HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14137
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14137)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 5/3/2022 Report Type: Action Items
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Recommend City Council Approve the Supplement to the Development
Impact Fee Justification Study; Approval of Adjustments to Park, Community
Center, and Library Development Impact Fees and the Park Dedication Fee,
and Direct Staff to Implement the Fe e Updates With the Fiscal Year 2023
Budget
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Finance Committee
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Finance Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the following recommendations from the Supplement to Park, Library, a nd
Community Center Development Impact Fee Justification Study:
a. Differentiate the commercial/industrial fee structure into four separate
categories: retail, office, industrial and commercial.
b. Maintain the office density calculation of 200 square ft. per employee.
c. Update the fee study every 5-8 years, in accordance with new state law
requirements in Assembly Bill 602.
2. Select and apply one of the following land valuations for use in calculating the Park
Development Impact Fees:
a. Maintain the current $5.7 million/acre valuation.
b. Increase the land valuation to $6.5 million/ acre based on the addition of the last
12 months of vacant Palo Alto property sales data.
c. Increase the land valuation to $17.6 million/acre based on the average of the last
5 years of underutilized Palo Alto properties sales data.
3. Make a recommendation to Council on whether to convert residential fees to reflect a
per-square- foot amount, rather than a single amount per dwelling regardless of
size.
4. Defer any development impact fee increase on multi-family housing and direct staff to
prepare economic feasibility studies to evaluate the potential impact of higher fees
on housing production and other development.
5. If applicable based on Recommendation #2, direct staff to implement new approved fee
levels as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 budget process.
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto Page 2
6. If applicable based on Recommendation #2, adopt an ordinance to update the fair
market value per acre of land for the Park Land in Lieu Fee in PAMC section
21.50.070.
Background
Under California law (AB 1600), cities have the ability to charge new development for its
relative share of the cost to fund the acquisition of land and improvements to public facilities
and services. Impact fees are established based on the reasonable relationship, or nexus ,
between impacts caused by new development and the improvements to mitigate those impacts
that will be funded by the fee.
On November 8, 2019, staff released an RFP for a Parks, Library, and Community Center
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. The local firm of DTA was determined to be the most
qualified consultant. DTA prepared a Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact
Fee Justification Study, which provided a detailed legal framework for the imposition of impact
fees, defined the City facilities addressed in the study, illustrated the calculation methodology
used, and specified the maximum fee levels which the City could charge to new development.
On December 15, 2020, staff and DTA presented the draft study to Finance Committee to
receive feedback prior to presenting to Council. Finance Committee passed a motion to
recommend that the City Council approve any adjustments to fee levels and direct staff to
return with the necessary ordinance and fee schedule updates, as well as the addition of a
possible tiered approach to implement the fees.
On February 23, 2021, staff and DTA presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The
Commission passed a motion with a 5-2 vote to recommend that City Council adopt an
ordinance based on study recommendations to update the City’s Park, Community Center, and
Library Impact Fee Program. Dissenting commissioners expressed concerns that the fair market
value land valuation figure seemed too low and square footage per employee used as
demographics information seemed too high. Additionally, there was a request to see
commercial fees differentiated between retail and office space.
On April 12, 2021 staff and DTA presented the study and recommendations to the City Council,
and the Council passed a motion approving the fees recommended in the study and directing
the Finance Committee and Parks and Recreation Commission to review the fee structures next
Fiscal Year with a focus on:
i. Updated land acquisition costs;
ii. The differentiating fee structure for retail space versus office space;
iii. An update on office density;
iv. Recommendation from the Finance Committee on the frequency these schedules
should be updated; and
v. Recommendations on if there should be changes between multi and single -family fee
structures.
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The April 12th Staff Report and a Parks, Library, and Community Center Development Impact
Fee Nexus Study can be found here. Following in Table 1 are the City of Palo Alto’s current
Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact Fees.
Table 1: 2021 Development Impact Fee Summary Adopted by City Council on April 12, 2021
Land Use Type Park Community
Center Library Total Fees
Single-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $57,420 $4,438 $2,645 $64,504
Multi-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $42,468 $3,283 $1,956 $47,707
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $16.837 $1.301 $0.776 $18.914
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $2.866 $0.222 $0.132 $3.220
*Note: Some figures may not sum due to rounding.
Discussion
Staff engaged DTA to prepare a follow up analysis to address the tasks from the April 12 th
Council motion, outlined in the Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study
(the “Supplement” in Attachment A).
