HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-22 Parks & Recreation Agenda Packet
Parks and Recreation Commission
Special Meeting
February 22, 2022
Virtual
7:00 PM
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Pursuant to AB 361, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held by virtual
teleconference only with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and
through Channel 26 or 29 of the Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org/local-
tv/watch-now/.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live
comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda.
Commissioner Names, Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available
online:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Other-
Services/Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this
agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve
meeting management.
BUSINESS
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency - Action - (5 min) Attachment
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 25, 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting - Action - (5 min) Attachment
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
3. Department Report
BUSINESS
4. Ad Hoc Reports - Discussion - (15 min)
5. Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study - Action - (60 min)
Attachment
6. Discussion Regarding Court Usage and Joint Use Courts - Discussion - (45 min)
Attachment
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily
accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require
auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-
2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted
at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting
ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745
Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF
TELECONFERENCING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING COVID-19 STATE OF
EMERGENCY
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government
Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees
due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
BACKGROUND
In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the
Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act,
effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by
teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State
law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy
bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under
the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and
state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the
purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency,
meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has
determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the
emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the
state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and
at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the
members to meet safely in person.
2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
DISCUSSION
At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health
Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and
other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021
Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code
of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and
instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures.
Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for
public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish
to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via
teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and
Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through January 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees.
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government
Code Section 54953(e)
R E C I T A L S
A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene
by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency
Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and
B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency
in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state
of emergency remains in effect; and
C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the
Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were
subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and
those declarations also remain in effect; and
D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act
to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency
without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the
policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and
E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of
vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County
Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues
to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing
measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and
F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees
about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other
social distancing measures; and
G. The Parks and Recreation Commission has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic
and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while
minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person
meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore,
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
The Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLVES as follows:
1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission has considered
the circumstances of the state of emergency.
2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures
to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some
settings.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such
meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees that occur using
teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who
wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the
statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting
via teleconferencing; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Parks and Recreation Commission staff liaison is directed to place a
resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Parks and
Recreation Commission within the next 30 days. If the Parks and Recreation Commission does not meet
within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the
immediately following meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Staff Liaison Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney Department Head
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
January 25, 2022 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs and Vice Chair Greenfield; Commissioners Nellis 12
Freeman, Shani Keinhaus, and Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: Jeff LaMere 14
Others Present: Council Member Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Lam Do, Kristen O’Kane, Sarah Duffy 16
I. ROLL CALL 17
Chair Cribbs noted that the first meeting of the year represents new opportunities, new 18
beginnings and new possibilities. She welcomed Commissioner Kleinhaus and 19
Commissioner Freeman to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 21
Chair Cribbs requested to move the Election of Chair and Vice Chair to before the tentative 22
agenda for February, since Commission LaMere would be joining the meeting later. 23
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 24
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 25
V. Mr. Anderson welcomed the new Commissioners. He reported that on Foothills Nature 26
Preserve there was a washout on Los Trancos Trail in one of the areas where debris from 27
storms commonly washes down and covers part of the trail. It has been restored. He 28
reported that the Rinconada Park project capital improvements project is going well and 29
is on target and scheduled to be completed by the end of February. He advised that the 30
damaged synthetic turf has been repaired. Some resurfacing of a bike path that had some 31
uplifted sections of asphalt between Hoover Park and Middlefield has also been 32
completed. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Mr. Anderson gave some updates on Recreation programs. Winter classes began in 1
January, with many classes sold out the weekend that winter registration was opened, and 2
wait lists were established. He said despite the Omicron variant, winter classes are taking 3
place in person with most classes operating as scheduled. CSD (Community Service 4
Department) has not seen an increase in the number of withdrawals from classes in the 5
winter of 2022 session that began in January, compared to the fall of 2021. 6
The summer camp Enjoy catalog will be mailed to all Palo Alto residents the following 7
week. Registration will open for Palo Alto residents on February 3rd and for non-residents 8
on February 10th. The City is actively hiring for camp counselors. The Junior Museum and 9
Zoo opened with its full schedule – Tuesday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. – on 10
December 21st, and all of the dates in November and December were sold out. Mr. 11
Anderson reported that the Omicron wave has caused some to stay home, and weekday 12
visitation has dropped slightly; however, weekend dates continue to sell out, with over 13
1,000 memberships sold since going on sale in October of 2021, with sales on track to 14
reach 2,000 memberships, which is the goal for FY 2022. 15
Mr. Anderson gave updates on City Council plans. Foothills Fire Mitigation and Safety 16
Improvement Strategies will go to Council on their Consent calendar on January 31st. The 17
topic of a new community gymnasium project, or wellness center, was planned to go to 18
Council on January 31st. Due to Mr. Arrillaga’s passing the item has been deferred. He 19
will advise the Commission of the new date. The City Council retreat will be Saturday, 20
February 5th. Staff has sent out a Doodle poll to collect Commission feedback for their 21
retreat, which will be held after the Council’s retreat. 22
Mr. Anderson reported that updates on Cubberley will go to City Council on February 23
14th, including status updates on the Cubberley Master Plan and other Cubberley topics. 24
Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commissioners. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if the Cubberley updates are a City Council action item. Mr. 26
Anderson believed it was, and said it is not on the Consent Calendar. 27
Chair Cribbs asked what the mask policy is in regard to the winter classes. Mr. Anderson 28
deferred the question to Sarah Duffy, Community Services Department, who advised that 29
masks are required for all indoor classes, although she thought they may be optional for 30
outdoor classes they may be optional. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the maintenance of trees and vegetation at Cubberley 32
is the City’s or the School’s responsibility. Mr. Anderson replied that it is with the City. 33
VI. BUSINESS 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 1
Recreation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency 2
MOTION 3
Motion to approve the Resolution was moved by Vice Chair Greenfield and seconded by 4
Commissioner Brown. The motion carried, 5-0, by roll call vote. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if it was appropriate for the Commission members who are 6
not part of the meeting to vote on the item. Deputy City Clerk Vinh Nguyen replied that it 7
would be more appropriate to conduct the Oath and then do the vote on the Resolution. 8
2. Administering the Oath of Office 9
Chair Cribbs noted that Councilmember, Tom DuBois, was in attendance. She announced 10
that Mr. DuBois will be the PRC’s Liaison, and she welcomed him to the meeting. 11
Mr. Nguyen read the Oath of Office and administered the swearing in of Mr. Nellis 12
Freeman and Ms. Shani Kleinhaus. 13
Mr. Do stated that there were two additional Commissioners serving new terms, and asked 14
if they also needed to be sworn in. Mr. Anderson said he had received guidance from the 15
Clerk’s Office that this should take place. 16
Mr. Nguyen read the Oath of Office and administered the swearing in of Chair Cribbs and 17
Vice Chair Greenfield. 18
