HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 254-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
CMR: 254:10
MAY 24, 2010
Review of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project Fiscal Impact Analysis and Development
Agreement Proposal and City's Preliminary CounterOffer and
Direction to Staff
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the Stanford University Medical
Center Fiscal Impact Analysis and Development Agreement Proposal and the City's Preliminary
Counter Offer and direct staff to periodically report back to the City Council on development
agreement negotiations.
BACKGROUND
On April 6, April 13 and April 28, 2010, Staff presented and received comments on the SUMC
Fiscal Impact Analysis (CMR 196:10; Attachment A) and the Development Agreement
Proposals (CMR 197:10; Attachment B)from the Finance Committee, Policy and Services
Committee and Planning and Transportation Commission, respectively. A summary of the
comments from those meetings is attached. (Attachment C.)
Staff has had ongoing negotiation sessions with Stanford representatives and as part of the
preliminary negotiations staff has developed the following guiding principles in approaching the
preliminary negotiations:
1. Neutralize fiscal impacts to City. Ensure that the project does not have a negative fiscal
impact on the City through focusing, among other things, on revenue guarantees and
robust analysIs of long term project expenses.un
2. Require project mitigations. Ensure that zoning ordinance and Conditions of Approval
adequately address all project mitigations. Ensure that the General Fund is not unfairly
burdened with long term impacts of project.
3. Preserve community health care. Ensure that local benefits of hospital and clinics will be
retained, despite transition towards world class hospital status.
4. Enhance City infrastructure. Recognize mutual interest in preserving high standard of
economic and community vitality. Partner with Stanford to fund the long-term
infrastructure needs of the community and Hospital District (capital programs, housing,
transportation, broadband).
1
3
DISCUSSION
The Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report has been released and is expected to undergo an extensive public
review. During this review process staff will continue to meet with Stanford representative to
negotiate a draft Development Agreement that meets the goals outlined above.. This item is
being placed on the agenda to permit the full Council to review and discuss the City's
Preliminary Counter Offer in order to confirm that staff is headed in the right direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PREPARED BY:
/cSTEVEEM
Deputy City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 196:10 SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Attachment B: CMR 197:10 SUMC Project Development Agreement Proposal and City's
Preliminary Counter Offer
Attachment C: Summary of Comments from Finance Committee, Policy & Services Committee
and Planning and Transportation Committee
2
11 • ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo ~lto
I
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGER
.'
DATE: APRIL 6, 2010
4f
. DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CMR:196:10
SUBJECT: Review of the. Stanford Univel'sity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Fiscal Impact Analyses
RECOMMENDATION .
Staff l'ecommends that the Finance Committee review and comment on the Stanford University
Medical Center Fiscal analysis prepared by Stanford's consultant CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) .
. (Attachments A and B), In addition, staff recommends that the Finance Committee review and
comment on the peer review prepared by Applied Economics Development (ADE) for the City
(Attachment C). .
BACKGROUND
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) comprises the general area between Sand Hill
Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive .. The Proj9ct applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and
Clinics (SHC) at 300 Pasteur Drive, and construction of a new hospital building; rCQovation and
expansiori of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH); reconstruction of the School of
Medicine' (SoM) facilities; and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover
Pavilion. All of this work is designed to meet State mand.ated seismic safety standards (SB
1953) and to address capacity issues, changing patient needs and m~dernization requirements.
SB-1953 requires hospitaJ$ to retrofit or replace noncompliant facilities by January 1,2013, but
--~--~8taAful'eI-has-reqttestecl--a-;-~year-e-x-tensien-pUfSUant-ti)-S-B-166-1---from-the-effice--of---Statewide-
Planning and Health (OSHPD), the CaHfornia State Agency that has jurisdiction over hospitals.
The .renovation, and expansion project, which would be constructed over a IS-year horizon,
would result in an ,increase of approximat.ely 1.3 million square feet of hospital, clinic, and office
space: The foHo,wing entitlements are anticipated: '
• Comprehensive Plan amendments to:
CMR:196:10
o Change 701 1 703 Welch Road and a small portion of Santa Clara County land on
Welch Road to be annexed whh "Major Institutional/Special Facilities" land use
designation. .
Page 1 of?
o Amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the hospital and treatment uses are exempt from
the development cap. .
• Zoning Code and Map amendments to:
o Create a new "Hospital Zone."
o Rezone 701 and 703 Welch Road from Medical Office Research (MOR) to the
new "Hospital Zone."
o Pemlit limited heritage tree removrus
o Pre-zone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital Zone."
• Annex the small parcel described above.
• ARB review of, the SHC, LPCH,' Foundations in Medicine (FIM1), medical office
, building at Hoover Pavilion, and Design Guidelines.
• Coriditional Use Permit
'. Development Agreement
The Project applicant has submitted eight ~ubstantive project amendments with the most recent
amendment submitted on March 8, 2010. Since the Project was first submitted to the City.
SUMC has made changes based upon staff analysis and ARB, Planning and Transportation
. Commission, and City Council input. These changes include significant modifications to site'
planning and building massing; revisions to the location of parking garages and site access for
automobiles; refinements to the pedestrian and bicycle network to promote stronger linkages and
connections; and changes to building plaCement and design to protect significant oak tree
spec~~ns.
As part of the entitlement process for the project the City and SUMC have agreed to complete a
Fiscal Impact Analysis. SUMC has contracted with CBRE to conduct their fisca1 impact
analysis a11d agreed to fund a peer review using a City selected fiscal impact co~ultant. The
City completed a formal RFP process and ADE w~ selected to conduct the peer review. SUMC
as well as City staff, and APE, have completed their independent reviews of the SUMC project.
DISCUSSION
Long-term fiscal consequences are an essential part of the consideration when reviewing large
projeCts. New development could potentially bring new residents, en1ployees, and uses'that will
place incremental demands ori. local services, such as police. fire protection, community services.
libraries, planning, public works and utilities as well as impacting City administrative functions.
Anticipat~g and evaluating the associated fiscal impacts of new dev~lopment ensures that the
City does not extend services or infrastructure in a way that imposes a significant burden on
existing and limited resources. In addition, this analysis helps formulate funding strategies for
community facilities and infrastructure as well as any potential additional mitigation costs.
A fiscal impact ~lnalysis also can be used to compare the fiscal costs of alternative approaches to
a development. If a project is not fiscally neutI'ru or sustainable but meets community goals, the
-analysis may s~ggest the need for additional revenues or a Development Agreement that
provides supplemental funding to cover costs related to the development.
/ ,-
A typical tlscal impact analysis'includes a number of assumptions about how revenues will be
generated by the project. An example would be how property tax revenues are affected by the
development. A fiscal impact analysis incorpQrates the following components for'analysi~:
CMR:196:10 Page 2 of7
• The Increased Demand for Services Is Quantified Based on Amount of
Development. The changes that will be caused by the project proposal are quantified into
measurable units such' as jobs ,created,. hOllsing units ,b~i1t, or square, footage of retail.
Then service demands are estimat~d, based on factors applied to employment, housing,
and commercial development.
• The General Cost of Services Is Estimated. The type and amount of selvices are
identified. Then, an estimate of the co~t of providing these services is calculated.
Estimating the cost, however, is often difficu'~ given the "threshold" nature of services
like sewer-that may have little or 110 incremental cost until capacity is reached. To
provide another example, the police may have sufficient capacity to handle one
development. but may be forced to hire additiona1 staff if the same development were
proposed again but expanded significantly. Staff will often make assumptions to take
these difficulties into account.
• The Cost of Directly Serving the New Development Is Calculated. This can be
expressed as either a per unit cost or a total cost for the development. -
, '
• New Revenues Generated by the Project Are Estimated. The likely revenues to be
derived from the'project, like property taxes, development fees, license fees. 'and other
revenues are calculated.
, .. Projected Costs arid'Revenues are Compared. The est,imated revenues and costs are
,used to determine the net fiscal impact of the project. A positive bottom line nunJber
indicates that projected revenues are sufficient to cover projected costs.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The fiscal analysis prepared by CBRE indicates that the potential tax and fee revenues generated
by the SUMe project will be sufficient to fund the anticipated costs of providing municipal
services to the projects (Table 1). This inc1udes taxes generated by increased Sales and Use Tax,
Propcl1y Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Utility Users Tax and other taxes and fines such as
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu and Fines and Penalties. The analysis used a time horizon of thirty years
or 20 I 0 through 2040 to be consistent with some of the key aspects of' the proposed
Development Agreement. CBRE's dynamic analysis finds that over the 30-year time horizon the
Sl)MC project will net the City General Fund a cumulative net surplus totaling $7.6 million.
This reflects total cumulative revenues of $25.1 million and total cumulative costs of $17.5
-mHHol1-:------.. ------~-
In contrast, the peer review completed by ADE indicates that cumulative projected revenues are
$23.9 million and cumulative projected costs are $25.0 million, leaving a total net deficit of$1.1
million. Table 1 compal~e~ the two impact studies.
CMR:196:JO Page 3 of?
Table I
Comparative Fists) Analysis of Stluifonl University Medicnl Center Project
Annualized Projeetiol ... rFlseallmplIcts 1010-2-040
Item
GenerAl Fund Revenue
~al,csTax '
SUM<: Direct Purchasing
SUMC facilities On-sile sales
SUMC Employee Speoding
SUMC Overnight Visitor Spending
Construction Reb.led ~lIrchllsing
Construction Worker Spending
'~Op'crlY TII}C.
'Translenl Oeeupllficy Tax
Utility Users Tnx
Other
MotOr Vehicle In-Lieu Fees
F.~cs and Penalties
,Sub~TotHI '
General Fund Expense
City AlIorlley
---city AUaillir----.---~.
CUyCierk
City Council
City Manager
Administrlllivc Services
Human Resources
Community Services
Fire
Library
CMR:196:10
. "
$
ADE
Analnls
Total
. ProleCted
1,042,944
3,332.654
1,456,837
7,394
8,148.4!6
16,303
1,307,143
151.445
7,358,172
3J8~82S '
799,698
. S· 13,939,831
., ,r',
$182,508
$255,511
S~
$401,518
$1,697,325
$547,524
$1,524,267
$4.621,944
$471,360
$
CBRE
AnAlysis
Total
Projected
?09,129
3,433,703
1.459,148
9,688
8,14~,416
112,427 .
,~.681.4SI
182,806
7,978.522
410,502 '
799,6$0
13,115,468
61.434
394.852
310,.520
2.382,518
4,150,698
s
$
ADEmlnU5
CBRE
Difference
133,815
(101,049)
(2,311)
(2.294)
(96.124)
(374.3Q8)
(31,361)
(620,350)
(91,677)
20
(1,185,637)
$580,516
$18~5{)8
$2SS,511
SO
$340,084
$1,302,473
$237,004
($858,251)
$471.246
($71.492)
Pa~e4 of7
542.852
; Planni,ng and Community EfiV $1,438.009 856,165 $581.844
Poli,cc $7,980,282 5,744,628 $2,235,654
,Public Works $3,645,108 1,903,892 $1,741.216
Non-Departmental $1,611,638 1,074,535 $537,103
Sub-Total S 15,034,023 S 17,498,609 S 7,535.414
Net Surplusl(Dcnclt) S (1,094.192) S 7,616,860 $ (8,711,051)
·"Note: Totals' may not add due to rounding.
Revenue Estimates
The analysis, indicates differences in total revenues of app~oximately $1.2 million over the thirty
ye.ar time horizon. There are material differences in the areas of Property Tax and Utility Users
Tax.'The totaJ difference between these sources, however, averages approx~mately $39,521 per
year 'and staff believes, after discussion with both consultants, that most of the variance can be
attributed to the timing of Property Ta.'( projections and to potentially better prQject related
intc;muttion being provided to CBRE by SUMC in terms of utility consumption projections.
BecauSe the bulk of the project is exempt from property tax due to the non-profit nature of the
use; oilly mod~t Property Tax revenues are P1:ojected.
Of major concern to staff is that the analysis includes significant projections of SaJes Tax and
Use Tax coJieCted during project construction. A total of$14.1 million or approximately 56% of
alfpl"jec~ed revenues results from sales and use tax. The California State Boal-d of Equalization
(S,BOE) administers local taxes under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law,
arid distric~ taxes under the Transition and Use Tax Law, both of which are governed by
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 12000 et. Seq.
To collect revenues estimated at these levels, the following actions must occur:
.' StnnfOl'd University would obtain a California SeHer'S permit and report the Sales and
Use Tax information directly to the SBOE
• At least 80% of ali contracts and subcon,tt·acts must be greater than $5.0 million, thus
qualifying for a seller's sub-permit ,
• Under, S~~nford'~ permits all qualifying contractors and s~b-contractors will voluntarily
, obtai,p s~l1er's sub-permits fo~ the SUMC constntctioll site and report the required Sales
and Use Tax information
If these actions do not occur, the Use Tax would flow to the connty pool and the City would
l:eceiVlt ,f;1,signiticantly smaller share. Staff believes that Stanford staff must work in tandem with
co~tractol"s too~tain ttie appl~opriate tax permits and monitor the contra9tors' performance in this
area. Otherwise, these revenues will not materialize as projected by CBRE or ADE. II) addition,
to obtain revenues in future years, SHe and LPCH will both need to maintain or obtain direct
pay permits to report and pay sales and use tax on qualifying direct purchases. Stanford has
confirmed and shown that they are remitting u:re tax on ~ut-of-state purchases.
CMR:196:\O Page 5 of1
Admittedly, these are cOlnplex and time consumillg processes with serious implications if the
revenue projections do not become reality. This shOltfall could potentially change CBRE's
projected revenues from a tota1 of $25.1 mil1ion to $1 1.0 million, resulting in. a projected deficit
of $6.4 million and not a $7.6 million surplus. Again. it is Stanford not the City that must work
with the contractors to ensure all potential use tax is realized. Even though CBRE and ADE
estimates·for this revenue source are similar, realizing the amount projected can be problematic
giyen tfte need tor close oversight and the possibility that the amount and type of purchases may
not conform to State regulations. Staff recommends that the Development Agreement contain
language whereby Stanford guarantees a revenue stream to cover City expenses in situations
where anticipated revenue projections fall short.
Expense Estimates
The City costs in both the CBRE and ADE analysis are calculated on an average cost basis.
meaning that the costs allocated to the proposed project are the same cost pel' employee as those
for existing non~resjdential llses and employees in the City. The analysis in Table 1 il1dicate~
that: there is a significant difference between the' consultants in the determination of long term
expenses ... CBR~ has calculated that project related City expenses for the thirty year time
horizon ar~ approximately' $) 7.5 million, whereas ADE has calcolated the expense to be
apl'roximat~ly $25.0 milljon. Staff understands that this difference is due to CBRE's assumption
tha~. certain portions of City sel'vices are fixed and not subject to increase as City service
demands increase. Overall, CBRE has estimated that approximately 49% of all City service cost
arc fixed costs that will not vary over time. These range from 1000/0 of the costs for City Auditor
and City Clerk to 20% of Fire Depat1ment costs. this limitation has resulted in a 2010-2040 cost
projection that is approximately 30% lower than ADE's estimate. ADE and City staff believes
thllt CBRE's finding is not correct. While administrative depal1ments may grow at a slower rate
than operating depru1ments. the CBRE assumption is that there is a relatively inelastic
connecti~n between ~emand for services and the need tor administrative support: This is not a
reasonable conclusion. ADE has found the need fOl'additiona1 staffing and costs for both (;ity
a(!mini~tmtive and line departments. By including the additional salary and benefit costs~.ADE
finds a detlcit beginning in year 2015. This is ill contrast to the CBRE analysis, which projects a
much lowel' deficit beginning in year 2024. .
, .
Furtheryl1ol'e. the studies both assume that en~ployee staff costs will remain fixed during the 30
year period. While not quantified, ADE and City Staff believe this assumption further
underestimates .expen~. Having gone through several rounds of cost cutting to solve stlUctural
deficits in the last decade. the City does not want to face a similar deficit in the future due to a
significant new project. ..
eased ort.:the a!J~o'ute imp0l1ance of achieving the projected revenues to insure this project is
cost neutral~· staff believes that a revenue guarantee must be included in the proposed
developnjent agreement.
NgxtsTEPS ...
Given the significance of this project, staff will present this report to the Policy and Services for
further feC.ctback and ':Vill submit it to the full ,Council for. additional discussion· and possible
action on May' 10, 20) 0: ..
_. ,. 1'1· l'
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City is preparing ah Environmental Impact Report for this project.
CMR: 196:10 Page 6 of7
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
LALOPEREZ
D' tor of Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 71(·(
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: February 19.2009 CBRE Consulting Fiscal Impact Analysis
Attachment B: December 9, 2009 CBRE Dynamic Fiscal Ana1ysis
Attachment C: March 2010 ADE Fiscal Impact Analysis·
CMR:I9Ci:l0 Page 7 of7
. CIRE CONSULTING, INC.
February 19, 2009
David Ramberg
Al$istant Diredor
Administrative Services Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
Attachment A
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELUS
.. Embarmdfll'o Center, Suite 7QO
Son francisco, CA 94111
T 4157818900
F 415733 5530
Re: Stanford University Medical Center Fodlities Renewal and Replacement Proiect
Fiscalimpacl Analysis
Dear Mr. Ramberg:
CBRE Consulting, Inc. (CBRE Consulting) is pleased to submit this updated report regarding the
fiscal impact analysis for the planned Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project in the City of Palo Alto, Californio. The report evaluates the impad the
expansion will have on the City's fiscal budget, both during. construction and upon -full
operations. .
CBRE Consulting worked very diligently to ensure that the analysis is transparent, with resources
identified and assumptions subs1antiated to the extent possible, in order to facilitate the peer
review process. In addition, we would be happy to provide the peer reviewer, Applied
Development Economics (ADE), with a catalogue of information and communication used to
produce the analysis, especially including infor!Tlation and materials provided by the City of
Palo Alto. We are also available to meet with you, ofher City staff, and ADE to discuss the
analysis and receive comments.
The draft report submiHed on January 7,2009 was updated to reflect analysis pertaining to use
tax payments associated with the existing operations of Stanford Hospi1als and Clinics and
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. If use tax dired payment permits ·are obtained by these
facilities, as requested by the City and discussed in the report, then there will be an increment of
use taxes accruing to the City of Palo Alto associated with eqch facility's existing taxable
spending. The updated report presents these estimated use tax revenues accruing to the City of
faloAlto. .
Please note that the revised report includes the following changes to support the additional
analysis or reflect consistencies with our parallel analysis for the Stanford Shopping Center:
• DMJM Harris is now referred to as AECOM;
• The summary Tables 1 through 4 and ElChibit 71 now include the City Auditor category
under General Fund expenditures. This does not change the net fiscal impact findings since
the analysis estimates that the project will not result in addi1ional expenditures for this
department;
• As a result of the additional use 1ax analysis and the changes listed below, the summary
Tables 1 through 4 present new total General Fund revenues and net fiscal impact figures;
• Exhibits 7 and 8 now include use tax payments to the California S1ate Boord of Equalization
for Fisool Year 2006.2007;
• Footnote (4) of Exhibit 12 and the associated analysis have been updated to reflect an
inflation rate of 4.87 percent;
..
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD El..!-IS
... Emban:adero center, SuIte 700
Son franciscO, CA 94111
T 4157818900
F 4157335.530
• A new Exhibit 15 has been added to summarize the calculation of the City of Palo Alto
capture of existing SHC and lPCH U"se tax expenditures;
• Footnotes have been added to Exhibits 20 through 23 to reflect that the estimated annual
sales toxrevenue& to the Ciiy oi Palo Alto by entity are rounded to whole dollan for
presentation purposes; .
• The figure $230 has been added to footnote (7)' of Exhibit 25;
• The motor vehide in-lieu fee estimate in Exhibit 35 was updated from Fiscal Year 2006.
2007 figures to Fiscal Year 2007·2008 figures;
• The General Fund revenue estimates from fees and penalties (Exhibits 42 and 43) were
restrudured for presentation purposes. The revised presentation did not change the
estimated revenue figures;
• The one-time sales tax revenue estimates from construdion worker spending (Exhibit 56)
ware updated to account for the cumulative number of full time equivalent construdion jobs
over the course of each construdion period; and
• The 2015 Stanford Shopping Center net employment figure wesupdated from 957 to 958
(Exhibits 64 and 69) to refled the figure being rounded to whole employees for presentation
purposes.
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Please let us know if you have any
questions or additional needs.
Sincerely,
Amy l. Herman, AICP
Senior Managing Director
Enclosure
Melina ~ffin
Senior Consultant
..
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
FACILITIES AND REPLACEMENT PROJECT
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
February 2009
CBRE
CB RlCfotAAD El..US
CBRE CONSULTI~G, INC.
Februory 19, 2009
William Phillips
Senior Associote Vic:e President
Stanford Universiiy, Land, Buildings & Real Estate
2755 San Hill Rood
Suite 100
Menlo Parle, CA 94025
CBRE
CB RICHARD ~LLIS
4 Embarcadero Center
Suite 700
Son Froncisco., CA. 94111
T 4157818900
F 4157335530
www.cbre.com/consulting
Re: Stanford Unlve,..ity Medical Center Faciliti.. Renewal and Replacement ProJect
Flscallmpact Analysis
Dear Mr. Phillips:
CBRE Consulting, Inc. (CBRE Consulting) is pleased' to submit this report regarding the fisool
impact oool)l8i8 for the planned Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal a.nd
Replacement Project in the City of Palo Alto, California. The report evaluates the impact the
expansion will have on the City's fiscal budgets, both during construction and upon full
operations.
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Please let us know if you have any
questions or additional needs.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Herman, AICP
Senior Managing Director
Enclosure
Melina Raffin
Senior Consultant
N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projects\2007\1001043Stonford\Repor1s\1007043R07.doc
"
caRE CONSULTING, INC'. C·BFlE ..
CB RICHARD EUlS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SU~RY ."., .................................... , ................................................................ ,,, ••••••••••.••••••......•••• 1
OVERVIEW .............. * ..................................................................................................................... , ••••••••••••••••• 1
SUMMARY OF FI~NGS ••••• ,., ••••••••••••••••••••• , ................................................... " •••••••••••••• " •• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
II. INTRODUCTION •••.•••••••..••.•. , •..•.••••••••••••••••• " •••.•••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••• , ••••••.•••.• t ........................ , •••••• , 10
STUDY PlJIPOSE ............................ ~ I ............................ t' ••• ~., •• t ................................ ,., ......................................... , 10
PROJEcr DESCRIPTION .................. ~ ............................................................................................................. 10
STUDY APflI.OACH ••••••••••••• i ......................................................................... " ........................ ~ ............................... 11
REPORT ORC;AI'IIZATION ........................................ " .................................................. , ...................................... " 12
III. KEY DATA POINTS AND STUDY COMPONENTS .................................................................... ; ............... 13
SB.ECT KEY DATA IIQINTS AND RELATED ASSuMPTIONS •• 1 .......................................... ,. •••••••••••••••••••••••• , ................. 13
S'TUDYCOWONENlS •• , .................................................................. ~." ............................................... 1 ............. 14
IV. ANNUAL GENERAl FUND REVENUES ................................................................................................... 18
SAlES ~ USE TAX ..................................................................... ;., •• , ............................................................. 18
PROPERlY TAX. ••••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I1 ..... " ...................................... " .......................................................... 26
VEHICLE UCENSE IN-LIEU FEE REVENUE ............................................................................... , •••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••• :.27
TRANSIENT OCCUP~ TAX. (TOT) •••••••••••••••••••••• I •••••••••••••• "., •••• " •••••••••••••••••••• "" ....... , •••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27
UTlUlY USERS T~ ........ , ............... , •••••••••• t. •••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••• 28
OiliER RPJENUES ••• , .................................. , ...................................................... , •• ~ •••••••••••••••••••••• , ••• t •••••••••••••• 28
SUMMARY OF GENERAl. AJf'.ID REVENUES •••••• , ••••••• ~4 ........................................................................... ~ ••••••••••• 1.29
V. ONE·TfA.\E REVENUES ...•... I~ ........... , .... ~ ••••••••••••••••• I.ItIt .............. ~ ..................... I.t ••• I ............. ': •••• 41.~ •• I •••••••••••••••• 30
GENERAL RJND CONSTRUCTlON..aELATED SALES/USE TAX. ........ II ..... ' ••••• ""4II .............. "' •••••• t.~ ••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30
GENERAl. FUND CONSTRUCTION WORKeR RETAIL SPENDING .............................................................................. ; 33
MACT FEES ••••••••••••••••••••••• ,.' •• tt •••••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••• , •••••• "" ..................................................... ,,, ......... , ....... ,, •• ,34
VI. ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES .............................................................................. ~ ............. 35
GENEW. FUND SEWICE COST MAl'l1X .......................................................... " •••••••••••••• ,,,, ••••••••••••• , .................... , ••• 35
fiRE DEP-.AR1'MENT ...... , ........... " •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. ~ .......... , •• " ••••••••••••••• ,., ......... 36
POLICE DEPARTMENT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••• 38
SUMMARY OF PAlO AlTO GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ..................................................................................... 39
PALO AlTO UNIFIED SCHOOl DISTRICT (PAUSO) ................................................................................................ 40
VII. NET' FISCAL IMPACTS ." .•••••.•••.•••.•••••••• " ••••••••••• , ..................................................................................... " ••••• 41
PRBENTATtOH OF flt.lOINGS •••••••••••••• , •• " ................................................. , •••••••••• " ..... ~ •••••••••• I ............................. 41
ONE-TIME IMPACT· •••••••••••••••••••••• "" ............................... , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .",., ................................................. 41
ANNUAL Ittt\FIACT .~ •••••••••• t .................................. r ••••••••••••• " •••• , ................................... ;. ••••••••• , .................. 1 ........... 42
NET INlJ.Cf ALLOCATION 8Y SUMC ENTITY ..................................................................................................... 42
ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX: EXHIBITS
s
CURE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 1 t
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
5
CB RICHARD ELLIS
UST OF EXHIBITS
Summary of SUMC Facilities Existing and Planned Project Description, 2007,2015 and'
2025
Detailed SUMC Facilities EKisting and Planned Projed Description, 2007, 2015 and 2025
Summary of SUMC Faci,lities Square Feet, 2007, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Facilities Patient Visits and Employment Estimates, 2006, 2015 and 2025
Hotel Nights Generated by SUMC Expansion, 2007, 2015 and 2025
City 'of Palo Alto and Sphere of Influence Demographics, 2005-2010 and Fiscal Years
2005·2006 to 2008·2009
SHC Use Tax Payments, Fiscal Years 2004-2005 to 2005-2006
LPCH Use Tax Payments, Fiscal Years 2004-2005 to 2005-2006
Use Ta~ Direct Payment Permit Holder Rebate Programs in California, September 2008
SHC. and Subsidiaries Operating Expenses, Fiscal Years 2005~2oo6 and 2007-2008
LPCH Operating Expenses, Fiscal Years 2oo5~2006 and 2007-2008
Calculation of City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax Revenues Assuming SHC and LPCH
Use Tax Direct Parment Permits, Fiscal Year 2006-2007
City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax Revenues, Patient-Based Calculation Assuming SHC
and LPCH Use T ox Direct Paynient Permits
Incremental City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax Revenues, 2015 and 2025
Calculation of City of Palo Alto Capture of SHC and LPCH Use Tox Expenditures, Fiswl
Year 2006-2007; 2015 and 2025
Existing ond Proposed Revenue-Generating SHC and lPCH Programs, 2008, 2015 and
2025
Existing ond Proposed Revenue-Generoting SoM ond Total SUMC Programs, 2008, 2015
and 2025
Taxable Soles from Revenue Generoting SHC Programs, Fiscal Year 2006-2007
TOlCObie Soles from Revenue Generoting LPCH Programs, Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Net Toxable Soles from Revenue Generating SHC Programs, 2015 and 2025
Net TOlCObie Sales from Revenue-Generating LPCH Programs, 2015 and 2025
NetTaKable Sales from Revenue-Generating SaM Programs, 2015
Net Taxable Soles from Revenue-Generating SoM Programs, 2025
Office Worker Weekly Retoil Spending Patterns
Office Worker Annual Retail Spending Estimates
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. 'CBR-E
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Exhibit 40
Exhibit 41
Exhibit 42
Exhibit 43
.Exhibit 44
Exhibit 45
Exhibit 46
Exhibit 47
Exhibit 48
Exhibit 49
Exhibit 50
Exhibit 51
Exhibit 52
s
Medical Office Employees Income Estimates, 2007
SHC and LPCH Employees Income Estimates. 200'6
Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2006
CB RICHARD ELl,IS
Net ;.nnual Sales Tax Revenues from SUMC Project Employee Spending, 2015 and 2025
Net Annual Soles Tax Revenues from SUMC Project Overnight Hospital Visitor Spending,
2015 and 2025
Net Annual Sales and Use Tax Revenues from SUMC Projed, 2015 and 2025
211 Quarry Rood Community Physicians' Offices Valuation and Annual Net Property Tax
Estimates, 2015 and 2025
Hoover Pavilion New Medical Office 8uilding Valuation and Annual Net Proper1y T~x
Estimates, 2015 and 2025
Net SUMC Projed Property Tax Revenues Estimates, 2015 ond 2025
Net SUMC Project Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Estimate, 2015 and 2025
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Re'lenues, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Project Utility Meters and Usage Estimates, 2007, 2015 and 2025
Utility Rates and SUMC Project Net Annual Utility Bill E~rriates,2015 and 2025
Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue Estimates, 2015 and 2025
Net Percentage Change in Utility Demand by SUMC Entity, 2015 and 2025
Net Annual Utility Users Tax Revenues by Hospital Entity, 2015 and 2025
General Fund Revenues per Employee. from Fines and Penalties . .
Estimated Revenues from Fines and Penalties, 2015 and 2025
City of Palo Alto Annual General Fund Revenues Estimates as a Result of SUMC Projed,
2015, and 2025
SHe and Hoover Pavilion Site Construction Cost Estimates
LPCH Construdion Cost Estimates
Stanford University School of Medicine ConstrUdion Cost Estimates
SUMC Facilities 'Taxable Construction Cost Estimates Per Square Foot, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Facilities Taxable Construction Cost Estimates by Entity and Construc6on Period,
20 15 and 2025
Share of SHC and LPCH Purchasing Subjed to City of Palo Alto Receipt of Sales and Use
Tax
SHC Construction-Related Sales and Use Tax Revenues Accruing to the City of Palo Alto,
2009-2015 and 2009-2025
LPCH Construdion-Related Sales and Use Tax Revenues Accruing to the City of Palo Alto,
2009·2015 and 2009~2025
..
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CB.RE
Exhibit 53
Exhibit 54
Exhibit 55
Exhibit 56
Exhibit 57
Exhibit 58
Exhibit 59
Exhibit 60
Exhibit 61
Exhibit 62
Exhibit 63
Exhibit 64
Exhibit 65
Exhibit 66
Exhibit 67
Exhibit 68
Exhibit 69
Exhibit 70
Exhibit 71
Exhibit 72
s
CB RICHARD ELLIS
SoM Construction-Related Sales dnd Use Tax Revenues Accruing to the City of Palo Alto,
2009-2015 and 2009-2025
Construction-Related Soles and Use Tax Revenues Accruing to the City of Palo Alto, 2009.
2015 and 2009-2025
Construction Staffing Estimates, 2009-2025
One-Time Sales Tax Revenues from Construction Worker Spending, 2015 and 2025
Estimated New PM Peak Hour Trips G.nerated by sUMC Project, 2025
Estimated City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District Impact fees
City of Palo Alto General Fund Expenditures and Estimating Factors, Fiscal Year 2008.
2009
SUMC Project-Related City of Palo Alto General Fund Expenditures, 2015 and 2025
Palo Alto Fire Department SHC and SoM Calls for Service, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and
2006-2007
Palo Alto Fire Department LPCH and Total SUMC Calls for Service, Fiscal Years 2005-
2006 and 2006-2007
Palo Alto Fire Department Estimated Expenses for SUMC and sse Projects, City. Provided .
Cost Estimate, at Buildout
Palo Alto Fire Department Estimated Project-Relatad Expenses, 2015 and 2025
Palo Alto Fire Department Estimated Project-Related Expenses by Entity, 2015 and 2025
Palo Alto Police Department Calls for Service, 2007
Palo Alto Police Department SUMC Projed Calls for Service, 2007
Polo Alto Police Department Estimated Expenses for SUMC and sse Projec1s, City~
Provided Cost Estimate, at Buildout
Palo Alto Police Department Estimated Project-Reloted Expenses, 2015 and 2025 .
Palo Alto Police Department Estimated Projed-Related Expenses by Entity, 2015 and 2025
City of Palo Alto Annual General Fund Expenditures Estimates as a Result of SUMC
Project, 2015 and 2025
LPCH School Enrollment and Staffing Estimates
caRE CONSULTING, INC. CBFlE
eEl RICHARD El.US
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) is in need of renewal and replacement of
current facilities associated with the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital (LPCH). and the Stanford School of Medicine (SoM). Reasons in support of
these plans include regulatory requirements, hospital healthcare and service stondards,
statutory code requirements, and other criteria important to SUMC's ability to effectively serve its
patients and the community. In keeping with State of California regulatory requirements, the
hospitals are planning a multi.phased building and construdion process, with 2015 and 2025
assumed to comprise benchmark years.
The SUMC Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) involves the. construction of
1,866,300 square feet of new building arfia by 2015, including new hospital, clinic, office, and
research space. An cidditionaI658,977 square feet of clinic, medical office, and research space
will be built by 2025. A significant portion of these facilities are intended to replace existing
facilities, thus the overall program includes demolition of 199,529 square feet of building area
by 2015 and demolition of an additional 1,014,230 square feet by 2025. The net result of the
SUMC Proiect will include the following: .
• 870,018 net additional square feet of building area associated with SHC;
• 441,500 net·additional square feet of building area associated with LPCH; and
• No net additional square feet of building area associated with SoM.
Of the total square footage, a cumulative total of 446,000 square feet is needed to meet
current standards and requirements .(i.e., "right-sizing") regarding patient rooms and the
emergency departments.
The size, scope, and nature of the SUMC Project require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
As a separate bl-'t companion document to the EIR, the City of Palo Alto seeks to have a fiscal
impact analysis of the SUMC Projed completed for the purpose of evaluating the impad the
expansion will have on the City's fiscal budgets, both during construction and upon full
operations. CBRE Consulting performed this fiscal impact analysis on behalf of Stanford
University, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children'S Hospital and the Stanford
School of MecflCine, the SUMC Project applican1s •.
SUMMARY Of fiNDINGS
The findings of the SUMC Proiad's net fiscal impact on the City of Palo Alto General Fund are
documented in a series of five tables, one each for SHC,. LPCH, SoM, non~SUMC, and a
summary table. These tables are inserted at the end of this Chapter, with the SUMC Project
summary presented first. The summary tables list all analyzed revenue and expenditure
categories, both one-time and annual, and present findings after the completion of the 2009.
2015 construction period and then at buildouVfuli occupancy in 2025. All figures are presented
in 2Q08 dollars.
SUMC PROJECT ASCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 FEBRUARY 2009
C~RE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
One-time Impad
(
There will be two components to the one-time impacts attributable to the SUMC Project. These
include one-time revenue items, 'such as sales and use fa)c revenues, and one-time City and
Paro Alto Unifted School District (PAUSD) impact fees.
Revenue Item.. By· the time the SUMC Project is complete and fully occupied in 2025, $8.3
million in one-time sales and use tax revenues is estimated to be generated to the benefit of the
City of Palo Alto (see Table 1). These revenues are attributable to taxable even1s during SUMC
Project construdion, and assume that qualifying contractors and sub-contractors will obtain a
seller's sub-permit allowing the construction site to be the point-oF-sale for the construction
activity. The City of Palo Alto has expressed a strong desire for this to occur.
'mpacl Feu. Based upon the City of Polo Alto's impact fee schedule, and an expectation that
some, but not all portions of the SUMC Project will be subject to impact fees, total City of Palo
A1toimpod fee generation is estimafed at $10.0 million (see Table 1,. By impact fee, this total
comprises the following:
• $2.2 million in Housing impact fees;
• $2.0 million in Transportation impact fees; and
• $5.8 million in Community Facilities impact fees.
The SUMC Project will also generate on estimated $616,413 in PAUSD impact fees. Of this
total, $408,908 will be attributable ~ SHC and 5207,505 will be attributable to lPCH. As there
is nO net additional square footage planned for SaM, no PAUSD impact fees will be assessed
for this component of the SUMC Project.
The City of Palo Alto and PAUSD estimofGs are the total impact fee amounts anticipated to be
paid by the SUMC Project during the course of the construction period. For presentation
purposes, however, these fees are reflected during the 2015 time frame in the summary tables.
Annual Impact
The annual General Fund impact of the SUMC Project will be the result of projected revenues
less expenditures, resulting in a net fiscal impact. A summary highlight of each of these fiscal
components follows. .
General Fund Revenue •. At buildout, the SUMC Project is projected to generate $638,836 in
annual revenues to the City of Polo Alto General Fund (see Table 1). The largest revenue
categories include utility users taxes totaling $296,572 and sales and use taxes totaling
$236,495. The City of Polo Alto has asked SUMC to consider obtaining 0 use tax direct
payment permit for the purpose of self-reporting use taxes to the California State Board of
Equtllizotion. This permit would result in a greater share of use taxes directed to the City of Palo
Alto. The analysis makes the assumption that SHC and lPCH will obtain this permit and report
use taxes accordingly.