Following is a discussion of each of the additional tasks requested for follow up by Council:
• Task A- Update land acquisition costs.
• Task B- Differentiate the fee structure for retail space versus office space.
• Task C- Update office density from 250 sq. ft. per employee to 190 sq. feet per
employee.
• Task D- Recommend the frequency with which these schedules should be updated.
• Task E- Evaluate whether the multi- ad single-family fee categories should be divided
into multiple categories based on total square feet or some other measure .
• Task F- Evaluate options for a reduction in fees for new multi-family housing
construction for projects that exceed required percentages of below market rate
(“BMR”) units.
On February 22, 2022 staff and DTA presented the Supplement to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission passed a motion approving the
methodology detailed in Tasks B, C, and E (no comment on D) of the nexus study as found in
the Supplement. The Commission requested further study related to Task A on land valuation
costs based on realistic considerations for acquiring land, including residential and commercial
teardown acquisition data, and to provide alternative fee calculation data based on a) existing
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto Page 4
per unit methodology, and b) residential square footage. The following motion was approved
by a 5:0 vote:
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends:
1. The Finance Committee approve the methodology for points 2, 3, and 5 (no comment
on 4) of the nexus study as found in the Supplement to Park, Community Center, and
Library Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Study”).
2. Further study on land valuation costs based on realistic considerati ons for acquiring
land, including residential and commercial teardown acquisition data.
3. Provide alternative fee calculation data based on a) existing per unit methodology, and
b) residential square footage.
The Discussion of Task A addresses the Parks and Recreation Commission’s motion.
Task A: Update Land acquisition costs
The original Study analyzed sales transactions of vacant land within the City over the previous
ten (10) years, as well as in the neighboring cities of Campbell, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
Saratoga, Mountain View, San Jose, and Los Altos. Using vacant land sales is the industry
standard for calculating the development impact fees for park facilities. Based on DTA’s
research and discussions with the City’s real estate and planning teams regarding their fair
market value analysis, a land valuation of $5.7 million per acre was utilized in the Study and
in the corresponding updates to the City’s Municipal Code. Feedback from the City Council
suggested that the $5.7 million per acre land valuatio n may be too low.
Per the City’s direction, DTA updated the analysis to include transactions that occurred in the
12 months since completion of the Study, finding that the average vacant land valuation per
acre within the City has increased from the $5.7 million per acre outlined in the Study to
approximately $6.5 million per acre.
Of note, in cases where a city is fully built out and there are very few vacant parcels
available, alternative methodologies can be utilized to value the specific types of pro perties
that might be suitable for acquisition and conversion by a city into parkland, such as an
improved property on which structures could be demolished in the future and replaced with
other uses, or “teardown properties.”
On February 22, 2022, DTA was directed by the Parks and Recreation Commission to evaluate
the market value of teardown properties within the City. The City provided DTA with a list of
residential and commercial properties classified under this designation; however, sales data for
these properties was not available. After discussions with City staff, it was decided that the
assessed valuations of teardown properties were not representative of the cost to the City of
acquiring potential parkland. In lieu of data on teardown properties, DTA analyzed sales data
over the last five (5) years for “underutilized” sites within the City that would be classified as
parcels that:
▪ Are considered practically uncompetitive with respect to the needs of typical tenants;
▪ May require significant renovati on; and/or
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto Page 5
▪ Are possibly functionally obsolete.
An analysis of this data across three land uses – industrial, office, and retail – substantiated
an average sales price of approximately $17.6 million per acre had the City acquired these
properties with the p urpose of converting them into parkland facilities. Utilizing data from
both vacant land and “underutilized” property sales, DTA determined the anticipated
increase in the Park Fees that would occur under the following two scenarios, which are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3:
Table 2: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($6.5 Million /Acre Scenario)
Land Use Type
Current Park Fee
($5.7 Million per
Acre Valuation)
Proposed Park Fee
($6.5 Million per
Acre Valuation)
% Increase
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $57,420 $62,802
9.37%
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $42,468 $46,448
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $16.837 $18.415
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $2.866 $3.135
Table 3: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($17.6 Million /Acre Scenario)
Land Use Type
Current Park Fee
($5.7 Million per
Acre Valuation)
Proposed Park Fee
($17.6 Million per
Acre Valuation)
% Increase
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $57,420 $138,742
141.62%
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $42,468 $102,613
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $16.837 $40.682
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $2.866 $6.925
While the land valuation of $17.6 million dollars may be based on a more realistic set of
residential and commercial teardown acquisition data, raising the current Park Impact Fee by
141.62% may have an impact of discouraging development. The proposed fees are the
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto Page 6
maximum possible fee, and the City could choose to set these fees lower than those shown
above.