Mr. Nguyen advised that the printed document would be emailed to each member installed, 19
to be signed and returned to him. 20
4. Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 14, 2021, Parks and Recreation 21
Commission meeting 22
Chair Cribbs invited comments on the minutes. Hearing none, she invited a motion to 23
approve. 24
MOTION 25
Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Vice 26
Chair Greenfield. The motion passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 27
5. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates 28
Chair Cribbs reminded the Commission that the Ad Hoc Committees and Liaisons will be 29
reviewed and updated at the retreat in a couple weeks. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Foothills Nature Preserve: Since Commissioner Reckdahl and Commissioner Moss 1
finished their terms at the last meeting, Vice Chair Greenfield reported that the Ad Hoc 2
completed its goals and responsibilities for the year at the last meeting, with the motion 3
recommending changes to the policy at Foothills Nature Preserve that will be going to City 4
Council. Chair Cribbs commended the committee for their excellent work on policies 5
developed in the previous year. 6
Baylands Tide Gate: Chair Cribbs advised that this Ad Hoc will transition to a Liaison 7
function, as it had served its function with the recommendation for the work to be done on 8
the Baylands Tide Gate, which has been delayed for a calendar year. No changes are 9
anticipated to what has been set in progress. 10
Fund Development: Chair Cribbs advised that they have a number of suggestions they 11
look forward to working on with staff which are of no cost, but perhaps a little time, to be 12
implemented in the near future. 13
CIP Review: Commissioner Brown had nothing to add since the last discussion. 14
Racquet Court Policy: Commissioner Brown had nothing to add since the most recent 15
presentation, but advised that there will be a recommendation to the Commission on the 16
February agenda. 17
Dog Park and Restrooms: Chair Cribbs said they will probably do a review of the 18
restrooms that have been finished, those in the works and in the CIP, and the same applies 19
to the status of the dog parks. She said, given the priorities of the City, these may be 20
dormant for the next six months. Mr. Anderson added that in the CIP discussion at the last 21
meeting there was concern about delays around the Cubberley Field restroom. He 22
discussed this with Public Works staff, and they have a new staff person who is beginning 23
work on that. They could not give an estimated time for completion, but there are staff 24
working on it, and they understand that restrooms are a priority. 25
New Recreation Opportunities: Chair Cribbs said the committee will continue to work on 26
the four opportunities discussed in the past. When discussion regarding the gymnasium 27
goes to the Council, they will support that as well. 28
Sidewalk Vendor Policy: The committee became a Liaison role several months ago. 29
Mid Pen Regional Hawthornes Area Planning: Vice Chair Greenfield remarked that this 30
has always been a Liaison role. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked what the four new recreational opportunities are. Chair 32
Cribbs responded that they are capital discussions, including the 10.5 Acres; the First Tee 33
at the golf course; the city gymnasium/wellness center; and the skate park. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Aquatics Liaison: Chair Cribbs indicated there would be a report later in the meeting. 1
Baylands 10.5 Liaison: Chair Cribbs had nothing to report. 2
Community Gardens Liaison: Mr. Anderson said they were still recruiting for the vacant 3
position, which was previously managed by Catherine Bourquin. He and Mr. Do are 4
keeping an eye on it and relying on the excellent Liaisons who are keeping it running. 5
Cubberley Liaison: A report will be going to Council on February 14th. Kristen O’Kane, 6
Community Service Director, shared that this item will be providing basically an update 7
on various things related to Cubberley. The main focus will be the temporary relocation 8
of the two elementary schools to the Greendell Campus. It will be either an action item or 9
a study session. Chair Cribbs appreciated knowing this in advance and commented that 10
this has been an item of great interest to the Commission. 11
Field Users Liaison: Vice Chair Greenfield said Mr. Anderson’s report covered this topic. 12
Golf Liaison: The item would be presented by Commission LaMere later in the meeting. 13
GSI Liaison: The item will be rolled into Sustainability. 14
Palo Alto Recreation Foundation Liaison: Chair Cribbs will be at their meeting on 15
Thursday. 16
PAUSD/City Liaison: Ms. O’Kane said there is the City/School Liaison Committee which 17
consists of two Councilmembers and two Board of Education members who meet monthly 18
to discuss projects or updates that affect both the District and the City. Currently Cubberley 19
is a focus. There is also the field maintenance agreement coming to Council on Consent 20
in February. 21
Safe Route to School Liaison: Vice Chair Greenfield said there was no update. 22
Sustainability/GSI Liaison: Commissioner Brown said there was a meeting for the 23
Sustainability Climate Action in January on wildfires and sea level rise. She reviewed the 24
materials, which are available on the project website, as well as a recording of the meeting 25
for anyone interested. There is also a community survey on the website, which she 26
encouraged Commissioners to participate in. 27
Skateboard Park Liaison: Chair Cribbs said there has been a conversation with one of the 28
stakeholders who is trying to get some information about one of the other skateparks, 29
which is a historic park in Santa Cruz. Mr. Anderson said that staff also reached out to the 30
City of Santa Cruz to learn about Derby Skatepark, an older skatepark where they had to 31
figure out how to resolve the maintenance challenge with it. Staff has some information, 32
but are trying to gather more. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Urban Forestry Liaison: Vice Chair Greenfield gave an update on the formalization of the 1
relationship between Parks and Recreation and Urban Forestry. This was based on a City 2
Council motion in November. The agreement has been approved by Directors O’Kane of 3
Community Services and the Director of Public Works as well. There is a formal 4
agreement which they will forward to members of the Commission. There will also be a 5
link placed on the Parks and Recreation Commission webpage. The document outlines the 6
purpose and function of the community forum, the role of the Parks and Recreation 7
Commission, and limitations. 8
Ventura Plan Liaison: There was no new information on this. 9
Youth Council Liaison: Chair Cribbs said they have resumed their regular meetings, which 10
are in-person. 11
Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Commission should go back and approve the 12
teleconference. Chair Cribbs agreed that they should. Vice Chair Greenfield suggested 13
checking with Councilmember DuBois for comments on the Liaison and Ad Hoc reports. 14
Chair Cribbs asked for a motion adopting the Resolution authorizing the use of 15
teleconferencing for the Parks and Recreation Commission. 16
MOTION 17
Vice Chair Greenfield moved to authorize the use of teleconferencing. Seconded by 18
Councilmember Brown, the motion carried, 5-0, by roll call vote. 19
Chair Cribbs invited comments or questions on the Ad Hoc and Liaison reports from 20
Councilmember DuBois. 21
Councilmember DuBois welcomed and congratulated the new members. He was glad to 22
be the Parks and Recreation Commission Liaison this year and he will try to attend to as 23
many of their meetings as possible. He welcomed members to contact him on any issue 24
they want to discuss. Regarding the gymnasium, he said he hoped the Council will weigh 25
in on the level of priority they want for it and possible locations as soon as possible, 26
whether they have a private donor or not. He understands this has been looked at by Ad 27
Hocs for a long time. 28
6. Aquatics Annual Report 29
Sarah Duffy, Senior Management Analyst, Community Services Department presented 30
this item. Tim Sheeper was in attendance to present the results from the Annual Report 31
and User Survey. The report is done yearly, as required by the contract, and includes 32
performance highlights. The full Aquatics Report was presented in the agenda packet for 33
anyone wishing to review it. Ms. Duffy said there have been many accomplishments in 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
the Aquatics program during a continuing unpredictable time for recreation and for small 1
businesses. She was appreciative of having Mr. Sheeper and his team as a partner in the 2
Aquatics program. Rinconada Pool has remained open throughout most of COVID, when 3
many other pools were not able to be open as much. Team Sheeper has continued to 4
develop and grow the Aquatic programs, and the survey conducted indicates the programs 5
are very well received. They look forward to upcoming aquatics activities this year, 6
including group lessons in the spring and the summer camps for 2022. 7
Chair Cribbs invited Mr. Sheeper’s comments and presentation of the report. 8
Mr. Sheeper of Team Sheeper presented highlights of the annual report submitted to the 9
City via a short slide show. He said two numbers jumped out at him within the report. 10
First, of the 209 survey respondents, there were 163 that were lap swimmers, so from the 11
survey, 78 percent were lap swimmers. Of that 78 percent, their lap swimming experience 12
was 89 percent satisfied with the overall experience. Those were two numbers that were 13
gratifying for his team to see, that the work is being accepted and the community is 14
gratified and gracious with it. He pointed out that 91 percent are satisfied with the safety 15
measures; 76 percent are satisfied with the amount of pool time and scheduling; 73 percent 16
are satisfied to very satisfied with the fee structure. The fee structure was completely new 17
for 2020-2021. 18
Mr. Sheeper said since most of the users of the Rinconada pool are lap swimmers and the 19
aquatics industry and methods of surveying the aquatics community have changed, they 20
wanted to do a comparison and investigate what was happening in aquatics in the Bay area, 21
specifically the San Francisco Peninsula. They looked at 12 pools from as far north as 22
South San Francisco all the way as far south as San Jose and Camden. Of the 12 pools, the 23
lap swim availability was measured in hours per week that a pool is open to the community 24
for lap swim. Palo Alto’s Rinconada has nearly 70 hours, which is second only to Menlo 25
Park. Regarding the space available, the size of the pool, he pointed out a number of six-26
lane and eight-lane pools, with Palo Alto near the middle with 14 lanes available, and the 27
20-lane pools being the Olympic-sized 50-meter pools. Mr. Sheeper felt this indicates that 28
Palo Alto is on the leading edge of what it is providing to the community in regard to lap 29
swimming. He said this was eye-opening for him to see. 30
Mr. Sheeper’s team also did a comparison on fees. From their analysis, they saw that the 31
usage of Rinconada Pool is mostly by their monthly pass members. The data shows that 32
the average use is 9.5 times from those monthly passes for lap swimming. Most of the lap 33
swimmers are members, as opposed to drop-in swimmers. Using the 9.5 swims per month, 34
illustrates that the per-cost time would be between $5 and $6. Compared to fees in the 35
open market, the cost is one of the lower ones for lap swimming. He said he felt they have 36
a somewhat unique model with the monthly fee, which means the more people use the 37
pool the more the per-time cost is lowered. They could see that many swimmers are using 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
the pool very often, especially through the pandemic. Some area pools still just have one 1
cost per visit, with reservations required. 2
Mr. Sheeper talked about challenges at the Aquatics program. One was the challenge was 3
the restrictive COVID guidelines, along with lack of staffing, and amount of time they 4
have been able to open the pool for open swim, and restrictions on swim lessons. They 5