If SHC and lPCH obtain the use talC direct payment permit, then all applicable existing taxable
purchases (not just for the SUMC Projec:t) subject to this reporting method will accrue to the City
SUMC PROJECT FiSCAl IMPACT ANAlYSIS 2 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
of Polo AlIo. The additional use taxes from existing facilities are estimated to be $24,260.
Including this additional ina-ement of use taxes would boost the 2025 annual revenues to the
City of Polo Alto to $663,096.
GenelOI Fund Expenditure,. General Fund expenditures for all major City of Palo Alto
departments were estimated for the SUMC Project. Expenditures were estimated on on. overage
cost basis, O$$Uming future service costs would be similar to current service costs standardized
aa-oss the population served. The resulting annual expenditures estimate is $635,016 at
buildout. Of this amount, 63 percent is comprised of costs for Fire and Police services . .
Net General Fund Impact. The net difference beiwaen the annual estimated General Fund
revenues and expenditures for the SUMC Project results in an annual surplus of $3,820#
reflecting that revenues are estimated to exceed expenditures by this amount. This surplus
increases to $28,080 if one credits fhe SUMC Project for the additional use tox revenues that
will accrue to the City of Palo Alto based upon existing operations (i.e., absent the SUMC
Project). In addition, the fiscal impoct analysis projects a net one·time revenue of $8.3 million
by the buildout year. Ttlus development of the SUMC Project is deemed to be a substantial net
fiscal contributor to the City of Palo Alto.
To sum up, by project build out the SUMC Project is estimated to add $28,080 annually to the
City's General Fund, along with one·time contributions totaling $8.3 million to be generated
over the course of the project construction period.
Nat Impad Allocation by SUMC Entity
During public meetings about the SUMC Project several public offidals indicated an interest in
reviewing the fiscal impact analysis results by entity (SHC, LPCH, SaM, and non-SUMC) and by
construction phose. Tables 2 through 5 disaggregate the fiscal impact results in this manner.
These individual results ore summarized below, focu:sin9 on t~e buildout/full occuponc.y year.
Net· one-time sales tax revenues ($6~ 18 at buildout) from onsite infrastructure improvement
construction workers are not presented for specific SUMC entities since the improvements
benefit the entire SUMC Project area. Net annualproperty.tax based revenues, which include
property taxes ($57,595 at buildout, and. motor vehicle in·lieu fees ($14,061 J, are also not
presented for specific SUMC entities because the property tax increment associated with each
entity is not known. Many SUMC properties have multiple entities as tenants, including non
SUMC emities, so determining the shore of property taxes from SHC, LPCH, and SaM is not
possible. Property tax revenues currently levied from the properties at 701 Welch Road, 701 A,
C, and DWeleh Rood, 701 B Welch Road, 703 Welch Road, and 1101 Welch Road will be last.
However, property iax revenues added by the new medical office building ot the Hoover
Pavilion site and the added leasable space at the existing Hoover Pavilion b",ilding at 211
Quarry Road will more than offset the losses.
Stanford HoIpital, and Climea. from Table 2, reflecting the results for SHC, it can be seen. that
the one·time net revenues are estimated at $4.7 million,. with on additional $7.6 million
generated in City of Palo Alto impad fees and $408.908 generated in PAUSD impact fees. The
annual net fiscal impact at buildout is estimated as a deficit of $6,963, which converts to a
surplus of $16,829 when SHe is credited with usetox paymen1s on applicable taxable
purmases for existing operations.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANAl. YSIS 3 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ~LLlS
Lucile Podcard Children'. Ho8pilol. The results for LPCH, presented in Table 3, indicate a one
time net revenUf) estimate of $2.6 million, with additional City of Polo Alto impact fees of $2.3
million and PAUSD impact fees of $207,505. The annual net fiscal impact at build out is
esflmoted as a deficit of $99,692, which becomes a deficit of $99,224 when LPCH is credited
with use tax payments on applicable taxable purchases for existing operations.
School 01 Med'tcine. The SoM does not entail any net new square footage. As shown in Table 4,
one-time revenues anticipated to accrue to the City over the construction period total $917,998.
No impact fees are anticipated given the lack of any net new square footage. Upon full
completion, the net annual revenue generated will total $64,278, associated with increased on
site taxable retail sales and utility users tax.
Non-SUMC. The non-SUMC category is included to present revenues associated with non
SUMC employment in the medical office space at the Hoover Pavilion site. This category does
not include construction of additional square footage because the square footage is attributed
to the SUMC entity that win own the buildings. Table 5 shows that net revenue will total $2,854
per year, associated with employee spending and revenues from fines and penalties. The
annual net fiscal impact is estimated as a deficit of $25,457.
Summary. In summary, on on annual basis, the SHC and LPCH components of the SUMC
Project are both projected to generate a small annual deficit to the City of Palo Alto General
Fund upon full buildout, while the SaM component will generate a· slight surplus. The deficit for
SHe converts to a surplus when the SUMC Project is credited with use tax revenues generated
by ·spending for existing operations assuming SHC obtains a use tax direct payment permit as
requested by the City of Palo Alto. However, even if these additional use tax revenues are not
credited to the SUMC Project, the large one-time revenue benefits generated during the
construction period assuming proiect contractors 9nd sub-contractors obtain sellers subpermits
for the construction project will provide a substantial and significant surplus to the City of Palo
Alto that will far outweigh potential deficits.
SUMC PROJECT fiSCAL IMPACT ANAlYSIS 4 FEBRUARY 2009
Tabl.1
Summary of Total SUMC Pnlject-Related Revenu. and &pen_, 2015 ancl2025
In 2008 0011011
SlIMC ProJect Fiacallmpad Ana!pil
EltlmatedAmouni
2015 2025
Item One-11me Ann.1 O_l1me
GtoIrql Fund Rrtanun
Sal .. and U .. TIIIC 57,576,134 5195.015 $8,260,843
SUMC Dlncll'urchasi~ (I) '50 518,522 $0
SUMC fad. On-Sh. Sales SO S125,938 $0
SUMC Emplor-Spendi~ $0 $50.368 $0
SUMC o.&rriaht Yioolor Spendl~ 50 $187 $0
ComIructlon~aIed I'uKhaling $7,482,172 $0 $8,148,416
Camlfudion Worker Spending 593,962 (21 $0 $112,427 (3)
Property TCUI (4) $0 557,595 $0
TlDn.l.nt Occupancy TCUI $0 $3,823 $0
UliliJyU .... TOlI $0 $323,337 $0
OIhat T_ and Fines $0 $35.627 $0
Molar V.hicIe In·Ueu ..... (4) SO $14.061 $0
fines and Panolllet H! 521,566 H!
TaJaI o-nd,.".., "-_ $7,576,13" $615,397 se,260,IG
WIIh u.. Till m.ct ....... Pannllllll EIiIIIIng
~(5) $7,576,134 $639,657 18.260,843
Gmargl fund Egnd"u ...
CilyAllomay $0 $2,065 $0
CityAudilOr $0 50 $0
CityClerJc $0 50 . $0
CityCouncu $0 $0 $0
CityMonager $0 51.659 $0
AdmlnlllRlllve Services $0 510,610 $0
Community S81Yic81 $0 $64.024 $0
Fir. (6) $0 5143.363, $0
Human "'ou"". $0 58.353 50
Library $0 $14,583 $0
PlclMing & Communiii' Environmenl $0 $23,013 $0
Police 16) $0 5198,417 $0
PubllcWorb $0 $51,157 $0
Non-Depcir1mentol 50 $28,878 $0
Talal 0e_1 fund EllpendhUlle $0 $546,122 $0
00neraJ fund Nell'IIcallmpad $7.576,1'" $69,275 58,260,843
WIth u.. Till Direct P..".,.nt PannIt an &iIIIng
.....a-(5) 57,576,1'" 593,535 $8,260,843
cjIy of Palo AlIP lrom F ••
Hauling $2.164,795 NlA 52.164,795
TIORlpor1ation 52.002.264 NlA 52.002.264
Community Fadllie. 1501830194 t/lA 550183,794
Talal CIIr I"""" .... $9,'50,853 Nil. $9.'50,853
PAIJSO Impact Feu $616,413 NIl. 1616,413
SaWCIII: Appendix ExhIbitJ; and cm Consulting.
Annual
$236,495
$43,D13
5134.323
S58,718
$441
$0
$0
557.595
$9.036
$296,572
$39,138
S14,061
525.!!77
$638.836
$663,096
$2.400
$0
$0
50
$1.929
$12,337
$74,445
$166,699
$9.712
516,958
526.759
5230,715
559.485
$33,577
$635,016
53,820
128,oao
N/A
N/A
!:!£A
N/A
Nil.
(1)ltaftacl ....... and use tOlla. ouuming SHC ond LPCH obIain _kill direct ~ent permhs far the PClVm.nts of usa t_. on oul..,l ....... IOoIObIe
purcho_ to the benaIiJ of the City of Polo Alto. Thi. fog ... is 20 percenl Ie .. than the •• 6malad omounl of lOla. and u .. 10_ anuming the ell)' of Palo Alto
rebalal20 peraont of the ......... 10 SHC ond LPCHro compan.ate lor lhe .Igni&canl oddad oa:ounting burden GIOoclated wUh the us. lox dire<! payml'"
pomils,
(2) Induclet 53,402 Inxn OOlite In/rooIrudure Improvement. con.lructian _"'-_
(3) Indud .. 56,318 lram OOlIte Infraslrudura impnwement. con.IRldIan _ .......
1-') P"'perIy-kIII baled .... nuel. which Indude propelly ...... and motor vehlel. In-hall ..... 018 aotimated far the SUMC Prolect but are noS dislributed
aR1ClllgSl the enti5 .. linee the properly kill inClimant _iated Wllh each enrity is noS known. Many SUMC properti .. have multiple entilies 01 tenonl ••
including non-SLMC ent., .. , 10 dllarmlnlng lhe.hare of properly IoIlaIlrom SHC. LPCH, SaM. and non-SUMC 801iO .. 1I na1 posIibla.
15) The a.coI impacIlor ,he SUMC Projad 01_ SHe and lI'CH obtoin usa "'" dire<! poymlnt permits. II thi. _Uri. the City of Palo Alto will raop us, lox
benofotr (ram purcha.lng ouadated wah the SHC ond LPCH opercalions noS aHOCioted with the SUMC Projacl, Thilline i1am Dlnach tha oddHlon of the
$24,260 2008 equivalonl of _tox ..... nues auaclated with FIKof Year 2006·2007 out..,l .. tora _ble puJdlasiog la .. on _limed 20 .... nt Dlbaho
pravlded by thl City 01 Polo Alto noted in Iootnote II). The 524.260 figure I. cited In the IeJd In the •• dlan 'SHC and LPCH Toxob!e Spending findings and
16) FJgunu ODI based on the average CIIII GpptOQCh.
Tobie 2
Summc:wy of SHe Project.Raloted a..m-and Expenna, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Projed F'lICXIllmpad Anaf)'tl.
WrnaItd Amount
2015 2025
Item On,·l1lM IUIJWCII OM-1l1M Annual
GanIm! Fund RmnUR
Sell .. and U", TaM $~,536,7B2 $147,768 54,709,979 5178,568
SHe Oiled P\orcha,lng II) SO $17,530 SO S41.o2li
SHe Fodlilr. On-SiIII Salll SO 5104,136 SO 5104,136
SHe Employll' Spending SO $26,031 $0 $33,264
SHe Ovemlght Vi.1Ior Spending SO 571 $0 $143
Conslrucllon-lWohod Purchasing 54,479,779 SO 54.641.0~ $0
Conaln.tcl!on Worbr Spending $57.ooa SO $68,936 $0
Praperly TtIIC 12' SO !Sae Table I) SO !See Table 1)
Tran .... OI:Cupanc:v Tax SO 51,457 SO 52,982
Ulilily UaenTOII SO $196,831 $0 $151,723
OIher T_. and Finea SO SI0,"'5 SO $13.986
MoIor vthicM In-Lieu f ... (2) SO (!*1abJ. 1) $0 (SM 101>1.1)
flnAond' ....... ~ 110,1145 SO $13,986
ToIa! GeNraI Fund "---14,136.782 1117,001 "_ 14,709,979 SN7,2Ot
WI!h U-Till! Direct AIpment PermIt on &It1Ina
l'Indi_tll 14,536,782 ",m 14,709,979 $371,001
Gam' Fynd EmlOdi!ureo
cu,AIIoI..., SO 51,(Mti $0 SI,339
CIIy h.odI!or SO SO SO $0
CII,CIerk SO SO $0 $0
OIyCoundI SO SO $0 $0
Cl!,ManoQ« SO S842 SO 51.076
Adminlohafwl 5e1'llCa SO ",385 SO $6,881
Convnunily 5erAc:ee $0 $32,493 $0 541,521
FIr. (A) SO $72,15\) SO $92,1)74
Human IIMoUI'CII SO $4,239 SO $5,417
L'brary $0 $1,401 $0 $9,458
I'IonoIing & Cam"'llftilv e"",'ronm,nt SO SI',679 $0 $14,924
Palica14} SO $100,700 SO $128,678
PubikWo,ke SO $25,963 SO $33,171
Naft-Ptparlmenlal ~ !141656 $0 11!!,721
T0I01 Gan.ral Fund &p.nd1luNl $0 5277,165 SO $354,172
0..-1 Fund tw .lacal Impolt 14,586,'82 $79,83' 14,709,9" ($6,961,
WI!h u.. TOM DiNClI'GJI'MIII Permit an EIdaIIng
"'~Pl "',536,'82 $103,628 14,709,979 $16,829
Q!y gf PqIg Alia !mppct rw
Houllng $2,1'<1,795 N/A $2.l64,795 NlA
TRllllporlallon $1,610,400 N/A 11,610,400 NIA
~Focllllie' $3~,779 ~A $31836•179 !:flA
Talal CIty Impad ... $7,611,974 WA 17,611,9'4 HI'"
PAUSO !maact Feea $408,-WI. $401,908 HI'"
S--: ApptmdilI Ext.'biIs; and CBRE CoIlSlllllng.
III RtIItctc 10M ond "" '-OIIVmlng $tIC oblo" 0 _101< elilWd parment permil fortt. ~ of ute IaMea on OUI-of .... '-ow. p~ 10 ....
beneIiI of .... Cllyof Palo Alto. 1hlt Rt-Io 20 peKe/II .... than lit etIimaIecI_ of sal. and ute to.. CIUUIIIirIg .... CiIr of,.. Ah .... 20 percent of
............. 10 SHe 10 compelllOle for lite aigniIicanI oddecl_llline butden auodaIed wilt. .... ute 10. cIited popment permh.
(2) f'rOptfly-looc booed r_, which ltldud. propert,. ....... and malar vehicl .. in-&.u fees. 0" ellimoled far lhe SI.lMC Prajed buI_ no! dialribuled-..got
the ....mi .. _(e tIM ptOptIIy 101< ~ 0I1«.la1ed willi «Kk MIll, it no! tm-n. MI>,. SUMC propettI .. ~ lIIUIIipM «IIiIIoIt OIIena111., including non.
SUMC 8I'IIIIItI, ... deItrmlnIna the Ihare of PfOII6IIy'-from StiC, LPCH, SaM, ond nGft..suMC ..... Ilol ponlbl ..
(3) lhe fIICDllmpod far st-tC 011_ st-tC oblo ... 0 _10K dIr.d payIIIent permit. If this CII.'I!Uh, the City of PoID AIIo wIIll'8llp _lox heneRIt fnIm ~
o.acDacI with SHC aperDilom naI ~1Ihid wiIh III. SUMC Praj4Ict. Thia I .... iIem ...n..:.. ... addition of $23,792 2008 aqui>ohmtof __ _
ouoclaled with Fiscal Year 2006·2007 ouI·of.tfoIt IOIIobl. pun:haung len em assumed 20 peramt rebel. pnwided ~ lhe 0Ip of Palo Allo IK)hod I" faolno! .. 11).
1M $23,192 I\IJUIWIII died in ... teat .KIIo" 01 "SHe GIld LPCH Toxable Sp~1ng finctlll9' ond I'Iajectionl'.
(4) fieur-are bOied 011"'_", _I 0fIP1'3OdI. .
TableS
Summary of LPCH Project.RelaIed Rewnuu and &p.nau, 20115 and 2025
In 2008 Della"
SUMC Praiad FillCllllmpud Anul~
E!!Ip!aI!d Am_
2011 2025
Item 0;;: .... AiIIIiIIiI 0;11_ 1\I1AU111
QwrgI Fyod Rmnv-
Sat.. and UN Tu 52,626,548 $47,412 $2,626,548 $<19,707
LPCHDired PIIII:huirw III $0 $992 $0 $1,988
LFCH FaciIiliN On-Site sa. $0 $23,703 $0 $23,703
LPCH Em..,.. s, ...... $0 $22,601 $0 $23,718
. LPCH 0vem/ehI ViIiIor Sp.ndinQ $0 $116 $0 S29B
CanaItudIon·lWaled I'IIn:haslna $2.596,113 $0 $2,596,173 $0.
ConaIrucIIon Wotb'Spending $30,375 SO $30.375 $0
I'roperIy Tox (21 $0 (SHr"'1) $0 (SHTobIe 11
TI'OtIIIetoI ~ TOIC $0 $2,366 $0 $6,104
U1t'lly u.s TOIl $0 $83.531 SO $87,057
Other 1_. and rmll $0 $9,503 $0 $9,973
MoIDr Vehidl In.I.iIu , ... (21 SO (SnTabI.!) $0 (SeeT .... !)
flMa and PanafIIu i O !9~ ~ • $91973
Total oen-l Fund hnuw . U,626.541 ,'42,812 «1,626,5<1' $152,841
WIIh Ute T.or_ "I'ennlton IilIitting
1'IIrI:ha .. p) $2,626,5<1' "<l3,HO $2,626,5<1' $153,309
g,otrqI fund IMatndJlurJt
CI)'NtorIYIf $0 $910 $0 $95<1
City Audilor $0 $0 $0 $0
CltyCt.'" $0 $0 $0 $0
CilyCOIIIIdl SO $0 50 SO
. CllyMallGjJ4lr SO $731 $0 S767
AdInlnltlfollv. S ...... $0 $<1,675 $0 $<1,906
C"",rnunIIy S.NicaI $0 $28,212 SO $29,605
Fin (41 $0 $63,172 $0 $66,293
Human RII.ova. $0 $3,681 $0 $3,862
Ubrary $0 $6,426 $0 56,744
~mng&CommwOOY~~~ $0 510.141 $0 510,M2
Poliar (4/ $0 $87,431 $0 591,751
I'ubIk: Woil. $0 122.542 $0 $23,656
Nan-Oepcutmenlal 10 !1!a725 12 513~53
Total a.r-I Fund ~ $0 $2<10,646 $0 $252,533
GInIraI· Fund NIl FIaIImpact $2,626,5<11 ($97,834) '2,626,5<11 ($99.6921 Wilhu.. TlilrOllwd ~ ......... on fIOIIrIe
PtmrhlleM tat 12,626,5<11 {S97,Het $2,62"'. ,$99.224)
c"" gf PqIp AJIQ _Sf Fw
HoUlina $0 NtA $0 HlA
TRlmpmtatlll\'! $391,864 HlA $391,864 Nt"
CGmmunll)' FQdli .... $1,9047,015 HI" $1,9"'7~01~ ~
ToIaI a, Impact "-$2,338,879 N/A P,888,879 HIlt.
PAYS!) !qipoc:t f •• $207,55 NlA $207,5011 HIlt.
Sour_: Appendbt fxh1blll: and CBRf CoIllUlrIng.
(1) Reltedl SQIet and 1M 10 .... cmumlne IJICH obIGins Ule 1011 elir"" payment p.,."iI. for Ike paymanl. of UN IaXM on oUl.of.llote IOlIoble pun;ha' •• 19 the
~d gflt. ClIy of I'aIo A/IQ. thI. fill_is 20 percentl_lhan thelllllmGI'" ~ oIlC/leo and III. IQ_ a .. umlno the City of 1'010 A/IQ .... 20 PtlUnt cI
tho "'8 _10 tPCH IQ comp.nooIe for !he IIgnlikant odd ... _nllne burden lJIIIoclcmId with !he use fa. dlted p9ymenl pwmIte.
121 Propedy-talt based ~\185, whkh Include PfQP4IIiv 1_ and motor whide In.litou f.. .. an eIIirIIalad for the SUMC Ptojecl ""I as. nal ditltibvied amonll"'
duo .ntill .. Iinat duo PfIIIIII'IY I0Il in~enI ouodoted whh each .idIIy is not knawn. Many SUMC properII .. hIwe multiple enlilic Of 1encInIt. IncIucfi!!g non-
SUMC entili-. IQ determllllnQ 'he IIIIarII M properIV '-from SHe, Lf(:H, SaM, ond nan-SUMC .mille. il not poulbl.. .
(3) The fiocallmpacl far LPCH anum .. LPCH obtain. 0 _ICIlt dl ... ct JIOrIMIII Permit. H IhII CICiCUn, , ... C'1Iy 01 .... 10 Alto wIII,.ap ... eloJl bfIne/iII fl'Ol'll pllRhasing
OIIOdolad with LPCH operDlions "'" _odahod with 1M SUMC Prolect. This Une ihlm noIIecIs .... addIIion 01 $468 2008 .qui-.ot.Rt alllletox _ .. ouodoted
with filcol Y .... 2(1)6.2007 ouI-oJ.llalelo>labl. pun:hatlng .... on __ 20 percenI reba .. pnw!ded br lhe CiIy of Po/Q AIle> noIed In f09lnole (1). 1M $.468
figw.;' cited In u.. ... ndicIn M 'SHe CII'IIIIJICH TollOble Spending 'Indlnea and PtojeGJloM', •
(4/ flea"" are bated 011 .... -ee COlI apptOOCb.
Tabla""
Summary of SoM PrOject-Related Revenues and Expenses, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project F'lSCXIllmpod Analysis
!atlmated Amount
2015
IIIIm Onl-Time Annu,1
Gen,rg! Fund Reyeoyes
Sales and Use TalC $409,402 ($1,901)
SoM Direct PUId1asing SO SO
SoM Facilities On-Site Sales $0 ($1,901)
SoM Employee Spending SO $0
ScM O~might Visitor Spending $0 SO
Construction-Related Purchasing $406,220 SO
Conllructian Worker Spending $3,182 $0
Propeftv Tax (11 $0 (5aaTabl.l)
TranMint()oc:upanc:yTax $0 $0
Utility Uaen TalC SO $42,976
Other Ta*ls and Final SO $0
MotorV.hicle In-Lieu Fees (1) $0 (See Table 1)
Fines and Penalties $0 ~
Tola! General Fund Ile\lenuN $409,402 $41,075
General Fund ElIDendilures
:ClIyAtfomey SO SO
City Auditor $0 SO
CilyClerk $0 $0
City Council $0 SO
CiIyManoger $0 SO
Administrotive Strvic:es $0 $0
Communlly Services $0 $0
Fire $0 $0
Human RllourcRI $0 SO
library $0 SO
Planning '!' Community Environment $0 $0
Police $0 $0
Pub6c:Worb $0 SO
Non.DepQrimental $0 10
Tolol Gen,ruI Fund Expenditures $0 $0
Gennl Fund Net lim Impacls $409,402 $41,075
'ill Slf egl$l6llsllllllilSlsi f~s
Hausing $0 N/A
Transportalion $0 N/A
Community FacUlties $0 N/A
Total City Impact IWa $0 N/A
~Illlllli!~ 1:111 $0 H/A
Source.: Appendix Exhibils; and CBRE Consulting.
2025
Onll-Time Annual
S917,998 S6,484
$0 $0
$0 $6,484
SO $0
$0 SO
$911,200 SO
$6,798 $0
SO (See Table 1)
SO SO
$0 $57,794
$0 $0
$0 (See Table t,
10 10
$917,998 564,278
$0 $0
SO $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
SO $0
$0 SO
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 SO
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 SO
10 $0
$0 SO
$917,998 $64,278
$0 N/A
$0 N/A
$0 ~A
$0 N/A
$0 N/A
(1) Properly-IoIC based ~ues. whim Include prop8rly taxes and molar vehicle in-lieu tees, are esllmakKI for the SUMC Projec1
but ore. not distributedornangll the entities sine. the properly lax increment ClllQCiotad with each entity is noIlcnown. Many SUMC
propertie. hove multiple entilies os .nanls, including non-SUMC entities, 10 detllrmining the shore of proper!)' tmces from SHe,
LPCH, $oM, ond non-SUMC entilies is nat possible.
ceRE Consulllng, 2119I200'I
Tobl.5
Summary of Project.ReJated Revenues and Expetitea from Non-SUMC Entities, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Oollal'l
SUMC Projed Fiscallmpad Analysis
Elllmoted Jtmourj
2015 2(5!,
Ita", One·TitM Anrwcd One-Time Anniial
.J
Genewl Fund IIBymnts
Salas and Us. TQl( SO S1,736 $0 SI,736
Dirtct Purchosing SO SO SO $0
0n-SI1e Sal .. $0 $0 SO $0
&llpl •• Spending $0 SI,736 $0 $1,736.
Overnight Vllilor Spending $0 SO SO $0
Contlrudion-Relaled Purdtating $0 $0 SO $0
Conslruction WarkerSpending $0 $0 $0 $0
Prope!1y Tox (1) $0 (See Table 1) $0 (SeeTabi. I)
Transient Occupancy Tax SO $0 SO $0
utility Users Tax .$0 $0 $0 $0
Other Taxes and Fine. SO $1,118 $0 Sl,118
MotorVehiclel,,·Lieu Fee. (I} $0 (Se.Table 1) $0 (See Tab'. 1)
Fine. and hnalliu $0 11,118 !O 1'1118
. Total Oeneral Fund Revenue. $0 $2,as.c $0 $2,854
Goral Fund Expendjfuru
CItyAilomey $0 $107 $0 $107
City Auditor SO SO $0 $0
City Clerk SO SO SO SO
CtyCouncil $0 $0 $0 $0
CIty Manager $0 $86 $0 $86
Administrative Service. $0 $550 SO $550
Community Services $0 $3,319 $0 $3,319
En $0 $7,432 $0 $7,432
Human Resourats $0 $433 $0 $433
Ubrary $0 $756 $0 $756
Planning & COITV1IUniIy Ern.ironrnent $0 $1,193 $0 $1,193
Police $0 $10,286 $0 510,286
Publk Works $0 $2,652 $0 $2,652
Non-DepaI1mentai l2 $1,497 10 $11"497
Total General Fund fxpenditure. $0 $28,311 $0 $28,311
General Fund Het FiecoJ Impoc:It $0 ($25,457) $0 ($25,457)
Ow gf ~12 &! 1m!.&! Elli
Housing SO NfA SO NfA
. T ronsportotion SO NJA $0 NJA
Community Facilities $0 ~A $0 NfA
Total City Impact Fee. $0 H/A $0 H/A
r-M§Q fmges;l Ella $0 H/A $0 H/A
Source.: Appendix Exhibi1e. and C8RE Con8uhing.
(1) Property-lair based r • .....--., which include property lalres and motor vehicle·in·lieu fees, ore .. limated for, the SUMC Projecl
but are nol distribuled amongst the entities since ihe properly fax increment associated with each entity ;1 nol known. Many SUMC
propet'li .. haw muhipleentiti .. at lenanls, including non-SUMC entities, so determining"" ahara of property to_ from SHe.
LPCH. ScM. and non-SUMC entilies is not po$lible.
..
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELl,.JS
II. INTRODUCTION
STUDY PURPOSE
The Slonford University Medital Center (SUMC) is in need of renewal and replacement of
current faalities associated with the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), lucile Packard
Children's Hospital (LPCH), and the Stanford School of. Medicine (SaM). There are many
reasons in support of ittese plans, centering on regulatory requirements (California Senate Bill
1953), hospital heolthcore and service standards, statutory code requirements, and other
criteria important to the hospitals' and SoM's abilities to effectively serve their patients, the
communily, and their research needs.
the size; scope, and nature of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC
Project) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which is being prepared by the
environmental consulting firm PBS&J. A number of subconsultant firms are working in
association with PBS&J to complete the EIR. As a separate but companion document to the EIR,
the City of Palo Alto seeks to have a fiscal impad analyais of the SUMC Project completed for
the purpose of evaluating the impad the expansion will have on the City's fiscal budgets, both
. dyring construction and upon full operations. This study comprises the SUMC Project's fiscal
.. impad analysis, which was conducted for Stanford University and the Project applicants, with
input from multiple resources.
PROJECT DESClIPrION
The SUMC Project involves the construction of 1,866,300 square feet of new building area by
2015, including new hospital, dinic, office, and research space [see Exhibits 1-3). M additional
658,977 square feet of dinic. medical office, and research space is expected to be built and
fully occupied by 2025.
A significant portion of these facilities are intended to replace existing facilities, thus the overall
program i!1Cludes demolition of 199,529 square feet of building area by 2015 and demolition
of an additional 1,014,230 square feet by 2025. The net result of the SUMC Projed will indude
the following: .
• 870,018 net additional square feet of building area associated with SHC;
• ...... 1,500 net additional square faetof building area associated with LPCH; and
• No net additional square feet of building area associated with SoM.
The existing hospital buildings employ a combination of single-bed and semi-private patient
rooms in accordance with hospital planning standards at the time of their construction. Meeting
current hospital needs requires conversion of semi-private to single-bed patient rooms. Of the
additional space required for SHC, approximately 295,000 square feet is needed for SHC to
convert and support the current inventory of single-bed and semi-private rooms to all single
bed rooms. In addition, the emergency department shared by SHe and LPCH is undersized by
appro)(imately 25,000 square feet. For LPCH, about 126,000 square feet of the expansion is
for conversion to, and support of, single-bed rooms. Of the net T ,311 ,518 square feet
requested for the SUMC Projed, 446,000 square feet will be added by the hospitals to meet
current requirements and standards (i.e., "right-sizing"), including:
SUMC PROJECT fISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 10 fEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
• 320,000 square feet of building area associated with SHC; and
• 126,000 square feet of building area associated with LPCH.
As noted where relevant, the study at times bases the analysis on the total built square footage
or the net square footage .
. While not part of the same project as SUMC for the purpose of City of Palo Alto approvals or
EIR process, there is another project on Stanford University lands engag.d in the development
approvals process concurrent with the SUMC Project. This is the Stanford Shopping Center
Project (sse Project), which entails a 240,000-square-foot expansion of the existing Stanford
Shopping Center and the development of a 120·room hotel, together comprising a total of
360,000 square feet of new development. The shopping center expansion and hotel are
located on property owned by Stanford University but subject to a long-term ground lease with
Simon Prqierties. The SSC Project is mentioned because some City-provided information was
pr~ented as pertaining to both projects at the same time.
STUDY APPROACH
In keeping with the benchmark years, the fiscal impad analysis findings included in this study
are presented for two construction periods: from 2009 to 2015 and cumulatively from 2009 to
2025. In addition, the analysis was conducted in 2008 dollars. CBRE Consulting project
representatives attended several City of Palo .Alto public meetings on the subject of the SUMC
Project during the course of the project research. A City preference that emerged during those
meetings wos for the fiscal impad analysis to additionally examine each component of the
SUMC Project individually (i.e., SHC, LPCH, and SoM). In response to this, every effort was
made in the analysis to sort the SUMC Project impacts by entity and time period, with the results
presented for the first construction period (2009 to 2015) and cumulatively (2009 to 2025). Not
all.data were provided by entity or construction period. The reader will therefore find estimation
procedures incorporated into the analysis for some major categories of impad to spread costs
or revenues by entity and construction period.
The fiscal impact analysis examines the net fiscal impacts of the SUMC Project on the City of
Palo Alto General Fund, both on an ongoing basis as well as one-time. The one-time impacts
include anticipated impact fees as well as construction-period revenues. The analysis relies
upon an average cost approach, which examines service delivery costs on the basis of a
standardized metric, usually across an estimated service population comprising a mix of local
residents and employees.1
To prepare this fiscal impact analysis, CBRE Consulting worked very closely with representatives
of Stanford University, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, the
Stanford University School of Medicine, and the City of Palo Alto, including representatives of
the Administrative Services, Planning, Fire, Police, and Utilities Departments. In addition, select
data points included in the analysis were provided by the EIR consultant PBS&J, who was
retoined directly by the City of Palo Alto, and sub-consultants to PBS&J, including Keyser
Marston Associates, Inc. and AECOM(formerly DMJM Harris}. Numerous other data sources
1 The specific metric used for the study is presented in ihe appropriate study sedion.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 11 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
, CB RtCHARD a.Us
were relied upon for the study, including the SUMC Project Applic:otion, City of Polo Abo
publications and other City informational sources, the' Association of Bay Area Governments,
the California Department of Finance, the California State Board of Equalization, the hospitals'
Consolidated Financial Statements, the Bureau of labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau
County Business PaHems, the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office, the Santa Clara County
Co~tro"er's Office, . and industry resources such as the International Council of Shopping
Centers, the Hdl Companies, Real Capital Analytica, and the Building Owners and Managers
Association.
At the inception of the assignment CBRE Consulting was made aware that the research and
findings would be subject to a peer review. In conduc~ng the assignment CBRE Consulting
worked very diligently to perform well documented and thorough analysis. Every effort possible
was made to ensure that the analysis is transparent, with resources identified and a~mptions
substantiated 10 the extent possible. It is CBRE Consulting's intention that no reader of this
document will need to question how a figure used in the analysis was derived or where source
data were obtained.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The balance of this report includes the data, assumptions, analysis, and findings leading to the
fiscal impad of the SUMC Project. The information is· organized into discrete chapters as
follows:
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Key Data Points and Study Components
IV. Annual General Fund Revenues
V. One-Time Revenues
VI. Annual General Fund Expenditures
VII. Net fiscallmpads
The study analysis is summarized in four summary tables, which are included in the· Executive
Summary. The numerous linked exhibits documeilfing the analysis are included in the Appendix.
All exhibits are referenced where appropriate in the report text. The contents of this report are
subject to the appended Assumptions and General limiting Conditions.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 12 FEBRUARY 2009
C8RE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
• CB RICHARD ELLIS
III. KEY DATA POINTS AND STUDY COMPONENTS
SELECT KEY DATA POINTS AND RELATED ASSUMPTIONS·
This section includes Q presentation of select key data points that drive the SUMC Project fiscal
impod anal)lSis. These include hospital patient estimates, SUMC Proiect employment estimates,
Project-related hotel nights estimates, and Palo Alto population, employment and day-time
population estimates. Other key data points are presented elsewhere in the study, such as
SUMC Project construdion estimates and estimated number of construdion workers, but the
data points presented in this section provide key drivers or baseline information relevant to the
analysis. As stated earlier, the study findings are presented in constant 2008 dollars for the year
2015 (SUMC Proiect Phase 1) and the year 2025 lSUMC Project's buildout year).
Proiect Hospital Patient Estimates
Existing and proieded hospital patient counts based on dolo presented in the SUMC Project
Application. There were 403,885 annual outpatient visits to SHC and 107,363 annual
outpatient visi. to LPCH in 2006, for a total of 511,248 outpatient visits to SUMC (see Exhibit
4). SHC annual outpatient visits are estimated to ina-eose from the 2006 base year by 67,038
by 2015 and by 169,064 by 2025. LPCH annual outpatient visits are estimated to increase by
31,530 by 2015 and by 45,986 by 2025. Totol SUMC annual outpatient visits will therefore
increase by 98,568 by 2015 and 215,050 by 2025.
There were 132,182 annual inpatient days for SHC and 70,752 annual inpotientdays for LPCH
in 2006, for a 10tal of 202,934 days for SUMC (see Exhibit 4). SHC annual inpatient days are
. estimated to increase from the 2006 base year by 18,653 by 2015 and by 37,567 by 2025.
LPCH inpatient days are estimated to increase by 15,226 by 2015 and by 39,134 by 2025.
Toial SUMC inpatient days will therefore increase by 33,879 by 2015 and 76,701 by 2025.
Proiec:t Employment Estimates
Employment estimates are provided on a full-time.equivolent basis by Keyser ·Marston
Associates, Inc. (KMA), "Draft Housing Needs Analysis," June 2008. KMA developed
employment estimates based on existing and planned employment estimates provided by
Stanford University, which KMA evaluated for.f80sonableness.
There were on estimated 5,240 SHC full·time equivalent employees, 1,666 LPOt full-time
equivalent employees, and 2,823 SaM full·time equivalent employees in 2006. There were also
151 non·SUMC full-time equivalent employees that worked in existing to-be-demolished
buildings adjacent to the SUMC facilities, which brir:'9 total 2006 employment to 9,880 full-time
equivalent employees (see Exhibit 4). SHC employees are estimated to increase from the 2006
base year by 979 by 2015 and by 1,251 by 2025. lPCH employees are estimated to increase
by 850 by 2015 and by 892 by 2025. According to KMA, replacement of the existing SoM
facilities is not projected to result in on increase in employment. Non-SUMC employment is also
estimated to increase by 100 by 2015. Totol SUMC full·time equivalent employees will therefore
increase by 1}929 by 2015 and 2,243 by 2025.