The City needs to prepare an economic feasibility study, which is not included in the current
DTA scope of services. The feasibility study would evaluate potential impacts increased fees
may have on housing production, especially multi-family housing, and other types of
development. Staff anticipates conducting this analysis as part of the housing element update
and can report back to the Finance Committee and Council with its findings when complete.
Task B: Differentiate Fee Structure for Retail vs Office
Currently, the City’s Development Impact Fee structure reflects two non-residential fee categories:
commercial/industrial and hotel/motel. Staff was asked to differentiate a fee structure for retail
versus office space. A revised fee structure in which the commercial/industrial fee is separated
into three categories: retail, office, and industrial is shown in Tables 4 and 5. Other commercial
includes any non-residential project with a land use that does not fall under the Retail, Office,
Industrial, or Hotel/Motel categories.
Please note that these proposed fees also reflect a land valuation of $6.5 million per acre, as
outlined above in Task A. Under this scenario, the combined park, community center, and
library impact fees for the retail, office, and industrial categories would have the following
changes:
The retail fee would decrease 41%, from $18.914 per net new sq. ft. to $11.206.
The office fee would increase 30%, from $18.914 per net new sq. ft. to $24.530.
The industrial fee would decrease 12%, from $18.914 per net new sq. ft. to $16.605.
Table 4: Proposed Development Impact Fee Summary using a $6.5 Million/ Acre Valuation
Land Use Type Park Community
Center Library Total Fees
Single-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $62,802 $4,438 $2,645 $69,886
Multi-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $46,448 $3,283 $1,956 $51,687
Retail
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $10.070 $0.712 $0.424 $11.206
Office
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $22.044 $1.558 $0.928 $24.530
Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $14.922 $1.055 $0.629 $16.605
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $3.135 $0.222 $0.132 $3.488
Other Commercial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $12.543 $0.886 $0.528 $13.957
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Table 5: Proposed Development Impact Fee Summary using a $17.6 Million/ Acre valuation
Land Use Type Park Community
Center Library Total Fees
Single-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $138,742 $4,438 $2,645 $145,826
Multi-Family
Residential (Per Unit) $102,613 $3,283 $1,956 $107,852
Retail
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $22.247 $0.712 $0.424 $23.383
Office
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $48.699 $1.558 $0.928 $51.185
Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $32.966 $1.055 $0.629 $34.649
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $6.925 $0.222 $0.132 $7.279
Other Commercial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $27.709 $0.886 $0.528 $29.124
Task C: Update on Office Density
In response to the request to evaluate a revised fee structure with the “sq. ft. per employee”
assumption reduced from approximately 250 sq. ft. to 190 sq. ft., which is the average based on
the U.S. General Service Administration’s 2012 public sector survey. This assumption is
validated by a 2017 Cushman Wakefield analysis, which indicates that the Bay Area has one of
the fastest shrinking square-foot-per-employee ratios in the country.
The CoStar data that DTA evaluated in the Study supports this adjustment as well. By isolating
office development into a separate land use category, rather than combining with retail as
outlined in the Study, the office fee calculation reflects approximately 200 sq. ft. per employee,
therefore the proposed fees outlined in Tables 4 and 5 reflect the requested office density
update.
Task D: Frequency of Fee Study Updates
It is generally recommended that impact fees be increased annually and that a new fee study
be completed every five (5) to eight (8) years to ensure that the fees are reflective of the
most current projections of future development, as well as infrastructure needs and cost
estimates. Commonly used annual fee escalators i nclude the Engineering News Record
(“ENR”) construction cost index (“CCI”), which the City currently uses to escalate its fees,
consumer price index (“CPI”), or other appropriate adjustment factor. New state law
requires a fee study at least once every ei ght years (see AB 602).
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Task E: Evaluate Changes to Single and Multi -Family Fee Structure
The City’s previous fee program separated residential land uses into four categories – single-
family units 3,000 square feet or less, single -family units greater than 3,000 square feet,
multi-family units 900 square feet or less, and multi -family units greater than 900 square
feet.