have seen a significant decline in the lesson program and in the family open swim 6
programs. In addition, with the labor shortage during the pandemic they lost 70 percent of 7
their staff, and are still building back from that, which continues to be something they are 8
working on. 9
Mr. Sheeper spoke about Palo Alto Swim and Sport goals for 2022. The first goal is to 10
retain the existing staff, to make sure the working conditions are stable and safe and wages 11
are competitive with the market. The second goal is to hire new staff so that they can 12
provide programs which have declined or disappeared, including youth group swim 13
lessons and an abundance of open swim times. This requires a lot of staff for lifeguarding, 14
baby pool and swim instructors. 15
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the public. 16
Suzanne Jewel congratulated the new Commissioners and thanked the Commission for its 17
work. She said she has been a long-time swimmer in Palo Alto, swimming at Rinconada 18
since 1989. She said they are blessed to have such a magnificent facility and to have Team 19
Sheeper doing such a great job in operating swim programs. She appreciates all Mr. 20
Sheeper has done to keep the pool open and safe, knowing firsthand how difficult running 21
a business is at this time. She is delighted to that so many swimmers are enjoying the pool. 22
She said, unfortunately, she is not among them, as she has been prevented from going to 23
the pool for the past six months because she feels discriminated against by the 2021 price 24
increases. A non-resident adult is paying 23 percent more than they did pre-lockdown, 25
where she, as a resident senior, is being asked to pay 71 percent more. Residents are seeing 26
a discount of seven to eight percent, compared to the pre-lockdown discount of 20 to 25 27
percent, which is consistent with discounts in neighboring cities. Additionally, she said 28
master swimmers have seen no price increases. She said the structure of the swimmer 29
satisfaction survey gave her no ability to voice these feelings. She said she has talked to 30
Mr. Sheeper and the City Aquatics in this regard for six months, and there has been no 31
resolution. She asked the Commission to help find a resolution to distribute any needed 32
fee increases more fairly across swim groups. She wants to get back in the pool, and Mr. 33
Sheeper and Marla want her back in the pool. She said the $54 she is being asked to pay 34
is reasonable and the prices themselves are fine. However, she sees the prices as being 35
disproportionate across swim groups, and she objects to paying to be discriminated 36
against. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Cribbs invited comments from the 1
Commission. 2
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked staff, Sarah and Tim for their work and for keeping the 3
pool open for the community to enjoy. He said now that there is a general sense that 4
COVID is not going away anytime soon, and he asked how this is changing the philosophy 5
about working through challenges at the pool and coming up with a plan going forward. 6
Mr. Sheeper said they have had to adopt a new philosophy and business model to operate, 7
and it is a totally different business than it was in 2019. He said 2020 was a rebound year 8
to see if they could operate, with half of 2021 being very restricted and half mostly 9
unrestricted. He said they have had to change operations to be sustainable. They needed 10
staff that was durable, could multi-task and could be counted on to show up and do what 11
was necessary. They had to rely on what previously were managers of a greater volume of 12
entry level staff for swim lessons and lifeguards, and require them to provide the entry 13
level jobs in a stable manner. Higher-quality and more experienced staff were relied upon 14
for stability in the company, and they needed to compensate those people to stay on the 15
job. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield asked what services look like for people using the facility and how 17
he sees the experience changing with the different adaptations of who is allowed, and 18
when, and reserving times. Mr. Sheeper said he thought they were past the point of having 19
to reserve time. There are some pools still doing that in the community, but with their 20
volume of people moving through for lap swim and master swim he said it will move 21
closer to the previous model, but will take time. He felt the transition to return to what was 22
previously normal would take another year or so. They are also changing the business 23
model of swim lessons. It will take a long time to build up the instructor force that they 24
hope to have. They previously were sharing instructors from Menlo and Palo Alto and had 25
up to 30 instructors. They are now down to three instructors, and the number of job 26
applicants as been zero, so they are using higher-level managers and instructors, and 27
training them to be more coaches and less of the one-on-one, in-water instructors and 28
having to build their swim schools from the top down rather than from the bottom up. It is 29
no longer one-on-one teaching water safety, because the don’t have the individuals to do 30
that, but they have higher-level coaches and managers who can stand on the deck and 31
coach 10 to 20 youth at a time once they are able to be in the water safely. This is what 32
they are doing in Menlo and hope to do in the spring. 33
Vice Chair Greenfield appreciated hearing more insight into the issues they are 34
experiencing. He asked about the concern raised about a disproportionate price increase 35
for some groups, and said it is not the first he has heard of this. He asked to hear from Mr. 36
Sheeper as well as staff whether this is something they acknowledge, and if so, if 37
something can be reasonably remedied or adjusted. Mr. Sheeper said there are a lot of 38
ways to look at it. He said he had tried to lay out the numbers to illustrate what is going 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
on in the aquatics community as a whole. The comparison of lap swimmers to masters is 1
one that is difficult for him, because he sees the lap swimmers with a lot of time and space 2
in the pool, 70 hours a week, where the masters is a much smaller program in comparison, 3
about 13 hours a week. He said when the pandemic started they put only lap swim back in 4
the pool and cut out masters completely. When they brought it back on two to three months 5
into the reopening, they opened it for three 45-minute sessions per week, but still charged 6
the same price, which was $88. People were paying it, and it was what the program needed 7
to move forward. With the masters, they have moved from three very small workouts, 8
slowly adding time, from 2.5 hours per week up to 13.5 hours per week. They tried to do 9
this strategically and with great sensitivity to the lap swimmers. 10
Mr. Sheeper shared that it is difficult for their scheduling team to hear that there is some 11
distrust, dislike, disillusionment of their operations, which was never their intent. He said 12
what they are trying to do is serve both groups as equally and equitably as possible. They 13
are on the cusp of rebuilding a master’s team and trying to breathe life into the group. A 14
price increase to the masters did not seem right when they had cut their program drastically 15
and they are still adding back to what they were paying at that time. He said possibly in 16
time they will be able to add more masters swim times and availability. At that time, the 17
price will potentially increase. However, the programs that retained their amount of time 18
and space in the pool, like lap swim and rentals, their price did increase. He said to increase 19
the masters was not fair, and his mind when he is organizing or operating a pool there are 20
no favorites, only objectively looking at what is best for everyone in the program and the 21
community. There is no benefit to himself or anyone to have one be favored over the other. 22
Mr. Sheeper said he doesn’t align with the comments that were made, though they have 23
been talking about it for six months. He said right now the basic users of the pool are lap 24
swimmers, because they don’t have other user groups any longer. Those programs were, 25
in a sense, subsidizing what they were able to provide for the lap swimmers, so currently 26
the revenue for lap swimmers and the cost of staff to run the pool are not aligning and are 27
in a deficit because there are no other programs at this time of year. In the past few months 28
they are running a deficit because they are only running lap swimming with some rentals 29
to PASA and some to masters. Without the other programs, lap swimming cannot sustain 30
it, so to be able to pull back on the pricing right now, he said, cannot fiscally be done. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield appreciated Mr. Sheeper going into the level of detail about the 32
situation. He was interested in hearing where Chair Cribbs would go, being the Liaison 33
and more intimately involved with the details. He expressed concern about groups like 34
seniors being treated differently than other groups and wanted to make sure they are 35
moving forward in the most equitable way possible for all groups. He appreciated the 36
efforts of Mr. Sheeper and his staff, and expressed that there is no playbook to explain 37
how to move forward. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Commissioner Brown appreciated the presentation and shared that she knows that 1
swimming has been an outlet during this time. She appreciates the flexibility of the City’s 2
programs and the availability of space and hours. She applauded the survey results, in 3
which only two percent were mentioning better communication, which is a win when there 4
is community overload about different protocols and what is open and what is not. She 5
asked CSD staff to speak to the high level of the City’s fee schedule and what the City is 6
legally allowed to charge in terms of fees, what the policy is in terms of cost recovery 7
goals, and how often the fees are evaluated, as well as flexibility in individual fees set by 8
Mr. Sheeper as well. 9
Ms. Duffy responded that in Aquatics, the contract explicitly states that the fees can be set 10
and can be adjusted in collaboration between the contractor, Team Sheeper, and the City. 11
Since she has started in her role, CSD and Mr. Sheeper have talked quite a bit the fees, and 12
listened carefully to what they are hearing about the lap swim increases in fees, particularly 13
the senior fees. She said what they would like to do is get through the end of the fiscal year 14
and see how the financial outlook looks for Aquatics after group lessons have happened, 15
and after they see what the summer camp registration looks like. Then they can see if it 16
feels like a reasonable time to re-evaluate the fees. 17
Ms. O’Kane added, regarding Commissioner Brown’s question, that there is a cost 18
recovery policy in place. They set the cost recovery based on whether a program or service 19
is reaching a large group of individuals or providing a service to a large group of 20
individuals who don’t have another location or place to get the same service. For example, 21
utilities is something that residents can only get from one source. With respect to 22
Community Services, they also look at whether there is a program or service that is only 23
serving an individual. Those would have higher cost recovery levels versus something that 24
is serving a larger group. An example would be the golf course. It is providing a service 25
to an individual playing golf, versus something that is providing a service to a larger group 26
of individuals. 27
Commissioner Freeman appreciated the presentation and understood the pain of trying to 28
retain staff and challenges that all have had to face over the past two years. Going back to 29
the way things were in 2019 is a challenge for all organizations trying to adjust to what 30
will be the new normal, and to be nimble in the process. He asked how the prices compare 31
to some of the other swim facilities in the area for swimming programs. He said people 32
talk, and if they feel that the City is 80 to 90 percent over what some of the competing 33