SUMC PROJECT ASCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Proiect-Related Hotel Nlghts Estimates
Personnel from the LPCH Housing Department and the SHC Housing Assistance Office were
interviewed to obtain information regarding the current number of !hotel nights generated by
hospital patients, their families, and friends. These data, combined with estimates for current
overnight hospital patients -in "inpatient days·· -were used to detennine the quantitative
relationship between the number of inpatients and the number of hoft!1 nights generated by
these patients and their families and friends. Whereas information provided by SHe was
insufficient to accurately develop this statistic, CBRE Consulting found that LPCH-generated
hotel night stays were approximately 6 percent of LPCH inpatient days (see Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 5 utilizes the 6 percent assumption applied to proiected inpatient days for LPCH and 3 v '
percent for SHC (see Exhibit 4 for projected inpatient days). Half of the LPCH assumption was
opplied to SHC to occount for the fact that an adult hospital is likely to generate less hotel
nights than a children'S hospital. In 2015, LPCH will generate an estimated 988 hotel nights
over its 2007 base-year level, while SHC will generate a,n additional 606 hotel nights. In 2025,
the onn~al net increase will reach 2,540 hotel nights associated with LPCH and 1,220 hotel
nights associated with SHC. SUMC Project-reloted net hotel nights will therefore total 1,594 by
2015 and 3,760 by 2025.;,
Palo Alto Popula~ion, Employment, and Day-Time Population Estimates
The population base of the City of Palo Alto and Sphere of Influence (501), which includes the
Stanford campus, was estimated using data provided by the City of Palo Alto Department of
Plonning ond Community Environment, the State of California Department of Finance (DOF),
and the Associotion of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The population base is estimated for
Fiscol Year' 2008-2009 to be consistent with the City of Palo Alto's "2008-09 Proposed
Operating Budget." CBRE Consulting's populotion base estimate was developed in association
with aty of Palo Alto staff, who approved the final estimotes.
The City of, Palo Alto a,nd SOl employment base was estimated using data from ABAG. The doy
time population was then colculated by adding the population base to half of the employment
base, equating two employees with one resident. This is an industry standard approach for the
purpose of fiscal impact analysis. CBRE Consulting's employment base estimate was provided
to arid approved by the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto SOl day-time population
estimate for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 is 130,385 (see Exhibit 6).
STUDY COMPONENTS
The study focuses on the SUMC Projecrs net fiscal impact on the City of Palo Alto General
Fund. Toward that end, the study examines General Fund revenues and General Fund
expenditures, attributable to the SUMC Project. The General Fund revenues include ongoing
revenues attributable to the operations,of the SUMC Project and one-time revenues attributable
to Project construction.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 14 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRECONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Generol Fund Revenues
The study's General Fund revenues analysis attributable to SUMC Project operations include the
revenue CXJtegories refleded in the City of Palo Alto budget. The revenue categories, and the
nature of revenue estimotion conducted by CBRE Consulting for the SUMC Project, are as
follows:
• Soles and Use Tax -CBRE Consulting estimated current and incremental net soles tax
revenues generated by SUMC facilities on-Site sales, SUMC. employee spending, and
SUMC overnight visitor spending. CBRE Consulting also estimated sales tax revenues
and use tax generated by SUMC direct purchasing;
• Properly Tax -CBRE Consulting estimated the net property tax revenues and motor
vehide in-lieu tax revenues as a result of the SUMC Project. While SHC, lPCH andSoM
are non -profit institutions, and as such are exempt from property tax, some portions of
the SUMC Projed will be subjed to property taxes given the nature of their tenancy. Net
property tax revenue was estimated for the entire SUMC Project but was not distributed
among the three SUMC entities; .
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -CBRE Consulting estimated the net TOT revenues
generated by additional patients and visitors staying overnight in Palo Alto;
• UtIlity Un,. Tax (UUT) -CBRE Consulting estimated additional UUT revenues for water,
gas, and electricity; and
• Other Taxea and FiI18l-CBRE Consulting estimated Fines and Penalties, but not Motor
Vehicle cUcense Fees or Documentary Transfer Taxes, since they are not tied to the
employment base.
SUMC is an employment-based operation and does not entail any-resident-based populoiion.
CBRE Consulting therefore did not estimate other General Fund revenues that are not
dependent on the employment base. These categories include Charges for Services, Pennits
and Lic:ensesi2 Return on Investment; Rental Income, From Other Agencies, Charges to Other
Funds, and Other Revenue.
One-time Revenue.
There will be two mojor soul'(es of one-time revenues accruing to the City of Palo Alto:
construction-related revenues; and impact fees. Construction-related revenues will result from
on-site SUMC Project construction spending as well as construction worker spending in Polo
Alto and impact fees will be assessed by the City and the school district.
Construction-Related Revenues. State of California regulations allow fortifies or other
juris~ictions to receive significant one-time revenues assodoted with construction-related taxable
purchases. This portion of the study reviews these regulations and estimates the construction
period revenue potential to the City of Polo Alto based upon estimates of total and taxable
2 Permi1s are issued for new construction, street openings, hazardous materials, fire, and parking
while licenses are issued for dogs, bicycles, and ioxis.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANAlYSIS 15 FEBRUAIl' 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ElliS
construction costs, The significant volume of construction workers engaged in the construction
effort will also provide revenues to the City of Palo Alb through faxable purchases made in the
course of their employment io Palo Alto. .
Impact Feu. For the SUMC Project, City of Palo Alto impact fees are as follows:
• City of Polo Alto. The City of Palo Alto collects impact fees from new d~eropment for
affordable housing, transportation (i.e., the Citywide Transportation Impad Fee), and
community facilities (parks, community centers, and libraries). Per the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code, "New development shall mean, with resped to nonresidential
development, any development that creates additional square footage. Where a
development project includes replacement of existing square footage, the new
development shall mean only.the portion that constitutes additional square f60tage.H3
Per the City of· Palo Alto Development Impact Fees schedule," hospitals and
convalescent facilities are exempt from 'the City of Palo Alto's Housing Impad Fee.
However, outpatient clinics, and research and -medicol office buildings are not exempt
from the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Some of the dinic and medical office space
identified in the SUMC Project is and will be built within hospital structures and/or within
the hospital licenses. As such, that space could potentially be induded in exempt
hospital construction. Nevertheless, this fiscal impad analysis assumes that all net clinic
and medical office square footage is subject to the Affordable Housing Impad Fee.
Finally, according to the City of Palo Municipal Code,S the Citywide Transportation
Impact Fee is assessed per new PM peak hour vehicle trip. The study estimates the
Transportation Impad Fee using trip estimates provided by AECOM.
• Palo Alto Unified School Ditfrict. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) collects
School Impact Fees on new residential and commercial construction within school
distrid boundaries. The PAUSD website defines commercial development as strudures
to be used for commercial or industrial purposes, most senior housing, adult·only
mobile homes, and hotels and motels. CBRE Consulting 'estimated PAUSD impad fees
for all the SUMC Project net square footage.
General Fund Expenditures
The City of Polo Alto's General Fund includes the following expenditure categories:
• City Attorney
• City Auditor
• City Clerk
• City Council
• City Manager
• Administrative Services
• Community Services
3 Section 16.58.010 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code .
.. "City of Palo Alto Development Impad Fees," upda1ed November 6, 2008.
5 Section 16.59.060 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 16 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
• Fire
• Human Resources
• library
• Planning & Community Environment
• Police
• Public Works
• Non-Departmental
CBRE Consulting estimated net expenditures as a result of the SUMC Pro jed for all of the above
expenditure categories. The study estimates variable cost assumptions based on existing full.
time staffing by Department as a. basis for an overage cost analysis as well as presenting case
study information provided by the Police and Fire Departments. The method of estimation is
noted and reviewed in the study fQr each expenditure category. The study condusion~ rely on .
the average cost method rather than the case study information because CBRE Consulting did
not have access to the underlying data and assumptions supporting the Fire and Police
Departments' estimates and therefore could not assess and confirm the reasonableness of those
estimates.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANALYSIS 17 ·FEBRUARY 2009
caRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RK'..HARD ELL.IS
IV. ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
SALES AND USE TAX
There are several prospective sources of sales and use tax generated by the SUMC Project that
will benefit the City of Polo Alto. These sources include SUMC spending, on-site SUMC sales,
SUMC employee spending, and spending generated by overnight visitors associated with
hospital stays and hospital visitation. Analysis· of each of these sources of sales and of use tax
follows.
SUMC Spending
As one of the largest employers in the City of Polo Alto and a very significant medical institution,
SUMC has extremely high expenditures. Given the CalHornia State Board of Equalization (BOE)
regulations that govern the distribution of sales and use tax (with sales taxes paid on taxable
purchases made from within-state vendors and use taxes poid on tamble purchases made from
out-of-state vendors), the City of Polo Alto cannot maximize the sales and use tax benefit from
SUMC's spending since most vendors are not Ioeatedin Polo Alto. The City of Palo Alto seeks a
change to this situation, and has asked· SUMC to consider obtoining a use tox direct . payment
permit, which would allow SUMC to seH· report use taxes applicable to all out-of-state taxable
purchases. If this occurs, the City of Palo Alto could benefit from an additional infusion of use
taxes to boost the City's General Fund. A discussion regarding the potential for this and the
implications relative to SUMC's current spending patterns follows.
The City of Palo Alto currently receives four potentiol sources en sales and use taxes associated
with SUMC spending. These sources are as follows:
• The City of Palo Alto receives a 1:0 percent sales tax on all taxable purchases mode by
SUMC from Palo Alto vendors.
• The City of Palo Alto receives a 1.0 percent use tax on all taxable purchases equal to or
greater than $500,000 made from vendors outside the State of California that have a
State of Californio seller's p~mit.
• The aty of Polo Alto receives a relatively small percent shore (usually 5 to 7 percent of
1.0 percent) of taxable purchases less than $500;000 made from vendors outside the
State of California that have a State of California seller's permit.
• The City of Palo Alto receives a 1.0 percent use tax on oll·taxable purchases made from
vendors outside the State of California lacking a California seller's permit.
In accordance with State regulations, the City of Palo Alio does not receive any share of soles
taxes paid on purchases from California vendors not located in Polo Alto. A further explanation
of these sales ond use tax distribution mechanisms follows.
Sale, GIld Use Tax Distribution. If 0 purchase is made from a Colifomio vendor, the vendor
charges sales tax and the local share (typieally 1.0 percent of the sales amount, which is the
City of Palo Alto's sales tax r.ate) goes to the city in which the sale is negotiated Q.e., point of
sale). In the case of SUMC, only purchases made from Palo Alto vendors would provide the City
of Palo Alto this 1.0 percent share of taxable sales.
SUMC PROJECT RSCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 18 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
When a purchase is made from out.of·state, use tax is charged instead of sales tax, ot the same
rate as sales tax. However, the distribution of the local 1.0 percent tax depends upon whether
or not the vendor has a Califomia Seller's Permit and the amount of each individual sale
transaction (i.e., less than $500,000, or equal to or greater than $500,000). .
If a vendor has a Califomia seller's permit (which they would have if they have any sort of
presence in the slate, including a sales representative who comes into the state), they are
obligated to cOiled use taxes from the consumer on Califomia's behalf and. report it to the
state. When sales are reported, they are locationally coded and distributed as follows:
• Purchases equal to or greater than $500,000. If a purchase made from an out·of·state
vendor who collec\s use tax is valued at $500,000 or more, then the vendor designates
to the BOE the city where the item is going. The local share of use tax revenues then
accrues to the city at the typical 1.0 percent rate through the BOE's sales and use tax
reporting process.'
• Purchases less than $500,000. If a purchase made from an out·of·state vendor who
collec\s use tax is valued at less than $500,000, then the 1.0 percent local tax ultimately
goes to the county (not the city) where the item is shipped. This becomes the "county
pool." The city where the purchase was sent then receives a share of the use tax based
upon its proportional county shore of all collected sales and use taxes. These revenues
ore distributed to cities quarterly, based upon the City's share of sales and use taxes
collected each quarter. For example, the City of Palo Alto accounted for approximately
6 .. 24 percent of all colleded sales and use taxes in Santa Clara County in the second
quarter of 2008.7 Thus, for $1.0 million in aggregate qualifying purchases made by
Palo Alto consumers, the City of Palo Alto would receive $624, which is much' lower
than the $10,000 the City would have received if the use tax was reported directly to the
City.
If a purchase is made from an out·of·state vendor who does not collect use tax, then the
recipient is obligated to report it on their use tax permit. The load share of these taxes goes
diredly to the jurisdiction in which the purchased item is placed in service. SHC and LPCH
appropriately engage in this practice. Analysis of data submitted by SHC and LPCH regarding
use tax payments made to the State of California indicat~ that in Fiscal Year 2006.2007, SHC
and LPCH made $892,811 and $33,919 in use tax payments, respedively, to the State of
California (see Exhibits 7 and 8).8 These compare to Fiscal Year 2004.2005 figures of
$473,848 for SHC and $66,561 for LPCH and Fiscal Year 2005·2006 figures of $661,098 for
SHC and $55,320 for LPCH.·
These local tax revenues accrued in large part to the City of Palo Alto. However, to the extent
some items were purchased for use in other facilities located outside the City of Palo Alto, the
'This local rate varies by city, but the majority of Califomia cities, including Palo Alto, receive a 1.0
percent sales tax.
7 See page 201 of the "State Board of Equalization, Fund Distribution, Quarterly Allocation Summary
of Bradley 8urns Local Tax Allocation Period: 05/14/2008 -08/13/2008";
http://www.boe.ca.gov/sufax/pdf/2q08_distribution.pdf.
8 Fiscal Year 2006·2007 annualized data are not yet available pursuant to BOE determinations.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANAlYSIS 19 FEBRUARY 2009
caRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
local share of use tox revenues associated with those items accrued to the benefit of other local
jurisdictiom. Analysis presented in the following Additional Use Tax Direct Payment Permit Tax
Revenue Potential section further estimates the share of use tax revenues associated with existing
operations accruing exclusively to the City of Palo Alto. Regardless of the jurisdiction benefiting
from these use tax revenues, Exhibits 7 and 8 demonstrate that SHe and LPCH are
appropriately making use tax payments for taxable purchases made from out-of-state vendors
lacking a Califomia seller's permit.
Use Tax Direct Payment Permit
California State Board of Equalization Regulation 1699.6 has provisions that allow a use tax
dired payment permit holder to self-assess and pay state, local, and distrid use taxes directly to
the 801:. The result would be that instead of the local allocation of use taxes being directed to
the county pool for purchases under $500,000, the local tax allocation would directly accrue to
the city where the permit holder is locoted and takes receipt of the itempurchosed. In addition,
taxes associated with purchases equal to or greater than $500,000 would also be reported
diredly by the permi.t holder. This direct reporting would only pertain to taxable purchases from
outside the State of California.
To qualify for a use tOle direct payment permit, a permit holder has to agree to self-assess and
pay directly any incurred use tax liability and certify that during the calendar year preceding the
application they made $500,000 or more in aggregate taxable purchases subject to use tax.
The permit holder must issue a use tax direct payment exemption certificate to retailers or sellers
from which tOleable purchases are made, thereby relieving the seller from the duty of collecting
the use tox. Tax payments must be made quarterly and are subjed to the same penalty
provisions that apply to a seller or retailer. State regulations providing the BOE with the
·statutory authority to issue direct payment permits were snaded in the late 1990s.
The City of Palo Alto has requested that. SHC and LPCH obtain a use tox direct payment permit
as a meam of inae5Jsing the use tax reWlnues that accrue to the Cify. SHC and lPCH would
qualify for thiJ permit given their level of taxable purchasing. The following sections therefore
analyze the sales tax revenue potential for the City of Palo Alto in. the event SHC and LPCH do
obtain use tax direct payment permits. Several cities throughout the State of California have
programs in place to encourage locol .businesses to obtain these permits as a means for their
host cities to capture a greater share of use tax revenues. Examples include the cities of EI
Segundo, Long Beach, Los Angles, San Diego; and Tulare (see Exhibit 9). aose to Palo Alto, the
City of San Jose is in the process of enading such a program. Among the cities with existing
programs, businesses are provided wiih a rebate on the collected use tax in recognition of the
. administrative burden assumed by these businesses. This rebate is typically a minimum of 20 to
25 percent. These rebates are In addition ta staff assistance extended to the permit holders
designed to ease the administrative burden. This burden accounts for the relatively low number
of organizations in California with use tax direct payment permits. As ofmid-2007, there were
136 use tox direct payment permits in the state, with only 44 held by private companies and 92
held by local taxing jurisdictions.'
9 Memorandum to Community and Economic Development CommiHee, City of San Jose, May 2,
2007, From Paul Krutko, page 2.
SUMC PROJECT ASCAlIMPACT ANALYSIS 20 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
SHe ancllPCH Taxable Spending Analysis
CBRE Consulting engaged in extensive analysis of SHC and LPCH's taxable spending for the
purpose of projecting future Sales and use taxes that could accrue to the City of Palo Alto for
purchasing related to the existing SUMC space and the net expansion space. The steps involved
in this analysis included :the following:
• W9rk with SHC and LPCH representatives to obtain databases of Fiscal Year 2006-
2007 spending; 10
.. Analyze Fiscal Year 2006-2007 spending paHerns, sorted by vendor location (i.e., Palo
Alto, other California. other U.S., and international), size of purchase (amounts less
fhan $500,000, equal to, or greater than $500,OOO), .dnd nature of purchase ~axable
versus nontaxable);
• Assess the level of sales and use taxes that could have been received by the City of Polo
Alto if SHC and LPCH had operated during Fiscal Year 2006-2007 with a use tax direct
payment permit;
• Standardize sales and use taxes by patients served during Fiscal Year 2006-2007; and
.. Project future sales and use tax J'eYenues accruing to the City of Palo Alto pursuant to
the SUMC Project. •
By using this approach the analysis assumes that SHC and LPCH's future taxable spending
paHerns will be relatively comparable to the fiscal Year 2006-2007 taxable spending patterns.
A description of each step follows.
Obta;n Spending Dafobase. CBRE Consulting worked extensively over the course of mc;my weeks
-to obtain Fiscal Year 2006-2007 spending databases for SHC and LPCH. CBRE Consulting staff
consulted with SHC and lPCH staff to determine the relevant accounting system for data
retrieval and the means of data retrieval most conducive to CBRE Consulting's analytical needs.
The procurement system for the hospitals maintains an item file listing/daJgbase of all
purchases processed by the procurement system. During the course of the fiscal impact analysis,
CBRE Consulting learned that this item lile listing includes thousands of individually coded
items, with the items further coded as taxable or non-taxable. This item file li$fing is periodically
audited by a national accounting firm -to ensure conformance with State of California
regulations. .
The hospitals do not have integrated procure to pot systems. Therefore, an estimate of
purchases was prepared based on the audited financial systems as well as the procurement
system. CBRE Consulfing understands that the databases include all fiscal year spending for
SHC and LPCH with the exception of capital purchases such as constructioncontroc:ts or non
recurring purchases of equipment, professional services for temporary staff and ou1sourced
services (which are generally nontaxable), payments to the School of MedicinelStanford
10 This timeframe was selected as it is the most recent flSCOl year for which .. fullyear data are
available.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl. IMPACT ANALYSIS 21 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
University, and employee salaries and benefits. This focus on recurring expenditures adds an
element of conservatism to the analysis as some degree of nonrecurring expenditures will occur,
albeit on an infrequent and irregular basis.
Analyze Spending Dalobase. CBRE Consulting sorted the spending databases by geography of
vendor and taxable versus nontaxable status of the purchase. A further effort was made to sort
the purchase by size, separating purchases valued at or above $500,000 from all other
'purchases. The intent of this sorting was to detennine the extent to which the City of Palo Alto
currently receives a 1.0 percent share of use taxes for purchases over $500,000. However, data
provided by the hospitals indicate that there are no purchases over $500,000 •
... Potential City Revenues With Use ToxDirect Payment Permit. CBRE Consulting analyzed
the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 spending databases to determine the level of sales and use taxes
the City could have received if SHC and LPCH had use tax direct payment permits in effect
during that year.
Standardize Sal. ond Use TaUl Acto.u Pa.;ents. CBRE Consulting standardized the sales and
use taxes to the aty of Palo Alto across patients served by both SHC and LPCH.1t While the
expenditures data were for Fiscal Year 2006-2007, the patient count data are for calendar year
2006, as corresponding data for the fiscal year were not available. The use tax data were
inflated to 2008 ta conform to the balance of the fiscal impact analysis. Patient days for each
facility were combined between inpatients and outpatients, with two outpatient days assessed as
equivalent to one inpatient day, in recognition that inpatients are more costly to serve than
outpatients. The result is an analytical total of patient days. This generally paraUels the service
population estimating methodology for the City's General Fund analysis, which e~uates two
employees with one resident. The inflated sales and use tax data findings were then divided by
the annualized patient count data to obtain a per-patient estimate of sales and use tax
generation.
Prolect SUMC Sate. and U. Tax Revenue,. The findings from the patient standardization were
applied to the projected incremental patient counts for SHe and LPCH to generate estimated
annual aty of Palo Alto sales and use tax revenues resulting from SHe and LPCH taxable
expenditures for 2015 and 2025.
SHC and LPCH Taxable Spending findings and Tax Projections
CeRE Consulting's analysis relevant to the projection of prospective City of Palo Alto sales and
use tax revenues associated with the existing SUMC operations and that of the additional space
resulting from the SUMC Projed, assuming SHC and lPCH obtain use tax direct payment
permits, is documented in Exhibits 10 through 14. While the analysis focuses on Fiscal Year
2006-2007, comparative data for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 are also presented.
11 The data could have alternatively been standardized across other measures, such as square feet
or employees. For the purpose of this analysis, however, patients were deemed the most appropriate
measure given that SHC and LPCH are medical insli1ufions whose sole purpose is to provide patient
care.
SUMC PROJECT RSCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 22 FEBRUARY 2009
(
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELl.IS
Estimated Direct Purchasing Taxable Soles. Exhibit 10 indicates that in Fiscal Year 2006-2007,
SHC expenditures related to suppri~ totaled $236.0 million, of which $105.0 million were
recorded as taxable (see Exhibit 12), while Exhibit 11 indicates that LPCH supply expenditures
totoled $35.9 million, ofwhkh $14.5 million were recorded as taxoble (ilee Exhibit 12).
Estimated Direct Purchasing Sales and Use TOJ( Revenues. As demonstrated in Exhibit 12, if SHe
and LPCH held use tax direct payment permits during Fiscal Year 2006-2007, tax revenU&$
received by the Oty of Palo Alto would have totoled $133,300 from SHe'. expenditures and
$4,520 from LPCH's expend'rtures, totaling $137,820. Infloted to 2008 dollars, this is
equivalent to $144,533. /
Direct Purcho.ing Soles and U .. Tax Metric. For the purpose of deriving a per patient spending
estimate, CBRE Consulting developed a patient metric based upon two outpatients deemed
equivalent to one inpatient for expenditure allocation purposes. Summing these two figures
together provides .an analytical total number of patient days. This metric recognizes thaf
inpatien1s are more costly to serve than outpatients given the high cost of overnight visits. Using
this metric, the 2008 equivalent of soles and use tax revenues accruing to the City of Polo Alto if
SHC and LPCH had dired payment permits is $0.42 per analytical total patient day for SHC
and $0.04 per analytical total patient day for LPCH (see Exhibit 13).
To be conservative, eBRE Consulting assumes for analytical purposElS that in keeping with
practices in other California cities, as documented in Exhibit 9, the Oty of Palo Alto will rebate a
portion of the use taxes collected as a result of SHC and LPCH's use tax direct payment permits.
The purpose of this rebate would be to compensate SHC and LPCH for the adminittrative
burden assodatEid with the use tax direct payment permit. The assumed rebate is 20 percent.
which is at the lower end of cities with comparable programs.
SUMe Project Projected Direct Purchasing Soles and u.. Tox Revenues. Based upon the
preceding calculations, as documented in Exhibit 14, the anticipated net increment of inpatient
and outpatieht visits for both SHC and LPCH, the assumption that future patient spending will
be comparable to current patient spending, and that SHe and LPCH will each obtain a use tax
direct. payment permit, CBRE Consulting estimates thot the Cty of Polo Alto will receive sales
and use tax revenues associated with SHe and LPCH spending in the following amounts:
• $17,530 annually by 2015 for SHC and $992 annually by 2015 for LPCH; and
.• $41,025 annually by 2025 for SHC and $1,988 annually by 2025 for LPCH.
In the absence of SHC and LPCH obtaining use tax dired payment permits, these potential
revenues would be lower I though there would be some'level of revenues given the historic direct
reporting of use tax payments by both SHC and lPCH presented in Exhibit. 7 and 8.
Additional Use Tox Direct Payment Permit Tax Revenue Po1entiol. In addition to the tax revenUes
derived from projected SUMC Project taxable spending, the City of Palo Alta would also derive
sales and use tax revenues from the existing facilities and existing base of patients if SHe and
LPCH obtained use tax direct payment permits. Exhibit 15 presents an estimate of these
revenues. This estimate is derived from several data benchmarks for Fiscal Year 2006-20Q7,
induding comparison of potential use tax revenues to the actual use taxes paid by SHC and
LPCH (Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is the last full year for which use faX payments o,e available). Nt
adjustment is applied to the data to isolate use tax payments relevant to recurring expenditures
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANAl.. YSIS 23 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
associated with the Palo Alto facilities. The data are inflation-adjusted to 2008 and the analysis
then identifies the net increment of revenues that would accrue to the City of Palo Alto if SHC
and LPCH obtain use tax direct payment permits.
The findings indicate that in 2008 dollars, the existing SHe and LPCH operations are estimated
to generate $106,640 and $3,616 in use tax revenues, respectively, to the direct benefit of the
City of Palo Alto assuming SHC and LPCH obtain use. tax direct payment permits. Approximately
22 percent for SHC and 13 percent for LPCH of these revenues, or $23,792 for SHC and $468
for LPCH ($24,260 total for the SUMC Project), are estimated to comprise a net benefit to the
. Ci1y over existing use tax revenues accruing to the benefit of the City of Polo Alto. 12
SUMC Facilities On-Site Sales
There are existing revenue-generating programs (e.g., cafeterias, gift shops, a pharmacy, and
caMs) at SHC, lPCH, and SoM, all of which will expand as a result of'the SUMC Project.
Additional taxable sales at these programs were estimated based on taxable sales at existing
programs and assumed taxable sales per category-specific data compiled by The HdL
Companies (Hdl), a California-based tax consultant firm.
There are a total of 10,670 square feet of revenue-generating programs at SHC in 2008,
including a 10,OOO.square.foot cafeteria and a 670-square-foot gift shop (see Exhibit 16). An
additional 20,500 square feet of revenue-generating programs are anticipated at SHC, to be
completed by 2015, bringing the total square footage of revenue-generating programs to
31,170 square feet.
LPCH provides a total of 7,525 square feet of revenue-generating programs in 2008 (see
Exhibit 16). This includes a 7,200-square-foot cafeteria and a 325-square-foot gift shop. As a
result of the SUMC Project, an additional 10,300 square feet of revenue-generating programs
is anticipated to be added to LPCH, increasing the total space to 17,825 square feet by 2015.
There are two caMs at the SoM in 2008, totaling 1 ,500 square feet, which are located in
buildings within the Ci1y of Palo Alto (see Exhibit 17). The 680-square-foot cafe is scheduled ta
close in 2010 and a 3,OOO.square-foot cafe is planned to open in 2017 at the earliest. SoM
revenue-generating programs within the Ci1y of Palo Alto would therefore total 3,820 square
feet in 2025.
Taxable sales estimates were prepared for these SUMC retail components as a basis of
estimating associated City of Palo Alto sales tax generation. Sales estimates were based on
. either actual historic performance for comparable SUMC retail space (see Exhibit 18 for SHC
retail spa~ and Exhibit 19 for LPCH retail space) or, where data were not available, based
upon industry averages prepared by HdL. The resulting taxable sales estimates are presented in
Exhibit 20 forSHC, which total $10,413,607, Exhibit 21 for LPCH, which total $2,370,282, and
Exhibits 22 and 23 for SoM, which total a decline of $190,053 in 2015 and a net increase of
$648,418 by 2Q25.
12 These figures are forthcoming, pending analysis of Fiscal Year 2005-2006 taxable spending for
SHC and lPCH.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANAlYSIS 24 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
SHC r8venue..generating programs will contribute an estimated additional $104,136 in annual
sales tax revenues in 2015 and 2025 (see Exhibit 20). SHe sales tax revenues are the same for
2015 and 2025 since additional revenue..generaling programs are anticipated to be completed
by 2015. LPCH will generate on estimated additional $23,703 in annual sales tax revenues in
2015 and 2025 (see Exhibit 21). lPCH sales tax revenues are the some for 2015 and 2025
since addiiioncil revenue..generating programs are anticipated to be completed in 2015. Oue to
fhe closure of one of the existing cafes, SoM will generate $1,901 less in annual sales tax
revenues in 2015 compared to Fiscal Yeor 2006-2007 (see Exhibit 22). Once that cafe is
replaced by a larger one, SoM will generate an estimated additional $6,484 in annual sales tax
revenues in 2025 (see Exhibits 23). In totol, net SUMC revenue-generating programs will
generate on additional $125,938 in annual soles tax revenues in 2015 and $134,323 in 2025.
Employee .Spending
The new SUMC employees wifl generate taxable sales for Palo Alto retailers, which will result in
sales tax revenues to the Ci1y of Polo Alto. CBRE Consulting engaged in a conservative process
to estimate the level of taxoble retail expenditures attributable to these new employees. This
process involVed the preparation of a per employee taxable retail spending estimate
benchmarked to office worker retail spending patterns published by the International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC). -
The process of developing the per employee taxable spending estimate is documented in
Exhibits 24 to 29, with Exhibit 24 presenting the ICSC study weekly retail spending findings for
office. workers in downtown locations with ample reiail. These findings pertain to the amOunt of
retoil spending generated by office workElr$ close to their work location, which CBRe Consulting
considers a proxy for the communi1y in which they work. These data were presented by 'CSC for
2003, which CBRE Consulting inflated to 2008 far study purposes. The weekly data were then
annualized in Exhibit 25, which also estimates the· percent of spending· that is taxable. The result
of this analysis indicates that on overage office worker spends $3,258 in retail sales annually in
2008 dollars dose to their work location, with an estimated 93 percent taxable. Exhibit 26
presents medical office employee income estimates and Exhibit 27 presents SHC and LPCH
Income estimates. Exhibit 28 then analyzes household retail spending patterns in an effort to
benchmark SUMC employee incomes and spending patterns fo the ICSC data presented in
Exhibits 24 and 25,.
Exhibit 29 develops an adjustment factor for SHe and lPCH employees to apply to the
.. estimated office worker spending since the SHC and LPCH employees are conservatively
assumed to generally eat in the cofeteriQ or pack a lun<:h from homel rather than purchase
food off-site. This analysis, suggesting a discount factor of 8a percent for the SHC and LPCH
employees, results in a per employee annual taxoble $pending estimate in Polo Alto of $2,659
(see Exhibit 29). Exhibit 29 applies a similar discount foctor for non-SUMC medical office
workers as well as an additional adjustment foctor to reflect Jhe fact that medical office workers
are estimated to earn less than the overage office worker. This analysis, suggesting a discount
fador of 57 percent for non-SUMC medical office employees, results in a per SUMC employee
annual ta>coble spending estimate in Polo Alto of $1,736 (see Exhibit 29). These estimates
include on allowance for employee taxable spending ot on-sife retail opportunities of SHC,
lPCH, and SoM.
The estimated increases in net annual sales tax revenues occruing to the City's General Fund as
a result of SHe employee spending, in addition to what they are spending on-site, are $26,031
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT AN"'-VSIS 25 FfBRUARY 2009
.CIRE CONSULTfNG, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD I;lllS
in 2015 and 533,264 in 2025 (see Exhibit 29). Additional revenues as a result of LPCH
employee spending are $22,601 in 2015 and $23,718 in 2025. Non-SUMC employees will
generote S 1,736 in additional annual sales tax revenues in 2015 and 2025. Employee
spending is not estimated for SoM since the planned SUMC Project is not expected to generate
a net increase in SoM employees. In total, net SUMC Projed employees will generate an
additional $50,368 in annual sales tax revenues by 2015 and $5~,718 by 2025.
Ovemight VIsitor Spending
SUMC-rela1ed visitors who stoy in Palo Alto hotels will comprise an additional source of soies
tax revenue to the City of Palo Alto attributable to their taxable spending. This analysis does not
separately estimate additional sales tax revenues from SUMC-related day visiiors since most of
thesel'e\«lues are estimated to be captured by on.site revenue generating programs. As cited
previously, there will b~ estimated demand for 1,594 ho1el nights generated by the SUMC
Project by 2015 and 3,760 by 2025 (see Exhibit 5). Not all these hotel nights will be spent at
hotels located in the City of Palo Alto. Based upon information collected by lPCH, an estimated
14 percent of LPCH-related hotel nights are spent at Polo Alto hotels (see Exhibit SOl. By
extension, CBRE Consulting assumes this figure will apply to all SUMC~related hotel visitors. To
translate these Palo Alto room nights into number of visitors, CBRE Consulting applied on
estimated average hotel room visitor count of 1.5, resulting in an estimated annual number of
visitors staying in Palo Alto hotels totaling 334 by 201.5 and 789 by 2025. Figures presented in
Exhibit 30 distribute this count between SHC and LPCH.
A 2008 study regarding Stanford University's economic impad estimates that the average
Stanford University-related visitor spends $35 daily in the local community. CBRE Consulting
further assumes based upon a windshield survey of shopping and dining options proximate to
the SUMC facilities, that for SUMC visitors, 20 percent of this spending will occur at SUMC
facilities. Applying these factors to the estimated overnight visitor counts results in estimated
increases in net annual sales tax revenues accruing to the City's General Fund as a result of
SHC ovemight visitor spending of $71 in 2015 and $143 in 2025 (see Exhibit 30). lPCH
overnight visitor spending will generate an additional $116 in annual sales tax revenues in
2015 and $298 in 2025. Visitor spending is not estimated for SaM since the planned S~MC
Project is not expected to generate a net increase in ScM visitors. In iotal, net SUMC overnight
visitOrs will generate $187 in additional sales tax revenues in 2015 and $441 in 2025.
Total Sales Tax Revenues
As shown in Exhibit 31, SHC will generate estimated net increases of $147,768 to the City's
General Fund in sales tax revenues by 2015 and $178,568 by 2025 from the on-site revenue
generating programs, employee spending, and overnight visitor spending. lPCH will generate
an additional $47,412 by 2015 and $49,707 by 2025. SoM will generate $1,091 less
compared to the bose year (Fiscal Year 2006.2007) by 2015 and an additional $6,484 by
2025. Non-SUMC employee spending will generate an additional $1,736 by 2015 and 2025.
Combined, SHC, lPCH, SoM, and non-SUMC will add an estimated net of $195,015 by 2015
and $236,495 by 2025.
PROPERlY TAX
CBRE Consulting estimated the net improvement value for the proposed hospi1aIs, clinics, and
medical office spaces in order to estimate property taxes accruing to the City of Polo Alto's
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANALYSIS 26 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
ca RICHARD ELLIS
G.,neral Fund. According to the Santa Clara County Coniroller·s Office, annual property tax is
1.0 percent of assessed value. of which the City of Palo Alto General Fund receives
approximately 9.42 percent.13 .
A number of community health care providers currently lease space adjacent 10 the SUMC in
fqcilities owned and· operated by SHC, LPCH, or private builCling owners. The SUMC Project
includes the demolition of three buildings on Welch Road that are leased in part to community
health care providers -701 Welch Rood, 703 Welch Road, and 1101 Welch Road (see Cchibit
2). Those tenants at 1101 Welch Road who require proximity to the hospitals will be offered
long-term leases for space at the existing Hoover Pavilion building at 211 Quarry Road, which
will be renovated for this use. Tenants at 701 and 703 Welclh will hove the opportunity to lease
nearby SUMC-controlled space in Menlo Park. The space leased to health care providers at 211
Quarry Road will generate $23,277 in property tax reYenues to the Ci1y of Palo Alto by 2015
(see Exhibit 32).
By 2015, all SUMC facilities that are currently leased to community health care providers, with a
current (Fiscal Year 2007-2008) assessed value of approximately $12.8 million net of property
tax exemptions. will be demolished and will be replaced by facilities that will become 100
percent properly tax exempt.l~ The $12,081 in General Fund revenues lost from these
properties will be more than offset by both the Hoover Pavilion renovation and the construction
and subsequent assessment of a new medical office building on the' Hoover Pavilion site, which
will be leased to non-SUMC healthcare providers. Based on CBRE Consulting's valuation. the
proposed new Hoover Pavilion medical office building will generate approximately $46,399 in
General Fund property tax revenues at buildout in 2015 (see Exhibit 33). These changes resuh
in a net increase of approximately $57,595 in property tax revenues to the City of Palo Alto (see
Exhibit 34).