After discussions with City staff, DTA’s Study recommended a revision to this structure, given
that the distinction between these land uses no longer reflected the types of proposed housing
currently under construction in the City and was difficult to align with underlying residential
data and current development industry practices. As a result, residential land use types were
reduced from four to two categories, as reflected in the fees adopted as of August 23, 2021,
and illustrated in Table 1. DTA and staff continues to recommend this simplification of the fee
structure.
AB 602, which was recently adopted by the State Legislature, will require that impact fee
studies adopted by the City Council after July 1, 2022, designate all impact fee amounts as a
charge on a per-square-foot basis. For any updates reflected in this Supplement after July 1,
the per-square-foot fee structure will be required.
The Parks and Recreation Commission requested an alternative fee calculation data based on
residential square footage, which is displayed in Table 6 below using the average square footage of
recent residential single family (2,154 square feet) and multi-family unit sales (1,255 square feet).
Table 6: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($17.6 Million /Acre Scenario)
Land Valuation per
Acre
Estimated Residential
Park Fee per sq. ft.
Sample Park Fee for
SFR Unit
(2,154 sq. ft.)
Sample Park Fee for
MFR Unit
(1,255 sq. ft.)
$5,700,000 $28.93 $62,323 $36,317
$6,489,851 $31.64 $68,164 $39,721
$17,634,659 $69.91 $150,588 $87,752
Note: Figures are estimates and subject to change.
Task F: Evaluate Fee Credit Option for Excess Below Market Rate (“BM R”) Units
At the April 2021 meeting, the City Council voiced concerns about fee updates disincentivizing
multi-family residential development, and therefore negatively impacting the City’s goal of
increasing the supply of affordable housing. DTA evaluated a potential reduction or credit in
park impact fees for new multi-family housing projects in which the number of BMR units
exceeds the City’s requirements for that development. Currently, as outlined in Section
16.58.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, any BMR units that exceed the minimum number
required by the City’s BMR Housing Program are exempt from park, community center, and
library impact fees, so this incentive appears to already be in place.
Municipalities take many different approaches to provid ing fee credits for BMR units, including:
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto Page 9
• Reducing development impact fee obligations within the Development Agreement
between the city/county and the developer, which is a commonly utilized approach but
would be burdensome for staff to implement;
• Implementing an across-the-board fee discount for BMR units, such as giving a 50%
reduction of the fee applicable to all BMR units (whether or not they exceed the
required number); or
• Implementing an across-the-board fee exemption for BMR units (whether or not they
exceed the required number).
Timeline
The Finance Committee’s recommendation and any other feedback is tentatively scheduled to
be presented to City Council on May 16, 2022. Based on Council recommendation and approval,
new fee levels would be brought forward as part of the FY 2023 annual budget process unless
additional consultant study is required , or alternative direction is provided. Impact fee
ordinances require formal public notice and do not become effective until 60 days after
adoption on a second reading.
Resource Impact
Development Impact Fees provide funding for capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of
new development on public services. The revenues received each year vary based on the
amount of residential and non-residential development occurring in Palo Alto during that
timeframe. CSD will monitor revenues from the Parks, Community Center and Library
Development Impact fees and revenue adjustments will be brought forward in the future
budget processes as appropriate to recognize the projected impacts of any fee updated and
adopted by the City Council.
According to the FY 2020-21 Annual Status Report on the Development Impact Fees Schedule
(CMR #13798, January 24, 2022), a total of approximately $318,561 was collected in Park,
Community Center, and Library fees. Note that these fees were collected before the increase in
fees that went into effect on August 23, 2021.
DTA projects that the total fee revenues will increase significantly should the fee levels be
associated with the increased land valuation of $6.5 mil lion per acre be approved and adopted
as new fees. Please see Table 7 below for more detail.
Table 7: FY2020-21 and Projected Revenues1
Fee Category
Total Revenues
Collected FY 2020-
20212
Total Projected Annual
Revenues based on a
$6.5 Million per Acre
Total Projected Annual
Revenues based on a
$17.6 Million per Acre
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Valuation Valuation3
Park $219,423 $658,269 $1,316,538
Community Center $70,000 $105,000 $210,000
Library $29,138 $43,707 $87,414
Total $318,561 $806,976 $1,613,952
Notes:
1. Projected revenues are an approximation and subject to change
2. Total revenues collected reflect last available report as of period ending June 30, 2021.
3. Projected revenues do not take into consideration whether an increase in fees will generate
additional revenue or discourage new development and result in a reduction of total fees
collected.