cities offer, then it is a challenging debate. 34
Mr. Sheeper pointed to the slide with this information and said this is limited to lap 35
swimming. There is not that much going on at the pool for lessons or for open swim. Many 36
pools don’t offer master swimming, and/or swim teams, so they were focused on 37
comparing lap swimming at Rinconada to other pools. He pointed to the lowest cost for 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
lap swimming, in Mountain View, where the cost is very low. However, it is not always 1
apples-to-apples on cost, because Mountain View has a small pool without a lot of lane 2
availability. It is not open as much, and the number of hours for lap swim availability is 3
rather low, so the opportunity to get in and use it is not the same as the opportunity to swim 4
at Rinconada. If people could show up and swim at any time from 6:00 a.m. until 4:00 5
p.m., there is high likelihood of getting into the pool and get either an open lane or to share 6
a land, and a senior would pay in the $5 range with a membership, or $6 range if not a 7
senior, where it is $8 or $9 to do a random drop-in without a monthly pass. Compared to 8
other pools in the area, Rinconada is in the middle to lower end of the comparisons. Other 9
pools like Campbell, Sunnyvale, San Jose or Burlingame there is a much higher cost per 10
use, without the availability and space. He said they were proud of this because this is not 11
how it was always set up in Palo Alto but is what they have moved to developing in the 12
past five years. Previously there were a few hours in the morning, a few in the afternoon 13
and a few in the evening, and you had to adjust your schedule to swim, so they tried 14
opening the pool for the longest period of time, and the results were as presented. 15
Commissioner Kleinhaus appreciated the presentation and answers to the questions to the 16
Commissioners and the public. 17
Chair Cribbs thanked Mr. Sheeper and his team for their work during the pandemic, saying 18
it has not been easy for anyone, not for people trying to run a pool and not for people trying 19
to swim in the pool. She wished to hear more in the future about assessing fees in the 20
summertime, especially the senior fees and is confident everyone will work together to do 21
that. She felt it is important to keep senior fees to where people feel like they can afford 22
them and can continue to swim, because it is so important for everyone’s health. She was 23
concerned regarding the lack of ability to offer as many swimming lessons to beginners 24
learning how to swim. She asked for clarification that they are not doing any lessons in 25
the water with kids. Mr. Sheeper said that is correct. They have no lessons going on at 26
Rinconada at present because of space and temperature. They have two swim instructors 27
in the water teaching learn-to-swim lessons in groups and in private in Menlo Park. 28
Chair Cribbs asked how many kids they teach at a time in the water. Mr. Sheeper said up 29
to four. He said, for perspective, in the past ten years their average number of lessons per 30
week was 1,100 splashes into the water per week. They are currently doing about 100, so 31
they are down about 1,000 lessons per week, which has wiped out almost a generation of 32
kids learning hands-on swimming in a municipal pool setting, mainly because of labor. 33
They have not been able to fill the positions, and there have been no candidates applying 34
for the positions. They are consistently recruiting but it is the result of the labor shortage 35
currently and people choosing not to do this type of work. He feels that there will be a 36
point where people will have to go back to work and not have the choice they have at 37
present, so he thinks they will get there, but it won’t be in the next six months. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Chair Cribbs said teaching kids and making sure people are drown-proof and water-proof, 1
adults as well, is a very important value of hers. She appreciated Mr. Sheeper’s candidness 2
about the staff shortages and how he is handling the lessons. She said she would like to 3
see the Commission delve into this a bit more in the future, because of the importance of 4
opportunities for swimming and swimming lessons, working together to provide it for both 5
kids and adults so that fear of water does not get passed on from generation to generation. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield asked regarding the lack of instructors and the difficulty finding 7
them for summer classes and programs, if they are seeking both full-time and temporary 8
instructors. He said in the past there have been high school and college youth involved in 9
instruction. He wondered if they are reaching out to these groups, or if they are no longer 10
available because of COVID as well. He wondered what the breakdown was between 11
permanent and temporary. Mr. Sheeper said they are moving away from temporary and 12
more into the stable, durable, long-term, full time employee. This changes the business 13
model and compensation structure, as well as the fee structure for the end user. He said 14
this is how they can get a higher-level instructor with more experience teaching more youth 15
at a time. He concurred that they need to find a way to make the young kids drown-proof 16
and water-safe. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield said while understanding the challenges with temporary, he 18
wondered if temporary instructors were potentially available as a stopgap right now while 19
they are not able to find the level of permanent instructors they need. Mr. Sheeper said 20
neither are available, but with full time an employee’s lifespan with the company will be 21
longer and there will be less turnover for the end user, so that is what they are focusing on. 22
He said the model is new for them, but it is working, and they have large wait lists, putting 23
one instructor teaching 20-plus kids at a time who are already drown-proofed, which 24
becomes more like a small youth swim team at a low level. 25
Ms. Duffy said the did hear the feedback around wanting to explore the senior fees, 26
specifically, and they will put a flag on this to do at the end of the fiscal year when they 27
have a better picture of the full year of revenue, and it can be a priority for CSD. Chair 28
Cribbs requested that, when looking at it, that they look at the learn-to-swim kinds of 29
swimming lessons and pursue figuring out a way to support, perhaps from a private entity, 30
doing something creative so that this generation of kids does not lose the opportunity to 31
learn to swim. 32
Chair Cribbs reiterated thanks to Mr. Sheeper and his staff for their work and the services 33
provided the community amid the challenges they have gone through during COVID. 34
7. Golf Performance Annual Report 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Mr. Do, Superintendent of Open Space, Parks and Golf, presented the golf performance 1
report, along with a supplement to the report by Matt Malloy, Senior Vice President, OB 2
Sports, the contracted golf management company operating the golf course. 3
Mr. Do shared a brief history, saying that Palo Alto has operated a municipal golf course 4
since 1956. Since then it had remained the same, with conditions aging over the years. The 5
course had some improvements primarily related to irrigation; however the course layout 6
remained the same, with wide open fairways, playing up and down. Starting in 2012, there 7
was consideration to redesign the course at a time when there was also a need for the 8
adjacent San Francisquito Creek to expand its width for flood control mitigation. This 9
resulted in the golf course transferring seven acres of its footprint to the San Francisquito 10
Creek Joint Powers of Authority for their project, and at the same time yielding 10.5 acres 11
for future recreation use. This necessitated a full course re-design, for which Council 12
selected Forrest Richardson and Associates to provide options for partially and fully re-13
designing the course. Ultimately, a full course re-design was selected in 2013. Interest in 14
pursuing a links style golf course had to do with integration into the Baylands location and 15
pursuing an open space, open nature environment, which coincided with the links style 16
course as well. Environmental opportunities to be more sustainable were also pursued in 17
enhancing wildlife habitat, improving wetland areas, and a key factor was the selection of 18
turf grass which is more tolerant of salt. This allowed for less reliance on potable water 19
and higher use of recycled water. 20
Mr. Do said once the design was selected, the City went through the permitting process 21
and in 2016, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was closed for two years during 22
construction of a new course. In May of 2018 the course re-opened and was rebranded as 23
the Baylands Golf Links. Changes were also made in operation and management of the 24
golf course, restaurant and golf shop. The golf course had historically been operated with 25
multiple operators for maintenance, restaurant and golf shop. With the re-opening, a single 26
golf course operator was chosen to provide full golf course management services including 27
managing golf play, maintenance of the facility, operating the golf shop on the City’s 28
behalf, and providing food and beverage service. The single operator is OB Sports. The 29
City is the owner/operator of the golf course. The golf shop is managed by OB Sports. The 30
food and beverage service is licensed out to OB Sports to lease the Bay Café as part of 31
their business operations. 32
Mr. Do said in the three years since re-opening, there has been fluctuating revenue and 33
expenses due to multiple factors. The first fiscal year they had revenue of $3.4 million 34
against $3.7 million in expenses. It was a challenging first year, not only bringing back the 35
customer base after the closure, but also there were challenges in 2019 into 2020 related 36
to weather conditions, wildfires and air quality conditions. They did succeed with 54,000 37
rounds of golf. The following year, fiscal year 2020, they had different challenges resulting 38
in a significant drop in revenue, dropping down to $2.8 million in revenue, and decreased 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
rounds of golf play largely were due to the pandemic. Their region was the first in the 1
country to implement a shelter-in-place health order by the County, resulting in the golf 2
course being closed for almost a full season during the spring. Re-opening was only partial 3
due to state and county mandates related to social distancing and number of players 4
allowed on the course, and the reopening was for limited course play. 5
Mr. Do said fiscal year 2021 showed quite a different picture, with golf being a high-6
demand outdoor activity, and social distanced golf rounds jumped almost 50 percent, 7
resulting in a much higher revenue stream. They benefitted from the golf environment, 8
bringing in revenue of $5.2 million, which is slightly higher than shown in the staff report, 9
because it focused on revenue from golf play and the driving range. The figure shown in 10
the presentation included miscellaneous sales, merchandise sales and lease of the Bay Café 11
to OB Sports. Mr. Do said they are currently in a positive revenue environment, and it is 12
currently tracking in favor of the golf course fully recouping its operating expenditures, 13
which is what they initially set out to do with the re-design of a new regional golf course 14
that could draw and would ideally perform well annually. While they hope to remain on 15
this path, as the pandemic continues and changes, the golf environment changes as well. 16
Mr. Do shared the profile of who is playing the golf course. The hope was to position the 17
course as a regional draw as opposed to local only in order help recoup the investment in 18
the golf course. He showed that the two counties, San Mateo and Santa Clara, comprised 19
86 percent of the golfers. This figure is higher than prior years, possibly because of less 20
commuting due to the pandemic. The trending now is at roughly 70 percent of players 21