VEHICLE UCENSE IN-UEU FEE REVENUE
Beginning· in the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year, the State of California reduced the Vehicle License
Fees (VLF) received by cities and offset the reduction by property tax in-lieu of VLF. This
offseHing revenue is based on the growth of the real property assessed value in the City of Palo
Alto as Q result of the proposed SUMC Project. Based upon this methodology. CBRE COnsulting
estimated annual motor. vehicle-in-lieu property tax resulting from the SUMC Project to be
approximately $14,061 (see Exhibit 35).
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)
The City of Palo Alto General Fund is entitled to a 12 percent Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
on· all hotel room revenues within the City limits.15 In order to estimate the TOT revenue
13 Th. 9.42 percent allocation to the CI1y of Palo Alto General Fund is after the Educational Revenue
Avgmentotion Fund (ERAF) payment.
'" Fiscal Year 2007-08 properly tax paymen1s to Sanla Clara County were provided by S1anford
University Land, Buildings and Real Estate by parcel. Since many of these properties have multiple
entities as tenants, inclUding non-SUMC health care providers, determining the share of properly
taxes from SHe, LPCH, and the ScM is nQt possible
15 Voters approved a 2 pe~nt increase in 1ransient oocupancy tax from 10 percent to 12 percent,
which is effective as of January 1, 2008. Transient oa:upancy tax is not charged to hotel gues1s that
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANALYSIS 27 FEBRUARY 2009
· CBRECONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELliS
generated by 1he future SUMC facilities expansion, caRE Consulting first estimated the
additional hotel nights generated by the SUMC Project, then applied market rate revenue
assumptions to these figures. This process is documented in Exhibit 36, which projects added
delnOnd of 138 hotel nights ossociated with LPCH and 85 associated with SHC by 2015. A total
of 356 rooms are estimated to be associated with lPCHand 171 with SHC by buildout.
The calculation of annuol City of Palo Alto TOT revenues from the added hotel nights is further
presented in Exhibit 36. In 2015, the LPCH expansion will generate an estimated $2,366 in
TOT revenues. The SHC expansion will generate an additional estimated $1,457, for an SUMC
Project total of $3,823 in 2015. In 2025, the LPCH expansion will generate $6,'04 while the
SHC expansion will generate $2,932, for an SUMC Project totol of $9,036 of incremento I TOT
revenue at buildout.
UTIUTY USERS TAX
The City of Palo Alto collects a utility users tax, equivalent to 5 percent of utility payments, on
water, electricity, gos, and telephone bills. The SUMC Project will add to the City's annual utility
users tax revenue by virtue of their increased demand for utilities, though not for phone usage
since that is supplied and billed through Stanford University.
CBRE Consulting obtained existing and projected utility demand estimates for the SUMC·
facilities from PBS&J, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) and Palo Alto Greim, and
the SUMC Application. Where water 'meter projections were not available, the current demand
per square foot was proiected forward based ontha planned square feet of the SUMC Project.
The projected demand estimates were then applied to the appropriate utility rate schedules,
also provided by CPAU, to arrive at the estimated future utility payments from the SUMC
Project. Finally, the incremental revenues were apportioned to SHC, LPCH, and SoM based on
the net percentage change in utility demand associated with each entity.
As shown in Exhibits 37 through 41, the SUMC Project will add approximately $323,337 in
annual utility users tax to the City's General Fund by 2015. Of the $323,337, approximately
$196,831 will be paid by SHC, $83,531 will be paid by LPCH, and $42,976 will be paid by
SoM based on the relative magnitude of each entity's utility demand. By 2025, the total
incremental utility users tax revenues will stabilize at approximately $296,572. Of the total,
approximately $151,723 will be paid by SHC, $87,057 will be paid by lPCH, and $57,794 will
be paid by SoM.
OTHER REVENUES
CBRE Consulting estimated net revenues from fines and penalties as a result of the SUMC
Project. The SUMC Project will add approximately $21,566 in annual fines and penalties to the
City's General Fund by 2015 and $25,077 by 2025 (see Exhibits 42 and 43).
stay for at least 30 nights, provided that the guest discloses his or her intention to stay for 30 days at
the time of check·in.
SUMe PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANAl.. YSIS 28 FESRUARY 2009
)
caRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
ca RICHARD ELLIS
SUMMARY OF GENERAl FUND REVENUES
As 'shown in Exhibit 44, annual City of Palo Alto General Fund revenues project.d for the SUMC
Project in 2015 for the revenue categories that can be attributed by entify are $357,001 for
SHC, $142,812 for l~H, and $41,07.5 for SaM. Total property'taxes of $57,595, which were
not able to be attributed to a specific SUMC entify, bringing the total for 2015 to $615,397. In
2025, this General Fund revenue total is estimated to be $638,836. This total comprises
$57,595 in property tax revenues (not distribUted to specific SUMC entities); $347,209 in
revenues generated by SHC, $152,841 in revenues generated by LPCH, and $64,278 in
revenues generated by SoM. . .
In addition to the tax revenues derived from projected SUMC Projed taxable spending, the City
. of Palo Alto would also derive soles and use fox revenues from the existing facilities and existing
base of patients if SHC and LPCH obtained use tax dired payment permits. This would
comprise a sum of $24,260 assuming a future taxable spending pattern similar to that of Fiscal
Year 2006-2007.
SUMe PROJECT ASCALIMPACT ANAlYSIS 29 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE· CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
V. ONE-TIME REVENUES'
GENERAL FUND CONSTRUcnON-RELAT!D SALES/USE TAX
There is the pqtenfial for significant one-time revenues to accrue to the City of Palo Alto's
General fund from taxable purchases associated with the SUMC Project construction effort. This
sadion reviews the State of Califomia regulations that con facilitate the generation of this
revenue stream and estimates the revenue potential based upon estimates of total and taxable
construction costs.
Construction~etoted Sales/U,. Tax Generation Potential
Relevant Stale Regulations. Large-scole construction projects con be the source of soles and usa
tax revenues to the benefit of the communi1y in which the projed is being buih. Pursuant to
California State Board of Equalization Regulation 1806, the construction jobsite is regarded as
a place of business of a construdion contractor or sub-contractor and is the place of sole of
Rfixtures" furnished and installed by contractors or sub-contrQdors.1.6 More importantly, relevant
to lorge-scale construdion projects, when a general construdion contractor or sub-contrador
works on a iobsite, they can obtain a sellers sub-permit for that site if the value of their contract
is $5.0. million or more, pursuant to a Board of Equalization resolution effective January 1,
1995." Each contract must be worth $5.0 million or more. Therefore, if the General Contrador
is earning less than $5.0 million but individual sub-cantradors are eaming $5.0 million or
more, only the sub-contractors would be able to take -out a sub-permit. This sub.permit allows
the construction site to be the point-of-sale for the construdion adivity. Accordingly, the locol
jurisdiction where the jobsite is located will receive its share of relevant sales and use tax
j!)ayments for taxable construction-related purchases, assuming the contract is not lump-sum.1&
If a contractor/sub-contrador qualifies to obtain a sub-permit, the type of transactions that .
would qualify to be reported by the contractorlsub-contrador includes the following:
• MaterialS they purchase, as long as they do not pay sales tax when they purchase them.
They would be exempt from these taxes if they have a resole certificate, which they
would creote and give to the seller, proving that they plan to resell the items. For
example, if they purchose something from Home Depot and give Home Depot a resale
certific:ote, then Home Depot would not collect the taxes.
• Taxes would also qualify on fixtures and equipment. If a contractor paid tax on fixtures
and equipment but marked up the cost to their client, they would then charge additional
sales lox on the incremental increase in the cost.
16 See Califomia State Board of Equalization, "Uniform locol Sales and Use Tax Regulations,
Regulation 1806. Construction Contractors". Adopted May 1, 1956, Jast amended June 5, 1991. .
17 See California State Board of Equalization Publication 9, "Tox Tips for Construction and Building
Contractors, Sales and Use Taxes," December 2002, page 11.
18 Different tax-rela1ed procedures are in effect for lump-sum contracts.
SUMC PROJEcr FISCAL IMPACT ANAlYSIS 30 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
If the contractor/sub-contractor does not hove a seller's sub.permit for the construction site,
then all collected construction-related taXes are directed to the Califomia city in which the seller
is looated or to the county pool if the seller is outside California.
Potentlol for Palo Alto Construction-Related TOKRevenues. To maximize City receipt of
construction-related sales and use taxes associated with the SUMC Project, the ety of Palo Alto
has expressed a strong preference for aU qualifying construction contractors and sub
contractors to obtain seller's sub-pemiits for the SUMC construction site. If this occurs, then the
City of Palo AIfo will receive a significant infusion of sales and use taICes over the course of the
SUMC construction period. The following analysis regarding construction-related salss.and use
iax revenues assumes all contractors and sub-contractors will obtain seller's sub-permits
associated with their construction efforts, though the soles and use tax recovery rate may not be
100 percent. CBRE Consulting estimates that the SUMC Project would capture 85 percent of
potential sales and use tax revenues associated with construdioncontracts.
In addition to contractor/sub-contractor purchases, many soft costs' and equipment and other
related purchOses will be made directly by SHC, LPCH, and SoM. If SHC and LPCH obtain the
direct pay permit as requested by the City of Palo Alto (see earlier .discussion in Sales and Use
Tox section), than there will be significant add'monal sales and use ta)( revenue potential for the
City of Palo Alto during the construction period. Since SoM is operated by Stanford University,
which condUcts central purchasing through the University, SaM purchases would not qualify for
a direct pay permit.
Taxable Construction Costs
Construction of the SUMC facilities will comprise a significant capital project within the City of
Palo A1to,lv:;ross all three components, construction costs can be estimated to total $5.1 billion.
By component, these costs, and the exhibits in which the costs are documented, are as follows:
• SHC and Hoover Pavilion Site, $3,156,614,000 (see Exhibit 45);
• LPCH, $1,.436,657,000 (see Exhibit 46); and
• School of Medicine, $527,838,000 (see Exhibit 47).
These construction cost estimates were prepared by the entities associated with the SUMC
planning effort. CBRE Consulting did not conduct an independent review or analysis of .these
construction costs.
The SUMC cost estimates were classified into three types of costs: direct, soft, and equipment
and other costs. Total costs for each type of cost were provided by the relevant Project entities
olong with estimated taxable costs. Thus, Exhibits 45 through 47 indicate that taxable costs as a
percent of total costs are estimated at 44 percent for SHC, 45 percent for lPCH, and 36 percent
forSoM.
To meet the City of Palo Alto's needs to examine revenue potential by SUMC component and by
construdion phase, Exhibits 48 and 49 were prepared for taxable construction-related cost
ollocation pUrpQSes. Exhibit 48 estimates the taxable costs for direct, soft, and equipm~nt and
other costs aaoss the square footage planned to be buih for SHe, LPCH, and SoM. These
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPAcr ANALYSIS 31 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
results indicate that total estimated taxable com will range from $417 per square foot to
$1,042 per square foot, and overage 5781 per square foot.
Exhibit 49 applies the per square foot, taxable costs derived in Exhibit 48 by entity a'nd type of
cost to the square footage estimated by entity by construction phase. lhese results indicate that
taxable construction costs are estimated to total $1.7 billion during the 2009-2015 construdion
period and $2.2 billion for the entire 2009-2025 construdion period. However, not all taxable
costs will be subject ta sales or use tax to the benefit oftha City of Palo Alto. The amount of
potential sales and use tax ravenues that will accrue to the City of Palo Alto will depend upon
two fadors: the share of purchases made by contradors/sub-contrac1ors with contracts valued
at $5.0 million or more; ondthe share of taxable purchases made by SHC and LPCH from
vendors located in Polo Alto and outside the State of California. . .
Palo Alto Construction-Related Salel and u •• Tax Revenues
Relwont Toxabl. So,.. CBRE Consulting developed estimates of the portion of taxable
construction-related expenditures that can be subject to City of Palo Alto sales or use tax. These
estimQtes are documented in Exhibits SO-53 by entity and by construction period, and
summarized in Exhibit 54. For all exhibits, it is assumed fhat dired costs will be paid by
contradors or sub-contradors and that soft costs and equipment and other costs will be paid by
\ the relevant entity (i.e., SHC, LPCH, and SaM). In accordance with this assumption, only the
direct costs are subject to the $5.0 million sub-permit regulation, and' would apply to direct
costs for all facilities to be built. For SHC and LPCH, sales and use taxes would only accrue to
the City of Palo Alto based on taxable purchases made in Palo Alto or outside California, with
the latter reported directly by SHC and LPCH through their direct pay permit, which this analysis
assumes they will obtain. Taxable purchases made by ScM would only benefit the City of Palo
Alto to the extent the purchases are made from Palo Alto vendors.
Key Assumptions. To complete the sales and use tax revenues analysis relevant to the City of
Palo Alto, two types of assumptions were applied to the taxable purchases. One assumption
pertains to the share of construction contrads and sub-contracts estimated to be valued at $5.0
million or more and the other assumption pertains to the cumulative shore of SHC and LPCH
toxable purchases made from vendors located·jn Palo Alto or out of California.
For the share of contracts and sub-contrads valued at $5.0 million or more, CBRE Consulting
relied upon Stanford University Land, Buildings and Real Estate for an overall estimate of 80
percent based upon examination of other capital construction project contracts and an
understanding of the SHC, LPCH, and ScM construction needs. 'CBRE Consulting reviewed this
figure for reasonableness to the extent possible, including reviewing the quantity and size of
contracts for some nearby construdion projects that Stanford has underway.
During the construction period, SHC and LPCH taxable purchases fall into two categories: (1)
soft costs, and (2) equipment and other costs. For soft costs, CBRE Consulting assumes that all
taxable purchases will be made from California vendors not located in Palo Alto. Therefore,
none of these purcnases will qualify for payment by either SHC or LPCH through their assumed
direct pay permit. The taxable soft costs identified in Exhibits 45 and 46 for SHC and LPCH are
in the categories of Architect Engineer Fees, Other Consulting Fees, and
Printing/Reproduction/Distribution. CBRE Consulting believes it is appropriate to assume none
of these expenditures will be made out of California, and while some may be made in Palo
SUMe PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 32 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Alto, the h~toric level of taxable purchases made in Palo Alto is very low {see earlier analysis
regarding taxable purchasing patterns for SHe and LPCH documented in Exhibits 11 and 12}.
Therefore, it is conservative to assume no construdion-(elated taxable purchases made from
Palo Alto vendors.
For taxable equipment arid other cost purchases, the analysis assumes a share of purchasing
subject to locally reported soles or use talCes comparable to the share identified earlier for SHe
and LPCH operations-related purchases. As documented in Exhibit 50, these percentages
totaled 12.7 percent for SHe and 3.1 percent for LPCH. In other words, these are the combined
share of purchases that are projected to be made from vendors in Palo Alto, and thus locally
reported to the benefit of the aty of Palo Alto, and vendors outside of. California or
interno1ionally, and thus subjed to SHe's and LPCH's use tax pwment through their assumed
direct pay permit.
&timated Cif)' RevenU81. The results of the sales and use tax revenues projected to accrue to the
benefit of City of Palo Alto are summarized in Exhibit 54. These findings indicate the potential
for the City of Palo Alto to receive $7.5 million insoles and use tax revenues during the 2009.
2015 construction period, and a totol of $8.1 million through 2025 for the. entire construction
effort. The largest shore of total revenues will be contributed by SHe, at $4.6 million, followed
by $2.6 million for LPCH and $911,200 for SoM. As stated previously, these figures are
predicated upon two significant assumptions, which ore that all contractors and sub-contradors
with contracts valued at $5.0' million or more will obtain a seller's sub-permit for their
construction activity and that SHe and LPCH will both obtain direct pay permits for the purpose
of r~por1ing and paying we taxes for qualifying purchases. In addiction, CBRE· Consulting
estimated that the SUMC Project would capture 85 percent of potential sales and use tax
revenues associated with construction cantrads.
GENERAL FUND CONstRUCTION WORKER RETAIL SPENDING
,
During the entire cons1ruction period from 2009 through 2025, construction workers on site will
spend wages in the local community, generating sales tax revenues for the City of Palo Alto that
would not be realiled without the SUMC Project. The City's General Fund receives
approximately 1.0 percent. of the taxable retail dollars spent. In order to estimate the sales tax
revenues, CBRE (;onsulting estimated construction stoffing on an average annual basis (as
shown in Exhibit 55), then applied these annual staffing es1imates to spending-par-worker
estimates shown in Exhibit 56. Note that these soles tax revenues will be reali:ted during the
construction period only (as opposed to recurring, annual revenues), during the period from
2009 through 2015, and during the period between 2016 and 2025.
Exhibit 55 shows that average annual construction staffing between 2009 and 2015 will be
approximately 3,284 for the SHC project, 1,750 for the LPCH project, and 183 for the SoM
project, with an additional 196 workers dedicated to oosite infrastructure improvements. During
the second cans1ruction phase, from 2016 through 2025, there will be an annual average of
688 workers for SHe, 208 workers for SoM, and 168 workers for the site infrastructure. The
LPCH project will be completed during the first phase of canstrudion, so no construction
workers will be dedicated to the LPCH project during the second phase. All employment figures
are rounded.
Exhibit 56 estimates the average annual retail expenditures by construction workers in Palo Alto,
then multiplies this estimate by the average number of construction workers for the SUMC
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANAlYSIS 33 FEBRUARY 2009
CIIRE CONSULTING, tNC. CBRE
CB RICHARO ELLIS
Project. To estimate average daily spending, CBREConsuhing used average daily spending by
office workers, then discounted this spending to account for construction workers' average
woges and spending habits. As shown in Exhibit 56, CBRE Consulting estima. that
construction workers in the Palo Alto area will spend an average of $1,736 on retail
expenditures close to their job site, per year.
Using these estimates,. CBRE Consulting found that from 2009 through 2015, construction
workers will generate a Iotal of $93,962 in sales tax revenues for the Ciiy of Palo Alto. This total
comprises $57,003 for the SHC project, $30,375 for the lPCH projed, $3,182 for the SaM
projed, and $3,402 from those workers ·dedicating their time to infrastructure improvements.
During the second phase of construdion, from 2016 through buildout in 2025, construction
workers will generate another $18,465 in sales tax revenues for the City's General Fund. These
will comprise $11,933 from the SHC project, $3,616 from the SoM project, and $2,916 from
off·site infrastructure improvements. In totol, construction workers will generate on estimated
$112,427 in sales tax revenues from 2009 through 2025.
IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto. CBRE Consulting collaborated very closely with the Ciiy of Palo Alto to obtain
information on the impactiee schedule, the relevant components of the SUMC Application
subiect taimpact fees, and the associated fee amounts. Information from EIR subconsultants
was also a critical input to 1he determination of the estimated fees. Exhibit 57 documents
estimated trips generated by the SUMC Project at buildout and Exhibit 58 documents the aty of
Palo Alto fee structure, portions of the SUMC Projed subject to the fee payment, and estimoted
fees.
As shown in Exhibit 58, the SUMC Project will generate an estimated $10.0 million in aty of
Palo Alto impact fees. Of this total, $7.6 million will be attributable to SHC and $2.4 million will
be aHributable to LPCH. The components of the impact fee include the following: $2.2tnillion
in Housing Impact Fees aHributabie to SHC; $2.0· million in Transportation Impact Fees, with
$1.6 million attributable to SHC· and $0.4 million attributable to LPCH; and $5.8 million in
Community Facilities Impact Fees, with $3.8 million attributable to SHC and $1.9 million
attributable to LPCtf. As there is no net additional square footage planned for SoM, no impad
fees will be assessed for this component of the SUMC Project.
Polo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) collects
School Impact Fees on new residential and commercial construction within the school district's
boundaries. The PAUSD website defines commercial development as structures to be used for
commerciol or industrial purposes, most senior housing, adult~only mobile homes,. and hotels
and motels. Exhibit 58 documents the PAUSD fee structure and estimates fees.
As shown in Exhibit 58, the SUMC Project will generate an estimated $616,413 in PAUSD
impact fees. Of this total, $408,908 will be attributable to SHe and $207,505 will be
attributable to LPCH. As there is na net additional square footegeplanned for SoM, no PAUSD
impact fees will be assessed for this component of the SUMC Project.
SUMC PROJE<::T FISCAl IMPACT ANAlYSIS 34 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC.
, VI. ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND SERVICE COST MA11HX
Average'Cost Approach
CBRE
CB RICHARD eLliS
CBRE Consulting developed a City of Polo Alto General Fund service cost matrbc:to support on
overage cost analysis of City services. This is a standard fiscal impact component, used in cases
where marginol costs {also known as the case study approach) are not available or sometimes
as an adjunct to the marginal ,cost approach. Often studies present both the average cost ond
marginal cost approach to provide a range of potential cost impacts.
CBRE Consulting prepared this matrix to estimate net General Fund expenditures for all City
Departments as a result of the SUMC Project. As is typical for this type of analysis, CBRE
Consulting estimated the share of City casts by major category that are anticipated to be
variable, i.e., change with the size of the service population. For example, CBRE Consulting
estimated that the City Council costs are -fixed. such that they would not change with an increase
(or decrease) in the size of the City's service population (see Exhibit 59). In o:>ntrast, CBRE
Consulting estimated that 80 percent of fire costs or. variable, reflecting the expectation that
mOre firefighters and associated personnel will be needed as the population base changes (see
Exhibit 59). However, same associated fire costs would not change, such as there would be no
need to add another Fire Chief or Fire Marshal with added population.
The percentage estimates for variable expenditures was based upon detailed analysis of the
City's budget. CBRE Consulting examined the information regarding stoffing per Cify
Department and developed assumptions regarding the positions or type of positions that would
likely change with the size of the respective service population.19
Average Cost Findings
The estimated annual variable expenditures per new employee (see Exhibit 59) and associated
SUMC·Project-reiated annual expenditure estimates by\budget category are summarized below
(see Exhibit 60); the figures ore presented in. 2008 dollars to be consistent with the rest of the
analysis:
• City Attomey -$1.07 per employee; SUMC.Project-related expenditures are estimated
to be $2,065 in 2015 and $2,400 in 2025;
'--• City Manager -$0.86 per employee; SUMC·Project-related expenditures are estimated
to be $1,659 in 2015 and $1,929 in 2025:
• Adm;nistrative Services -$5.50 per employee; SUMC-Project-related expenditures are
estimated to be $10,610 in 2015 and $12,337 in 2025;
• Community Service. -$33.19 per employee; SUMC-Project-related expenditures are
estimated to be $64,024 in 2015 and $74,445 in 2025;
19 The service population for 011 City Departments except for the Police Departments is the City's SOl.
SUMC PROJECf ASCALIMPACT ANALYSIS 35 FEBRUARY 2009
C.RE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
• Rre· $74.32 per employee; SUMC~Proiect-related expenditUl'es are estimated to be
$143,363 in 2015 and $166,699 in 2025;
• Human Resources -$4.33 per employee; SUMC-Project-related expenditures are
estimated to be $8,353 in 2015 and $9,712 in 2025;
• Ubrory -$7.56 per employee; SUMC-Project-related expenditures are estimated to be
$14,583 in 2015 and $16,958 in 2025i
• Planning & Community Envfl'Onment • $11.93 per employee; SUMC.Projed.rela1ed
expenditures are estimated to be $23,013 in 2015 and $26,759 in 2025;
• l'oIice· $102.86 per employee; SUMC-Projed-related expenditures are estimated to be
$198,411 in 2015 and $230,115 in 2025;
• Public Works· $26.52 per employee; SUMC·Projed.related expenditures are estimated
to be $51,157 in 2015 and $59,485 in 2025; and
• Non.Departmental· $14.97 per employee; SUMC-Projed-reiated expenditures are
estimated to be $28,878 in 2015 and $33,577 in 2025.
CBRE Consulting estimated that the CHy Auditor, City Clerk, and City Council categories do not
have any variable coSts (i.e., change with the size of the service population). The expenditures
for these departments are estimated to be fhced, such that they. would not change with an
increase (or deaease) in the size of the City's service population.
nie total City of Palo Alto Generol Fund expenditure per new employee is estimated to be
$283.11 for Fiscal Year 2008~2009, including expenditures for the Fire and the Police
Departments. The Fire and Police Departments combined expenditures total S 171.18 per
employee, or 63 percent of total expenditures per employee, thus they comprise the majority of
estimated service costs. A case study cost analysis for the Fire and Police Departments is
presented below, based upon prajected City of Palo Alto service (Dats for the SUMC Projed.
However. CBRE Consulting has not relied upon the case study cost analysis in presenting the
study condusions because it did not have access to the underlying assumptions and data used
by the Fire and Police Departments to develop the estimates that they provided, and therefore
could not assess and confirm the reasonableness of those estimates.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The SUMC Projed is located wiihin the Palo Alto Fire Department's (PAFO) jurisdiction. The
PAFO has four major functional areas -emergency response (emergency readiness and
medical, fire suppression, and hazardous materials response), environmental and safety
management, training and personnel management, and records and information
management.
Existing Level of Service
The PAFO staffs seven full-time stations located throughout the City. To provide coverage in the
sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station is operated during summer months
when fire danger is high. Excluding the station dedicated to the Stanford Linear Accelera10r
Center (SLAC] and the hillside area station, Palo Alto is reported to have more fire stations per
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 36 fEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD EL.lIS
capita than most other local jurisdidions (e.g., San Jose, Sunnyvale, Fremont, Milpitas, San
Mateo, Redwood City, and Mountain View}.20 .
Fire Siation 1, locafed at.301 Alma Street, is the closest station to the SUMC Project. The Fire
Station 1 district is approximately 1.5 square miles. In the event that appara1us from Station 1
are not available (on another call or out of district), a response would be sent from Station 6,
located at 711 Serra Street on the Stanford campus, or Station 3, located at 799 Embarcadero
Rood. There is also a mutual aid agreement with Menlo Park.
During Fiscal Year 2006-2007, the PAFD handled 7,236 calls for service.:n Based on data
provided by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department, there were 130 calls for·service forSHC and
SoM during Fiscal Year 2006.2007 (see Exhibit 61). Since SHC and SaM share the same 300
Pasteur Drive address. the PAFD was not able to provide colis for service for each entity
separately. During the same year, there were an additional 17 calls for service for the Hoover
Pavilion, bringing the total colis for service for SHC and SaM to 147 (see Edlibit 61). LPCH
generated a total of 25 calls for service to the PAFD during Fiscal Year 2006~2oo7(see Exhibit
62). In total, SUMC generated 172 calls for service during Fiscal Yecir 2006·2007 (see Exhibit
62), or 2.38 percent of total calls for service handled by the PAFD that year;
Cost Analysis
Average Cost Approach. The PAFD serves the resident population and employees of Palo Alto
and Stanford. The day-time population in the service area is estimated at 130,385 during Fiscal
Year 2008-2009 (see Exhibit 6). SUMC is an employment·based operation, and does not entail
any resident-based population. SHC employees are estimated to increase by 979 by 2015 and
by 1,251 by 2025 (see Exhibit 60). LPCH employees are estimoted to increase by 850 by 2015
and by 892 by 2025~ Replacement of the existing SoM facilities is not projected to result in an
increase in 8,,"ployment. Non-SUMC employment is also es1imated to increase by 100 by 2015
and 2025. Total full.time equivalent employees will therefore increase by 1,929 by 2015 and
2,243 by 2025. .
As previously discussed, the estimated annual variable fire expenditure par employee in 2008
dollars is $74.32 (sea Exhibit 59). SUMC Proied-related PAFD expenditures are therefore
estimated to be $143,363 by 2015 ond $166,699 by 2025 (see Edlibit 60). The 2015 estimate
includes $72,759 for SHC, $63,172 for LPCH, and $7,432 for the nan·SUMC component of
the Project. The 2025 estimate includes $92,974 for SHC, $66,293 for LPCH, and $7,432 for
non-SUMC.
•
CoN Study Approach. While it is important to present the SUMC and the sse Projecls
independ~n1ly when estimating. their potential impacts on service providers, the PAFD has
estimated potential costs associated with the combined projeds due to their proximity and
similar development timeline.The PAFD estimates that the SUMC and sse Projects will require
a new ladder truck and three additional paramedic operators. Exhibit 63 shows that the
estimated PAFD expem8S for both the SUMC and SSC Projects amount to a total of $516,200
for annual expenses and a total of $915,000 for oneptime expenses. CBRE Consulting was not
20 City of Palo Alto, "Servic:e Efforts ond Accomplishments Report 2006-07," Jonuary 2008, p. 37.
21 Ibid.
SUMC PROJECT fiSCAl IMPACT ANAlYSIS 37 FEBRUARY 2009
/
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
provided supporting data and assumptions for these estimates and was therefore unable to
assess or confirm their reasonableness.
In ~rder to estimate the expenses related to the SUMC Project only, CBRE Consulting. distributed
the expenses for the SUMC and the sse Projects based on a net employee approach. Expenses
were not distributed bose~ on net square feet since a significant portion of the SUMC Project, or
34 percent (see Exhibit 3), is due to right-sizing. The employee approach distributes the
estima1ed costs by time period amongst the Projeds by applying the respective percentage of
"total net employees to the relevant expense figures. The es~mated SUMC Project-related annual
expenses (based on the estimates provided by the PAFD) are $344,908 in 2015 and $361,711
in 2025 (see Exhibit 64). One-time expenses are estimated by applying the Projects' percentage
of 2025 total net employees to the one-time expense figure. Accordingly, the one-time expenses
associated with the SUMC Projed are $641,157.
Expenses were then allocated amongst SUMC entities by CBRE Consulting based on their
resp«tive percentage of SUMC net employees. Annual expenses as a result of SHC net
employees are $175,047 in 2015 and $201,739 in 2025 (see Exhibit 65). In addition,
$325,398 in one-time expenses are allocated to SHC. Annual expenses as a result of LPCH net
employees are $151,981 in 2015 and $143,846 in 2025. LPCH one-time expenses are
estima1ed to be $282,521. Annual expenses as a result of non-SUMC net employees are
$17,880 in 2015 and $16,126 in 2025. Non-SUMC one-time expenses are estimated to be
$33,238. SinCB there is no planned increase in employment as ci result of the SoM, no fire
services expenses are allocated to that entity.
POUC! DEPARTMENT
The SUMC Project is located within the Palo Alto Police Deportment's (PAPD) jurisdiction. The
PAPD has seven major functional areas-field services, technical services, investigaffons and
crime prevention services, traffic services, parking services, police personnel servioes, and
animal services.
Existing Level of Service
ACcording to the "City of Palo Alto 2008-09 Proposed Operating Budget,· PAPD total coils for
service for Fiscal Year 200~-2007 were 60,079.22 The City of Polo Alto pr~vided PAPD calls for
service do1a for Command Area 1, which consists of the area in and around 5UMC.23 District
113 covers SHC, LPCH, and the surrounding areas (i.e., general streets, facilities, and
neighborhoods within the Distrid). District 112 covers the Hoover Pavilion (SHC), the Stanford
Shopping Cen1er, and the surrounding arec::ls. As shown in Exhibits 06 and 67, there were 866
PAPD calls for service in and oround SUMC in 2007, or 1.44 percent of total calls for service
handled by the PAPD during Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
22 See page 125.
23 Letter from Ron Watson (Lieutenant/Patrol Watch Commander, Palo Alto Police Deportment) to
David Ramberg, "Follow-up Informa1ion regarding Med"1CQ1 Camer and Shopping Center
Expansion," da1ed April 21, 2008.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 38 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELUB
Cost Analysis
Average Coat Approach. The PAPD serves the resident population and employees of Palo Alto.
The day-time population in the serviCE! area is estimated at 101,430 during Fiscal Year 2008.
2009 (see Exhibit 6). As previousiy discussed, the estimated annual variable police expenditure
per employee in 2008 dollars is $102.86 (see Exhibit 59). SUMC Project-related PAPD
expenditures are therefOre estimated to be $198,417 by 2015 and $230,715 by 2025 (see
Exhibit 60). The 2015 estimate includes $100,700 forSHC, $8~,431 for LPCH, and $10,286
for the non-5UMC component of the Project. The 2025 estimate indudes $128,678 for SHC,
$91,751 for LPCH, and $10,286 for non-SUMC.
Cose Study Approach. Similarly to the Fire Department, the PAPD has estimated potential costs
associated with the combined SUMC and SSC Projects. The PAPO estimates that the SUMC and
SSC· Projects will require a new patrol v.hide and two additional police officers. Exhibit 68
shows that the estimated PAPD $Xp8nS8S for both the SUMC and SSC Projects amount to a total
of $338,000 for annual expenses and a iotal of $302,200 for one-time expenses. CBRE
Consulting was not provided supporting data and assumptions for these estimates and was
therefore not able to assess or confirm their reasonableness.
The PAPD case study analysis mirrors the Fire Department analysis by distributing the expenses
for the SUMC and the SSC Projects based on a net employee approach. The employee
approach estimates SUMC Project-related annual expenses to be $225,841 in 2015 and
.$236,843 in 2025 (see Exhibit 69). One-time expenses associated with the SUMC Projed are
$211,757. .
Expenses were then allocated amongst SUMC entities by CBRE Consulting based on their
respective percentage of SUMC net employees. Annual expenses as' a result of SHC net
emploYees are $114,618 in 2015 and $132,096 in 2025 (see Exhibit 70). In addition,
$107,470 in one-time expenses are altocofed to SHe. Annual expenses as a result of LPCH net
employees are $99,515 in 2015 and $94,188 in 2025. LPCH one-time expenses are estimated
to be $93,309. Annual expenses as a result of non-SUMC net employees are $11,708 in 2015
and $10,559 in 2025. Non·SUMC one-time expenses are estimated to be $10,978. Since there
is no planned increase in employees as a result of the SoM, no police services expenses are
allocated to that entity.
SUMMARY OF PALO ALTO GENERAL FUND EXPEI\IDITURES
The projected City of Palo Alto General Fund expenditures associated with the SUMC Projed
are summarized in Exhibit 71. This summary indicates that U$ing the 'average cost approach to
estimating fire and police service costs, the total annual cost of the SUMC Proiect to the City's
General Fund will be $546,122 by 2015 and $635,016 by 2025. By the buildout year in 2025/
the share of the total costs will be distributed as follows:24
• 55.8 percent SHC;
• 39.8 percent LPCH; and
, .. Figures are rounded to whole tenth of a percent for presentation purposes and may not add up to
100 percent.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 39 FEBRUARY 2009
CORE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
f
• 4.5 percent non~SUMC.
As there are no net additional employees planned for SaM, there are no net additional costs
attributable to this portion of the SUMC Project.
As indicoted in Exhibit 71, absent the estimated fire and police service costs, the General Fund
expenditures attributable to the. SUMC Project are projected· to be relatively low, totaling
$204,342 by 2015 and $237,602 by 2025. If the cose study approach to fire and police
services was substiMed for the average cost approach, total General Fund expenditures for the
SUMC Projed would increase to $775,091 by 2015 and $836,156 by 2025.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (PAUSD)
According to LPCH, the school at LPCH has an average daily census for Fiscal Year 2007~2008
of 50, induding 18 for grades K-5 and 32 for grades 6-12 (see Exhibit 72). Less than two
percent of students offending the LPCH School are from the PAUSD. The LPCH School stoff
currently indudes four full-time teachers, three aides (one at four hours per day and two at five
hours per day, or 1.8 full·time equivalent), and one secretary (one at five hours per day, or 0.6
full-time equivalent). The total LPCH School full.time equivalent staff is 6.4 for Fiscal Year 2007-
2008. Assuming that the ratios of students to total patients and of staff to students remain
constant for 2015 and 2025, the SUMC expansion will require on estimated additional 1.4 total
full-time equivalent staff by 2015 and 3.6 total FTE staff by 2025 (see Exhibit 72).
PAUSD currently pays the salaries of 3,5 teachers, all aides, and the secretory, in addition to
supplying all teaching materials, textbooks, and supplies for the students. LPCH currently
provides half the salary for one teacher, the facility space, furniture, telephone equipment, and
telephone/fax connections. PAUSD impact fees are used only for construction and
reconstruction of school facilities. C8RE Consulting put in a request to PAUSD regarding their
funding mechanisms for the operational costs of LPCH School and is awaiting a response.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 40 FEBRUARY 2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ElliS
VII. NET fiSCAL IMPACTS
PRESENTAnON OF FINDINGS
The findings of the SUMC Project's net fiscal impact on the City of Polo Alto General Fund are
documented in a· series of five tables, one each for SHC, LPCH. ScM, non-SUMC, and a
summary table. These tables were presented earlier at the end of the E>i'ecutive Summary. The
summary. tables list all analyzed revenue and 8)(penditure categories, both one-time and
annual, and present findings after the completion of the 2009-2015 oonstruction period and
then at buildout and full occupancy in 2025. To the extent possible, this level of presentation is
oonsistent with the ~ressed wishes of City of Palo Alto public officials during severol public
meetings about the SUMC Project. All figures are presented in 2008 dollars.
ONE .. TlME IMPACT
There will be two components to the one-~me impacts attributable to the SUMC Project. These .
include one-time revenue items, such as sales and use tax revenues, and one-time City of Palo
Alto and PAUSD impact fees.
R.v.nu. Items
By the time the SUMC Project is complete in 2025, an estimated $8.3 million in one-time sales
and use fa)( revenues is estimated to be generated to the benefit of the City of Palo Alto (see
Table 1 ). These revenues are attributable to taxable events during SUMC Project construction,
and assume that qualifying contractors and sub-contradors will obtain. a seller's sub-permit
allowing the construction site to be the point-of-sale for construction activity. The City of Palo
Alto has expressed a strong desire for this to OCQJr.