Parkland Dedication in Lieu Fee
In some projects, a parkland dedication in lieu fee applies instead of a park impact fee. This
occurs for residential projects that require a subdivision or parcel map, and develope rs can
choose to dedicate land for parks or pay an in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee is required for
subdivisions resulting in more than 50 parcels. (See PAMC Ch. 21.50). The fee is based on the
cost to acquire land for new parks as a result of housing development. Should the City change
the land valuation for the park impact fee, it should similarly update the parkland in lieu fee.
Should the fee be based on the highest land valuation option, an economic feasibility study
should look at possible development impacts to housing.
Stakeholder Engagement
The Community Services department presented the Supplemental report to the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC) on February 22, 2022, for review.
Policy Implications
City Council has the authority to charge new development for its relative share of the cost of
specific public facilities, as calculated based on a nexus study and pursuant to state law
requirements. Council also has the authority, for policy reasons, to restructure fees based on
articulated City policies. The information provided in this Supplemental report allows Council to
take the next step towards reevaluating and adjusting the City’s Development Impact Fees for
Parks, Community Centers and Libraries.
However, with respect to multi-family housing, the City is currently evaluating constraints to
housing production as part of the housing element update. Staff recommends the Finance
Committee and Council defer increasing any impact fees for multi-family housing until proper
studies and analysis can be prepared to ensure this action does not present a constraint on
housing production.
Environmental Review
The recommended actions are not considered a Project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA regulation 15061(b)(3). The projects in the 2021
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto Page 11
nexus study associated with these fees have been fully analyzed as part of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and its EIR, as well as the City’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration and no further CEQA analysis is necessary.
Attachments:
• Supplement to City of Palo Alto Park Community Center and Library Development
Impact Fee Justification Study
2
Packet Pg. 19
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
J
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
(
1
4
1
3
7
:
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF)18,772 23,323 0.80 0.29 6,839
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF)1,946 2,418 0.80 0.29 709
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $6,489,851 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $210,213,753 $44,548.00
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $64,899 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $66,058,156 $13,998.89
Total $276,271,909 $58,546.88
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,334 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312) ($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,723 $4,255.03
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $62,801.92
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES ONLY TASK A)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF) 18,772 23,323 0.80 0.29 6,839
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF) 1,946 2,418 0.80 0.29 709
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $17,634,659 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $501,204,061 $106,213.97
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $176,347 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $133,415,475 $28,273.09
Total $634,619,536 $134,487.06
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,334 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312) ($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,723 $4,255.03
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $138,742.09
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES ONLY TASK A)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $6,489,851 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $210,213,759 $44,548.00
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $64,899 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $66,058,157 $13,998.89
Total $276,271,917 $58,546.88
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,335 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312)($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,724 $4,255.04
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $62,801.92
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS A, B, AND C)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $17,634,659 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $501,204,075 $106,213.97
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $176,347 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $133,415,479 $28,273.09
Total $634,619,554 $134,487.06
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,335 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312)($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,724 $4,255.04
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $138,742.10
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS A, B, AND C)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
I. Inventory of Existing Community Center Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5
II. Existing Community Center Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046 753.09
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203 141.28
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000 173.67
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000 266.29
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071 521.82
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5 0.06
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5 0.06
IV. Future Community Center Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 753.09 9,755.01
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 141.28 1,830.10
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 173.67 2,249.56
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 266.29 3,449.33
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 521.82 6,759.34
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
VI. Community Center Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development Cost Per Unit
Total Facility Cost
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 9,755.01 $629 $6,135,363 $1,300.19
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 1,830.10 $629 $1,151,029 $243.92
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 2,249.56 $629 $1,414,852 $299.83
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 3,449.33 $629 $2,169,439 $459.74
