project range from approximately $789,000 (El Cerrito) to $3.9 million (Berkeley), with a median fee of $1.2 million. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $964,000 were the second lowest fees among the cities surveyed.

269 March 11, 2014 Page 11 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Multifamily Owner-Occupied Development Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the multifamily owner-occupied development prototype project range from approximately $892,000 (El Cerrito) to $3.4 million (Walnut Creek), with a median fee of $1.4 million. Similar to the multifamily rental prototype project, Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $1.1 million were the second lowest fees among the cities surveyed. Townhome Development Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the townhome development prototype project range from approximately $1.2 million (El Cerrito) to $4.8 million (Walnut Creek), with a median fee of $2.5 million. Walnut Creek s fees for this prototype are particularly high because of the City s high inclusionary housing and parkland dedication fees. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $1.5 million were the second lowest fees among the cities surveyed. Office Development Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the 100,000 square foot office development prototype project range from approximately $270,000 (Albany) to $1.8 million (Oakland), with a median fee of $1.3 million. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $911,000 were less than the median, and the third lowest fees among the cities surveyed. Research and Development Facility Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the 150,000 square foot research and development facility prototype project range from approximately $401,000 (El Cerrito) to $2.7 million (Oakland), with a median fee of $2 million. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $1.3 were the third lowest fees among the cities surveyed. Mixed Commercial Development Facility Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the mixed commercial development prototype project (20,000 square foot retail and 5,000 square foot restaurant) range from approximately $68,000 (Albany) to $434,000 (Oakland), with a median fee of $287,000. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $262,000 were the closest to the median fees of all the cities surveyed. Hotel Development Prototype Fee Comparison Total fees for the 200 room hotel development prototype project range from approximately $272,000 (Albany) to $1.5 million (Alameda), with a median fee of $1.1 million. Emeryville s existing fees of approximately $860,000 were less than the median fees charged to hotel development.

270 November 8, 2013 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Page 12 Table 10: Fees for Multifamily Rental Development (100 units, 85,000 sq.ft., $16.6M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 504,125 $ 2,932,439 $ 697,000 $ 664,175 $ 1,038,066 $ 2,816,277 $ 1,429,000 $ 1,590,600 Plan Review & Inspection Fees 250, , ,572 77,152 9,089 26, ,226 45,974 Permit Fees 209, ,259 61,286 47,765 93,190 1, ,009 22,094 Total Fees $ 963,750 $ 3,851,999 $ 1,209,858 $ 789,092 $ 1,140,345 $ 2,844,664 $ 1,892,235 $ 1,658,667 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services.. Table 11: Fees for Multifamily Owner-Occupied Development (100 units, 100,000 sq.ft., $19.5M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 556,800 $ 132,439 $ 820,000 $ 752,295 $ 1,257,104 $ 2,902,302 $ 2,966,250 $ 1,766,600 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 294, , ,873 90,619 9,206 26, ,862 67,643 Permit Fees 245, ,119 71,991 48, ,485 1, ,325 28,825 Total Fees $ 1,097,535 $ 1,188,921 $ 1,413,864 $ 891,695 $ 1,375,795 $ 2,930,867 $ 3,425,437 $ 1,863,068 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services.. Table 12: Fees for Townhome Development (100 units, 100,000 sq.ft., $27.3M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 714,600 $ 3,054,002 $ 1,148,000 $ 987,268 $ 3,282,870 $ 3,131,702 $ 4,172,250 $ 1,766,600 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 412, , , ,932 9,518 26, ,727 67,643 Permit Fees 341, , ,540 48, ,690 1, ,835 28,825 Total Fees $ 1,468,626 $ 4,526,067 $ 1,923,456 $ 1,162,315 $ 3,556,078 $ 3,159,912 $ 4,808,811 $ 1,863,068 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services..