Impadn.
Based upon the City of Palo A1tot s impact fee S(;hedule, and an expectation that some, but not
all portions of the SUMC Project will be subject to impad fees, total City of Palo Alto impact fee
generation is estimated at $10.0 million (see Table 1). By impact fee, this total comprises the
following:
• $2.2 million in Housing impact fees;
• $2.0 million in Transportation impact fees; and
• $5.8 million in Community Fadlities impact fees.
The SUMC Project will also senerate an estimated $616,413 in PAUSD impad fees. Of this
total, $408,908 will be attributable to SHC and $207,505 will be attributable to lPCH. As there
is no net additional square footage planned for ScM, no PAUSD impact fees will be assessed
for this component of the SUMC Project.
The City of Palo Alto and PAUSD estimates are the total impad fee amounts anticipated to be
paid by the SUMC Project during the course of 1he construction period. For presentation
purposes they are reflected during the 2015 time frame in the summary tables.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 41 FEBRUARY 2009
caRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
ANNUAL IMPACT
The annual General Fund impact of the SUMC Project will be the result of projected revenues
less expenditures, resulting in a net fiscal impact. A summary highlight of each of these fiscal
components follows.
General Fund Revenues
At buildout, the SUMC Proiect is projected to generate $638,836 in annual revenues to the City
of Palo Alto General Fund (see Table 1). The largest revenue categories include u1ility users
taxes totaling $296,572 and sales and use taxes totaling $236,495. The City of Palo Alto has
asked SUMC to consider obtaining a use tax direct payment permit for the purpose of self
reporting use taxes to the California State Board.of Equalization. This permit would result in 0
greater share of use taxes directed to the City of Palo Alto. The analysis makes the assumption
that SHC and lPCH wifl obtain this permit Clnd report use toxes accordingly. .
If SHC and LPCH obtain the use tax direct payment permit, then all applicable existing taxable
purchases (not iust for the SUMC Project) subject to this reporting method will accrue to the City
of Polo Alto. The additional use taxes from existing facilities are estimoted to be $24,260.
Including this additionol increment of use taxes would boost the 2025 annuol revenues to the
City of Palo Alto to $663,096.
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures for all major City of Polo Alto departments were estimated for the
SUMC Project. Expenditures were estimated on an average cost basis, assuming future service
costs would be similar to current service costs standardized across the population served. The
resulting annual expenditures estimate is $635,016 at buildout. Of this amount, 63 percent is
comprised of costs for Fire and Police services.
Net General Fund Imp-ad
The net difference between the annual estimated General Fund revenues and expenditures for
the SUMC Project results in an annual surplus of $3,820, reflecting that revenues are estimated
to. exceed expenditures by this amount. This surplus increases to $28,080 if one credits the
SUMC Project for the additional use fax revenues that will accrue to the City of Palo Alto based
upon existing operations (i.e., absent the SUMC Project). In addition, the fiscal impact analysis
proiects a net one"time revenue of $8.3 million by the buildout year. Thus development of the
SUMC Project is deemed to be a substantial net fiscal contributor to the City of Palo Alto.
To sum up, by project buildout the SUMC Project is estimated to add $28,080 annually to the
City's General Fundi along with one·time contributions totaling $8.3 million to be generated
over the course of the proiect construction period.
NET IMPACT ALlOCATION BY SUMC ENTITY
During public meetings about the SUMC Project several public officials indicated an interest in
reviewing the fiscal impact analysis results by entity (SHC, LPCH, SoM, and non·SUMC) and by
construdion phase. Tobles 2 through 5 disaggregate the fiscal impoct results in this manner.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAl IMPACT ANALYSIS 42 FEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
These individual results are summarized below, focusing on the buildout and full occupancy
year.
Net one-time soles tax revenues ($6,318 at buildout) from onsite infrastructure improvement
construction workers are not presented for specific SUMC entities since the improvements
benefit the entire SUMC Project area. Net annual property-tax based revenues, which include
property taxes ($57,595 at buildout) and motor vehicle in-lieu fees ($ 14,061), are also nof
presented for specific SUMC entities because the properly tax increment associated with each
entity is not known. Many SUMC properties have multiple 4iJntities as tenants, induding non
SUMC entities, so determining #le share of property taxes from SHC, LPCH, and SoM is not
possible. Properly tax revenues currently levied from the properties at 701 Welch Road, 701 A,
C, and 0 Welch Rood, 701 B Welch Road, 703 Wetch Road, and 1101 Welch Road will be lost.
However, property tax revenues added by the new medical office building at the Hoover
Pavilion site and the added leasable space at the existing Hoover Pavilion building at 211
Quarry Road will more than offset the losses.
Stanford Hospitals and Clinics
From Table 2, reflecting the results for SHC, it can be seen that the one-time net revenues are
estimated at $4.7 million, with an additional $7.6 million generated in City of Polo Alto impact
fees and $408,908 generated in PAUSD impact fees. The annual net fiscal impact at buildout is
estimated as a deficit of $6,963, which converts to a surplus of $16,829 When SHC is credited
with use tax payments on opplicable toxable purchases for existing operations.
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
The results for LPCH, presented in Table 3, indicate a one-time net revenue estimate of $2.6
million, with additional City of Palo Alto impact fees of $2.3 million and PAUSD impact fees of
$207,505. The annual net fiscal impact at buildout is estimated as a deficit of $99,692, which
becomes a deficit of $99,224 when LPCH is credited with. use tax payments on applicable
taxable purchases for existing operations.
School of Medicine
The $oM does not entail any net new development. As shown in Table 4, one-time revenues
anticipated to accrue to the City over the construction period total $917,998. No impact fees
are anticipated given the lack of any net new square footage. Upon full completion, the net
revenue generated will total $64,278 per year, associated with increased on-site taxoble retail
sales and utility users tax.
Non-SUMe
The non·SUMC category is included to present revenues associated with non·SUIv\C
employment in the medical office space at the Hoover Pavilion site. This category does not
include construdion of additionol square footage because the square footoge is attributed to
the SUMC entity that will own the buildings. Table 5 shows that net reven~ will total $2,854
per year, associated with employee spending and revenues from fines and penalties. The
annual net fiscal impact is estimated as a defiat of $25,457.
SUMC PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 43 FEBRUARV2009
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Summary
In summary, on an annUal basis, the SHC and LPCH camponents of the SUMC Project are both
projected to generate a small annual deficit to the City of Palo Alto General Fund upon full
buildout, while the SoM component will generate a slight surplus. Thedeficif for SHC converts
to a surplus when the SUMC Projed is credited with use -tax revenues generafed by spending for
existing operations assuming SHC obtains a use tax direct payment permit as requested by the
City of Palo Alto. However, even if these additional use tax revenues are not credited.to the
SUMC' Project, the large one-time revenue benefits generated during the construdion period
assuming project confradors and sub-contradors obtain seller's subpermits for the construction
project will pr(IVide a substantial and significant surplus to the City of Palo Alto that. will for
outweigh potential deficits.
SUMC PROJECT fiSCAl IMPACT ANALYSIS 44 fEBRUARY 2009
CBRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
. CBRE COll$ulting, Inc. has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the
information contained in this study. Such information was compiled from CI variety of sources,
including interviews with government officials, review of City and County documents, and other
third parties deemed to be' reliable. Although CBRE Cpnsulting, . Inc. believes all information in
this study is corred, it does not warrant the accuracy of such information and assumes no
responsibility for inaccuracies in the information by third parties.' We have no responsibility to
update this report for events and circumstances occ:urring after the date of this report. Further,
no gl,.larantee is made as .,to the possible effed on development of present or future federal,
state or local legislation, intluding any regarding environmental or. ecOlogical matters. .
The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions
developed in connedionwith the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the
projections, were developed using currently avaiiaDle economic data and other relevant
information. It is the nature of. forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not
materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, ddual results
achieved during the projection period will likely, vary from the projections, and some of the
variations may be material to the conclusions of the analysis.
Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any eledronic data
processing files, programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research
effort, unless explicitly so agreed as pa,"! of the contract.
This report may not be .used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared. Neither
all nor any part of the contents of this study shall be dillSeminated to the public through
publication advertising media, public relations, news media, sales media, or any other public
means of communication without prior written consent and approval of CBRE Consulting, Inc.
· .
CIRE CONSULTING, INC. CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
APPENDIX: EXHIBITS
r
Cchibit 1
Summary of SUMC FadIitias &isfing and Planned Projad o-:ription, 2007. 2015 and 2025
SUMC PYojad F'1ICaI1mpa<t Analysis
-•.. ~.---
~ c-tNdioI>Cri::"-201S Sq.A. iiUli NIt awn".
Iilc:il"dy/U.(I) \20071 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. s,. R. (21
~Mgj!2§b
Hospital 788,232 1,100,000 0 1,100,000
Cnnic J Medical OIID 658,883 0 1M>·lOOI ~Or'OOI
s"btoIoI 1;147,115 1,100.000 (40,100) 1,059,906
l!:!s:; H_ ~i5!!llii!i
Clink / MedIClaI 0IIiCI0 84,230 0 0 0
Medal Offica 0 150,000 0 60,000
Sf.>rage / Shops 13,!31 0 !13~311 {I 31S31 I
Subtatol 98,061 60,000 (13 31) 46,169
l!I!!!IlIK
HaepaaI 788,232 1,100,000 0 1,100,000
NoI ... 'ioIpitai 15(;lM4 60.!!!.2 (53.931) 6,(169
Su*taI 1,545,176 1.160,000 (53,931) 1,1OO,ocw
j,fQ:!
Hospital 274.700 471,300 0 471,300
Cr.n;" I Medical Office 79,800 50,000 l!!,8001 e!.!!2l
Sublclal 3$4,500 521.300 (79.8001 441.soo --_._--_._----_ ... -..
.$.RM
Rasooan::h I lAboratory 467,203 185,(100 {65,798j 119,202
lOT.AL 2,366}179 l.B66.aoo (199,529) 1,666,771
---_. ~ _________ L-.
2015 CoraIrucI;an~6-2025 202.5
IuiIdout IkIiIt Nat a-g. 8uiIdoII
Sq. A. (3) Sq.A. . Sq. A. Sq.Ft.(2) Sq. A. (3)
1,888,232 0 (3S6,87S) (356,87S) 1,531,357
61~783 429~ i!2!.17~ 120,824 739,607
2,so7,o15 429 1665,os1) (236,051) 2.270,964
84,230 0 0 0 84,230
60,000 0 0 0 60,000
0 0 0 0 0
144,230 0 0 0 144,230
1,888,232 0 (356)J7~ 1356,8751 1,531,357
763.l:!1a 4'J9llOO (308,1761 120,fU 883,837
2,651,245 "'29,000 f665,CJ51) (236,051) 2,415,19'
746.000 0 0 0 746,000
50,000 0 0 0 50,000
796.000 0 0 0 796,000 --------_._---
~,405 229,977 (349,179! (119.202) 467,203
4,033,650 _,971 11.01"',230) (!55,253) S~78,397
Sol/~ SUMC ~ocation. "!'art 3 _ Project o-ftp1ion",...;..,d Docemboor 11, 2008 (poor City of Palo N/o'a ......bsiIe); Slanfotd UI'IMniIy Land, Buildings and Real Estate; OI'Id caR! CoNlliling.
--
(1) Aaon)'ft1$ stand for Slanfonl Hocpifal and crtnia (SHe), I..udIe ~ Oi!dten'o Hospital 1lPCH). and Stanfoc,:I School of Maclk/ne r,;oM/.
(2) CoICilllated br sub!ro<:ting the demol!Jhecl squa .... foohz!!l" '""" the bull ~ ... foohz~.
(3) ColCillIata:! br adding the eoisIing sq""'''' foaIog .. end ,t. net chong" SItl""'" ~.
(4) CaI""latod by .... ding "'" chang" square ~ for 2009-2015 and 2016-202S.
2009·2025
Nata-g.
Sq. A. (.4)
743,125
80,724
823,849
0
60,000
p3,831 1
46,169
743,125
126m
810,018
471,300
!29.!!!£1
441,soo
0
1,311,51.
CBIIE~, 2'119/21109 N:\l~.;-'.2007\lOO1Oo13~"""kinio--~ fI_~.R01""
&hi,. 2
o..an.d SUMC FIiIa'1llies ~ ond I'IannId f'Iqect o-tpIIon. 2007, 2015 ancI2025
SlIMe ""'feet fiICIIIIlmpact Ana/yIi&
IOoioIov ~:r2015 2015 eo-.....~ 201~2Q2S 202S 2CI09-402S
I'adIIIr (2007) NIta.... a ...... .. DMwII.... !'ilia.... 8II'Idcut Nota.... Uot %ft. Sq.ft. $q.Ft. \Sq. ft.) Sq.ft. .... '" .... ft. (Iq. ft., Iq. Ft. \Sq.Ft.)
SHC/!Ic!inSil·
1959 HoopitaI-EaoVWesVCorel"'-ll HOSfIIIaI 133,1)25 0 133,025 (l3ll,025) \133.025J 0 [133.025) 1959 Haopital-~..v~ 0ini0;IMedica10lli .. 308,176 0 308.176 (308,176) CJ08.1761 0 (3as.176) H.....ptaI Madorri2Olioft l'nI;tI<I Hospital 431,280 0 431,280 0 431,280 0 Emy HClpitai 77 _ 0 77 a 71 0 81aloe w;a,.".Olnl< CliniclMediu.! Ollie. 73,100 0 13,100 0 73,100 0 Aci", ... "".d Moo<kln! c:er.-cr~OIIie. 2201,836 0 214,836 0 224,836 0 801Welcllllcod ~0fIU 12,671 0 12,671 0 12,671 0 New SHC IioofIIaI HoopitaI 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100.000 0 1,100.000 1,100.000
"'-$tiC C501icIMocdicol 0Ifica CliniclMedicai ot&ce 0 0 0 .G9,000 42'5',000 429.000 429,000
1101 WeIch~d Clinic/Medical 0Ita 40,100 \040,100) (40,100) 0 0 0 (40,100) eo.. bpansion (1973) Hospital ~3J!5O 0 223,850 mg3~1 ~§,~ 0 l223.!§2l Totcl SHC Main SiIe 1"",7,115 1,100.000 ,000,tOOl 1 JiS9,900 tso7,015 .129.000 (6655ij I2360ij 2,270,964 823,a.c9
~ ,_ I'DYiIIon ~
H_ ' MaIn IMIding ClfniclMoodicol 0IIic0 84,230 0 8C.23O 0 &4,230 0
tt-r -mile:. SkncgeIShcps 13,831 (13..831) {I 3,8311 0 0 0 (13..831)
Mooofal ~. -ComIlMlilJ ""dice MecIi<DI 0Ib 0 60,000 6O.!ll!Q 60,000 0 60,000 :lW Te>taIlioc>vet f\roiIiun 9',061 £,000 (13,8311 ",169 1401,230 0 0 0 144,230
Il9:I.
Ma&tKospilal Hospital 274,700 0 214,700 0 274,700 0
New IJ'CH Ho.spilol Hosp;taI 0 471.300 471,300 471.300 0 471,300 471,300
_lPCH CliIriclModOcai 0IIi0i0 OifticfMedicai ot!Ioa 0 so.ooo 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 50,000
701Weid1_ Clinio:fMlldical 0IIi .. 56,300 (56,300) (56,3OOj 0 0 0 (56,300)
703W~Rood C~ICOI 0IIi .. 231200 ~iI [pe 0 0 0 g3r!i2!!J
T ..... LPCW 35A,500 521,300 17'91 4011,500 796.000 0 0 0 796,000 4011,500
~
111$.000 185,000 0 185.000 185.000 Fourodcrtian in Modicit>e I ~CIbcr-.y 0 185,000
Foundation in Moodici ... 2 ~ 0 0 0 120.000 .-120.000 120,000 120,000
Fovndofion in Modici1>e 3 ~ 0 0-0 lrHln7 109,977 109,977 109,917
Grant ~ 151.982 0 lS1,982 (lSI.982) (151.9821 0 (151,982)
N-r ~ 801.7) 7 0 801,717 (801.717) ""n7) 0 (8VI7]
Lo ... ..... 1'dVlabarolory 112 ... 80 0 112,A80 (112,A1IO) (112.480) 0 (112,480)
EcIwo:u* Ronon:hIl~ 65,798 [65,798) 1&5,7!I8J 0 0 0 (65,7981
~8\CIIding ~ !2~6 0 52.226 0 ~33~ 0
T ..... SaM 467,203 111$,000 {65,79111 "~,.202 586",05 229,977 (3-i9,179J (119,202) .'6.203 ii
TOrAL 2,366,879 1,866,300 (1",5291 1.M6.771 4,o3l1MO 658.971 (1.01...." (356.2531 3,678;8'11' 1,311)118
SOun;w, SUMC ~ .,."" 3 -Project Olkriplion·."..;,.d DoaImber II, 200811* 0Iy 01 Palo Attds webriIaI; SIanbd um-.iIy \.arid, lI"ilolngo and RtIIII &boll; and caRE ~
CIII! c..-... t/1,J2OO'I "':\T~7\IGll7OGSIanIn\W""'_~""'''''''IID1.a1o
Exhibit 3
Summary of SUMC facilities Square feet, 2007, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Project F"1SCa~ Impact Analysia
.... Chanae~. Ft.) (1}
SUMC Entity . 2009·2015 2015-2025 200P·2025
SHe (Main St.) 1,059,900 (236,051) 823,849
SHe (Hoover PoviIion Site) 46,169 0 46£169
Subtotal • SHC 1.106,069 (236.051) 870,018
LPCH 441.500 0 441,500
SoM 119,202 (1l9,202~ 0
TOTAl. 1.666,771 (355,253) 1,311,518
.... 5 Ft. fer Riaht Sizing m
I'wcantaga of
Buildout (Sq. Ft.) OJ
• Sq. ft. Net Change 2007 2015
320,000 (3) ~ 1,447,115 2,507,015
0 O'IG 98,061 144£230
320,000 37% .1,545.176 2,651,245
126,000 ~ 354,500 796.000
0 0'Kt 467,203 586,405
446,000 34% 2,366,879 4.G33,650
Sourcw. Exhibit 1; SUMC Application, "Po~ 3 • Project Dercsiptioff, Table 3-2. rlWiseci Deamber ", 2008 (per City of Palo Alto'll webIiM); and CBRE COI1Iulting.
(11 s.e Exhibit 1.
2025
2,270,964
144~30
2,415,194
796,000
467,203
3.678,397
(2) from SUMC App6CD1ion.
(3) lncIudas 295.000 Iquare fevt to canvert and INpport the current invomory ofsingl .. bad and semi-pri\lUla roomtto alisingl.bed rooms and 25,000 square feet for !he undersized
emergency degarfment shared SHC and lPCH.
CBRE ConsuMng, 2/19J2(109 N.\T~\2001\l007043 Starlbd\Womng Doo:um"""~ I'iHof fmpad.l101.m
Exhibit .4
SUMC Facilities Pati~nt Visits ahd Employment Estimates, 2006,2015 and 2025
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
Projected Projected Net Increase
Item. 2006 2015 2025 2009-2015 2009-2025
Hospital Patient V!sf1s (1 )
Annual Outpatient VISits
SHC
LPCH
TOTAL
Annuollnpafient Days
SHe
LPCH
TOTAl
Average Daily Census
SHC
LPCH
TOTAl
Employment (2)
SHC
LPCH
SoM (3)
Non-SUMC
TOTAL
403,885 470,923
107,363 138~893
511,248 609,816
132,182 150,835
70,752 85,978
202,934 236,813
362 413
194 ~ 236
556 649
5,240 6,274
1,666 2,609
2,823 2,823
151 257
9,880 11,963
572,949 67,038 169,064
153,349 31,530 45.986
726,298 98,568 . 215,050
169,749 18,653 37,567
109£886 15.226 391134
279,635 33,879 76,701
465 51 103
301 42 107
766 93 210
6,562 979 1,251
2,655 850 892
2,823 0 0
257 100 100
12,297 1,929 2,243
Sources: SUMC Application, "Part 5 -Demographics and Operations" revised December 11, 2006 (per City of Palo
Alto's website); Keyser Mar.ton Associates, Inc.(KMA}, "Draf1 Housing Needs Analysis, Proposed Expansions:
Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center: June 2008; and C6RE Consulting.
(1) Estimates of hospital patient visits are provided by the SUMC Application. Hospital visitorship is projected to
stobilize in 2018, at the levels shown for 2025.
(2) See Table 1·3 iProiecled Increose in Employment and Adjustments for Part Time') of KMA's report for
employment figures. Employment figures are adiusted to account for part time employees by weighing part time
. employees based on their percentage of a full time schedule. Estimates are rounded to whole numbers.
(3) According to KMA, replacement of the existing 80M facilities is not projected to result in an inc.reose in
employment.
CORf Consultina, 'J/19/2009 N:\ T.am·~dway\P'oied$\,}OO7\100i'043 Stanforcl\Warking Ooallnems\Model\SUMC fiscolbnpacl.R07 .xls
'Exhibit 5 .
Hotel Nights Generated by SUMC Expansion, 2007, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Project FiscaJ Impad Analysis
SUMC EnIity/ltem
lPCH
Inpatient Days (1)
Hotel Nights from LPCH (2)
Hotel Nights as Percent of Inpatient Days 13)
SHC
Inpatient Days (1)
Hotel Nights as Percent of Inpatient Days (4)
Hotel Nights from SHe (4)
TOT Ai. • Hotel Nights
2007
70,752
4,592
6%
132,182
3%
4,289
B,881
Years
2015
85,978
5,580
6%
150,835
3%
4,895
10,475
2025
109,886
7,132
6%
169,749
3%
5,509
12,641
NetChoI1ge
2007.2015 2007·2025
15.226
988
18,653
606
1,594
39,134
2,540
37,567
1,220
3,760
Sources: Exhibit,4; luole Packard Children's Hospital, Housing Departmenti Stanford Hospital and Oinics, Housing Assistance Office; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 4. Inpatient days are calculated by multiplying average daily census by 365 days. Full occupancy would equal the total number of
beds muhiplied by 365 days. .
(2) Hotel nights es1imafe for 2007 represents the overage number of hotel nights for rlScol Year 2002 through FISCOI Year 2007, as provided by
LPCH. Estimates for 2015 and 2025 are based on the inpatient days projeclions and the 2007 hotel nights percen1age of total visitorship, which
was 6 percent, os shown. FigUres are rounded 10 whole numbers.
C3} Percentage for 2007 was calculated using inpatient days a~ hotel nights as shown. Because future year hotel sk1y projections were not
available, it was assumed thot the "Hotel Nights as Percent of Inpatient Days" will remain consiont in 2015 and 2025, at 6 percent.
(4) Hatel night figures were not available for Stanford Hospital and Clinics. The only information available from SHC was the number of patients
that were given housing assistance. This figure was not sofficient for estimating hotel nights, because it does not account for the type of housing
(hotel, apartment, or other housing), the number of rooms provided, or the number of nights. Research conducted by CBRE COM$uhing to
determine the relationship between inpatient days and hotel nights gener~ at other hospitals of equal regional caliber to SHC also did not
provide such information. CBRE Consulfing therefore conservatively used half the "Hotel Nights as Percent of rnpatient Days" from LPCH, as
shown in this exhibit, to estimate the hotel nights from SHe. Figures are rounded to whole numbers.
C9IIe c:...-v-e. 2/19/2009 N."T~\2IlO7\!OO70C3~W~o.....-."IJ\<IDdoI\,5UMCFioI::d Im~"
&nibit 6
aty of ftoIo Alto and SphanI of lniluenaa Darnographic:s, 2005-2010 and FiIcaI Years 2005-2006 iO 2008·2009
SUMC ProIed FiIcaIImpac:t Analpis
9!!: of Palo NID FaIo1;lr tAlnI-
~ rw.-t Dar-1ime p;jpUiCIi& T ...... Dar-T_
Year JIopuIalian ttou..Idd TataI .... PapuIatiIIn ~ in HGUIIIfIaIcI& Sfuc:IanIa JIopuIalian ToIaIJobt PapuIaIIon
~sUodarY_
2005 61~ (1) 27.522 (61 2.2 (n) 15,610 (12) ",4.55 (104) 28,282 (IS) 62,220 (16) 14,ASS (17) 76,678 (20) 95,710 (12) 124.533 (14)
2006 62.424 (I) 27,642 (71 2.3 (n) 75,968 (13) l00,4~ (14) 28,613 (15) 65,810 (161 14,455 (17) 80,265 (201 96,217 (21) 128,371 (1")
2007 62,615 (I) 27,763 (6J 2.3 (11) 76,326 113) 100,778 (1") 28,948 (15) 66,sao (16) 14,476 (17) 81;056 (20) 96,714 (21) 129,413 {14}
2008 62.846 !2) 27,88818) 2.3 (11) 76.684 (13) 101,188 (I.) 29,078 (15) 66,880 (16i) 14.570 [1B) 81,450 (20) 91,216 (21) 130.058 i14)
200!1 63.150 (2) 28,01.181 2.3 (11) 77.IU2 (13) 101,67' (,.) 29,209 (15) 67.1.81 (161 ' • .670 (1B) 81,851 (20) . 97,718 (21) 130.710 (14)
2010 63,424 (2) 28,126 (8) 2.3 (11) 77,400 (12) 102,12. (14) 29,341 (15) 61,.483 (161 14,770 (1B) 82,253 (20) 98,220 (12) 131,363 (14)
fist I"'"
2005-06 62.14 (3) 27.582 (9l 2.3 (11) 75,789 (9) 100,043(104) 28.A48 (9) 04,015 (9) 14,456 (19) 78;0471 (20) 95,961 (9) 126,457 (14)
2006-07 62,61' (3) 27,703 l'D} 2.3 (11) 76.147 (10) 100.689 (14) 28,781 (10) 66.195 (10) 14,.465 (19) 80,660 (20) 96",,3 (10) 128.892 (14)
2007-08 62,131 (4) 27,826 (4) 2.3 (11) 76,505141 l00.984(t4) 29.013 (41 66,73014) 14,520 (19) 81,250 (20) 96.965 (4) 129,733 (14)
2008.()9 62,998 (5) 27.951 (5J 2.3 (11) 76..863 (5) 101,430 (I.) 29.1 .... (5) 67.031 (5) 14,620 (19) 81,651 (20) 91,467 (5) 130.385 (14)
Nc:rhr. ContInued an I1ftt pose.
c:w c:or..hi... 211912009 N..\T~l007043 Sta"""""w.n;". ~'Io\odoII,SI.K I'IooaIlnIpIICI.1I07'"
Exhibit 6, eontinved
City of Palo Alto and Sphere of Influence Demoga ..... 1ioi. 2005-2010 and Fiiad Yeal$ 2005-2006 to 2008-2009
SUMC PrafectFiscallmpoct Anat,sis
Sources: City of PQ/o Alto, D.pgrtment of I'kInning and Community Environment; Qy of Palo Alto "2008·09 Propcsed Operating Budget"; Slate of Califomia. Department of Fmonca (OOP) "E.1
Population Eslimalas far Citles, Countitrs c:rtd the SIcn with Annual Perc;ent Chang_ -.Jonvary 1. 2006 Qnc! 2007", SaaaI1'llll'llo, CcdifomlQ, ""'" 2007; Association of Bay .4Wa Goo.m"",';'
(ABAG), ·Ptojclions 2007". S!anford University Land, Bullcinga and Rael EstatB; 5fonford UnNersity. "Stanrord Facts 200tr; Qnc! CBRE Consulting.
(1) OOF da1a provided by the City of Palo Alto Department tI Planning and Community EnviroIomtII.t.
(2) Estimates prcM'ded by"" City tI Palo Alto o.partnMWIt of Planning and Community El'IYironmenL
(3) DemographiC !lata from pog_ 293 of the City of Palo Alto's "2008-09 PI'oposed Operating Budgal". Fiscal yeor 2006-2007 papufoflon figure e:ensiltBnt with 2007 DOF January 1. 2007
population BSlimole. i.e., the mid-point of the fiscal year.
(4) CBRE Consulting _males based on 2007 ond 2008 GV8I'Ogei fig_ ON rounded.
(5) CBRE CoravIting Bllimotas band on 2008 and 2009 ~; figures are 1VIInC:hId.
{6t City of Palo AIto's 1I:m:aI housing unils from OOPs May esIImatac.
(7) ClRE Consulting _mate bo$ed on iIle 2005 and 2007 data; figure is roundad.
18} The 2008 and 2009 hwsehold estirnotec are cofculated by i~ng the pAWious,.an estimafv by 0.45 pereetII and the 2010 estimate by inCAlaSing the 2009 estimen at a me of 0.40
perctInt per the City of Palo Alto Departm.m of Piamittg and Community Erwironl118nt. Figures 'Ire rounded.
(9) CIRE Consulting eslimat. based on 2005 and 2006 avetagB; figurw arefO\Wlded.
{10} CBR.e Consulting estimate based on 2006 and 2007 ~i figures are rounded. t
(11) CBRE Consulting estirni:dw based on dMding population by households; consistent with figures prollided by the City of Palo Alto DepaI1mant of Planning and Community Environment.
(12) E~ data from MAG "Projec:rions 2007.-
(13) ORE ConsU1ing estimate based on anllUQl job growth from 2005 to 2010 of 358 jobs.
(14) OG)'"lime population estimated br adding population and 50 percant oftalQl lobs; figuNs are roundecI.
(15) Sphere of Influence (SOl) household astimoteI are consistent with ~ "Draft Stanlicrd Shcpping Center &pcmsion &lonornic Impad/Urban DecDy Ana.,.is", June 2008. The 2005 estimate
of SOl houMhoIds is the 7l ,522 households that the DOF ~ ~ in the City of Palo Alto in 2005 plus the 760 households ihat Slemord UnMnity Land, Buildings and !teat Es1cn
estimalas lived on the Stanford Ca~ (part of the City of Palo Alto SOl) as of 2000. The 760 figure exdudes households rIVing in ihe Stanford W." Apartments becouse 1"-hausehokb are
located within City boundaries and are aIraady counted as such. Housahalds in 2006 are intwpolated n.-, the 2005 atimate and c 2007 estimate. The 2007 esfmate is the OOPS May
2001 estimate of housing units in the City of Palo Alto plus the 760 households living on the Stanford campus as of 2000 plus 425 MW hollling units lICIt Stanford UnMnily Land, Buildings and
Real Estate ectimates ...... built on the Slanrord aunpus br the beginning of 2007. ktnud. growth rate& from 2008 to 2010 far households in Palo Alto .. SOl are tom the City of Palo Alto.,
Department of Planning and Community Environmmt. The 200B number of houtehoIds itt the SOl is estimated by incNasing the 2007 8111irnale by 0,.45 percent as proooided"by the City of Palo
.Alto Department of Planning and Community EI wironment; the 2009 figure is _malad sim.1atty. The 2010 number of hausahoIcls in the SOl is estimated by inaeasing"8 2009 estimate by
0.40 perwrd as providacl by the City of Palo Alto Oeparfmenl of I'IcInning and Community Environment. This approach _"nMewed and apprcwed by Roland Rivera of the City of PGlo ~
Department of Planning and Community Enviranmanl. "
(16) Ellimated by multipl,ing SOl howehold. by City of PaIoAlto persons per household estimate. ~ are fOUnded.
(17) CBRE Consulting estimate based an sdlool calendar,.ar data prQl/ided by S1unford UniYarsity, .duding the students living in the _ 425 jndiYicluaI.sIudent hoIning units buill by the
begiMing of 2007. which are al.-dy included in the SOl households estimcte; figures are rounded.
{lSI ORE Consulting esIimata based on onnual growth in student population from school years 2000 to 2007 of 100 students, based on daIa from Stanford University.
(19) Demographic dGla provided by 5fcnford Univeorsity, -=Iuding the students living in the new 425 individual sludent housing unn built by the beginning of 2007, which are already included in
the SOl households estil1lOle. Estirncns assume a school ClCIlendar year is the l8quiwllent of a fi$ClCll year.
(20) CBRE Consulting estimate basecI on the sum of popuIcIt;onin households and Stanron:I studern.
(21) CBRE Consulting ftfirnate based on annual job growth from 2005 to 2010 of S02 jobs, basecI on data from ABAG.
C8II! Cono.Afi..... 2/1 '/2009 N:\T~~7\lOlml43 5IanfonI\wofting ~VrWoI\SUIIIC fiscollfllPOlt,llQ)'''
Exhibit 7
SHC Use Tax Payments, Fiscal Years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007
SUMC Proied Fiscollmpad Analysis
Fiscal Year Fiscal Yeor Fiscal Year
Payment Month (1) 20Q4-05 2005-06 2006-07
September $35,657 $52,513 $76,854
October $47,543 $65,477 $61,864
November $21,222 $39,347 $112,108
December $22,573 $38,633 $67,372
January $48,001 $57,840 $86,888
February $35,175 $91,244 $85,727
March $23,100 . $36,333 $45,616
April $36,775 $65,414 $109,194
May $28,828 $58,752 $77,996
June $79,246 $81,971 $73,412
July $45,294 $28,571 $47,881
August $50,435 $45,002 $47,897
Total Paid $473,848 $661,098 $892,811
Sources: Stanford Hospitol and Clinics, Finance Department; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) Payments reflect previous month's use tox net of estimated refunds or
octuol refunds, if any.
CBRE Co~ulling, 2/1912009 . N:\Team.Sedwoy\Project&\2007\l 007043 Slanford\Working Oowments\Model\SUMC AiOOllmpoct.R07.xls
Exhibit 8
LPCH Use Tax Payments, Fiscal Years 2004·2005 to 2006.2007
SUMC Proiect Fiscallmpad Analysis
Payment Month (1)
September
October
Nov~mber
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Total Paid
Fiscal Year
2004-05
$8,590
$8.298
$10,169
$5,600
$6,365
$3,004
$4,396
$6,065
$2,603
$3,579
$4,329
$3,562
$66,561
Fiscal Year .
2005·06
$6;691·
$3,478
$5,668
$1,757
$3,782
$3,597
$4,150
$5,535
$4,023
$4,869
$5,385
$6,383
555,320
FiscoIYeor
2006-07
$3,(>59
$3,171
$2,578
$493
$4,364
$2,929
$2,575 .
$2,819
$3,817
'$2,033
$2,565
$2,916
533,919
Sources: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Finance Department; and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) Each payment i, for the previous month's use lox.
CBRE Consulting, 2/1912009 N:\ Team..$edway\Projec.Is\2007\1007043 sranford\Working DoeumenIc\fv\odel\')UMC Fiscallmpact.R07 .lds
Exhibit 9
Use Tax DinIct Payment Permit Holder RebcrI. PR;a.C8 •• in Califomia
Sernmber,2008
SUMC Project FiIcoIIrnpad Analysis
City WoaIe I"RIgRInI Qualill'caliona
SSsgundo 50 pet'Qlllt of the addiIionoi use tax to the ciIy AIry OOsi.-, assuming it pa)'S a use tax.
is ClppJied as a credit towards business licanse
aISfs.
NegOlialad ~se. For a ~ busi~ Program is new. so no standards hOYe be.'!
planning to mOl'e into Long Bead!, the established fur tfle _ue sharing or aIher
bvsiness share may be os high as 65 percent seM .. ,
Long Beach
of tf!e additional at, ~ with the
ramaining 35 perant 9oin91o the City. For
oomraonies already IocaIed in Long heidi,
the revenue is gen.-olly split 50/50 ~n
the bu:sIn.I and the City.
Permit holder reQlivu 20 percent of1fle Company must ho'Ie had pun:hoses of at '-'
added rvvenv. to the City. Las Angeles is $500.000 in the 12-montb f*iodprior tv
Los Angel_
pumling legisilifion thAt wiI require app/fing for the permit ($Iondard for aD
contracIars to hClYe diNd pay permits for incentive progroms in Los Mgeles).
gcwwnment contracts (!My Will shlll'9Olive
the 20 perctnt rebate).
Cosh rebate of 25 basis points on the 1oIa1 firms that a.-the business tax Cracrrt may
IICII_ or purd!OM price, or a business use it to pay tMir onnuar _ness b'lseiQK
fax/d~ent" credit of 45 bClsis points and/or fees from new faQIiIy dvveIopment.
on thelolQl sole or purchase price. Credit may be "msIIed in" at a later dale.
Son Diego
G_raIy 50 pergant, but vorl. and mClf be Th_ are no specific: qualificalklns. but recent
as low os 10 peraKII. po!Iicipants had budgets bet-., $20 and $40
million. Usually new or &JCpOIIding b ........
Tulare
partidpa18 as on ec:gnomic dwelopment
benefit.
v_ Nurnberof a,' '*,,-PRIgram-Companillll that
(Spdic: ConsuIrantt) E$tabIishecI Hav8 Used I'ragr!im
None. t-J/A "AIel"
2007 "AIIrw"
No esiclbliched program. but
City is open fa nagaliatiol15.
City provides a tQx 2004 or 2005
consultant.
. City pro!!IicIes a tax 2001 15 or 16 sinea i~prion
consultant.
C"rty piO"idas a II:IK CIOn8UItant M/A 2
but ~ tfI. ~throu9h tv
the company.