coming from the Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. Mr. Do said their goal was to establish 22
a premier course, and they have been recognized several times, including named third 23
place for Public Course Renovation in Golf, Inc., magazine. The California Parks and 24
Recreation Society recognized the course for environmental sustainability in course 25
design, which Mr. Do said is a reflection of the golf course architect and builder. The 26
course also received recognition in Golf Week magazine regarding enjoyment of playing 27
the course. Mr. Do indicated his availability for questions, as well as Matt Molloy, operator 28
of OB Sports. 29
Chair Cribbs said it was good to hear news like this. The golf community she 30
communicates with are very high on Palo Alto and the golf course, coming in to play 31
Pebble, Harding and Baylands, which is pretty good company. She said they have done a 32
very good job. 33
Chair Cribbs welcomed Commission LaMere to the meeting. 34
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the public on the presentation. Hearing none, she 35
invited questions and comments from the Commissioners. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Commission LaMere thanked Mr. Do for all of his work with the golf course and his 1
detailed presentations. He asked about community involvement regarding the relationship 2
and use of the golf course by First Tee, by high school teams, and also by any youth 3
students who have taken advantage of the use rate, and if there is any data on that. 4
Mr. Do responded that prior to the course renovation and once the new course was opened, 5
for the past three years, they have maintained their relationship with the First Tee of Silicon 6
Valley, whose programs are held seasonally throughout the year. Each season they run an 7
eight-week season, and staff provides them with a practice facility, on-course time and 8
driving range stalls. Most recently they did have a slight change in how First Tee’s 9
presence is facilitated. They are currently charging them a nominal fee to participate. This 10
was implemented in the past fiscal year. Regarding support of high school programs, they 11
have also made a slight change. Currently Paly and Gunn high schools are supported. 12
There was a brief time when it was difficult for other private schools to find open courses 13
to get on, so they provided them support as well. However, now that most golf courses are 14
open, they have gone back to just the two public high schools in the area. Mr. Do advised 15
that he will research and get back to the Commission with more data in this regard. 16
Mr. Molloy concurred with the information given. He said the Youth on Course is a 17
popular program. Although he did not have data, he offered to pull it together and get it to 18
Mr. Do to share with the Commission. He commented that the First Tee program is crazy, 19
sharing that on Monday through Thursday at 5:00 it’s like a carnival, with 15 kids, all sorts 20
of youth practicing, dads and their kids, and it is great to see. The involvement from the 21
community on the high school teams has been well-received as well. He called supporting 22
these kinds of things their “sales pipeline,” developing customers for the future. 23
Commission LaMere followed up, asking if the nominal fee charged to First Tee is 24
something that had been done in the past, or what the decision-making process was in 25
terms of implementing a fee. Mr. Do replied that there was a fee in the past of a two dollars 26
and it was difficult to continue at the two dollars. At the same time, the First Tee also 27
wanted certain pre-determined times to be on-course, as opposed to the previous flexible, 28
as-available basis, so they were asked to help defray some of the operating cost. 29
Commissioner Kleinhaus referred to the slide discussing the course redesign. The intent 30
in creating the new golf course in 2013 was to provide a more interesting layout for golfers 31
of all levels with enhanced wildlife habitat, improved wetland areas and sustainability in 32
terms of reduced potable water and pesticides. She wondered about the enhanced wildlife 33
habitat goal and how it is functioning, as well as the improved wetland areas. She remarked 34
that, in terms of the studies using salty water tolerance, there were some concerns of 35
invasion into the wetlands, and she wondered if they had seen any evidence of that. 36
Mr. Do noted that the prior golf course had a lot of irrigated turf and wide fairways, so a 37
majority of the golf course was irrigated. With the redesign, the acreage of turf was 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
reduced, which reduced irrigation, and the remaining areas were left for natural growth, 1
resulting in less irrigation and more habitat for wildlife and also adding more wetland areas 2
than before. The approach of having more habitat, more wetlands and less turf made for 3
less irrigation. Particularly, the irrigation with potable water was reduced even further 4
because the type of grass, Paspalum, that was selected, which is a warm weather grass 5
which is coastal, and salt tolerant. With its salt tolerance, they have been able to decrease 6
the amount of potable water used, and increase the amount of recycled water used. Another 7
benefit of Paspalum is that, in using recycled water, there is salinity in it, and it also acts 8
as a natural herbicide, which reduces the amount of pesticide use needed. They have been 9
fairly successful in working with this grass. It has characteristics that some consider 10
desirable, and some do not. This has to do with the dormancy of the turf. It is a warm 11
weather grass, but as the temperature cools, the grass goes dormant and the color changes 12
from green to a yellow to a brown. Some consider this a natural look, but some consider 13
it undesirable and feel the course should look lush and green at all times. Mr. Do said their 14
desire is to be a links style course and also to fit in with the Baylands as well. 15
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked again about the wildlife habitat and wetlands, wondering 16
if they are indeed used by wildlife, if native plants are still there, or if they have been 17
replaced by weeds and invasive species. Regarding the Paspalum, she wondered whether 18
they see any invasion into the Baylands of this salt tolerant coastal plant that was brought 19
into the area and could potentially invade the Baylands. She asked if there was any 20
monitoring or information about whether the grass is invading the Baylands, and if not, if 21
there is a way to start monitoring to find out if there is a problem or not. She said since it 22
is a warm weather grass there may not be a problem. She hoped there was no problem, but 23
said it is a concern that was brought by the community when the project was approved. In 24
terms of the enhanced wildlife habitat, she said just because there are places for wildlife 25
to go, does not mean it is working. Regarding the idea of planting various types of native 26
plants and allowing the animals to be able to use some of it, she wanted to know if any of 27
that is happening, because much of the habitat was lost when the golf course was modified, 28
but the idea was that the new course would have some enhanced wildlife habitat. If it is 29
not functioning, she wondered how to get information on that. 30
Mr. Do said the native plant palette initially planted had a difficult time taking off. They 31
then did a second round of planting, with some success, but they have also lost some of 32
those plants. He said trying to maintain a full set of native plants has been a challenge, so 33
they do have native and non-natives on the course, as do other areas in the Baylands as 34
well, and it is a constant struggle to establish the native. Regarding the wildlife habitat and 35
a measure of its success, he said it is an area that they need to work on. They do not have 36
an active way of monitoring the habitat. In regard to the Paspalum, the observation is that 37
it is not growing into the non-desired areas, but this is another area that they are working 38
on as well. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Commissioner Brown appreciated the presentation and thorough report. She commented 1
that there was proposed legislation last year related to municipal golf courses, to try to 2
incentivize the development of affordable housing on them and to strip away their 3
environmental protections. She said the legislation died last year, but it has been brought 4
back this year in a different version. She hoped it is something that staff could ask their 5
legislative consultant, to see if it is something that they are monitoring and to provide 6
updates through staff as golf liaison on that legislation and how it unfolds. She thought the 7
Commission could potentially recommend a position to the City Council if needed. Mr. 8
Molloy responded that the bill is AB 672, and he thought it had just died again, according 9
to information he got from the California Golf Course Owner’s Association, of which 10
Baylands is a member. He will send the report to Mr. Do, and all of the information. He 11
said his company operates upwards of 40 golf courses in the state of California, so they 12
monitored that situation very closely as well. He will forward the report that came through 13
the CGGOA. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Do and Mr. Molloy for the presentation and Mr. 15
Molloy for joining them at the meeting, as it is helpful to get his direct insight. He asked 16
him to talk about his specific role, especially with respect to their course. Mr. Molloy said 17
he has been a general manager for about 20 years with the company. He moved into a 18
regional role and managed a portfolio of courses for OB Sports, about 15 different courses, 19
from municipal to privately-owned, to public daily fee, and private. He works with the 20
team to support the employees and the operations. He works with Mr. Do and the City to 21
keep in constant communication about the operation and with budgets and financials, and 22
enjoys visiting Palo Alto every month-and-a-half or so. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield said it was great to see the numbers the course has served in the 24
local community last year and this year, serving Santa Clara and San Mateo County, with 25
more locals than not. He asked how the Bay Café and the pro shop are doing this year. 26
Regarding merchandise, Mr. Molloy said that the previous concessionaire was very strong 27
on hard goods; however, shortly before the course opened, PJ Superstore opened, and 28
leading into the pandemic, off-course retailers dominated because of ease of purchase, and 29
buying online. Mr. Molloy had thought they would see a slow death for those retailers, but 30
unfortunately the pandemic propped them back up. The shelter-in-place and the 31
restrictions and mandates in the communities and counties and the State had a big effect 32
on the merchandise. He felt people were apprehensive about buying merchandise and 33
shopping, but they have seen it rebound in the current fiscal year, with a little over $4 per 34
round spent on merchandise, where it was at about $1.50 before. He said getting golf balls 35
and goods continues to be a struggle, as with all businesses and supplies. The Bay Café 36
has been affected tremendously because of indoor dining mandates and masks mandate 37
indoors. It has not met their expectations to date, but in the past three months they are 38
seeing some nice momentum of the golfers visiting the café before and after. They are 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
starting to get the local community, the Honda dealership employees and programs and 1
some of their customers, coming over as well. 2
Vice Chair Greenfield said it was good to hear. He wondered if there was a specific niche 3
that the pro shop was aiming for. Mr. Molloy said the main thing was the logo 4
merchandise, logo apparel and accessories, ball markers, keepsakes, et cetera. He said as 5
people come to call Baylands their home course, they like to wear the apparel, hats, jackets, 6
shirts. They have three or four very qualified golf instructors that do a great job of club 7
fitting, where most clubs have moved away from heavy stock in merchandise – golf clubs, 8