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 6,759.34 $718 $4,856,117 $1,029.10
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 0.75 $12,469,894 $9,350,610 $1,981.56
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 0.75 $171,692 $128,744 $27.28
Total $25,206,155 $5,341.63
VII. Community Center Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046 9,755.01 99,326 753.09 9,755.01 $629 $6,135,363 $1,300.19
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203 1,830.10 99,326 141.28 1,830.10 $629 $1,151,029 $243.92
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000 2,249.56 99,326 173.67 2,249.56 $629 $1,414,852 $299.83
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000 3,449.33 99,326 266.29 3,449.33 $629 $2,169,439 $459.74
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071 6,759.34 99,326 521.82 6,759.34 $718 $4,856,117 $1,029.10
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $12,469,894 $9,350,610 $1,981.56
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $171,692 $128,744 $27.28
Offsetting Revenues ($4,261,898)($903.17)
Total $12,644,820 $20,944,257 $4,438.46
Community Center LOS Facilities Fee Total $4,438.46
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Community Center inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Community Center improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
APPENDIX A-5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
I. Inventory of Existing Library Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5
Volumes Volumes 485,157
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5
II. Existing Library Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043 69.96
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392 27.69
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046 104.73
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000 474.69
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608 342.80
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5 0.06
Volumes Volumes 485,157 5,617.05
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5 0.06
IV. Future Library Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 69.96 906.27
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 27.69 358.73
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 104.73 1,356.64
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 474.69 6,148.81
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 342.80 4,440.34
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
Volumes Volumes 5,617.05 72,759.46
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
VI. Library Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development Cost Per Unit
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 906.27 628.94$ $569,997 $120.79
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 358.73 628.94$ $225,622 $47.81
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 1,356.64 628.94$ $853,250 $180.82
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 6,148.81 628.94$ $3,867,262 $819.54
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 4,440.34 628.94$ $2,792,729 $591.83
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Volumes Volumes 72,759.46 $50 $3,637,973 $770.95
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Total $12,696,687 $2,690.65
VII. Library Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043 906.27 99,326 69.96 906.27 $629 $569,997 $120.79
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392 358.73 99,326 27.69 358.73 $629 $225,622 $47.81
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046 1,356.64 99,326 104.73 1,356.64 $629 $853,250 $180.82
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000 6,148.81 99,326 474.69 6,148.81 $629 $3,867,262 $819.54
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608 4,440.34 99,326 342.80 4,440.34 $629 $2,792,729 $591.83
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Volumes Volumes 485,157 72,759.46 99,326 5617.05 72,759.46 $50 $3,637,973 $770.95
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Offsetting Revenues ($214,779) ($45.52)
Total $1,003,195 $12,481,908 $2,645.14
Library Facilities Fee Total $2,645.14
APPENDIX A-6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/**
Number of Adjusted Adjusted Persons Served EDUs per Unit/Estimated Number of
Land Use Type Persons Served*Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Units/Non-Res. SF Total EDUs
Single Family 42,392 100%42,392 2.75 1.00 15,443 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 100%24,992 2.03 0.74 12,310 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)9,420 19.63%1,849 0.44 0.16 4,200,000 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)70,206 19.63%13,778 0.96 0.35 14,300,000 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)16,027 19.63%3,145 0.65 0.24 4,822,578 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)1,101 19.63%216 0.14 0.05 1,577,422 79
Total 164,138 86,372 31,465
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; U.S. Census Bureau (ACS); City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 20% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change.
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/**
Number of Adjusted Adjusted Persons Served EDUs per Unit/Estimated Number of
Single Family 6,911 100% 6,911 2.75 1.00 2,517 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 100% 4,074 2.03 0.74 2,007 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)977 19.63% 192 0.44 0.16 435,418 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)7,278 19.63% 1,428 0.96 0.35 1,482,496 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)1,662 19.63% 326 0.65 0.24 499,962 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)114 19.63%22 0.14 0.05 163,533 8
Total 21,015 12,953 4,719
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 May 1, 2020.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 20% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change.
Number of
Potential Recreation Number of Work Hours Per Weekend Days Potential Recreation Hours Percentage of
User of Facilities Hours per Work Day Days per Week Weekend Day Per Week Per Week Per Person Household Population Person Hours Employee User Percentage
Resident, non-working 10 5 10 2 70 52.38%37 NA
Resident, working 2 5 10 2 30 47.62%14 NA
Employee 2 5 0 0 10 NA 10 19.63%
City of Palo Alto Household Population 67,384
City of Palo Alto Labor Force 32,085
Employee Percentage of Household Population 47.62%
APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO
EDU & EBU CALCULATION YEAR TO BUILD-OUT (2040) (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
Existing EDU Calculation (FY 2020)
Employment Adjustment
Factor
Future EDU Calculation (FY 2040)
Employment Adjustment
Total Hours of Potential Park, Community Center, and Library Usage per Week
DRAFT
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e