SourC8ll: Ec.anomic DMopment OffiQlS of EI Segundo, long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tular.; and CBRE Conaulling.
alE Cans.M .... 2I19fJIKYJ N:\T~1007043Stri>n1\WooWnt~l'isaoIhnpoct.1III7"
Exhibit 10
SHe and Subsidiaries Operating Expenses, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
In Thousands of Dollars
SUMC Projed Rscallmpad Analysis
"
Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Item Amount Percentage Amount Percentage
Salaries and Benefits $595,789 43% $664,522 46%
Professional Services $24,274 2% $23,609 2%
Supplies $213,012 16% $236,010 16%
Purchased Services $370,482 27% $368,874 25%
Provision for Doubtful Accounts $58,930 4% $46,175 3%
Depreciation and Amortization $39,372 3% $44,934 3%
Interest $20,848 2% $22,988 2%
Other $100,804 7% $106,029 7%
Expense Recoveries from Related Porties (152,3711 -4% !$65 1437! -5%
TOTAL $1,371,140 100% $1,447,704 100%
Sources: "Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements, August 31,2007 and
2006~I; and CBRE Consulting.
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projecls\2007\ 1007043 Slonford\Working Documents\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpacl.R07 .)(1.
Exhibit 11
LPCH Operating Expenses, Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
In Thousand. of Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Item
Salaries and Benefits
Professional Services
Suppr.es
Purchased Services
Provision for Doubtful Accounts .
Other
Depreciation and Amortizalion
TOTAL
Fiscal Year 2005·2006
Amount Percentage
$226,952
$9,017
$30.052
$132,564
$9,641
$36,553
$16,957
$461.736
49%
2%
7%
29%
2%
8%
4%
100%
Fiscal Year 2006·2007
Amount Percentage
$252,507
$10,306
$35,934
$159,032
$11,137
$101,023
$19,333
$589,272
43%
2%
6%
27%
2%
17%
3%
100%
Sources: -Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford Financial Statements, August 31,2007
and 2006"; and CBRE Consulting.
C8RE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Team.Sedway\Proled&\2007\ 1007043 Skanford\Working Docurnenls\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpacl.R07 .xIs
exhibit 12
Calculotion of City of Palo Alto Sales and Us. Tax RevenUes Assuming SHC and LPCH Use Tax Direct
Payment Permits
Fiscal Year 2006·2007 Adjusted to 2008 Dollars (1)
SUMC Proiect Fisallimpad Analysis
FY2006·07
Total
Spanding (2)
TGllClb'
Spending (3)
Prospective City Soles and
U .. Tax ltevenun 14~!t
Entily /Vendor l.ocollon
~
Polo Alto
Other California (7)
Other U.S. (9)
I nternolionol
Total'
.I.f!Q1
PaloAho
Other California (7)
Other U.S. (9)
International
Total
TOTAL
$375,000 $0
$155,180,000 $91,645,000
$80,110,000 $13,330,000
$345,000 $0
$236,010,000 $104,975,000
$26,000 $0
$29,480,000 $14,042,000
$6,326,000 $452,000
$102.000 $0
$35,934,000 $1.4,494,000
$271,944,000 1119,469,000
$0 (6) $0
$0 (8) $0
$133,300 (101 $139,793
$0 (10) SO
$133,300 $139,793
$0 (6) $0
$0 (8) $0
U,520 (10) $4,740
10 Po) $0
$4,525 $4,740
$131,820 1144,533
Sources: Stanford Haspilol and Clinics, Finance and Purchasing Departments; Bureau of Labor Siotistics (8LS); ond C8RE
Consulting.
(1) Fiscal y8ar starting September 1, 2006 and ending Au9ust 31, 2007.
(2) Ag .. ed to financioiliotemenls supply eacpense and excludes lolories and benefits, payments to School of
Medic.ine/Stanford University, capital payments such as construction contracts and purchases of equipment qnd professional
services for temporoty stoff and outsoureed services. Amounts by location based on extrac;ts from procure to pay system and
general ledger payments. Amounts are not greater thon $500.000.
(3) Agreed to procurement system 8'Cfract and extrod of soles 1ax payments.
(41 FilUll Yeor 2006·2007 tolCQbIe spending figures are inflated to 2008 based on the consumer price index for the Western
U.S, with on inflation rote of ".87 percent, derived from the BLS information from June 2007 to June 2008.
(5) Figures are rounded to dollars. .
(6) Soles tex revenues will acCJ'U8 to the City of Polo Alto's Generol Fund from Palo Alto sol •.
(7) Exclude. the City of Palo Alto. Spending primarily relDles to physicion special1y items that are non·taxable.
(8) Use fax revenues win not oc;c;rue to the City of Polo Allo's General Fund from Other California sales.
(9) Excludes the Stale of California.
(10) Use tox I'8WInues will acc:rue to the City of Palo Alto's General Fund from Other U.S. and Internationol soles.
N:\Team·SedwoNrojed.\2007\1007043 Stonbd\Working OocumenlaWodel\SUMC I'iscollmpad.R07JC1&
Exhibit 13
City of Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax Revenues
Patient-Based Calculation Assuming SHe and LPCH Use Tax Direct Payment Permits
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Proiect Fiscallmpad Analysis
2008 Estimated Existing Annool
Sales and Use Patient Days ,~ To1aI Analytical
SUMC Entity Tax Revenues (1) Inpatient 0uIpment Patient Dcip (3'
[AJ [BJ [ C] [D-B+C/2]
SHC $139,793 132,182 403,885 334,125
LPCH $4,740 70.752 107,363 124,434
Sources: Exhibi1s 4 and 12; and CBRE Consulting.
Sales and Use
Tax Revenues per
Patient Day (4)
[E=A/DJ
$0.42
$0.04
(1) See Exhibit 12. This reflects the soles and use tax revenues that the City of Palo Alto would have rea.ived from SUMC in Fiscal
Year 2006-2007 if SUMC was the holder of a use tax direct payment permit at that time.
(2) See Exhibit 4 •.
(3) For analytical purposes, one inpatient dayf!quols iwo outpatient days, in recognition that inpatients are much more costly to serve
than outpatients given the high cost of overnight visi1s.
(4) Figures are rounded to the nearest 1wo decimal places.
CBRE Consullin~i2/1912009 . N:\Team-$edway'\Projects\2007\1007043 Slanford\Wor!cing Documenls\Model\SUMC F'lSCCIIlmpact.R07.JC1s
&hibit 14
Jnaotmental City 01 Palo Alto Sales and Use Tax RAwanues, 2015 and 2025
Patient-Based Ca1culatian Asluming SHe and LPOf Use Tax Dinld Pa,rnent Permits
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project FiKallmpact Analysis
----------_ ......
SalatandU.
Tca:~pw 2009-2015111"'.11111 .... FIiIIianI_
EnIIIy Patient (11 TGiIIii~PI
I ....... 0IApaIianIa
[AJ (8 I
SHe $0.42 '8,653
LPCH $0.04 15,226
TOTAl. SO.46 33,879
50_: &hIbiIt. 4 and 13: and C8IIE C"I'ISIIIting.
[11 S-exhibit 13-
(2) See Eochibit '"
(e]
67,038
31,530
98.56B
"""Dap
[D-.8 + C/21
52-In
30,991
83,163
2OIW-2025 ._I .... I'IIIIon~. DiKDunlI'oacIDr
. Talal PI for ..........
InpaII.nIo ~ IWanlDap SUMC"'f4I
IE) IF] IG=E+ F/2) [HJ
37,567 169,064 122.099 20.00%
39,134 45,'186 62,127 20.00% -
16)'01 215,080 1~ JI)J)ft
.iW ....... 1innuaI w.sand UseTao:
....... W
2009-2015 2009-2025
[1 ..... ·D·(1....,1 [J ..... -G·{1-HJ J
$17,530 $41,025
$992 51,988
$18.522 $43.013
(31 For ~lcaI purpc:I88Ip _ inpatient dc!y equals ~ ouIpaIient.,., in teCGgnilion ihat inpati .... are 1'IIIICtI_ t'IIIIIr to .... thtIlI outpatiwIIIg1wln the high co.t of -nght YIsIIs; _ Exhibit '3.
(41 CBRE ~ ~....ay ass_ that in blepjng wiIh pracIice$ in oIher CaIibnio cm., CIS doc:umoriId in Exhibit 9. the CiIr of Polo Alto ""II iebaN a portio'l of \he _Iv.-cdleclacl 01 a I'IIIIIIt of SHC and
U'CH'II u. _diIN ~ p8II'ftitL n. puII*8 ofthl. i9baIe ~ be_upeIlSCltOl,for the administratMt burden ~ with iN ... _ dited fIG7I'I8I'l permiIs. The _mecI rabGIe foranolytiall purpons
Is 20 fMII'I*I! {at the '--end of cities wiIh ~ pragtamSJ.
(S} FiguIW _ rounded 10 ..... daIIonJ.
CIIIIE o..-tIi .. 2/1 '12009 ,..,\Toa .. 5ocI ~~1\lOO71W3~WaoIins~~"'IImpacs.aD7"
Exhibit 15
Calculation of City of Pa!o Alto Capture of SHe and LPCH UH TCilt Expendiful'lilS
From Edting ~CIn1 and Project Opwalions
FISCal Year 2006-2097, 2015 and 2025, In' 2008 00I1a1'$
SlIMe Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
Item
DerMman of Additional Use Tcac Capiwed by Palo Alto r....Iti'!9 from Use Teo; Dm.ct ~ Permit
Us. T <I>< Payments to BOE
Use T<I>< Pa,nnents to aoe, Inflated to '2008 (4'
PeR:ent of NOn-Rscurring eq,.n~
Pen;ent of RlKurring E1cpandltunlll
Use TQlI Po,.,..,..rs to 80E frgm lWc;unlng ~ (7)
Use TQlt PoyIn9nts to BOE hom R8<utring Expeo~
50I'11II:I a:.ro County SoIIIS Tax Rat.
Deriwd IWc;unine Expenditures Genel'Clling Oired Use TolC Poyments 10 BOE (8)
Derived Recurring Ocpenditu_ G9nerc1ine Oirect Use Tox Pa,menls to BOE
fstirnatwd TOlIDbt .. Spending Oulside ear",,"*, (9t
Rsc:urring &penditutas Generating Direct Use TQJC f'QymenIs CIS Percent of Estimated Tcoabr. Spending
Add'monal Recurring Clpend'rturw POfIenIiol1y Gen.roting 0i1'lCl Use Tax ~nts 011 0 ltelult of Use TQlI Direct Poyment Permit, os "'"~
of Estimolvd T .... bko Sponding
Telal Dirwct Use Tax ~ from !dating OperatIons Aaum\rv Use Tax Dirwct Pa,m.nt P.rmit
fstirnatwd TCllOOble Spending Outside Corofomio (9)
local 501. Tax I!icIjQ
5o1es Tall Revenues At:cNing to City of PClIo Alto General Fund Assuming Use Tax on.ct Pbyment Pennlt (12)
P,...",med SUMC Rebcde for Administ~ Bvrden (131 '
Use TQX ReY8rl1.* kauing to City of 1"010 .Alto General Fund Ailer Rebcl18
Noles: Cc!ntinwd an I'I4Iilt pas ...
SAC!
,., 2006-2007 Aiftount m
U'CH TOTAL
$892,811 (2) $33,919 (3) $926,729
$936,301 $35,571 $971,872
2'% (5) 2n> (6) 27%
73% 73% 73%
$683,500 $25,967 $709,467
$683.soo $25,961 $709,467
8.25'" 8.25% 8.2".
$8,284,848 $314,152 $8,599,600 ,
$8,284,848 $314,752 $8,599,600
$13,330,000 5452.000 $13,182,000
62% . 70% 62%
38% {10) 30% (11) 38%
$13,330,000 $452.000 $13,782,000
1% 1,.. 1%
$133,300 $4,520 $137,820
20% 2OOi. 20%
$106.640 $3,616 $110,256
C8!! ~"'" 'lflf(1!Rl N;\T~\2001\1007043 ~wOltOne ~\ModoI\SUMC F"1l<XI11mpact.R07,Jds
EIdu'bit 15, conIinved
Calculation of 0Iy of l'iiio Alto Capture of SHe ancIlJICH Use Tax &penc:IituraI
FIQn &isIIng Op.rqtionsand Pn:Iied OpeIalions
FISCal Year 2006-2007. 201S and 2025. In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiaclallmpad Analysis
bam
AddiIioraI DiNCt Use Tax ..... hm.&iIting o,.....~ ..... T. DIN!;!,.,.." Permit
"-'rrinrI EacpondiIwwGeniNuling Dintct lIN Tax~1O ROE (l4)
ClIyofl'aloAito SclI .. TGlCIate . EsIi"'. of CUII1IIIt CiIy of Palo Alto Genenll futd Use Tax IWwanuas Assuming ,,",0 Use TIIX onct I'oymant Penni! (12)
u.. Tax ....... .-Aiuving 10 Cityofl'aloAllo GenetQl Fund Aflwl!ebale
Estill1Cll9 of CuMIt'It City of l'alo AIfo o-raI ~nd u .. Tax "*--...... ming No Use Tax Dn.ct Payment Permit
Annual Additiotd us. Tax ~ to City of Polo Alto GetIeRIl j;,nd from ~ 0pen:IIian ..... uming Use Tax Dn.ct PoJment Pennit
Irs a l'erantof Use Tax ~ heNng 10 CIty of I'aIoAlJo Genlmll Fund After a.baIe
Dirtd Use Tax ........ hrn Ell8ncled 0pInIIan&~ Use Tax DInId Pa,mri 1'ItImit. 2015
Un Tax """ueas0 a-ultofSUMC Project~ing UseTaxDitlld PGJl'lHlntl'ermit, Net of 20 """-nt Rebc:rIe,. 2015 (IS)
TOTAL Di,. UseTax...,... ....... U. Tax DiN!;! Parnwnt JtwmIt, 2015
Annual Additiol\Ol Use Tax .... n ..... to CrIy of Palo Alto General Fvnd !Tom:
&isting Opel'Olion ADuming U. Tax DitlldPaymenr Petmlt (16)
&panded OpeRlilion AssumiPg Use ,. Ditlld ~ .... rmit, 202S {16)
Total
D1nId U. TQX ..... flam E':IdencIed 0paraKarw ~ Use TQX ITnct ~ Pwrmit. 2025
u.. TGlI. Rwenue as 0 ResvIt of 5UMC Projed Allsuming Use Tax Diracf payment Parmit, Nat of 20 PwaInt RabaN, 2025 (15)
Tow. Ditlld Use TQX ..... AaIuming Use TQX DiNc:t Parment 1'IIrrit. 2Q2S
Annual Addilional Use TCIII. R809nua to City of PaIoAlJoGenel'Qlfund from:
Dcisting OpeJalion ARuming U .. Tax 0;_ Poyment Permit (f61
&par:tded Of*Qlian Aaumina Use TQX Direct PGJInenf Permit, 2025 (16)
Tatal
Not.: Continued on "., page.
. ____ .ArMuntO)
~------IJICH
18.284,8f8
1%
S82,848
$106,6040
582.848
$23,792
22'lrt
$17,530
$23,792
U':j30 1 22
$41,025
$23,792
$41025 iit.iit
5314,752
'" 53,148
$3,616
53,148
$468
13%
$992
$468
$992
11;460
$1,988
$468
$1 1988
$2,456
TOTAL
18.599,600
1%
585,996
$11G,.256
$85,996
$24,260
22%
$18,522
524,260
.$18.522
$4082
$43,013
524,260
5431°13
$67,273
CIIIE~· ... ,an9/201W N:\T~\2OO7\I0070GSIanfDId\WorlcMla ~ Fitc:DlImpaII.IIlI7"
i
~
I
J
I
f J'
i
CBRI! ConsuItine. 711tJ2009
Exhibit 16
Ccisling and Proposed Rsvenue-Generafg SHe and LPCH Programs, 2008, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Pr~ fiscal Impact Analysis
SHe ISs-Ft.) LPOf !S9. Ft.)
&isfing N8t Otange 8ui1dout EIdstIng N. OIanp-Buildout
~s (2008)(2009-201S) (1) (201512025) (2008) (2009-2015) (2,. (2015J2025)
Cafeteria 10,000 14,500 24,500 7,200 7,700 14,900
Gift Shop 670 1 ,500 2,170 325 1,200 1,525
Pharmaq (3) 0 1,500 1,500 0 1,400 1,400
Other Retail 0 3,000 (4) 3,000 0 0 0
TOTAl.(5) 10,670 20,500 31,170 7,525 10,300 17,825
Sourcas: Stanford University Medical Cen1er, Planning Design & Construction, Stanford Hoepitol and Oinks, Finance Department;
Lucile Packard Children's Hospitol, Finance Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) AnticiPQled to be complaled in 2015, so 2015 and 2025 buildout square footage figures ara identical
(2) Anticipated to b. completed in 2015, so 2015 and 2025 buildout square footage figures are identical •
(3) The Advanced Medicine Center [I.e., the Cancer Center) pharmac;y is '-eel and opeiulacl by Walgreens. Th. analysia asswnes
thot the propoHCl SHe phwrnocy wiD also be leased and operated by Walgreens or a similar operator.
(4l Other reIa11 uses hc:ive not y8t been final'lZed and are eslimoted to anist of two independart vendOB leasing 5pace in SHe,
potentially 0 coffee shop and a boakstare, each with one--haIf of the tvtaI square footage [I.e., 1,sao square feet eadI).
(5) Does Mt include ih. Respiratory Departmenf, Central and Supply, and Laclalion Cen1ar at LPCH.
",\T~7\l007U43S1anfanf\Worfcing DocumtftIr~ I'iriCIaj 1mpact.R07.JC1s
Exhibit 17
Existing and Proposed Rsvenue-Genera1ing SoM and Total SUMC Programs. 2008, 2015 and 2025
SUMC Proied Fiscallmpod Analysis
SaM !ScI. Ft.l
&isting Neto.ange Buildcut Neto;a;;g. Buildout &!sting
Programs (2008) (2009.2015) (2015) (2009-202S) (2025) (2008)
Cafeteria 0 0 0 0 0 17,200
Gift Shop 0 0 0 0 0 995
Pharmacy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Retail 1,500 (1) (680) (2) 820 2,320 (3) 3,820 1,500
TarAl. (4) 1,500 (680) 820 2,320 3,820 19,695
SUMC~ 1'01 .. Change lui u Net Gange
(2009.2015) (2015) (2009-2025)
22,.200 39,400 22,200
2,700 3,695 2,700
2,900 2,900 2,900
2,320 3,820 5,320
30,120 49,815 33.120
SourC$S: Exhibit 16; Stanford Uniwrsily School of Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning & MclnagElment; and CBRE Canwliing
Buildout
(2025)
39,400
3,695
2,900
6,820
52..815
{1) The only !wo on-site revenu.generaling. $oM programs in buildings within the Cify of Palo AlIa ale 1wo em-.
(2) One of the eJlisiing cafes with 680 $quare feet will dose in 2010.
(3) hi additional 3,OOO-square foot c:ofe is anticipated to b. built in 201 7 (when the constructian of one of the new reseorth bundings is compiele) at the earli., similar to the
eJlisting cafes, this WQuld be for $oM sIaff and iQ!;Utty. The additional 3,000 square feet Jess the 680 dosed in 2010 results in Q net ;t\c:reQse of 2,320 square feet.
(4) T oIal SUMC Project figures are inclusive of SHe and LPCH figures; -Cdlibit 16.
. CBRf Consulting, 2/19/2009 N;\TEIOm-Sed-r\l'rojeclS\2007\l 007043 SIIlnford\WoIIdrtg Doc.vmenls~ FiscoI IrJ1)CId.R07 JCIs
Exhibit 18
Taxable SaIea hm Revenue Generating SHe Pn:Igrcnns, Fillcal Yaar 2006-2007
SUM<: Project Fiscallmpac:t Analysis
SHe I'ragIwN Sep06 0d-06 NoY.o6 0-06
Manlt*T .... W.~ ..Jan.07 ·....07 ,.-~
CofwNria (2) ~,251 $474,385 5365,786 $380,345 $436,884 5390,187 5432.146
Gift Shop 551,336 $55,;213 $521316 $66,864 556~ 5.56,108 s::::: TOTAl. (31 $449,587 5529,898 $418,102 5447,209 $493,428 5446,296
Soun:el: SIanbd Hospital and ClinKs, Fincmce DepartmanI; and CBItE Consulting.
Apt4J7 MI:tfIJ7 Jun.07
$421,084 5648,346 5198,278
S:S7~ $95,129 528,048
1478,691 5743,476 1226)26
(1) SHe is rwquin!d by 1101: to pay" fitsl15 clap of June _ wiIh 11M Mtr, payment. The May sales figures thania,. include half m ihe June .... 1es 1aK.
(2) lndudil19 Bing Dining.
(3) Dots not indvd" 1M WoIgrwens pharmac:, in the Advancad Medicine CenlIIr; see ExhIbit 16.
ToIIIl
JuI..07 A»e47 Ta:dlleW-
5418,206 $442,06.5 $5.005,964
554,521
$472.733
$51/617
5493,682
$679~
$5,685,431
CIIII! CGIIIUIIing. 211912009 ..,\T-n::w....,\,ItrafocII\2OO1007Od 5lanbd\WorIdoog ~ ..... 1mpgct.1lO7 .....
..
Exhibit 19
Taxable Sales from Rsvanue Generating LPCH Programs, Fiscal Year 2006-2007
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis .
ManthIv-Tambie Sales Tala!
LPCHProg_ s.p.o6 0d-06 Novo06 Dec-06 ~7 feb.07 JiGr;.f)7 ~7 ~7 Jun-07 Jiit07 1wo-07 TCDableSaIes
CaNtwia $117,031 $127,491 $127,922 $111,913 $120,967 $119,570 $133,125 $123,540 $133,014 $130,643 $120,544 $137,312 $1,503,070
Respiratory Department $231 $139 $93 $93 $93 $278 $0 $46 $93 $93 $93 $139 $1,389
Central and Supply $200 $300 $600 $SOO $1,300 $600 $800 $1,200 $300 $900 $600 $1,000 $8,300
Lactation Center $2,622 $43,069 $1,669 $4,409 $54 $14,983 $8,145 $7,323 $13 1931 $6,574 $7,602 $26,025 $136~06
TOTAl!l) $120,084 $170,999 $130,283 $116,914 $122,414 $135,431 $142,070 $132,109 $147,338 $138,209 $128,838 $164,476 $1,649,165"
Soun::es: lucile Packard Chidren's HospiIol, rll'lGnc8 Deportment; and CBRE Consulting.
(11 Does not include taxable sales for the gift shop; $98 Exhibit 17.
ORE eo .... 1IirIg, 2/19/2009 N:\T~Proj.cll\2OO7\l007043 Slanbd\wortang Doc:umenll~ FiscoI ~R07 ....
/
Exhibit 20
Net Taxable Sales from Revenue Generating SHe Programs, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Donars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Taxable
~ FV2006-07 Salas!'!i. Ft.
SHe Programs Sq. Ft. (1) Taxable Salas FV2006-07 2008 (2)
Cafeteria 10,000 $5,00.5,964 (4) 5500.60 $516.92
Gift Shop 670 $679,466 (4) $1,014.13 $1,047.19
Pha~ 0 $0 5170.00 (5) $175.54
Other Retail (6)
Coffee Shop . 0 $0 $500.00 (7) $516.30
BookStoRt 0 2Q. $200.00 (8) $206.52
TOTAL 10,670 $5,685,431
Annuol Sales Tax R.¥enues to tM City of Palo Alto (9)
Nat New Nat Taxable Sales
Sq. Ft. (1) (2008 Dollars) (3J
14,500 57,495,280
1,500 $1,570,784
1,500 $263,313
1,500 $774,450
1,500 $309,780
20,500 $10,413,607
$104,136
Sources: Exhibits 1 6 and 18; Bureau of I.cbot Sfo1istics (BLS); The Hdl Companies, ~007 Retail Store Taxable Salas Estimates;" anci
CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 16.
(2) Fiscal Year 2006·2007 scJes per square foot figures are inAated to 2008 based on the CGn$Umer price index for the Western U.S. of
3.26 percent from June 2007 to June 2008, derived from the BLS informalion.
(3) Figures aRt rounded to whole dollars.
(4) See &hibit 18.
(5) The HdL Companies reported 2007 annual taxable sales per gross square foot far drug stores to be in the range of $125 to $215.
This analysis uses the average annual taxable sales per squaRt foot to estimate phannac:y 1Q1es. .
(6) Other retail uses have not yet been finalized and are estimated to consist of two independent vendors leasing space in SHC,
potentially a coffee shop and a bookstore.
(7) The Hell Companiesreportad 2007 annual foxIable sal .. per gross square foot for coffee shops to be in the range of $400 to $600.
This analysis uses the average annual taxable $CIles per square foot to estimate coffee shop sales.
(8) The Hdl Compani. reported 2007 annual taxable sales per gross square foot for small bcotc. stores to be in the range of S 100 10
$300. This analpis uses the average annual tvxoble Sales per square foot to estimate book sfore aales.
(9) AnnuoJ sales tax revenues are estimated to be 1.00 percent of annual net taxable sales. Fl9ure is rounded fa whole dollars.
CBRE Consulting, 21l9/2Of111 N:\Tearn-Sedway\Projedl\2007\1007043 $lQnford\Warldng Documents\,Madel\SUMC Fiscal rmplXt.R07.x1s
===-"""'"
Exhibit 21
Net Taxable Sales from Revenue-Generating LPCH Programs, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Taxable
Existing FY2006-07 Sales/SQ. Ft.
LPCH Programs Sq. Ft. (1) Taxable Sales FY2006-07 2008 (2)
Cafeteria 7,200 $1,503,070 (4) $208.76 $215.57
Gift Shop 325 $121,875 $375.00 (5) $387.23
Respiratory Depar1ment N/A $1,389 (4) N/A N/A
Central and Supply N/A $8,300 (4) N/A N/A
Lactation Center N/A $136,406 (4) N/A N/A·
Pharmacy 0 $0 $170.00 (6) $175.54
TOTAL 7,525 $1,771,040
Annual Sales Tax Revenues to the City of Palo Alto (7)
Net New Net Taxable Sal~
Sq. Ft. (1) (2008 Dollars) (3)
7,700 $1,659,853
1,200 $464,670
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1,409 $245,759
10,300 $2,370,282
$23,703
Sources:-Exhibits 16 and 19; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BlS); The HdL Companies, "2007 Retail Store Taxable Salas Estimates;" and CBRE
Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit l6.
(2) Fiscal Year 2006-07 sales per square foot figures are inflated to 2008 based on the consumer price index for the Western U.S., with an
inflation rate of 3.26 percent, calcula1ed from the BLS information from June 2007 to June 2008.
(3) Figures are rounded to whole dollars. 0--
(4) See Exhibit 19.
(5) Taxable sales data for the existing gift shop are not available. The HdL Companies reported 2007 annual taxable sales per gross square
foot for cards/gift stores to be in the range of $150 to $600. This analysis uses the average annual taxable sales per square foot to eStimate
gift shop sales. .
(6) The HdL Companies reported 2007 annual taxable sales per gross square foot for drug stores ta be in the range of $125 to $215. This
analysis uses the average annual taxable sales per square foot to estimate pharmacy sales.
(7) Annual sales tax revenues are estimated to be 1.00 percent of annual net taxable sales. Figure is rounded to whole dollars
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projects\2oo7\ 1007043 Stanford\ Working Documen1s\Model\SUMC Fiscallmpoc;t.R07 .xis
..
Exhibit 22
Net Taxable Sales from Revenue-Generating ScM Programs, 2015
In 2008 Dollars .
SUMC Project FlSCQllmpact Analysis
Taltabl.
Existing fY2006~7 SaIEII/SQ. Ft. Net New Net Taxable Sales
SaM Programs Sq. Ft. (1) Taxabl. Sales (2) FY2006-07 2008 (3) Sq. Ft. (1) (2008 Dollars)· (4)
Oti:'er Retail 1,500 $406,000 $270.67 $279.49 (680) ($190,053)
Annual Sales Tax IlaYanuet to the City of Palo Alto (5) ($1,901)
Sources: Exhibit 17; Stanford University School of Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning & Management; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); The
HdL Companies, "2007 Retail Store Taxable Sales Estimatest and CBRE Consulting.
(1 ) See Exhibit 1 7.
(2) Taxable soles data irom Stanford University Sehool of Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning & Management.
(3) Fiscal Year 2006-2007 sales per square foot figures ore inflated to 2008 based on the consum ... price index for ttl. Western U.S, with an
inflation rate of 3.26 percent, derived from the BLS informcition from June 2007 to June 2008.
(4) Figures are rounded to whole dollors.
(5) Annual sales tax revenues are estimated to be 1.00 percent of annual net taxable sales. Figure is rounded to whoJe dollars
CBRE Consvlling. 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projeds\2007\ 1007043 Slanl'ord\Working Docurnenfs\Model\SUMC FlSCClllmpgct.R07 .xis
11
Exhibit 23
Net Taxable Sales from Revenue-Generating SaM Programs, 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal 1m pad Analysis
Tamble
Cdsmng Pf2006..()7 SaJeslSq. Ft.
SaM Programs Sq. Ft. (1) TCDIOble Sales (2) fY2006-07
Other Retail 1,500 $406,000 $270.67
Annucd Sales Tax RManu. to the City of Palo Alto (5)
Net New Net Tamble Sales
2008 (3) Sq. Ft. (1) (2008 Dollars} (4)
$279.49 2,320 $648,418
$6,484
Sources: Exhibit 17; Stanford University School of Medicine. Office of Facilities Planning & IY\Cnagement; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); The
HciL Companief, "2007 Relail Store Taxable Sales Estimates;" and CBRE Consulting.
{1} See Exhibit 17.
{2} Taxable sales data from Stanford University School of Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning &lY\Cnagement.
(3) Fiscal Year 2006-2007 soles per square foot figures are inflated ta 2008 based on the consumer price index for the Western U.S, with an
inflation rata of 3.26 percent, derived from the BLS informalion from June 200710 June 2008.
(4) Ftgures are rounded to whole dollars.
(5) Annual sales tax nMtnues ore esnmatedto be 1 .00 peraant of annual net taxable sales. Figure is rounded to whole dollars
caRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projects\2007\1007043 Stanford\worIcing Documen1s\Model\SUMC Fiscal Impact.107.x1s
.J.
Exhibit 24
Office Worker'Weeldy Retail Spending Patterns
In 2003 and 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
hem
Lunch
Weekly Expenditures per Warker
Shopping Items
Location of Spending
Claser to Home
Closer to Work
Total
Weekly Expenditures per Worker
Mall-type Merchandise
Grocery .
Penlonal Care/Incidentals
Total
After Work Dinner and Drinks
Location of spending
Closer to Home
Closer to Work
In between Home and Office
Unknown
Total
Weeldy Expenditures per Worker
2003 (2)
$26.20
62%
38%
100%
$46.00
$16.00
$14.00
$76.00
50%
29%
12%
9%
100%
$J5.00
Amaunt(l)
2008
$29.76 (3)
62%
38%
100%
$52.25 (3)
$18.17 (3)
$15.90 (3)
$86.32
50%
29%
12%
9%
100%
$17.04 (3)
Sources: International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), "Office Worker Retail
Spending Patterns 2004"; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); and CBRE Consulting.
(1) The amounts shown reflect the "Downtown Ample" category from the ICSC
publication, which is r.nost appropriate for the SUMC project because of the ample retail
shopping options in the vicinity of the SUMC Project area.
(2) Office worker spending patterns were published by ICSC, in weekly amounts and in
2003 dollars.
(3) Retail spending patterns from 2003 were inflated by CBRE ConSUlting to 2008
dollars. for 2003 to 2007, inflation was based on the consumer price index for all
urban consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area,
calculated from BLS information. For 2007 to 2008, inflation was calculated using the
mid-year 2007 and the mid-year 2008 consumer price index. The average onnual
inflation from 2003 to 2008 was 2.58 percent. Figures rounded 10 two decimal places.
CBRE Consulting 2/1912009 .N:\Team-Sedway\Projects\2007\ 1007043 Slanford\Working Documenls\lIAodel\SUMC Fiscallmpad.R07 .xls
Exhibit 25
Office Worker Annual Retail Spending Estimates
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
Item
Lunch
Annual Expenditures per Worker (1).
Shopping Items
Location of Spending (2)
Closer to Horne
Closer to Work
Annual Expenditures per Worker (3)
Mall-Type Merchandise
Grocery
Personal Care/Incidentals
Total AnnUal .
Indicated Annual Expenditures Closer to Office (4)
Mall-Type Merchandise
Grocery
Personal Core/Incidentals
Total Annual
After Work Dinner and Drinks
Location of spending (2)
Closer to Home
Closer to Work
In between Home and Office
Unknown
Annual Expenditures per Worker (3)
Indicated Annual Expenditures Closer to Office (5)
Total Mnual Spending Closer to Work (6)
Amount of Sales that are Taxable (7)
Percent Taxable
Notes: Continued on next page.
Amount
$1,428
62%
38%
$2,580
$865
$757
$4,202
$980
$329
$288
$1,597
50%
29%
12%
9%
$802
$233
$3,258
$3,028
93%
CBRE Consulting 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projecls\2007\1007043 Stonford\Worlcing Doc:uments\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpatl.R07.xls
Exhibit 25, continued
Office Worker Annual Retail Spending Estimates
In 2008 Dollars '
SUMC Projed Fiscallmpad Analysis
Sources: Exhibit 24; International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSq, "Office
Worker Retail Spending Patterns 2004"; U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 Economic
Census"; California State Board of Equalization (BOE); and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Annual expenditures are calculated by multiplying the average week~
expenditure of $29.76 in Exhibit 24 by 48 weeks (92.3 percent of 52-week work
year, to account for 10 Federal holidays and 10 vacation days). This is the
methodology used in the ICSC publication to generate these figures. Figure is
rounded to dollars. .
(2) See Exhibit 24.
(3) Weekly figures from Exhibit 24 were adiusted to annual figures using the
methodology noted in Footnote 1. Figures are also adjusted to reflect that the
survey data originally published by the ICSC was for the month of October.
October's share of annual retail spending is 8.1 percent fo,r mall-type merchandise
("Shopper Goods~), 8.4 percent for grocery and personal care goads ("Convenience
Goods·), and 8.5 percent for dinner and drinks. This methodology is used in the
ICSC publication as well. Figures are rounded to whale dollars.
(4) Applies 38 percent "Closer to Work" factor to ·Shopping Items" annual
expenditur~ per worker. figures are rounded to whole dollars. ,
(5) Applies 29 percent "Closer to Work" factor to "After Work Dinner and Drinks"
annual expenditures per worker. figures are rounded to dollars.
(6) Includes expenditures for lunch, shopping items, and after work dinner and
drinks.
(7) Based. upon detailed analysis of sales trends reported by the Census Bureau's
Econamic Census Subiect Series for Retail Trade published in 2002, and
supplemented by discussions with BOE representatives, CBRE Consulting estimates
that 30 percent of grocery sales are taxable. The fotal annual taxable sales "closer
to work" figure is therefore found by subtracting $230 (70 percent • S329) from
$3,258. figure is rounded fo dollars. .
CBRE Consulting 2/19/2009 'N:\Team-Sedway\Projacts\2007\1007043 Slanford\Working Oor:umanls\Modal\SUMC Fisr:allmpad.R07.xIs
Exhibit 26
Medical Office Employees Income Estimates, 2007
Deflated to 2006 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
Percentage of
Occupation Total Workers (1)"
Management 2.3%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 41.2%
Healthcare Support 15.2%
Office and Administrative Support 37.3%
All Other Medical Office Related 4.0%
TOTAl 100.0%
Weight~ Mean
AnnuolWaae
2007 (1) In 2006 Dollars (2)
$118,100 $114,400
$103,600 $100,300
$36,400 $35,200
$39,200 $38,000
N/A N/A
Sources: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.(KMA), BDraft Housing Needs Analysis, Proposed Expansions: Stanford University
Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center," June 2008; Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS); and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Data from Appendix Table 10 (Average Annual Compensation, 2007 -Medical Office Worker Occupations) of KMA
study.
(2) Annual wages in 2007 were deflated to 2006 dollars using the consumer price index for all urban consumers in the
Son Francisco-Oakland-Son Jose MSA, reported by the BlS. The inflation rate from 2006 to 2007 was 3.27 percent.
Figures are rounded to hundreds for presentation purposes.
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\T80m-Sedway\Projects\2007\ 1007043 Slanford\Working Dotuments\Model\SUMC Fiscallmpad.R07 .xls
Exhibit 27
SHe and LPCH Empl~ Incomes, 2006
SUMC Proied Fiscallmpad Analysis
PeraIntage of Ho.Of SHC~J
.... cat ..
. Tme Woricing Emplgpes. olEn ....
20% 27 0.4%
3OJ, 19 0.3%
50% 308 5.1%
60% 329 5.5%
63% " 0.1%
70% 5,335 88.6%
lOlA&. 6,022 100.0%
Notes: Continued on next page.
eYE CorllUlting. 211917009
Median Median
CompecISCltion CompellSafion
$175,000 (7) 29 ],3% $137,000 (3)
$166,700 (4) 79 3.5% $158,300 (S)
$100,000 (6) 126 5.5% $120.000 (7)
$125,000 (8) 210 9.2% S 125,000 (9)
$59,500 (10) 0 0.0% N/A (11'
$65,000 (12. 1.845 80.6% $82,500 (13)
2,289 100 .. 0%
N:\T~\fr0jeds\2007\ 1007043 Slanford\Working DocUmenIs~ Fiscallmpact.IIJ7"
~ ..