putters, wedges, et cetera – and moved towards more of the custom fitting. The shop has 9
all of the major brands that they can fit for as well. The fitting is free, so it is a very easy 10
process and the same price as buying clubs off the rack. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield inquired whether any rewards or honors had been earned in the past 12
year. Mr. Molloy noted that their superintendent won an award from the local Golf Course 13
Superintendent’s Association for quality of the grass that he is providing, so they are very 14
proud of the job he has done. Vice Chair Greenfield said it would be helpful to see such 15
awards in annual report coming from the past fiscal or calendar year. Also, something like 16
the table included in the presentation, indicating the increased revenues and comparison 17
numbers would be helpful also to include in the annual report, as it is good news and it 18
would make it more visible. 19
Chair Cribbs was interested in the youth involvement and asked if it was possible to 20
estimate the ratio of boys to girls who are taking advantage of the youth program, the First 21
Tee and the high school teams. She asked if both high schools had female teams. Mr. Do 22
said they support both boys and girls golf teams. He would look for the information and 23
breakdowns. For the Youth on Course program, he didn’t think that data was tracked, but 24
he would look into a way to do so. He said the First Tee is the majority of the youth 25
participants, and they have those statistics. For the high schools, he thought it was probably 26
an even split. Mr. Molloy added that they can get the local enrollment numbers of Youth 27
on Course, but they have not tracked individual Youth on Course users at Baylands. Chair 28
Cribbs said it would be interesting to see the numbers if it was easy to get. 29
Chair Cribbs asked if she is correct in her understanding that COVID restrictions allow for 30
two golfers to now sit in the same golf cart. Mr. Molloy confirmed this. He said it has 31
helped them in the rounds, and they are looking to expand the fleet of golf carts when the 32
lease is up, late this year or early next year, to go from 60 carts to 72. Chair Cribbs inquired 33
if regular COVID restrictions included indoor dining, and if everything else is almost back 34
to normal. Mr. Molloy thought the mask mandates indoors in any space was correct. He 35
added that golf has actually been a beneficiary of COVID in many ways. Rounds are up 36
across the country and across the world, and they are fighting to keep all of them engaged. 37
Chair Cribbs asked about their plans for the future to continue the numbers on an upward 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
trajectory. Mr. Molloy said one thing they are seeing right now is there is no short term 1
letup in any of the golf play. There was a small dip from the COVID highs of 2021, last 2
summer. Then it plateaued and stayed there for quite some time. They assume that it is 3
going to dip again, but think that the plateau after the next dip will be above pre-COVID 4
levels. They continue to drive programs to get people involved, to improve their skills and 5
their game, because the better they are at golf, the more they like it, but also because golf 6
is not always about keeping score. It is about spending time outside and about work/life 7
balance and having fun with friends and family outside, which is a big message they are 8
sending also. It’s not about the rules and the drops that can, and has, kept people away 9
from the game. 10
Chair Cribbs asked if there were any plans for the future regarding the café – making it 11
bigger, adding another banquet room, a redesign or something in partnership with the City. 12
Mr. Molloy thought the patio could potentially be made into more of an indoor/outdoor 13
space so that it could be utilized in inclement weather, with walls that completely open up 14
or can be closed so that the space can be more climate controlled. They are trying to drive 15
the message on banquets. The banquet space is nice, but there is still apprehension in the 16
public for the larger-style gatherings. They are seeing the 20’s and 30’s but not the 80’s 17
and 100-person event sizes. 18
Councilmember DuBois said the Commissioners do a great job of asking questions, but 19
he asked Mr. Molloy if the finances are the City finances. He wondered how OB Sports 20
did financially through COVID, in Palo Alto and as a company. Mr. Molloy said as a 21
company, with COVID and the amount of golf play, it has been beneficial. Since they are 22
a third party management company, they earn revenues from monthly fees and incentives, 23
so with the increase in revenues, incentives have bumped up a little bit. He said Baylands 24
is a massive success story for them, and they love being a part of the operation. The Bay 25
Café aside, it has been a great relationship so far. He said that COVID has been great for 26
everyone in the golf space. 27
Commissioner Freeman asked if they are seeing a trend starting, as there have been with 28
some companies like Peloton and Zoom, but now things are starting to change with people 29
starting to go back to work. He wondered if the numbers were continuing to trend in the 30
latter part of 2021 and continuing into 2022. Mr. Molloy said they were tracking to meet 31
or slightly beat the revenues from fiscal 2021 through almost seven months. He said the 32
play is strong, and there is a void of new golf courses in that area of California. To build a 33
golf course today, he said he could imagine what it would cost with the prices of acreage. 34
As a result, that competition is not there, although there are people that are renovating golf 35
courses and putting some of the gains they made during COVID back into their operations 36
to take care of a lot of deferred maintenance from the past 10 or 15 years. That is making 37
for some competition, but they’re not seeing anywhere right now any letup in the short 38
term. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Commissioner Freeman said he saw that the numbers increased, looking at the number of 1
Palo Alto and Santa Clara folks going up. He felt they were not necessarily going to lose 2
those people if they start going back to work. If they’ve developed an interest in golf during 3
that time they will probably continue that interest and bring other people along with them. 4
Mr. Molloy said the surveys they do are showing the work/life balance, and he felt they 5
can’t undervalue that, as it is a big thing that has come out of COVID. Also, the availability 6
to work from home may free up time because of not commuting and on the weekends as 7
well. Chair Cribbs reflected that the comment about work/life balance and the importance 8
of it serves the Commission very well, and they should be thinking about that as they look 9
at different recreational programs and opportunities. 10
Chair Cribbs thanked Mr. Do for his great report and good numbers and thanked Mr. 11
Molloy for his attendance and comments. 12
4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 13
Chair Cribbs read from the protocol for election of the new Chair and Vice Chair and 14
listing the roles, tasks and duties of the Chair. She then read the procedure for nomination 15
and election of the new Chair and Vice Chair. 16
Chair Cribbs opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus nominated Vice Chair Greenfield. Vice Chair Greenfield 18
accepted the nomination and said he would be honored to have the opportunity to lead the 19
group and looked forward to working with a new group and to getting another 20
commissioner appointed to the group. 21
Chair Cribbs asked if there were further nominations for the position of Chair. Hearing 22
none, she asked for a motion to close nominations. 23
MOTION 24
Commission LaMere moved to close nominations. Seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus, 25
the motion carried, 6-0, by roll call vote. 26
Chair Cribbs called for the vote. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield was elected unanimously as Chair. 28
Commissioner Cribbs congratulated Vice Chair Greenfield and thanked the 29
Commissioners with whom she served the past year, stating that she has had a wonderful 30
time as Chair. She feels they have a strong Commission with good, smart, thoughtful and 31
kind people. She turned the meeting over to Chair Greenfield. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Chair Greenfield thanked Chair Cribbs for the effort, enthusiasm and energy she brought 1
to the Commission in her role as Chair. He felt it has been a very successful year and she 2
led the Commission to make great progress on big ticket projects as well as furthering 3
discussions with partners in funding recreations and opportunities for the community. He 4
said he looked forward to working with the new group, with new ideas and new energy. 5
He observed that this is the most people changing on the Commission since he started on 6
the Commission, and he looked forward to seeing what the group will accomplish in the 7
coming year and in aligning their goals with the goals City Council will be setting forth. 8
He appreciated their trust in allowing him to be the leader of the group. 9
Commission LaMere thanked Chair Cribbs for her service, her action and her desire to 10
push ideas through and the ability to run meetings and generate ideas. He appreciated 11
working with her and was glad that she remains with the Commission going forward. 12
Commissioner Brown thanked Chair Cribbs and said she only knows the Commission with 13
Chair Cribbs as Chair. She appreciated her being so welcoming to both her and members 14
of the public that have attended, and how well-organized and planned the meetings have 15
been. 16
Mr. Anderson expressed gratitude on behalf of staff for Chair Cribbs’ service and 17
outstanding leadership and said it has been a real pleasure working with her. 18
Chair Greenfield concurred with all of the comments. He continued the meeting, inviting 19
nominations for Vice Chair. He shared the Vice Chairperson’s role. Regarding agendas, 20
Chair Greenfield said the way the Commission has worked the past few years, very 21
effectively, is that both the Chair and Vice Chair meet with the staff liaison to plan, and 22
take a very active role. He looked forward to that continuing to be the case. He also pointed 23
to the Vice Chair’s role of quietly helping guide the Chair during the meeting when 24
necessary. He said it is great to get a nudge when the Chair is missing something or going 25
in the wrong direction. 26
Chair Greenfield opened the floor to nominations for Vice Chair for the coming year. 27
Commissioner Cribbs nominated Commission LaMere for Vice Chair. She stated that she 28
has had the pleasure of working with Commission LaMere on several Ad Hoc committees 29
and has always appreciated his opinions and enthusiasm, especially his concern for youth 30
and youth programs. During Commission meetings he always has good questions and 31
thoughts and ideas. She felt he would make a great Vice Chair. 32
Commission LaMere accepted the nomination with thanks to Commissioner Cribbs. 33
Chair Greenfield invited further nominations for Vice Chair. Hearing none, he asked for a 34
motion to close nominations. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
MOTION 1
Commissioner Brown moved to close nominations for Vice Chair. Seconded by 2
Commissioner Cribbs, the motion carried, 6-0, by roll call vote. 3
Chair Greenfield called for a roll call vote for the role of Vice Chair. 4
Commission LaMere was elected unanimously as Vice Chair. 5
Chair Greenfield congratulated Vice Chair LaMere and expressed that he looked forward 6
to working with him in the coming year. He appreciated his contributions to the 7
Commission in years past, and was happy to see him take a step forward into a leadership 8
role. 9
Vice Chair LaMere thanked the Chair and the Commission and said he is excited to take 10
the role as Vice Chair and work with Chair Greenfield, the rest of the Commission and 11
staff to help the community. He felt the Commission can have great impact in many areas 12
of the community, and he is excited to be in a leadership role. 13
