ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 real estate inputs. This research will include and reflect the targeted outreach to local developers identified at the project initiation meeting to vet these inputs. EPS will assemble a set of “static” pro forma financial models representing the identified housing prototypes and use these models to assess the development feasibility of these prototypes under the identified inclusionary policy alternatives, and to ensure that the selected policy alternatives will not result in an impediment to overall housing production. The resulting profitability for each prototype under each inclusionary alternative will be compared to each other as well as to a minimum market profitability metric established through research and stakeholder input. Task 5.4: In-Lieu Fee Calculation As part of the pro forma analysis, EPS will calculate an in-lieu fee reflecting each inclusionary alternative, demonstrating the fee level that is equivalent to the cost to the developer of providing the inclusionary units onsite. For example, if the average subsidy for an affordable unit is $200,000 and a 100-unit project is expected to provide 20 such units under a certain scenario, the total implicit subsidy would be $4.0 million, and each of the 100 units would be expected to pay $40,000. EPS will calculate these fees on both a per-unit and per-square-foot basis for the City’s consideration. Task 5.5: Provide Recommendations EPS will review the City’s existing practices and guidelines and provide recommendations associated with administering the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, including target affordability levels and their appropriate definitions, aligning definitions with the State Housing Density Bonus Law and other State policies, and exploring the incorporation of a “must build” provision that requires developers to build at least a minimum proportion of the affordable housing units rather than being able to entirely opt out; as well as for procedures for evaluating and approving alternative affordable housing proposals such as land dedication or acquisition/rehabilitation of existing units, tied to the extent feasible to objective criteria. In addition, factors such as periodic calculation and escalation of in-lieu fees, assessment of fees for required monitoring/administration of inclusionary units, rules for determination of income eligibility, expectations for unit mixes by bedroom count, and similar guidelines will be reviewed and compared to best practices among other jurisdictions, as well as the policy objectives of the City. Upon receiving policy direction from Commission(s) and City Council, EPS will prepare Draft Revisions to the IZO for review and adoption. The scope and budget of this task will be highly dependent on the scope of the recommendations EPS provides after completing the feasibility analysis. The initial budget laid out in Table 1 reflects the cost of providing high level recommendations regarding policy implementation. A more intensive study, or additional iterations of recommendations and studies, may require additional budget. Task 6: Comparative Surveys To ensure new development impact fee recommendations are understood in context, EPS will conduct a review comparing recommendations to the City of Pleasanton’s existing fees and policies as well as to jurisdictions that Pleasanton considers to be “peer” cities. The recency of those peer cities’ fee studies will be a consideration, to avoid comparison against cities whose fees may be outdated. EPS will summarize the results of this study as a matrix to be incorporated into final documents and presentations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 23AB0CDB-5A6C-4B09-80D1-0F699E28C524DocuSign Envelope ID: CB7E68CB-B5FA-40EC-AA35-142CA6B57242