271 November 8, 2013 Page 13 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 13: Fees for Office Development (100,000 sq.ft., $19.4M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 363,465 $ 512,055 $ 1,025,000 $ 587,361 $ 135,667 $ 1,375,375 $ 1,181,000 $ 1,108,300 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 298, , ,360 61,342 8,202 18, ,248 67,933 Permit Fees 249, , ,661 53, ,049 2, ,665 22,860 Total Fees $ 911,660 $ 1,565,343 $ 1,782,021 $ 701,825 $ 269,918 $ 1,396,464 $ 1,637,913 $ 1,199,093 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services.. Table 14: Fees for R&D Development (150,000 sq.ft., $28.95M) Emeryville Fee Categories (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 511,416 $ 768,082 $ 1,537,500 $ 879,529 $ 203,500 $ 2,061,113 $ 1,770,000 $ 1,858,800 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 448, , ,180 91,724 8,584 27, ,352 94,840 Permit Fees 373, , ,099 58, ,617 3, ,731 25,247 Total Fees $ 1,333,708 $ 2,331,244 $ 2,657,778 $ 1,029,902 $ 400,701 $ 2,092,190 $ 2,444,083 $ 1,978,887 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services.. Table 15: Fees for Mixed Retail Development (5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 20,000 sq. ft. retail, $16.38M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 149,335 $ 129,822 $ 256,250 $ 96,994 $ 35,967 $ 299,460 $ 314,550 $ 102,575 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 61, , ,887 32,491 7,589 11,931 77,036 43,230 Permit Fees 51, ,824 46,495 44,995 24, ,047 37,775 Total Fees $ 262,474 $ 365,855 $ 433,632 $ 174,481 $ 68,141 $ 311,837 $ 422,633 $ 183,580 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services..

272 November 8, 2013 Page 14 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison Table 16: Fees for Hotel Development (200 rooms, 70,000 sq. ft., $16.38M) Fee Categories Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees $ 405,700 $ 446,436 $ 717,500 $ 586,194 $ 194,732 $ 1,462,140 $ 930,300 $ 595,581 Plan Check and Inspection Fees 247, , ,473 32,983 8,081 30, ,516 53,687 Permit Fees 206, , ,686 47,455 69,604 1, ,722 22,106 Total Fees $ 859,918 $ 1,338,487 $ 1,348,659 $ 666,633 $ 272,417 $ 1,494,402 $ 1,318,537 $ 671,373 Sources: Tables 2 to 9; Willdan Financial Services..

273 November 8, 2013 Page 15 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $4,500,000 Figure 1: Fee Comparison for Multifamily Rental Development (100 units, 85,000 sq.ft., $15.6M) $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Review & Inspection Fees Permit Fees

274 November 8, 2013 Page 16 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $4,000,000 Figure 2: Fee Comparison for Multifamily Owner Occupied Development (100 units, 100,000 sq.ft., $19.5M) $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

275 November 8, 2013 Page 17 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $6,000,000 Figure 3: Fee Comparison for Townhome Development (100 units, 140,000 sq.ft., $27.3M) $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

276 November 8, 2013 Page 18 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $2,000,000 Figure 4: Fee Comparison for Office Development (100,000 sq.ft., $19.4M) $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

277 November 8, 2013 Page 19 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $3,000,000 Figure 5: Fee Comparison for R&D Development (150,000 sq.ft., $28.95M) $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

278 November 8, 2013 Page 20 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $500,000 Figure 6: Fee Comparison for Mixed Retail Development (5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 20,000 sq. ft. retail, $16.38M) $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

279 November 8, 2013 Page 21 DRAFT Development Fee Comparison $1,600,000 Figure 7: Fee Comparison for Hotel Development (200 rooms, 70,000 sq. ft., $16.38M) $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $ Emeryville (Existing) Berkeley Oakland El Cerrito Albany Alameda Walnut Creek Richmond Development Impact Fees Plan Check and Inspection Fees Permit Fees

280

281 Attachment 7 Emeryville's Existing Fees Compared to Similar Cities - Commercial Per square foot and Per room $20.00 $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 Permit Plan Review Impact $ Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Richmond Alameda Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Office 100,000 sf Research and Development 150,000 sf Retail Mix 25,000 sf $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 Permit Plan Review Impact $1,000 $ Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Hotel 200 rooms Attachment 7