Chair Greenfield invited further comments from the Commission or the public. 14
Winter Dellenbach congratulated the new Chair and Vice Chair and said the PRC has a lot 15
of good work to do in the next year, and she was pleased that Jeff Greenfield is at the helm 16
again. She looked forward to great things coming from the Commission this year, and she 17
congratulated and wished them all well. 18
Councilmember DuBois offered congratulations to the Chair and Vice Chair and looked 19
forward to working with them this year. 20
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR February 22, 2022 21
22
Mr. Anderson said one item for the tentative February agenda is for Adam Howard to bring 23
the court usage discussion. They would also like to bring the Park Development Impact 24
Fee Study as an action item for the Commission to review. After the Commission looks at 25
it, it would go to the Finance Committee and then to Council in March or April. There 26
were two other potential items – the Bayland Comprehensive Conservation Plan to bring 27
back to the Commission, and potentially the tree protection topic. 28
Chair Greenfield asked if there were any other agenda suggestions from Commissioners 29
for February or the near term. Commissioner Cribbs said they had talked about putting the 30
Youth Council on the agenda to make a presentation in March. Mr. Anderson said he had 31
an email in to Adam Howard about setting that up, but has not heard back from him. 32
VIII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Chair Greenfield said, based on the Doodle poll, the clear winner for the retreat date would 1
be February 11th, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. which would be the preferred time for all 2
of the Commissioners and most staff and Council Liaison to attend. Hearing no comments 3
on this date, he suggested they plan on that date. He assumed it would be over Zoom. He 4
said he looked forward to meeting in person again, but that is not right around the corner. 5
He asked Mr. Anderson if there was any specific planning they needed to do regarding the 6
retreat. In general, for the new Commissioners, Chair Greenfield said the focus of the 7
retreat was to have discussions on their priorities for the coming year and to work on 8
aligning their priorities with the priorities established by the City Council as their guiding 9
principles. They will also talk about which Ad Hocs they want to create for the coming 10
year based on their priorities and on the input from staff on feasibility in terms of staff 11
resources, and priorities from City Council and staff, as well as the interests of their group. 12
They will create and appoint members to the Ad Hocs and appoint Liaisons as well. 13
Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson if he had any information on when they could expect 14
to add another Commissioner to their body. Mr. Anderson replied that he heard from the 15
Clerk’s Office that this would be done during the spring recruitment, and he has let them 16
know that they are interested, and to keep him informed. He will pass on information as 17
he receives it. 18
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 19
Chair Greenfield said they have taken a motion to adjourn the meeting in the past, and he 20
asked Councilmember DuBois if they needed to do that. Councilmember DuBois’ advice 21
was to simply adjourn the meeting. 22
Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. 23
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: SARAH DUFFY
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2022
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review and recommend to Finance
Committee the approval of the following nexus study and impact fee updates as found in the
Supplement to Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact Fee Justification
Study (the “Study”):
1.Updated fees based on an increased land valuation of $6.5 million per acre that took into
consideration additional transactions that have occurred within the past 12 months since
completion of the Study. See Table 2 of Attachment A for a comparison of existing and
proposed updated fees using the $6.5 million valuation.
2.A differentiated fee structure in which the commercial/industrial fee is separated into five
categories: retail, office, industrial, hotel/motel, and commercial. See Table 3 of Attachment
A for fees associated with the proposed differentiated fee structure.
3.No further updates to the office density calculation that used 200 square ft. per employee.
4.Nexus Study updates every 5-8 years, in accordance with new requirements under Assembly
Bill 602.
5.Waiting until the next nexus study to make additional changes to the fee structure by
converting residential fees to reflect a per-square-foot amount, rather than a single amount
per dwelling, regardless of size. Cities will be required to adopt a square footage approach
after July 1, 2022, per AB602, so it will be necessary to take this approach for future Parks,
Community Center, and Library fee studies.
BACKGROUND
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 the Park, Community Center, and Library Development
Impact Fee Justification Study, found here, which provides a detailed framework for the
imposition of impact fees, defines the City facilities addressed in the Study, illustrates the
calculation methodology used, and specifies 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 City Council. The Staff Report and presentation can be
found here. Finance Committee passed a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the
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
Staff Report and presentation can be found here. 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 the 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. At the April 12, 2021, meeting City Council approved the fees recommended in the Study,
which were implemented as of August 23, 2021, with the understanding that staff would evaluate
the impact of various City Council recommendations on the fee calculations and provide an
update to the Study. The Staff Report and presentation can be found here.
Staff contracted with DTA to conduct the Supplement to the fee Study (attached), which is
Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
Per Council’s direction, staff requested that DTA prepare an analysis of the following items,
which are addressed in the Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study in
Attachment A:
A. Update land acquisition costs;
B. Differentiate the fee structure for retail space versus office space;
C. Update office density;
D. Recommend the frequency with which these fee schedules should be updated;
E. Evaluate whether the multi and single-family fee dwelling land use categories should be
divided into multiple categories based on total square feet or some other measure; and
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.
Based on this analysis the nexus study makes the following suggestions:
1. Updated fees based on an increased land valuation of $6.5 million per acre that took into
consideration additional transactions that have occurred within the past 12 months since
completion of the Study. See Table 2 of Attachment A for a comparison of existing and
proposed updated fees using the $6.5 million valuation.
2. A differentiated fee structure in which the commercial/industrial fee is separated into five
categories: retail, office, industrial, hotel/motel and commercial. See Table 3 of
Attachment A for fees associated with the proposed differentiated fee structure.
3. No further updates to the office density calculation that used 200 square ft. per employee.
4. Nexus Study updates every 5-8 years, in accordance with new requirements under
Assembly Bill 602.
5. Waiting until the next fee study to make additional changes to the fee structure by
converting residential fees to reflect a per-square- foot amount, rather than a single
amount per dwelling, regardless of size. Cities will be required to adopt a square footage
approach after July 1, 2022, per AB602 so it will be necessary to take this approach for
future Parks, Community Center and Library fee studies.
Note that item F requires more research, which DTA is available to conduct upon direction of
Council and staff.
TIMELINE
•Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations presented to Finance Committee in March
2022.
•Finance Committee recommendations presented to City Council in April 2022.
www.FinanceDTA.com
Newport Beach | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside | Dallas | Houston | Raleigh | Tampa
MEMORANDUM
February 14, 2022
To: City of Palo Alto
From: DTA
Subject: Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
On January 15, 2021, DTA issued a Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Study”)
to the City of Palo Alto (the “City”), reflecting the updated fee recommendations outlined in
Table 1 below. The Study was reviewed by the City’s Finance Committee, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and City Council on December 12, 2020, February 23, 2021, and April 12, 2021,
respectively. The fees recommended in the Study were approved by City Council and
implemented as of August 23, 2021, with the understanding that DTA would evaluate the
impact of various City Council recommendations on the fee calculations and provide an
update to the Study accordingly.
Table 1: 2021 Development Impact Fee Summary Adopted by City Council
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.
In January 2022, the City requested that DTA prepare the follow-up analysis, outlined in this
Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Supplement”). Based on
the comments received from City Council, below are the specific tasks addressed in this
Supplement:
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. ft.;
Task D – Recommend the frequency with which these schedules should be updated;
Task E – Evaluate whether the multi- and single family fee dwelling land use categories
should be divided into multiple categories based on total square feet or some other
measure; and
;RqzT
Attachment A
2
City of Palo Alto February 14, 2022
Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
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.
A Update Land Acquisition Costs
Utilizing CoStar, a leading commercial real estate database, DTA’s 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. 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 Municipal Code.
Feedback from City Council suggested that the $5.7 million per acre land valuation was too
low and that the figure should be closer to $20 million, as seen in recent home sales. However,
it is important to note that DTA’s estimated valuation per acre reflects sales prices of vacant
land, a customary industry standard when calculating the development impact fees for park
facilities (the “Park Fees”), as vacant land is the most likely property type to be purchased for
the creation of new park facilities. The average price per acre of developed land is significantly
higher and not typically used for purposes of calculating parkland acquisition costs.
Per the City’s direction, DTA has updated and analyzed the CoStar data to include transactions
that have occurred in the 12 months since completion of the Study. According to our analysis,
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. Figure 1 below shows
the current and proposed land valuation figures compared to the land valuation figures used
in Park Fee calculations of neighboring communities.
Figure 1: Land Valuation Comparison
;RqzT
3
City of Palo Alto February 14, 2022
Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
Table 2 below shows the increase from the current Park Fee if the $6.5 million per acre land
valuation was implemented. The Park Fee for a single family dwelling, which is currently
$57,420, would increase to $62,802 based on this updated valuation.
Table 2: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees
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
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. DTA was asked to evaluate a revised fee
structure in which the commercial/industrial fee is separated into three categories: retail,
office, and industrial. The updated fees under this revised structure are shown below in Table
3. 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.