Exhibit 27, continued
SHe and LPCH Employee Incomes, 2006
SUMC Project Fiscallmpaa Analysis
Sources: Keyser Momon Associates, Inc. (KMA), "Draft Housing Needs Analysis, Proposed Expatl$ions; Stanford Univel$i1y Medi<;al Center,
Stanfard Shopping Center,· June 2008; and CBREConsulting.
(ll Based on data from Appendix 11 Table (SHC and LPCH Existing Employee Salary Distnbution Data) of KMA stUdy.
(2) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fact that of the eltisting SHC employees that work 20 percent of the time, a am'Iulative 37 percent fall
within the $150,000. $174,995 compensation rc:Inge and a cumulative 63 percent fall within the $175,000. $199,995 compensation range.
(3) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing LPCH employees that work 20 percent of the time, a cumulative 48 percent fan
withinthe $125,000. $149,995 compensation range.
(4) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing SHC employees that work 30 percent of the time, a cumulative 42 percent fall
within the $150,000· $166,663 compensatiqn range ond 0 am'IuIative 58 percent fall within the $166,667 * $183,330 compensotion range.
(5) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing lPCH employees that work 30 percent of the time. a cumulative 51 percent fall
within the $150,000. $166,663 compensation ronge.
(6) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing SHC employees that work 50 pen::ent of the time, a cumulative 48 pen::ent fall
within the $110,000· $119,998 compensation ronge and 0 cumulative 55 percent fall within the $120,000 -$129,998 compensation range.
(1) CBRt Consuliing estimate based on the fad that of the existing LPCH employees that work 50 percent of the time, a cumulatiYe 47 pert:ent fall
within the $90,000· $99,998 compensa11on range and a cumulotive 54 peroent fall within the $100,000 -$109,998 oampensation range.
(8) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fact that of the ecisting SHC employees that work 60 percent of the time, a cumulatille 47 pen::ent fall
within the $116,667 -$124,998 compensation range onda cumulative 56 percent fall within the $125,000 • $133,332 compensation runge.
(9) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing lPCH emplO)'ftS that work 60 percent of the time, a cumulative .4 9 permnt fall
within the $116,667 -$124,998 compensation range and a cumulative 56 percent fall within the $125,000. $133,332 compensation range.
(10) CeRE Consulting estimate based on the fact that of tne existing SHC employees that work 63 percent of the time, a cumulative 50 percent
faR within the $55,556 -$63,490 c;ompellSQtion range.
(11) There are no LPCH employees that work 63 percent of the time.
(12) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fad that of the existing SHC employees that work 70 percent of the time, a cumulotive 49 percent
fall within the 560,000 -564,999 c;ompensafion range and a cumulative 54 percent fall within the $65,000 w $69,999 compensation range.
(13) CBRE Consulting estimate based on the fact that of the existing LPCH employees that work 70 percent of the time, a cumulative 50 percent
fall within the $80,000 -$84,999 compensotion range.
eBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\T~J'O'jer;W\2007\1007043.SIrmford\WortingOco..o~~FisaJllmpact.R07"
Exhibit 28
Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2006
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Category
Relevant Employment Sectors
Average Income before Taxes (6)
Average Annual Expenditures (6)
Retail Expenditures (6)
Foadat home
Food away from home
Alcoholic beverages
Maintenance, repairs, insurance, other expenses
Housekeeping supplies
Houshold furnishings and equipment
. Apparel and services
Vehicle purchases (net outlay)
Gasoline and motor oil
Maintenance and repairs
Drugs
Medicol supplies
Audio and visual equipment and services
Pets,. tays, hobbies, and playground equipment
Other entertainment supplies, equipment, services
Personal care products and services
Reading
Tobacco products and smoking supplies
Miscellaneous
Totol Average Annual Retail Expenditures
Total Excluding ''Food Away From Home"
$50,000 to $69,99970,000 arid More
Medical Office Workers (2)
Construction Workers (3)
$59,253
$5(),OS6
$3,603
$2,892
$505
$1,097
$667
$,1,7.17
$1,981
$3,597.
$2,599
$789
$588
$114
$974
$442
$392
$629
$116
$382
$871
$23,955
$21,063
OHice Workers (3)
SHC Employees (4)
LPCH Employees (5)
$125,688
$82,294
$4,798
$4,502
$833
$1,929
$1,003
$3,137
$3,078·
$6,331
$3,319
$1,095
$622
$182
$1,363
$696
$l,OOS
$949
$201
$311
$1,412
$36,769
$32,267
Sources: Bureau of lobor Statistics, Cansumer Expenditure Survey (CES) 2006, ''Table 2 Income Before Taxes: Average
Annual Expenditures and Characteristics"; U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2006 for the Son Jose-Sunnyvale
Santo Clara Metropolitan Statisticol Area (MSA); Exhibits 26 and 27; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Pre-tax income brocketsore from the CES.. .
(2)C8RE Consulting estimates thcit the overage annual income for medicol office workers is $65,000, based on the
weighted mean annual wages by occupation presented in Exhibit 26.
(3) Construction workers and office WCirkers were ploced in the appropriate income category using County Business
Patterns data on overage income for these employment sectors. Construction Workers (Industry Code 23) had an average
annual income of $52,866. Office Workers, which combined the ''Finance and Insurance" (Industry Code 52) and
"ProfessionaI/Scientific/T echnicol" (Industry Code 54) categories, had a weighted average annual income of $104,356.
(4) CBRE Consulting estimates that the average annual income for SHC workers is $70,000, based on the median
compensation by percentage of.time working presented in Exhibit 27.
(5) CBRE Consulting estimotes that the average annual income for LPCH workers is $90,000, based on the median
compensation by percentage of time working presented in Exhibit 27.
(6) Data are from the CES.
CBRE Consulting 2/19/2009 N:\Team.Sedway\Projeds\2007\ 1007043 Stonford\ Working Documenll\Model\sUMC FiscaIlmpod.R07 .xll
Exhibit 29
Net Annual Sales Tax Revenues from SUMC Project Employee Spending
2015 and 2025, In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
ASlumptjon.
SHC and LPCH Employees
Average Annual Retail Expenditures per Office Worker 'Closer to Work· (1)
PerUnt of Sales Taxable (1)
Discount Fodor for SHC and LPCH Employees (2)
Local Annual Taxable Expenditures per SHC and LPCH Employee in Palo Altc
Medical Offic:e Employ.-(Non-SUMC)
Average Annual Retail Expenditures per Office Employee ·Closer to Work!' (11·
Perc:ent of Sales Taxable (1)
Disc:ount Factor for Medic:al Office Employees (3)
Local Annual Taxable Expenditures per Medic:al Office Employee in Palo Altc
$3,258
93%
88%
$2,659
$3,258
93%
57%
$1,736
Net New Amount
SUMC Proiect Entity
SHC
Net New Employees (4)
Toiol Annual Taxable Spending in Palo Alto (5)
Total Annual Sales Tax Revenue@ '.00 percent (5)
LPCH
Net New Employees (4)
Total Annual Taxable Spending in Palo Alto (5)
Total Annual Sales Tax Revenue@ 1.00 percent (5)
Non-SUMC
Net New Employees (4)
Total Annual Taxable Spending in Palo Alto (5)
Total Annual Soles Tax Revenue @ 1.00 percent (5)
Total Annual SoI.1 Tax Revenues from SUMC Project
Sources: Exhibits 4, 25, and 28; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 25.
2015 2025
979
$2,603,116
$26,031
850
$2,260,111
$22,601
100
$173,569
$1,736
$50,368
1,251
$3,326,351
$33,264
892
$2,371,787
$23,718
100
$173,569
$1,736
$58,718
(2) The discount factor for SHC and LPCH employees adiusts the office worker spending "Closer to Work"
to account for the assumption Ihat these employees will generally eat in the cafeteria or pack a lunch
from home, rather than purchase food off-site. The discount fador was calculated using the County
Business PaHerns and the Consumer Expenditure Survey, excluding the ·Food Away from Home· category.
The 88 percent estimate implies Ihatthe 10101 dollars spent by SUMC employees is equivalent to
approximalely 88 percent of office workers' spending. In order to calculate Ihe 88 percent, divide
$32,267 by $36,769, which are found in Exhibit 28.
(3) The discount factor for medical office employees adjusts the office worker spending close to work to
account for medical office workers' lower average income, and to account for the assumption that
workers will generally pack a lunch from home rather than purchase food off-site.The discount fador was
calculaled using Ihe County Business Patterns and the Consumer Expenditure Survey, excluding the ·Food
Away from Home· category. The 57 percent eslimate implies that the total dollars spent by medical office
warkers is equivalent to approximately 57 percent of office workers' spending. In order to calculate the 57
percent, divide $21,063 by $36,769, which ore found in Exhibit 28.
(4) See Exhibit 4.
(5) Figures are rounded to whole dollars.
C8RE Con.u.ing. 1/7/2009 N:\T .... m·Sedwoy\Projed.\2007\ 1007043 Slanford\Worklng Documenl.\,Modoi\SUMC Fi.c;al tmpact.R07.x1s
Exhibit 30
Net Annual SOles Tax Revenues from SUMC Project Overnight Hospital
Visitor Spending (1)
2015 and 2025, In 2008 Dollars
SUMC ProJect Fiscallmpod Analysis
Ilem
Holel Nignts from Hospital Visitors Added (2)
SHC
LPCH
TOIaI
Palo Alto Share of Hotel Nights (3)
Estimated Persons per Hole! Room (4)
Total Ovemjght Visitors (5)
SHe
LPCH
Tolal
Average Length of StaV per Visitor (days) (6)
Average DailV Spending per Visitor (7)
Percentage of Spending Already Accounted for by
SUMC Revenue-Generating Programs (8)
Annual Overnight Visitor Spending from SUMC Project
SHe
LPCH
Total
Annual Soles Tax Revenue from SUMC Project (9)
SHC
LPCH
Total
Noles: Continued on next page'.
Net New Amount
2015 2025
606 1,220
988 2,540
1,594 3,760
14% 14%
1.5 1.5 .
127 256
207 533
334 789
2.0 2.0
$35 $35
20% 20%
$7 t 112 $14,336
$11,592 $29 t848
$18,704 $44,184
$71 $143
$116 $298
$187 $441
CBRE Consulting, 1/7/2009 N:\ Team·Sedway\projecIs\2007\l 001043 Stanlord\Working OocumenI5\Mod81\SUMC FlIltGlImpact.R07 ••
Exhibit 30, continued
Net Annual Sales Tax Revenues from SUMC Project Overnight Hospital
Visitor Spending (1)
2015 and 2025, In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
Sources: Exhibit 5; The Pacific Partners Consulting Group, Inc., "Stanford University
Economic Impact Study 200Eri lucile Packard Children's Hospital (lpCH) Housing
Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Visitor spending is not estimated for the SoM since the SUMC Projed is not expected to
generate a net increase in SaM visitors.
(2) These are the incremental hotel nights generated by the increaSed capacity of the SUMC
facilities; see Exhibit 5.
(3) Palo Alto's share of hotel nights associated with hospital visitors was calculated using
data provided by the LpCH Housing Department. During June and July of 2008 (the only
recent time period for which data were available), hotel nights from lPCH in the City of Palo
. Alto averaged 53 nights, which is equivalent to 636 nights annually. These 636 hotel nights
represent approximately 14 percent of the total 2007 hotel nights from LPCH shown in
Exhibit 5.
(4) CBRE Consulting estimate.
(5) Equals hotel nights times 14 percent times 1.5 persons per hotel room. Figures are
rounded to whole visitors.
(6) Assumes that visitors staying overnight spend two days in Palo Alto (i.e., the day thot they
check-in and the d~ that they check-ouf).
(7) Average daily spending per visitor is provided by The·Pacific Partners Consulting Group.
(8) Based on a windshield survey of shopping and dining options proximate to the SUMC
fadlties. CBRE Consulting estimates that approximately 20 percent afvisitor spending will
occur at the SHe and LPCH cafeteria, gift shop, pharmacy, and other retail outlets. The
remaining 80 percent will OCCur at other retoillocotions within Palo Alto.
(9) Annual sales tax revenues are estimated to be 1.00 percent of onnuol visitor spending in
Palo Alto, per the City of Palo Alto sales tox rote. Figures ore rounded to dollars.
C8RE Consulting, 1 n /2009 N:\ Taam-Sedway\Projecls\2007\1007043 Stanford\Working Documents\Model\SUMC FiGCOllmpacl.R07.xIs
Exhibit 31
Net Annual Sales and Use Tax Revenues from SUMC Project, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Proiect Fiscallmpad Analysis
Entity litem
SHC
Direct Hospital Spending (1)
Revenue-Generating Programs (2)
Employee Spending (3)
Overnight Visitor Spending (4)
Subtotal -SHC
lPCH·
Direct Hospital Spending (1)
Revenue-Generating Programs (5)
Employee Spending (3)
Overnight Visitor Spending (4)
Subtotal • LPCH
SaM
Revenue-Generating Programs (6)
Non-SUMC
Employee Spending (3)
SUMC Project
Direct Hospital Spending (1)
Revenue-Generating Programs (5)
Employee Spending (3)
Overnight Visitor Spending (4)
TOTAL -SUMC Project
Net New Annual
Tax Revenue
2015
$17,530
$104,136
$26,031
$71
$147,768
$992
$23,703
$22,601
$116
$47,412
($1,901)
$1,736
$18,522
$125,938
$50,368
$187
$195,015
Sources: Exhibits 14,20,21,22,23,29, and 30; and CBRE Consulting,
(1) See Exhibit 14. Includes consideration of use tax rebate to SHC ond LPCH.
(2) See Exhibit 20.
(3) See Exhibit 29.
(4) See Exhibit 30,
(5) See Exhibit 21.
(6) See Exhibits 22 and 23.
2025
$41,025
$104,136
$33,264
$143
$178,568
$1,988
$23,703
$23,718
$298
$49,707
$6,484
$1,736
$43,013
$134,323
$58,718
$441
$236,495
CBRE Contt)lling, 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedwoy\Projedi\2007\1 007043 Stanford\Working Documenls\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpad.R07.x1s
exhibIt 32
211 Quarry Road Community Physicians' Offices Valuation and Annual Net Property Tax Estimates,
2015 and 2025 (1)
In 2008 DoIICll'l
SUMC Projed Fiscallmpad Analysis
ftem Auurnption& Amount
Proposed Square Feet of Leasabl. Office Space (2) 30.100
Gros. Potential Rent (Full-SalViea) (3) $70 per square foot per year $2,107.000
LasS Vacancy/Colleclion Loss (4) 5.0% of gros. potential rent
Grcs. Mnuallncome
($105&501
$2.001,650
Less Variable Operating El<penses (5) 5B.00 per square foot per year (5240,800)
Less FIXfJd Expenses (5) $1.05 par square foot per year 1$31 16051
Net OperatIng Income $1,729,245
Indicated Value 7.0% cap rGte (6) $24.703,500
Pet Square Foot (7) $821
Total Properly TalC 1.0% of assessed YQlua $247.035
Palo Alto General Fund Allocation (8) 9.4% of property tax $23,271
SourceS: SUMC Application, 'Part 3 • Project Description", revised April to. 2008, p. 9; Stanford Universlly Medical Canter. Real
Eatate, facilities Design and Construction Department; Building Owners and Managers Aasociation (SOMAl, "Elcperlence
Exchange Report 2006"; Real Capilal Analytics, "Market rrenda Report," Quort.r 1, 2008; Santa Clara County .Aal88lOra Office;
Santa Clara County Controller'. OffICe; and CBRE Conaulting.
(1) Hoover PaviflOn renovotion for 1101 Welch community physiciana' offices.
(2) Proposed square footage figure from SUMC Application. .
(3) Stanford Univel'lily e!!pacts !hat full-servic:e ren1s will be $70 to $78 per aquare foot per ~r, with a one-time lenant
Improvement allowance of $50 to S75 per square foot.
(4) Vocancy rate projections of 3 to 5 percent were provided bytha SUMC Real Estate, facilities Dasign and Construction
Department. Vacancy rates are not expected to exceed 5 percent for a number of reasons. First, medical office tease perioda
are usually long term, because tenant improvement costs are relatively high fo~ medical space, and because dOdOtI would
prefer to remain in a singt.locatlon for a long period of time In order to maintain their patient/customer bClle. Thea. lla ••
preferences drive the projected YQconcy rat. downward. Addttionally,.pac:e that is vacant will likely be backfilled by other
SUMC entities.
(5) Operating and fixed expenses QAl baaed on BOMA natonal overages for suburban medical buildings, adlUlted baaed on
San Jose and San Mateo suburban office buikll'lQs~ Operating expenses indude mainlanance, repairS, utilities, administration,
and securily. Fixad expenses exclude properly tax, but include other taxes and inauranca.
(6) lotal properly tax role of 1.00 percent Is added to the base cap rate of .6.00 percent. 8aae cap rate is baaed on Information
published in July 2008 by Real Capital Analytia, for office buildings In grealer San Jose.
(7) Figure is rounded.
(8) The TQX Rote Area was provided by the Sonia Clara Caunty ha .. lOf', Office. Poaf·ERAF talC allocation to the City of Palo
Alto General Fund was provided by the Santa Clara County Controller's Office for Tax Rale Area 06-001. Figure is rOlll1ded to
whole dollars.
CIIIE CornuIdov. 2I19/2OOt
Exhibit 33
Hoover Pavilion New Medical Office Building Valuation and Annual Net Properly Tax &tim .. , 2015
and 2025 .
In2oo8 DollaR
SUMCProiect Fisc:allmpad Analysis
Item Aleumptlonl Amount
Propoaed Square Feet of Medit;al Office Space (1) 60,000
Gross Potential Rent (Full-Serviee) (2) $70 per square foot per ~r $",200,000
Less Vaaanc.y/Colledioil LOIS (3) 5.0% of 9rOll poIential rent tS21O,OOO! Gross Annual Income 3,990,000
LessVariabie Operating EIcpenIea (4) $8.00 per square foot per y&ar ($480,OOO)
Less Fixed Expenses (4) $l.OS per.quare foot per,ear f$63,OOOl
Net OperatIng Income $3~4"7,ooo
Indicated Value (5) 7.0% cap rate (6) $49,2"'2,857
Per Square Foot $821
T etal Property Tax 1 ~O% of ollseased value $492,429
PQlo Alto, General Fund Allceation (7) 9."% of propertyfax' $46,399
Sources: Exhibit '1; Stanford Uniwnity MecrICQI Center, Real Estate, Faeilitles Design and Construction Department; Building
Owners and Managers AslIoclation (801M), -Exp.rience Exchange Report 2006;" Real Capital Analytia, 'Morket Trends
Report,' Quarter 1, 2008; Santa Clara CounIv Assessor's Office; Santa Clara County Controller'. Office; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Sa Exhibit 2. .
(2) Stanford University elCpects that full-service rents will!;e $70 to $78 per square foot per year, with a one-time tenant
improvement allowance of $50 to $75 per square foot. .
(3) Vacancy rate projecliont of 3 to 5 percent were provided by the Stanford Univeraity Medical Center Real Estate department.
Vacancy rates or. not expected to ft>Cceed 5 pen:ent for a number of realO~ •. FI ... t, medical office lease periods are uSually long
term, becaus~ tenant improvement costs are relatively high for medical.pac8, and becausedodors would prefer 10 remain in a
lingl. location fora lo~ period of time in order to maintain their patient/clJStomer base. These lease preferences drive the
projeded YQcancy rate downward. Addltlonally, space that is vacant will lilcely be backfilled by other SlIMC entities.
(4) Operating and fIXed expenses are based on 801M natonal averages for suburban medical buildings, adlualed based on
San Jose and San Mateo suburban offICe buildings. Operatins expenses include maintenance, ... pai .... ulilitiea, adminitfralion,
and security. F"1XSd expenses _dud. property fax, but include other taxes and ineurance.
(5) Figure is rounded to whole dollar. ~
(6) Total property fox rate of 1.00 percent is added to the hose t;ap rat. of 6.00 percent. Base cap rate is based on information
published in July 2008 by Reai Capital Analytics, for office buildings in greater San Jose.
(7) The TaK Rate Area was Provided by the Santo Clara County AssessOr's Office. Post·ERAF tax allocation to the City of Palo
Alto Gtneral Fund was provided by the Santa Clara County Controller's Office for Tax Rata Area 06-001. F"tgure i. rounded to
whole dollars.
Exhibit 35
Net SUMC Project Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Estimates, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impact Analysis
June 30, 2008 City of Palo Alto Assessed Valuation (1)
Changes in Assessed Value as a Result of SUMC Projed
Hoover Pavilion New Medical Office Building (2)
Hoover Pavilion Renovation for 1101 Welch Community Physidons' Offices (3)
Other Porcels (4)
Net Change
Total Assessed Value including Changes
Percent Increase in Assessed Value
FY 2007-08 VLF In-Lieu Revenue (5)
Net Annual VLF In-Lieu Revenues from SUMC Project (6)
Amount
$18,922,488,000
$49,242,857
$13,703,500
($1,821,000)
$61,125,357
$18,983;613,357
0.32%
$4,367,000
$14,061
Sources: Exhibits 32, 33, and 34; City of Palo Alto 2007-08 Comprehensive Annual Financal Report (CAFR)
for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2008; City of Palo Alto Administrative Services (email correspondence from Joe
Saccio; January 26, 2009); and CBRE Consulting.
(1) CiJvwide assessed value is found on page 146 of the City of Palo Alto CAFR.
(2) See Exhibit 33.
(3) Calculoted by subtroding the existing assessed value of 1101 Welch ROod of $11,000,000, as shown in
Exhibit 34, from the projected assessed value of $24,703,500 shown in Exhibit 32.
(4) The properties at 701 and 703 Welch Road, which will be demolished as a result of the SUMC Pro jed,
have a Fiscal Year 2007-08 combined asseesed value of $1,821,000. .
(5) VLF In-Ue ... amount is provided by the 'City of Polo Alto Administrative Services Department. VLF r8'lenues
are comprised of two compOnents: the Direct VLF Payment, which was $282,000 in Fiscal Year 2007-08, is
dependent on population and is not shawn in this exhibit; the second Qn-lieu) component, as shawn in this
eKhibit, is dependent on the City's assessed value.
(6) Net annual revenues from the Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Revenues will be realized in 20150nd 2025.
Figure is rounded to whole dollars.
CBIIf CD ..... "". 2119121109
Exhibit 36
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues, 2015 and 2025 (1)
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscallmpad Analysis
Item
Ludle Packard Children" Hospital (LPCHJ
Additional Annual Hotel Nights from LPCH Patients and Visitors (2)
Palo Alto Share of HOtel Demand (3)
Additional Hotel Nights in Palo Alto (4)
Palo Alto Average Daily Holel Room Rate (5)
Additional Room Revenue added by LPCH Project
Transient OccupantyTax Revenues added by LPCH (6)
Stanford Hoapitol and Clinics (,SHg
Additional Annual Hotel Nights from SHC Patients and Visitors (2)
Palo Alto Share of Hotel Demand (3)
Additional Hotel Nights in Palo Alto (4)
Palo Alto Average Daily Holel Room Rale (5)
Additional Room Revenue added by SHC Project
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues added by SHC (6)
TOTAL -TranslentOcx:upany Tax R.venua added by SUMC Fadlitl.
Net New Amount
2007-2015 2007-2025
988 2,540
14% 14%
138 356
$142.88 $142.88
$19,717 $50,865
$2,366 $6,104
606 ',220
14% 14%
85 171
$142.88 $142.88
$12,145 $24,432
$1,45~ 52,932
$3,823 $9,036
Sources: Exhibit 5; City of Palo Alto Manager's Report, February 5, 2008; Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH) HOUSing
Department; and CBRE Consulting:
(1) Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues are calculated for LPCH and SHe because hospital patients and their visitors
generate hotel stays within the City of Palo Alto that would oIhelWise not occur. The increased LPCH and SHC patient
visitorship from the SUMC prOject will therefore increase TOT revenues to the City of Palo Alto. TOT is not estimated for the
School of Medicine (ScM) facilities bacausethere is no planned increase in employment or square footage for the ScM. ~
sUch, hotel stays attributable to the SoM will remain constant.
(2) See Exhibit 5.
(3) Palo Alto's share of hoIel nights associated with hospital visitors was calculated using data provided by the LPCH Housing
Department. During June and July of 2008 (the only recent time period for which data ware available), hotel nights from
LPCH in the City of Palo Alto averaged 53 nights, which is equivalent to 636 nights annually. These 636 hotel nights
represent approximately 14 percent of the total 2007 hotel nights from LPCH shown in Exhibit 5.
(41 Figures are rounded to whole numbers.
(5) The average daily rate is for the first five months of F'ISCCII Year 2007-08, the most recent period for which data ware
available, per page 3 of the City of Palo Alto Manage~s Report.
(6) The City of Palo Alto TOT rate is 12 percent. Figures are rounded to whole dollars.
ClIIIE c-.AAng, 211'/2«19
Exht"blt 37
$UMC Project UhTrIy M.Jers and· Usage Esfimates, 2007, 2015 ~ 2025 )
SUMC Proied Fitcallmpac:t Analysis
0.. .... EoiIIi.OIl one! PnliKt.J o.t.ancf m Net NMorDwna .... m hm FacIar (1) 2007 1015 202S i'i5iiMii1~ 2007-2025
~
tllumber cd W ... Mann {3)
2.inc:h irrigcrIion ",... ... 0.000000526 per sq. ft. 1 3 2 2 1 6.inch fire ...... ic:. rnahTS 0.000002106 per sq. it. 4 9 8 5 4 2-inch ~ (genarol...., 0.000000526 per sq. it. 1 3 2 2 1
3-ineh IIIIIhIn (generuI waIe~ 0-,'00001053 per sq. ft. 2 5 4 3 2 .4.inc:h mahIn .,..roI...., 0.000000526 per sq. ft. 1 3 2 2 ,
10-inch ....... ~ WIlIer) O.oooooos26 pet sq. ft. 1 3 2 2 1
~. DMnond (sallocw/day) {41 362,040 468,.420 539.340 106.380 177,300
~. Demand (~monthJ ("" 14.722 19;048 21,932 4.326 7.210
~
...... k Demand (leW) (5) 11,160 20,970 20.200 9,810 9,040
Avv. Demand (kWhIdarl (5) 206,500 379,926 355.150 173,426 148,650
Avv. Demand (kWh/month) 6,281,042 11,556.083 10.802,.479 5.275.041 4,521,.438
Aog. Demand (kWh/)"liClr) 75,372,500 138,672.990 129.629,750 63,300,490 54.257,250
Sis!
NIft1bet cd Gas MeIwIs (6) persq..ft. 11 11 11 0 0
kos· Demand (cfhI (7) 1.200 1,200
....,.. Demand ~ (7) 8,760 8,760
So-= Cdu'bit 3; Sb!bd UrMniIy I.cmd. Buildings, and Real &iata; 8riGn Ward, p~ Manager for Palo AIIo Green. Cdy of Pata ~ Uli'ilies Depamnent (CPAUI; RaIcmd
Ecbtllalld. CPAU; SUMC ApplIcatIon. "Fart6 • UIiIiIiIIa"....;..g 10108108. tables 6-1 ond 6-2; SIonford Unioenily.1.Dnd Use ond Err.;1I>ftmMIa1 Planning; and C8RE COnsulting.
(1) Generofion facto ... are ~ by dMd'1I'Ig 2007 damand ~ in this.thbit by 2007 tala! axisIing IqUCII'8 fwt (2,366,879 ...-.... , ..... &hlblt 3.
(~ Dwmand attribuIabI. to the SUMC program for aU camponenls including SHe. LPOf. and SoM.
(3) Exisfing .,.., rneIw cliltltlh _ prV¥ided b)' Brian Ward. CPAU. I'tofaded -s _ eslilllCMd b)' mu~ 1M generation factIm and the .-.ant SUMC I"rojet;t buIIdout
square faotag4tfigu .. (4.033,650 squcn .... b)' 2015 and 3,678,397 by 2025); _ &hibit 3. Fig __ rounded to 1IfIhoIe numbets. .
(41 Woter dwmand eetimaI8J b 2007.2015. and 2025 _ iivm ... SUMC AppI~ n-f'i9-0 .. PfO"idad in goIora; par clay wilt ... the '*~ "-' the CPAU are
In OM hundred eublc: .... (eel) per month. Si_ one ccf Is .... 1oaIarit tv 748 gaI~ cd wotar. one gallon per do,. is equiwoIeI'It ta ....,.. ..... 101..., 0.04066 (365/12 1748) ccf PI"
month. F1gu .. em. rounded \0 whole nurnlMn'. •
(5) Current and proiec:ted peale ~I d_nd and -"9' eIectric:ol __ ncI .... from the SUMCAppIicaIion.
(6) Ar:cordine \0 Stanford Unlv..say land, 8..i1c1inga, ond Real ataIIt. the an.,. portio", cd ... SUMCprojllctthat might raquint the addition GI' Nmadion cd GO' .,....... 01'8 the SHe:
Icitl:Mn, whICh oril i_ in floor area by 11.000 squa ... r..t. and the IJ'CH lcilchen. which will n:r-in ftoor _ !lor 5,000 square fwI.. Roland Ecbtrand afCPAU opined that
thwe net 1_ in IciIchen ... mar I_the gas maier sUs. but mc.", WI" not change the rwm'-o*gas ~ required far the -klh:hen..--.
(7) Gas __ lid ..tirnatas far 2015 and 2025 _ prcmdtd by SIonIord lJrI'--Ify. land Us. ond Envinmm8lllol Planning. n-fig .... are prowidld in cubic feat per haur (cfh)
.-hIla ... raIv lChedules from the CPAU ant in therms per marth. Sinat 100 d i.I equi¥alant 10 1 thermo _ db is equhoahrilo CIppf'~ 7.3 (l/lOO" 24" 365/12) therms
. per )"IiCIr. Figu .. are ftlUnded 10 whole number.a.
aq ConooIiiea, 2f1 '12009 N:\T-..Sod """~1.7OI3S1onlilnl\w..tina~~I'ioooIImpect.""'''''
Exhibit 38
Utility RaM and SUMC Project Net Annual UbTrty Bill Esfimoles, 2015 and 202S
In 2008 00110",
SUMC Project Fisc:allmpac:t Analysis
lItiI~
WQter
Per MeIer
2.jnch irrigation ~
6-inch '" ..me. mehtn
2-inch ~ (geI'Ieral ..... ,
3.lndl ~ (general __ I
4-incn ......". fgenerQI -'er)
• IO.fndl metent (g1H\efQJ __ I
Per Cd (4)
TaIaIWaIw
~
Peak Oemcmd o.a.ge per loW (51
~ Oernol'ld Charge per kWh (6)
TCiIaI E!odricIy
Na.urgl Gos
Charge per M.t.,
A-.:sse Oemcmcl Charge piot Therm
TdGI NGII.m:d Gal
TOI'AI. • UIIIIIiee
...
,., MonIh (1)
$19.37
$7.00
$19.37
$77.6'
$130.60
$383.67
$6.50
$12.93
$0.07002
$35.00
51.5155
2007-2015
NIIN""'~Pr..;..t
Oemattd .... Month I2J
2 meters
5 meters
2 meIers
3 ~rs
2 mete ...
2 meIers
4,326 Cd'$
9,810 kW
.5,275,041 kWh
o rneler$
8,760 !herms
f\W ,.,.,.."
BiIIl3)
$465
$420
$465
$2,795
$3,134
$9,208 •
$337,428
5353,915
$1.521,531
$4~1,984
$5,953.515
$0
~
$159,309
$6..466.739
2007-2025
NiifN8W SUMC Pn:oIect
o.mand Per Month (2)
1 meters
4 mete ...
1 meters
2 meters
1 rneIer$
1 meiens
7,210 Cds
9.040 kW
4,521.438 kWh
o mel ..
8.760 th .......
HetAnnuciI
BiIIp]
$232
$336
$232
$1.864
$1.567
$4,604
$562.380
W1,215
SI,402,104
S3,798,821
$5,200,925
$0
5159,309
$159;309
$5,931,c.49
Sourc:es: &:hibif 37: City of Palo Alto UtIlities Rate Schedu_ E.7. W-4. and G-2 os of o...-.ber 9, 2008; and caRl: Consulling.
(1) Manlhly ram -. pl'DVided b11M City of Palo Alto Uh1itias DoIpcrtl'Mnl. B6Ctticity ram are Dmd in schedule E-7. GQs rat .. are i'aund in st:hecIule G-2. Rat... for fire "me. __
are found in Khedule W-3. Generol waIet """ce is found in schedule W-4. lnigalian _ S«"ice rates are found in sdlaclule W-7.
(2)lncrerTMmlal demand is: found in Exhibit 37.
(3) Figures are ,ovnded to whol. dollol'll.
(4) Average rate per month far water col1Ntl'lplion is on approlCim<lte welghted ~ estimated by caRE Consulting to be $6.50 based on I'QIe schedules for "'tIler ~ and the
proiecled share of demand -aat.d with each meter. RoMs ore approximately $4.697 far general waf .. serrice, $4.697 far irrigalion lOItIIws4llYi<le. and $10.00 far Ii .. service per
{5} This rate is applied to the peale. aleo:tricity usage during &ach mc>nlh. m"fjSuted in kilowatts. 1IIIp.-th. a-age of !he summer raI9 and the ...;met raI9 • ..tIich are $1 S.96 ond
$9.89. n!S):IeCI/vely.
(6) This rate is applied to the total elGctric:i1)r used during cad1 month, meosured in lcilowalf hours.lQopresenfs fhe ..-age dlho summer rate and the winllilr /QI9, which _ SO.07342
and $0.06661, resp«lively.
CBI'.E Co.-wiling, 2/19/21109 N:'T_~l00i'04;J~WOl',"",o.......n~Fiod/rnpod"""
Exhibit 39
Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue Estimates, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project FiscallmpadAnalysis
Item
Utility User Tax Rate (1)
Annual Utility Bill (2)
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
TOTAL
Utility'User Taxes Accruing to General Fund (3)
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
TOTAL
SUMC Project
Incremental Amount
2007·2015 2007·2025
5% 5%
$353,915 $571,215
$1,521,531 $1,402,104
$4,431,984 $3,798,821
$159,309 $159,309
$6,466,739 $5,931,449
$17,696 $28,561
$76,077 $70,105
$221,599 $189,941
$7,965 $7,965
$323,337 $2~6,572
Sources: Exhibit 38; City of Palo Alto Administrative Services Department; and CBRE
Consulting. ,
(1) Utility user tax rate is provided by David Ramberg, City of Palo Alto Administrative
Services.
(2) See Exhibit 38.
(3) Utility Users Tox associoted with telephone and intemet usage provided by
Stonford University is not estimated for the planned SUMC facilities; figures are
rounded to whole numbers.
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Tealll-Sedwoy\Proleds\2007\1 007043 Stonford\Working DoculIlenls\Model\SUMC Fiscallmpact.R07.x1s
Exhibit«J
Net Percentage Change in UtiIHyDernand by .SUMC Entity, 2015 and. 2025
SUMC Prqect Fiscal Impact AnaI)IIis
EnIiIy f utility 2007 ·AliadOl
2015 2023
SHe
WaIIIr Awn:age Demand (salons/dar) 210,540 289,500 (2) 342.140
Electric A.....age Demand (kWh!~) 144,500 248,300 . 210,550
Electric p.qtc. Demand (kW) 7.630 13,570 12,170
Gas (thoorms/month) 23,174 23.174
lJIICH
. WaIIIr~. Demand (gollansldar) 68,soo 125,200 (2) 163,000
Et.dric ~ Demand (kWhfclcl)1 28,.,00 7O}»O 70,000
Eladric ..... DemmId (kW) t,53O 3.830 3,830
Gos~monthJ 23,174 23.174
SaM
WaIIIr Awn:age Demand [gallonrlday} &3.000 63,720 (2) 34,200
EIedric A.-g. o.mond (lr.Whf~ 33,400 61,626 74,600
EIacIric ..... Demand (kW) 2,000 3,570 4,200
Gas fiham./monIt.)
lOTALSUMC
WaIIIr Awtuge Demand [gallonrlday} 362,040 468,420 539,340
EIedric: A....ag. Demand (kWIVda)i 206,500 379,926 355,150
EIedric: Peak Demand (kW) 11.160 20,970 20,200
Gas phermsfmorlh) 37,587 46,347 46,347
... _ .... "'Talal
NltCla-l!l
20073015 2007-2025
SUMC ~Nlta-III .....