282 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 Existing Residential Per Unit Fee Comparison Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek 100 Multi Family Units Rental 100 Multi Family Units Owner Occupied 100 Townhomes Permit Plan Review Impact $

283 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ Attachment 8 Proposed Per Unit Residential Fee Increase Compared to Existing and Comparable Cities Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek 100 Multi Family Units Rental 100 Multi Family Units Owner Occupied 100 Townhomes New Impact Existing Impact Plan Review Permit Attachment 8

284 Attachment 8a - Proposed Fee Comparison - Commercial $20.00 $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 New Impact Existing Impact Plan Review Permit $ Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Emeryville Berkeley Richmond Alameda Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Office 100,000 sf Research and Development 150,000 sf Retail Mix 25,000 sf $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 New Impact Existing Impact Plan Review Permit $2,000 $1,000 $ Emeryville Berkeley Oakland Walnut Creek Hotel 200 Rooms

285 Prototype Project Size sf 85, , , , ,000 25,000 70,000 Units/Rooms Value/sf or room $406 $400 $325 $333 $290 $286 $150,000 Total Estimated Value $34,000,000 $32,500,000 $56,000,000 $33,300,000 $43,500,000 $7,250,000 $30,000,000 Fee for Prototype Traffic $155,500 $130,420 $130,420 $373,800 $402,600 $123,200 $210,680 Park $374,200 $374,200 $388,825 $380,500 $391,875 $67,938 $73,150 Government Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Housing $2,000,000 $200,000 $300,000 $50,000 $140,000 Total $2,529,700 $504,620 $519,245 $954,300 $1,094,475 $241,138 $423,830 Existing Plus Increase $3,443,150 $1,558,355 $1,944,071 $1,764,960 $2,310,583 $413,937 $1,216,948 Increase as % of Existing % % % % % % % Attachment 9 - Proposed and Existing Fees as Percent of Value Multifamily Rental Multifamily Ownership Townhomes Office R&D Retail & Resturant Mix Hotel per unit per unit per unit per sf per sf per sf per room Plus Emeryville Existing Permit/Planning/Impact Fees $913,450 $1,053,735 $1,424,826 $810,660 $1,216,108 $172,799 $793,118 Proposed Total Fees as % of Value Emeryville's Existing Fees as Percent of Value 10.13% 4.79% 3.47% 5.30% 5.31% 5.71% 4.06% 2.69% 3.24% 2.54% 2.43% 2.80% 2.38% 2.64% Attachment 9

286 Memorandum To: Helen Bean, City of Emeryville From: James Edison and Carlos Villarreal, Willdan Financial Services Date: March 12, 2014 Re: DRAFT Fee Burden Analysis Willdan Financial Services was retained by the City of Emeryville to conduct an analysis of the overall fees amounts charged to new development in other local Bay Area cities. This memorandum compares the total fee amounts surveyed in the November 8, 2013 revision of the fee comparison memorandum to the estimated market values of each prototype development project to determine the average fee burden per land use. While a fee comparison analysis and fee burden analysis should not be used as a tool to justify maximum fee amounts, it does provide a reference point indicating how the fees charged in a given area compare to those in neighboring or similar communities. In the case of Emeryville, the existing level of service standards combined with high land costs justify extremely high development impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, the City could use this analysis to inform setting a fee at a level below the maximum allowed and focuses on an evaluation of the average fees charged in neighboring jurisdictions and the financial impact of fees on development projects. Although the fees charged to new development are not typically large enough to have a tangible affect on real estate markets, substantial differences in the fee amounts between two otherwise similar cities could potentially impact the location patterns of development over time. Approach and Methodology The cities analyzed in this study include:! City of Emeryville (population 10,269);! City of Berkeley (population 115,716);! City of Oakland (population 399,326);! City of El Cerrito (population 23,910);! City of Albany (population 18,430);! City of Alameda (population 75,126);! City of Walnut Creek (population 65,684); and,! City of Richmond (population 105,562).