City staff have also indicated that implementation of this proposed fee structure may be
difficult when attempting to determine the land use for commercial projects that do not fall
under any of the four (4) proposed non-residential fee categories. There are multiple ways to
remedy this, one of which being the addition of an “other commercial” category. This fee
would be calculated as the average of the proposed non-residential fees. An example of this
calculation is shown in Table 3.
DRAFT
4
City of Palo Alto February 14, 2022
Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
Table 3: Proposed Development Impact Fee Summary
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 Commercial1
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $12.543 $0.886 $0.528 $13.957
*Notes:
1. Includes any non-residential project with a land use that does not fall under the Retail, Office, Industrial, or
Hotel/Motel categories, as defined in the City’s zoning code.
C Update Office Density
In addition to bifurcating the commercial land use category into retail and office, DTA was
asked 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.
Unless requested by City Council, DTA believes no additional adjustment beyond the category
bifurcation is necessary to accommodate this request, as this ratio of 200 sq. ft. per employee
is based on existing square footage and employees in the City. The proposed fees outlined in
Table 3 reflect the requested office density update.
D Frequency of Fee Study Updates
It is generally recommended that 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
accurate projections of future development, as well as infrastructure needs and cost estimates.
Commonly used escalators include the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) construction cost
index (“CCI”), which the City currently uses to escalate their fees, consumer price index (“CPI”),
or other appropriate adjustment factor.
DRAFT
5
City of Palo Alto February 14, 2022
Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
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 less than 3,000 square feet, single family units greater than 3,000 square feet,
multi-family units less than 900 square feet, and multi-family units greater than 900 square
feet. After discussion with City staff, DTA’s Study recommended a revision to this structure,
given the fact that the distinction between these land uses no longer reflected the type of
proposed housing in the City and was difficult to align with underlying data and current
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 reflected in Table 1. DTA
continues to recommend this simplification of the fee structure.
The City may wish to consider converting residential fees to reflect a per-square-foot amount,
rather than a single amount per dwelling unit, regardless of size. The-per-square foot amounts
could be calculated by dividing the total fee (either the current fees outlined in Table 1 or the
proposed updated fees outlined in Table 3) by the average square footage of single family and
multi-family units, as reflected in building permit data or other City data source. AB 602, which
is recently passed legislation related to development impact fee nexus studies, will require that
fee studies completed after July 1, 2022 reflect all impact fee amounts as a charge on a per-
square-foot basis. If the City chooses to implement any updates reflected in this Supplement
after July 1, the per-square-foot fee structure will be required.
F Evaluate Fee Credit Option for Exceeding Required Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Units
At the April 2021 meeting, City Council voiced concerns about the fee updates disincentivizing
multi-family residential development, and therefore negatively impacting the City’s goal of
increasing the supply of affordable housing. Subsequently, DTA was asked to evaluate a
potential reduction or credit in 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 100% of all
impact fees, so this incentive appears to already be in place.
Municipalities take many different approaches to providing fee credits for BMR units, such as:
Reducing development impact fee obligations within the Development Agreement
between the city/county and the developer, which is likely the most common
approach;
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 they are above the required
number or not); or
Implementing an across-the-board fee exemption for BMR units (whether they are
above the required number or not).
If you have any questions upon review of the attached analysis, please feel free to call us at
(800) 969-4DTA.
Enclosures:
1. Attachment 1 – Fee Derivation Worksheets
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Palo Alto
Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study
FEE DERIVATION
WORKSHEETS
DRAFT
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
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-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS A, B, AND C)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
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 5,019Industrial (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 1,484Retail (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 $299.83Palo 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 $1,300.19Lucie 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 $4,438.46Notes:
[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-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Library FacilitiesFacility 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 15,443Multi-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 $819.54Rinconada Library (1213 Newell)Square Feet 4,440.34 628.94$ $2,792,729 $591.83Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45VolumesVolumes72,759.46 $50 $3,637,973 $770.95Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45Total$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 $79.45Offsetting Revenues ($214,779)($45.52)
Total $1,003,195 $12,481,908 $2,645.14
Library Facilities Fee Total $2,645.14Notes:[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 Library inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Library improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
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 0.3510 14,300,000 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)16,027 19.63%3,145 0.65 0.2376 4,822,578 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)1,101 19.63%216 0.14 0.0499 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-5
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
CITY OF PALO ALTO
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: ADAM HOWARD
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2022
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING COURT USAGE AND JOINT USE COURTS
BACKGROUND
Pickleball in Palo Alto started organically and the City of Palo Alto has seen an increase in the
number of pickleball players and requests for pickleball space. A group of pickleball players began
using Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5, 6, 7 on a first-come first-serve basis, which was not supported
by the City’s court use policy but was also not creating many issues. Staff continued to see an
increase in pickleball play and felt it was important to address the growing demand for pickleball
space. Over the last 4 years there have been multiple changes to the policy and park space to
allow for more pickleball play.
•2018- Policy updated to allow pickleball play on Mitchell Park Courts 5,6 7 on a first come
first serve basis. Temporary lines were included for pickleball use.
•2019- With continued growth of pickleball staff and the PRC began looking for ways to
provide designated space for the pickleball to be played.
o New courts were designed and Mitchell Park courts 6 and 7 were designated as
multi use courts.
▪Priority times created for the multi-use courts to address most popular
times for both tennis and pickleball play.
•Pickleball has priority 8am-2:30pm 7 days a week.
•Tennis has priority 3pm-10pm- 7 days a week.
•2020- New courts are open.
DISCUSSION
Now that new courts have been established and the multiuse court policy have been in use for
two years staff thought it would be important to begin looking at the court usage and determine
if the policy and spaces are working efficiently and meeting the needs of the public. When the
priority times were created, it was a good compromise to give both pickleball and tennis priority
during their busiest times. With continued growth in pickleball evening time has become more
popular so the focus has been on nighttime activities on lit courts.
Current court counts and locations:
• 8 designated pickleball courts - 6 lit courts (with a plan in place to add lights for two
remaining courts)- all in Mitchell Park
• 51 tennis courts (17 lit tennis courts)
o Cubberley Community Center (6)
o Mitchell Park (4) – 4 lit courts
o Rinconada Park (9) – 6 lit courts
o Hoover Park (2)
o Peers Park (2)
o Terman Park (2)
o Weisshaar Park (2)
o Gunn High School (7) *
o Palo Alto High School (7)* – 7 lit courts
o JLS Middle School (6)*
o Jordan Middle School (4) *
*PAUSD courts are available during the week after 4pm, weekends and non-school days.
• 2 multi use courts (2 tennis courts, 7 pickleball courts) (all lit)- Mitchell Park
Pickleball feedback:
• Evening time is compacted.
• Would like additional space or some evening priority time.
• Grouping of courts is important for the community aspect of the game.
Tennis feedback:
• Lit tennis courts are crucial for tennis community and in high demand.
• Grouping of tennis courts also important to tennis community.
• Private lessons continue to be an issue – especially weekend days.
On January 11, 2022, staff began conducting periodic observations of the lit courts in Palo Alto
(Palo Alto High School, Mitchell Park and Rinconada Park) to gather data on court usage
(Attachment A). Staff counted the number of players on the courts and anyone that was waiting
to play if courts were full. Staff and the PRC Ad Hoc Committee on Court Use Policy (Ad Hoc)
have reviewed the Court Use Policy and the preliminary feedback from the staff observations
on court use. While more data collection is necessary, staff and the Ad Hoc would like to discuss
with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and get feedback on several key questions
related to the court use policy:
• What are the pros and cons of the current court use policy?
• Due to increase demand for pickleball in the evenings, should priority times be
adjusted?
• Do multi-use courts need to be changed to single use courts?
• What additional data would be helpful in making changes to the Policy.
TIMELINE
Staff will continue to collect court usage data and coordinate with the Ad Hoc Committee and
stakeholders to develop an update to the court use policy for the PRC’s consideration in spring
2022.
Locations 1/11/2022 (5pm‐5:30)1/12/2022 (6:45‐7:15)1/17/2022 (7pm‐7:30)1/26/2022 (6:30pm‐7pm)1/31/2022 (6:30pm‐7pm)02/05/2022 (6:45pm‐7:15)2/8/2022 (7pm‐7:30pm)‐ 70 degrees
Tuesday Wednesday Monday Wednesday Monday Saturday Tuesday
Mitchell Park
Court 12 0 2 4 4 2 2
Court 24 2 2 4 3 2 2
Court 34 4 2 3 0 0 2
Court 44 4 2 2 4 2 4
Courts 6 2 2P 2P ‐ no nets 3 2 0 2
Court 73 2 4 2 2 0 2
waiting 2 2
Pickleball 24 20 24 24 24 20 (courts full)24
waiting 5 0 8 3 12 7
Rinconada
court 12 2 3 6 4 no lights power outage 5
court 22 2 4 2 2 0 2
court 33 4 2 2 1 0 2
court 40 2 2 4 2 0 4
court 50 4 2 4 4 0 2
court 62 0 4 4 2 0 4
waiting 2 6
Paly High School
court 12 1 2 3 2 0 2
court 20 0 4 2 0 0 2
court 32 0 2 2 2 0 2
court 40 4 2 2 0 2 2
court 50 4 2 2 0 0 2
court 60 2 4 4 0 0 2
court 72 2 2 2 2 2 2
waiting
Court Useage Observations
Attachment A