2007-2015 2007-2025
78,960 131.600 74" 74%
103,800 66.050 60% 44%
5,940 4,540 6'" 5O'JIo
4,380 (3) 4,380 {3} 50% 50%
56,700 94,500 53" 53%
41,.aoo 41.<100 24" 28%
2,300 2,300 23" 25"-
4,380 (3) 4,380 {3} 50% 5O'J6
(29,280) (48,8001 -28% . -28%
28,226 41,200 16% 28"
1,570 2,200 16" 24%
o (3) o 131 "" 0%
106,380 177,300 lOO'llo lOO'llt
173,426 148,650 100'l10 1~
9,810 9,040 100% lOO'l'
8.760 8,760 lWA 100"
Sourc8s: SUMC AppIia:dian, "Part6 • UiiIitias" "",isecll0~/08, tables 6-1 and 6.2; Ai.COM IfDrmerIy DMIM HarriI), "SIIri:Md Shopping c.m.r and Slamrd Um-siIr
Madiml Center Trip Getlen:aIion s.:.norios," Novembet 14, 2001; hnfotd Ul'livet$iI)'. Land U. alld fnvIronl'lWllklll'lcmnil1g; and C8ItE .C-uIIIng.
(IJ F"liIJuNS en baNd Oft the SUMC ApptIa1lion ""'-ncmtd otherwise.
(2) As_1hat 60 pan:ant..F1he dJangto in.mancI m,m 2001'" 2025 will hop".., by 2015: CIIIOumpIiol'l from AECOM ~.
(3) Gas IIIIimat8s by entity __ prvvided by Shrio.d Universily, Land Use and EnviranrnenIDI Planning.
CAE ConsooIII ..... 211'12009 N:\T~7\lOO7OGaanr....I\WortiIlJJ~!'iaI~.:dI
Exhibit 41
Net Annual Utility Users Tax Revenues b.y Hospital Entity, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 DOllars
SUMC Projed Fiscal Impad Analysis
2007-2015 2007-2025
SUMC Entity
SUMC project
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
TOTAL· SUMC
~
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
Subtotal -SHC
I.fQ:I.
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
Subtotal· LPCH
~
Water
Electric Peak Demand
Electric Average Demand
Gas
Subtotal· SoM
Percentage of Total
SUMC Project
Net Chonge (1 )
100%
100%
100%
100%
74%
60%
61%
50%
53%
24%
23%
50%
·28%
16%
16%
0%
Sources: Exhibits 39 and 40; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 40.
Net New
Utility Uaers Tax
Revenue (2)
$1,7,696 (3)
$76,077 (3)
$221,599 (3)
$7,965 (3)
$323,337
$13,135
$45.,534
$134,179
$3,983
$196,831
$9,432
$18,161
$51,955
$3,983
$83,531
·$4,871
$12,382
$35,465
. $0
$42,976
Percentage ofT otal
SUMC Project
Net Change (1)
1000'{'
100%
100%
100%
74%
44%
50%
50%
53%
28%
25%
50%
·28%
28%
24%
0%
Net New
Utility Users Tax
Revel'!ue (2)
$28,561 (3)
$70,105 (3)
$189,941 (3)
$7,965 (3)
$296,572
$21,199
$31,150
$95,391
. $'3,983
$151,723
$15,223
$19,525
$48,326
$3,983
$87,057
·$7,861
$19,430
$46,225
. $0
$57,794
(2) Net new utility users tax revenue by utility type and entity is calculated by applying the relevant percentage of total
SUMC Project net change to the SUMC Project net new utility users tax revenue. Figures are rounded to whole dollars; the
sum of the revenues by utility type and entity may therefore not exactly add up to total for the SUMC Project.
(3) See Exhibit 39.
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N;\Teom-Sedwoy\Proieds\2007\ I 007043 Stonford\Worldng Documenls\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpocl.R07 .xls
Exhibit 42
General Fund Revenues per Employee from Fines and Penalties (1)
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impad Analysis
Budget Catagory
Fines and Penalties
aty of Palo Alto
Adopted Budget
2008-09 (2)
[AJ
$2,916,000
_ Revenues
Per Day-lime
Person -Served C3l
[B = A /130,385]
$22.36
Revenues Per
~oyee Served (4)
[C -Bx 50%]
$11.18
Sources: Exhibit 6; Joe Soccio, Administrative Services Oepar1ment (ASO), Crtyof Palo Alto (phone conversation
November 17, 2008); City of Polo Alto 2007-09 Proposed Operating Budget; City of Polo Alto 2008-09 Proposed
Operating Budget; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Fines and Penalties consist mostly of parking violations and library fines per Joe Soeoo, ASO, City of Polo Alta.
(2, T orol fines and penalties were provided by Joe Saccio, ASD, City of Palo Alto.
(3) Day-time population for the Palo Alto Sphe~ of Influence (501} is estimated by adding 501 population ta 50 percent
of fotal SOl jobs; see Emibit 6.
{4} Revenues per employee represents 50 percent of revenues per day-time population. Figure is rounded ta whole cents.
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\Tearn-Sedway\Projecls\2007\l 007043 Stanford\WorIcing Documenls\ModeI\SUMC FiscoIlmpad.R07.x1s
Exhibit 43
SUMC Project Net Annuar Reven~es from Fines and Penalties, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Proiect Fiscal Impact Analysis
Net Revenues from
Fines and Penalties
Net Emelo~ees (1) ($11. 18/Emel5!l!el {2113}
SUMC ProJect Component 2015 2025 2015 2025
SHC 979 1,251 $10,945 $13,986
LPCH 850 892 $9,503 $9,973
SoM 0 0 $0 $0
Non-SUMC 100 100 $1,118 $1,118
TOTAL SUMC PROJECT 1,929 2,243 $21,566 $25,077
Sources: Exhibits 4 and 42; City of Palo Alto 'Proposed Operating Budget 2008·2009"; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 4.
_ (2) See Exhibit 42 for revenue per employee estimate.
(3) Net revenue figures are rounded to whole dollars.
CURE Consulting. 2/19/2009 N:\Team-Sedway\Projed,\2007\ 1007043 StQnford\Woricing D<Kument&\Model\SUMC I'ilcallmpact.R07.JIb
&hi,.."
City of PatoAlloAnhual General Fund ~ .... Estimates CIS a r-rh ofSUMC Project, 2015, and 202S
In 2008 Dollars .
SUMC ~ fiscallmpad~
AnnuaII_ ••• lai RMnuw ~ ... Y!5!!! fnHn SUMC ~1IIIion
SHe IJICH NonoSUMC . Toeal .suMC1'!!!i!!: Budgetlhtm 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2025 2015 2Q25 . 2015 2025
~!!!l!!ral r?:!md bl1UllS Sa'" and Use Tax $147,768 $178,568 $47,412 $49,707 (l1,'Ol) $6.484 $1,736 $1,736 $'",015 5236,495
SUMC Dirtd Pun:hasing $17,530 S41,02S $992 $1,988 SO $0 SO $0 $18,522 $43,013
SUM(; I'ocirI1ies O,..sjte Sales $104,136 $104,136 $23,703 $23..703 1$I,901) $6,484 SO $0 S125,na $134,323 SuMc Emp/oJee Sp.mcrmg $26,O:n $33,264 $22,.601 m,ne $0 50 51,736 Sl,736 $50,368 $S8,718
SUM(; o-night VtSiIor Spending 571 5143 $116 $298 so so so $0 $187 1441
Properly Tax {1 I S-HoIe2 S-HoIe2 See Nc>te 2 See NoIe2 $57,595 $57,595
Tl1IIrwient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 51,457 $2,m $2.366 $6,104 so $0 $0 $0 $3,823 59.036
Utility Users Tax (UUl) S19',831 $151,723 583,53' $87,057 $42,976 $57,794 $0 $0 $323,337 S296,572
OtherT_ and Fin. S10,945 513,986 $9,503 $9,973 $0 SO $1.118 Sl,118 $35,627 $39,138
Motor Vehicle-in-Liell feas (11 S-,...2 S-NoIe2 S-Nofe2 S-Ncma2 5'4,061 $14,061
eoc.-ntary Tn:.nsfwr T_ Nat Eslimaled NQI &ti1TlClllMl Nat EstiITlClllMl NQlemmot.c! Not &IImczI9d
Pi.-and Panallies $10,'45 $13,986 S9,503 $9,973 SO $0 $1.118 Sl,118 $21,566 525,017
. Charges far SeI'YiCIIII (2) Nat I!stimcad Nat Eslimc:mwJ Nat I!stiIIIIII8d Not Estimated Not Eslimaied
Permits one! Uc.rww (3) Nat Estima18cl Nat EstIITICIIIMI Not EstimczI9d Not EstiIllCll8d Not I!sIiIllCll8d
RIotum 0" I""..".ent Nat Eslimalecl Nat EstImc:mwJ Not &tirnahocI Not EslirnoNld Not I!!stimI:rncI
R8nt0111'lCO/ne 44) Not Eslimalacl Nat &timc:mwJ Nat &timaIed Not !sfimaIed NQI EIIIitnc:mId
'ram Other IGenciac I'ICIf I!sIimc:mwJ Natl!slimoted Not &timatIId Not Estimcftd Not Estimated
Chargesla Other Funds {5} Not Estimated Nat Estimated Nat EatimoIed fIIot &titncftd NQI &limaled
Other ~rwe (6) Nat EstImated Not EstInat.d Nat Estimated Not I:$tirncftcl Not EstImated
TOTAl. $357,(101 D47.2CW $142,112 $152,841 $41,G75 "",278 S2,I54 $2,854 $615,397 $638;836
50-. &hibits 29, 30,31, 34, 36,41, and 43; Otr af Pala AlIa 2OQ8.09 'Pro~ Operating Budget'; Joe Saa:io. Acirninislratlve Servic:es Depanme .. !ASD), Otr of Pala AlIa (emoil_pond_
o-ber 3, 2008); and caRE Consulting.
(It f'fOperty-1aIC bcraed _IllS, .-hich. include property taD5 and moIor ... hide'"",iev _. ore not s'-m far spec:iIic SUMC enliti8l ~.,.. tI. ~rIy_ ~ ~ ... ith eacf, enIity is nat
b-oom. Many SUMC praperjias ha". tnultiple entities 0& .. nallls, irduding non-SUMC entities, lOCI determining !he ahara af property taus hm SHe, LPCH, $oM, one! nan-SUMC is nat polIIIible.lNperI)' 1I:IX
_11UIIS cumII1IIy Iaviec/ from the propeJties of 701 W.lch Rl:lad, 701 A, C, and 0 Welch Road,. 701 8 Walch Raad, 703 W.lch Rl:lacl, and 1101 We/c;h RGocI wiQ be 1aSt_ ttow-, properly tax __
added by th. n-rned"1CQ1 afIice builcling QI the H_ pcmroon lile and ,he oddeclleotabl. spoce at !he existing Hoovw Pavilion builcling of 211 Q\.oDrry It.ood wiD mare than offset 1he ra-.
121 Charges far Current SeMCIIII mainly CDmprise exlemal nlimb .... menb; and r.-for..sll.-.lot payments genaraNd by General fund cIeportmllnlS, such os SlanlOrd Um-.my. payment far h P~" "1"1_ 1$7.4 million}, paramedic _1$1.7 million), ond pion checking ..... 1$7_3 milllo~.· •
(3) Rew-an..,.. from Permits and Uc._ GOnSitt ~ af pllTllilsfar new cansINdion, &tnIet open,.. '-rdoua motaria'" fi ... , and parIdng,. and r __ for cIogI. bic:ydes. one! tcDIis pel' Joe Saa:ic. A50.
City af Pole AlIa.
44' Rental Incame primarily cornpriaes te" charged ta EnI8tprIsot PllncIs for use af Cll7larMI.
15} Chors-Ia Other Funds 0 ... ".;mbutRmenIs .-Mel by the General fund lot ~ af administraIi¥a aaroices la fnIarprise Q"clll'II8tncIl s. .... _ Funds. The Ganerol fund chargas tt.e funds for
legar, human ,....-. fincmce, cmd gerwral adml~ "'Mcm perforrnecl
(61 Other Re,enua moin., comprises.Anlmol SeMces rewenua from neighboring cities. Polo Alto Unified SchoaI Di;trict's {pAUSDj shore d mQmMIICII far othlelic fields, ond One-time nMlnue IIOUI'C8S.
QIR! c-uIt!ne. 2(l91ZG09 N,'T~l'\lOD7043Stariwd\worlcioa ~PiIaIIImpoct.RlI7.z1r
Exhibit 45
SHe and HOCIIMr Pcm1ion SHe Conslrudion Coat fstimales (1)
. In 2008 DoRan
SUMC PrOject Fiscal Impact Analysis ..... fuIuNo CInic:II I"IcIcMrShm
T ..... ~ ea.tllem EstimcIIIocI ea.t TamblBea.t e.timaIed ea.t To f! CCIIt EI&nG1ed CCIIt
Dil'lld Costs
Hard Conslruc:lian Cad$ 51,384,333,000 1553.733.000 $627,241,000 5250.897,000 5123.162,000
~
OSHPO p,.tI'IIiIs (3) $20,634,DOO SO $0 50 $0
Palo Alto ConsIrucIion PIIrmiIs $12.582,000 $0 54.894,000 $0 $418,000
Archllecl Engi_r Fe. 5125,816,000 56,291,000 $58,724,000 $2,936,000 $5,015,000
Other COt1NIing "-5103,798.000 $5,190,000 $33,032,000 51,652,000 $1,776,000
Printing/R8ploclUdion/D~n 12c!!16.ooo 52~61ooo 5979000 $9791000 SO
Subtotal $265,346,000 S13~7,ooo $97,629 ;bOO $5,567,000 171209,000
IiI!!iDlllellt gml Ott.. c...ts
IMdkaI Equipmlll'lt $240,000,000 5240,(100.000 $106,()32.ooo 5106,032,DOO SO
McderiCIIs Management EquIpment 525,163,000 S25,163.ooo $6,851,000 56,851,000 SO
F.-l s....l5quipment $21.389,000 .$21,389.000 $0 50 SO
TIIIoIP-, Computer ond Data 5127,582,000 538,274,000 589,127,000 526,738,000 SO
Furnilvre. FixIunIs. MisaI~ .. ~uiP""'nt 525,163.000 $25,163,000 59 l87.000 S9l87lJOO SO
Sublo1al $439,297,000 $349,989,000 5211,797,000 $149,408,000 SO
TOTAL $2,088,976,000 5917,719..000 $936,667,000 5405,872.000 5130,971.000
T_bIe Cost GIl ~ qf Ewtimated COlI .44" ~
Sources: 5tanl'xd lJni-"'r Land, Buildings and RaoI EsIaI.; and C8RE c-1Iing.
(11f« eodI project, Ihtt _icdIod parking. siIv QDIIIs," aN incluclad will flat ptOied. &mnahlli 018 rounded to tt. """"" thowand.
(2) Includes the Hoover PQ..iI'IOII tenant imp! D"ements, Haovw Med"ecaI 0fIa 15ui1c1ing. and the H_ parloing strvcturv.
(3) 0IIic.. of SIalwwide HeaIIh I'Icmning and ~nt l'be permilting agw'ICflar halpilals).
CUE ConsoIIting. 211912009
$49.so5,000
SO
SO
$251.000
$89,000
!2
5340.000
SO
SO
50
SO
SO
SO
549,845,000
38"
T_
~~ T-w.CSiiii
$2,135,336.000 5854, t35,ooo
$20,634,000 $0
517,894,000 50
$189,.55.5.000 59,478,(100
5138,606,000 56,9'31,000
S3.:!95~
1370,184,000
$3,495000
s19.904;bOO
$346,032,000 $346,032,000
532,014,000 532,014.000
S21,389,00Q 521,389,000
$21,V09,000 565.012,000
534,9502!!2
5651,094.000
S34.950:;g U,f.397
53,156,614.000 51,373.,436,000
.44~
Exhibit 46
LPCH Construction Cost Estimates (1)
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fismllmpad Analysis
H::::cs;AuI m CIINca (!J a.-tDnofl!icill;"" ~ T<*II
Item i!iiiiiIiiIiiIi CoIf T ..... CoIf &fimafiMI CoIf T.....t.J.c:..t ISdmaIIId Coot T ........ Coot l!IIIiiiiClI.a Coat Tambiii CoIf
Pi!l!S! Costs
Herd Consftuc:tlCln COllis $727,045,000 $290,8 18,000 $62,289.000 $24,916,000 $139,111.000 555,644,000 $928.445,000 $371,378,000
~
OSH 1"0 ""'mits (4) $9,623,000 $0 $1,022,000 $0 $2,281,000 $0 $12,926,000 $0
PGlo Alto ConslnlClion Permits $5,868.000 SO $623,000 SO $0 SO $6.491,000 SO
Architect Engineer Fees $70,.412,000 $3,.521,000 $7,475,000 $374,000 $16,693,000 $835.000 $94,580,000 $4.730,000
Other COII$IIlfing Fees $48,408,000 52,420.000 $5.139,000 $257.000 $l1,4n.ooo $574,000 $65,024,000 $3,251,000
Printing/Reprocilldlcn/Distribution $1,174,000 $1.174,000 SI25~ 5125,000 $:178~ $278.222 $l~n&2Q $1,577,000
Subtotal 5135,485,000 $7,115.000 $14.384,000 $756.000 $3O,nf. $1.687,000 $180 98,000 $9,5580000
!:goie!ll!!ll ond 2Ib!r Casts
Medicol EquiprMnt $141,771,000 $141,771,000 $10,298,000 $10,298,000 $47,700,000 $47,700,000 $199,769,000 $199,769,000
Mmmialo Mcmag ___ Equipment $16,429,000 $16,429,000 $1,744,000 $1,744,000 $1,948,000 $1,948,000 $20.121,000 $20,121,000
IWd Servi .. Eqvipment $4,987,000 54,987,000 5529,000 5529,000 $0 $0 $5,516,000 55,516.000
TelephoM, Computwlr and DQIQ $61,446,000 $18,434,000 $8,804,000 $2,641,000 $16,195,000 $4,859,000 $86,.445,000 $25,934,000
Furniture. Fiat_, MiKelloneoU$ Equipment $l1l35~ 511.735,000 $1,246,000 51.246.000 52,782,000 $2,782.000 $15l63,OOO $15,763,000
Subtotol $236,368,000 $193,356,000 $22,621,000 $16,458,000 $68,625,000 $57.289,000 $327,614,000 5267,103,000
TOTAl. $1.098,898,000 $491,289,000 S99.294,ooo $42,130,000 $238,465,000 $114,620,000 51,436,657.000 $648,039,000
Taxable <:oat as % of Estimated Cost 45,. 42% o4B 45,.
$0_: SIanford UniwMsity land, Buildings and Reol Est<ne: and CBRE Co""uIting.
11 } S\Qnford Un.-.ifr Leona, Buildings, and R.I!oI E':stof* d'"tvidad the 521,300 .-sq. ft. into the inpatiant and cines compal1llll'lls 10 mQh:h the project appliecticn, _ hug" tn.y wiH be Moused in one
structvte.. I'ClIidng for LPCH is included in the Hospital fig_ Estimates are rounded 10 the nearest th_nd.
{2} 471,300 sq. ft.
(3150,000 sq. ft. ~
(4) Office of $tatawKIe Health P\cmning and o..eJopment IlbG parmilting oganc:y for hoopilals).
'-,
C8R1!~ 'J/l'J{2OO'1 ,N:'T ....... ~007\1~704:JSIanfard\WorlIing~UIoICFiocaIIn:1-f.RC7..r.
Exhibit 47
Stanford University School of Medicine Construction Cost Estimates (1)
In 2008 Dollars .
SUMC PrQject Fiscal Impact Analysis
Costllem
DiredCosis
Hard Construction Costs
Soft Costs
OSHPD Permits (3)
Palo Alto Construction Permits
Architect Engineer Fees
Other Consulting Fees
Printing/Reprodudion/Distribution
SubtOtal
Equipment and Other Costs (4)
All Equipment
Telephone,Computer, and Dota (5)
Furniture, Fixtures, Miscellaneous Equipment (6)
Subtotal
TOTAL
Taxable Cost as % of Estimated Cos1
. FlMs (2)
Es~mated Cost Toxabla Cost
$334,000,000 . $134,000,000
$143,000,000 $7,150,000
$41,500,000 $41,500,000
$3,113,000 $934,000
$6,225,000 _-:o"$~6~,2~25~,OO~0
$50,838,000 $48,659,000
$527,838,000 $189,809,000
36%
Sources: Stanford University School of Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning and Management;
Stanford University Department of project Management; Stanford University Land, Buildings and
Real Estate; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Estimates are rounded to the nearest thousand.
(2) Foundations in Medicine (FIMs) 1, 2, and 3.
(3) Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (the permitting agency for hospitals),
(4) estirnafes·for total equipment and other costs ore provided by Stanford University Lands,
Buildingl, and Real Estole.
(5) Aduollotal expenalfures for Telephone, Computer, and Data were es~mated to be
$6,225,000; however, only $3,112,500 of these expenses will be for equipment. Of fhe
$3,112,500, approximately 30 percent of the sales are estimated to be toxoble. This estimate is
calculated based on the taxable 'IS. nan-taxable sales in this cost category from SHe and LPCH.
See Exhibits 45 and 46. These estimates were approved by Stanford University School of
Medicine, Office of Facilities Planning and Management.
(6) Actual t01a1 expenditures for Furniture, Fixtures, Miscellaneous Equipment were estimoted to be
$8,300,000; however, only $6,225,000 of these expenses will be for equipment.
CBRe Conwiting, 2/1912009 N:\Tearn-Sedwoy\Projecls\2007\ 1007043 Stonford\Warklng Documenls\Model\SUMC flscallmpad.R07 Jds
EllhtDit48
SUMC Fac:IIiIiet r ..... CansIrvcIIan COlt fllilllClles .... Square FoM, 2015 and.2025
In 2008 DaIIcn
SUMC Prafact ...... Imprd hlalpil
T ......
,.."...Dhda..
iEIIIIIyJI;p. of Spaat 2IJIIP.CIII15 2011!f.=iWll __ iVS
1'*12/ PwSOiO""
SHe Main S/Iw
HoopiIaI 1,100.000 0 1,100.000 5553,733.000· S503 cr .. idMedical Offict 0 429.000 429,000 1250.197.000 S585
SHC_ ........ nS/lw
Melfical Offict (31 90,100 0 90,100 149,505.000 5549
LI'CH
HaspiIaI 471,300 0 471~
Clinic/Medical 0fIIa0 50,000 0 50,000
1290.118.000 5617
$24,916,000 14"
_oIEM1ir1g ......... 274,700 0 274,700 155,644.000 $203
s..M
_r~
185.000 229,977 414,977 $134.000.000 $323
TOW. 2)IJIJ.077 51.-,513.aao S48D
_, e.hlbItIl, 32, 45,46, oncI 47; and CIIIIE~"".
(11_ &hibit 1.
(2) _ ExHbito 45, 46, .ncl47 ........ dhcI, ..... toquipmont, oncI ...... __
T __ a..
""""T'.~ _0II.ra.. T_T ..... a.. '_PI FIor&q.R. .... Pw&q.R. tiiiiiljiiJ ~!iJ!E
$13,997,000 $13 $349,989,000 5318 1"7,7",000 S834
$5.,567.000 $13 $149.Ml8,ooo S348 S405.172.ooo 5946
$340,000 $4 SO SO 549,845.000 5553
$7,115,000 $15 $193,356,000 1410 14" .289,000 11,042
1756.000 $15 $16,458.000 S329 142,130,000 $843
11,687.000 56 157,289,000 S209 5114,620,000 5417
57,150,000 $17 548,659.000 $117 5189,801',000 1457
S36,612.11C1O $13 $815,159.aao S288 $2,211,284,000 S781
(3) Ind ...... 60,000 "' ..... """ 01_ modieoI oIIice ...... at _ ............. _ in Ellhibit I, ~ncl30,loo "' ..... "",,01""-...-at 211 a...rry -. .. "'-.. &hibil32.
"
.CIIIIi~1n1lfM II:\T~IC107Q13S1on1on1\WtoIint~FioaI"""",,"I07""
Exhibit 49
SUMC Facllitiu Taxable Conllrudien Cost &timme. by Entity ond Conllructien Period, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Della ...
SUMC PlOled Fjlcallmpad MOly ••
2009·2015 2009·2025
Taxable Tl\lUIble
Coatpel' Total Coat.,.r Tatal
Entily/Typ. of $pac. Sq. Ft. 111 Sq. Ft. (2) Toxabl. Coat Sq. Ft. 11) Sq. Ft. (2) TCIlUIbl. Call
SHCMgjnSjla
Hospitol 1,100,000 1,100,000
Oi,ed Cosis $503 $553,733,000 $503 $553,733,000
Salt Co.,. $13 $13,997,000 $13 $13,997,000
Equipment & O1her Coots $318 $349,989,000 $318 $349,989,000
Clinic/Medical OffiCI 0 429,000
OiredCosta $585 $0 $585 $250,897,000
Salt COlhl $13 $0 $13 $5,567,000
Equipment & Other Costa $348 $0 $348 $149,408,000
Total SHe Main Sit. $917,719,000 $1,323,591,000
~C 1:I!!!!Y8[ ~lI:tili!!D ~il!
Modical OHice (2) 90,100 90,100
OiredCost. $549 $49,505,000 $549 $49,505,000
Salt Co,ts $4 $340,000 $4 $340,000
Equipment & Qher Costa $0 $0 $0 $0
Totol SHe Hoover Pavilion Site $49,8.45,000 $49,845,000
Lftt1
Hospital 471,300 471,300
Direct Colto $617 $290,818,000 $617 $290,818,000
Salt Coat. $15 $7,115,000 $15 57,115,000
Equipment & Olher Co.I. $410 5193,356,000 $410 $193,356,000
Renovation of Exilting Holpital 274,700 274,700
Oired Cost, $203 $55,644,000 $203 $55,644,000
Salt Co.l. 56 51,687,000 56 $1,687,000
Equipment & Other Costo 5209 $57,289,000 $209 $57,289,000
Clinic/Medical Office 50,000 50,000
DiredCosts $498 $24,916,000 $498 $24,916,000
Salt Coot. $15 $756,000 $15 $756,000
Equipment & Olher Cost. $329 $16,458,000 $329 $16,458,000
TatallPCH $648,039,000 $648,039,000
~
ResearchJLabomtoty 185,000 414,977
DiredCosta $323 $59,738,251 $323 $134,000,000
Salt Cool. 517 $3,187,526 $17 57,150,000
Equipment & Other Costa $117 $21,692,564 $117 $48~59,000
Total SaM $84,618,340 $189,809,000
TOTAl. SUMe PROJECT $1,700,221,340 12,211 ,284,000
Sauroes: E.hib~1 1 and 48; and C8RE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 1.
(2) See Exhibit 48.
N:\r .. m·SOdw.I'\P'oi .... \2007\ 1001043 Slanlord\Wo,ldng _ .... w.oct.1\SUMC Fltaollmpacl.1lO7 ....
Exhibit 50
Share of SHC and lPCH Purchasing Subject to City of Palo Alto Receipt of
Sales and Use Tax
Fiscal Year 2006-07
SUMC Projed.Fiscallmpad Analysis
Vendor Location
Palo Alto
Other California
Other U.S.
International
TOTAL
Percent of Adjusted Taxable Purchases
Excluding Other California:
Sources: Exhibit 12; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 12.
'SHC
Taxable
Spending (1)
$0
$91,645,000
$13,330,000
$0
$104,975,000
12.7%
LPCH
Taxable
Spending (1)
$0
$14,042,000
$452,000
$0
$14,494,000
3.1%
CBRE Consul ling, 2/19/2009 N:\Team·Sedwoy\Pi-ojeds\2007\1 007043 S~nford\Working Documenls\Mode!\SUMC Filcallmpact.R07.x1s
.;
&hIbit 51
SHCCanItruc:Jian.. Sales and the TQlt~Aa::ruing loth. Cilyaf Palo Alto, 2009-2015ond 2009-2025 ttl
In 2008 DoUall
SUMC Pn:Iject FiIcaIImpac:t Ana~
2009-2015
..-SubjoIot-ArrrouM Sl.tljedto CCIfIj; .....
0. CaIIIgoIy T ..... O' ...... U-TcIII W. .... U-1. "'12) U-T.pt r-tilao.
Pi ..... ('po!! 14} (5)
Hospi!GI '553.733.000 8O.D!It S442,n6,AOO 85.D!1t $3.765,384 5553.733.000
CliftiCl/M8dIceI 0fIm $0 O.m. $~ 1l5.D!1t so S250,,897.ooo
~ 19oiroOl'l $iIe $.'~O5. 8O.D!It 139.604,000 &5.m. 1336~:W $49,505~
SI.6IcfOI is D s48U§O,AOO kl02 18 ~ $8N,135
~(4)16)
H...ptQI $13,997.000 o.m. $0 ~ $0 113.99'.000
Oinlcr/MlMlcall 0IIb SO 0.($ SO as.l* SO ".567.000
H.-PawIIan SIIa S340:;l O.m. 10 15""" SO 1340000
SubhiksI 114)31 $0 SO S 19.904jijii
~iall""d" !JIbI£ '-!! {4l171
H ...... U49,989)lOO 12~ 544M2.51' as.l* 5377,761 S:W9.9I9,OOO
~0IIb $0 12.nl SO 15.~ SO S149,401l,000
H_Fa..man SIIa SO lZ.~ 10 as.l* so !O
s..fotGIaI $M, •• 600 $44'"2,518 $317.71>1 $4119,397.000
TOTAL $967,.5601,11C1O $527,032,918 ,....79.m S 1.3n,Ald,GClO
So.urc:.r. ExhitiI45; Exhibit 49; I!MibIt 150: 1IIa..r.:.nl u.--sity Lond, Bvik(ongs. and ItaaI EsIaIe; and aRE ConIuIlille.
(11 Only ... encI ___ ellimaMd to __ the ~ of the CIty of Palo Alto a", lncIudad in tIN andpla.
(21 C8RE ConMtiole ~thAt""' $UMCPtOject -*1...,......85 ~ _ ................. and ........ _-o...d wIIh -..ell"" eDI'IIradr..
(3' Appho at, of Palo Alto .. raho of 1.00 pIIWI'I. Pi .... _.......ded towhala doIlcn.
2OO9-2IlI'Z5 .....,.SuIojMt-ArrrouMiUiIjIid _ 0DpIft .......
...... U-1 • ........ U-T. .... (2.1 U-1.P1
8O.m. 1442.986,400 85..~ S3.765.384
O.m. SO 85.D!It $0
~ $3'.000 85.~ 1336,634
W2 ~DO $4,102,018
O.m. SO 85.D!It so
0.($ SO 85.~ $0
0.016 10 as.~ $0
SO so
12.~ $44,442,518 as.O!i 1377..71>1
12.~ S 18,972,219 85~ S161,264
12.~ SO 85.m. SO
563,.114.737 S539,025
SSt6,C105.137 54,641.00
(4' Sea e.hibit 49.
(5) SIa..r.:.nl Un~ 1..IIId, BuIIdinaI. and-':'II\isIaItt"""_ that eo pen:ant __ and ~"'1Ie $5 ..... 0' -. Thla .. ~ ..... <WI SIatIfood Un~u.nds.lIuIIdIIIgs,and'" bIGIw -w1Gl!on 01 __
.apHat -.don fI'Ol<oct __ and an uncl~ at SHe. c:<IIIIIInIdion ...... •
(6t Sc.II ...... a ... iIi'IIicipaIad to'" poW diredIy bySHC. All ,room-of -we goods «.,,;,;as _ -..-d _ be IocDIad in CoIiFomia auIoida PaID.-.o. .......... no ... or ....... ......st .......... to --_!hot Or at Polo Alto
&om these CZIIIS.
(7) n-pun::h __ -..mIld to be ""'.dncII, by 51-1C. ~. the -Irsis-the ehaM at ~ ..... jed to IacoIIy ....... aoIesand .... __ ...... uWa to1M Ihcn idemilied lor SHC",*"""",,"1'OIo:IIed
pun:haoas cIocurnanIwd in &/ibit SO.
cal! c.....ItI.t. 211912009 reI"",,, SuJ LLf'"..ajodo'I2III7\'~"""""'w..t.rr. ~_"""'JIDT""
"
1m: ~R' 5I5I1U u, ~ I J ~,,;.., ~ '0 l on-.. HI J SR. .. .... ... ~ J
Ii ~~5' ~=~' 5J~ , , L j j i a
I ! g 1 a~ ~~, aur ..... ~
E I ~ 1 l
j .. I }J ~:2 ~~t'i ~ I f "li -~"':;;
J l' B r;": 10_'" ~ 1 . IJj .... ... !.
~ .J
I ] J! I I jj '5~~' ~!~ I
1/1.1/1.1/1.' , f ~ a ............
22 o CI "'PI'" , j 1 1! iii I~ { I!
~ f.J
3 !I, !~f U'l i ] a·j :i .. ~ ~ J .... r>;1:; ::t!1!! ~~ ~ I t i ilfN~ ~~ .. 0. fHI:! i .... .......
1 ~ 1 1 -:: ... .... ...... -...
-F a • a .ll-t J 1 I JI! ~., SST ~~, ~ f ii! -II ~ a
1 J on_... 5 I j oS t
" J ......
E I IQ ~ I -~
f tl 11' § Jj ~!ll ' !l!l!' !l~~' •
II'1II' IUd Ill. III f S ;II !! ~ I ., n, iii iii alS I~' l
,!.51 iI a .J .. IJ G I~ 1·1 I 6 ii~~ ~a... I f T 11. · oJ III lIt P t
.II 1 j~~ D a
IIJ f lla I t ~ 1 ,~ I~I' !!~' 1/1.1/1.1/1.' , ........... ~ '0 1 ~ r iJ I'i";"; 6:.11 i '0 ]
J 1 ;I~ l~t JI f )1~ 1h ~ J
:! ~ !l~ ~§'§ U'I J '!l li~ 1 J :: .~ ~ i~~~ I 1 1 i! ~ .... ! ... 0;
fir jDJ~ IiI 1 III a ........
• 1 i 1~1 fr8. ~g ;t ! J J & t I J ~.J~ 1~ ~ I j II· ]·l·~
. e J ;~. : ~
! f !i f I 1 11,,;t1. l d I ~ ~l I Idh bih ·db ~ ~ I I iljlfJ. f Ig~~ ~ J !~~~it4IJ!t s
Edlibit53
ScM ConsInIdion-RsIatad Sales and Use Tcu RMwlua ht::rving to ih. City of Polo Alto, 2009-2015 and 2009-202511)
In 2008 DoIICll'$
SUMC Protect Fiscallmpcxt Analysis
2009-2015
,*-Sl~1o Ana.ont IUIjIIct 10 CaPIiii8 SCIIKand
o.tea...,. T ...... o.t :w.andUsar ... Sc.-and !.he Ta .... (21 u.TaI<(3)
015 eo... \31 (-41
FIMs 1,2, and 3 159,738,251 80.0% $47,790,600 85.0% $406,220
~(3)15)
I'IMt 1, 2,ond 3 $3,187,526 0.0% SO 85.0% SO
Ggyi_" QIbtc ~ (3) (6)
FIMs 1,2, ond 3 $21,692,564 0.0% SO 85.0'IIt SO
TCDIIIIbIe Coot
S 134,C1OO,000
$7,150,000
548,659,000
. TOTAL 184,618,340 $.47,1'JO/J«J SGS,220 $1.,IJ09,000
Saurcer. 'bhibil .. 9. $tonlotd Un~ 1.en4, Bvildino-,ond Reol ~ and caR! Canoulling.
til ON,-sales ond use _ eslimatucllO ocaue 10 the bene6t oflhll City of Polo Alto "'" indudood in !his ~
~ C8I.E ~"9 GSlj,..u.thatllw SUMCI'rcIecl ~ capture B5 peI<>enI of pc>I....moI.soIos and _lox __ -mtad wIth.-.lruclicn ~.
(31 At:>pIos at)' of .... 10 Alta tax rate of l.oo"....-t. f'iavres ... oouncIed~""" cion-.
2C:I094Cl5
.............. 10 J\mturt SWjed 10 o;piii; ScMsGnil
ScI!. and U. Ta SoNaend ..... r_ JlDlep) Usoor_p)
80.0% $ , 07,200,000 65.0% S911 ,200
0.0'IIt SO 85.0% SO
O.O'IIt SO 85.0% SO
1107,200,000 1911,200
(4)s..~49.
(Sj Slanlonl Unlvw1ily Lanc/, 8uildings, and "-I &Iute...tim_ thateD percent of ccntracls and wb-conlnlds .... t.. 55 million .. r mont. Thit _maN ill based on Stanlotd Uni~ Lancls, Buildings, and Reo! EsIahI ..........mati< of
Cllhwcapital ~ ",.;""" _<25 and con understGndillS of the SaM's ~ neecI5,
(6) So& COSls .... al'l6cipG*llo be paid dired!y by the $oM. All ~ of IaI<abIe gcoc!s or ~ " .. ..umed 10 be located in o.IifomkJ outoid. P .... Alto. ThtoteIare. lID .... .,.. us. fait boIneIit iI -"mod 10 oa:RIelO!he City of
"""'Alta".,.., ..... -.
(7) AsIsutnes all p~ botI1 toxoble Qnd ~e. -.Ad be rnt>d. by SIonIatd Un; ...... ity. wh1ch Is not loeated in IhII City of PaIoAlto. Th_/on, thaN is flO palltnlia/ ....... Cit)' of ....... Alta 10 oblDin sales or ..... __ ues
".,.., tIHosG p<nehoses.
Cllflfc..~ 2/1912009 No\T~\2001\1007043~WMInv~~_"""".'D7"
,""
Exhibit 54
Construction-Related Soles and Use Tax Revenues Accruing to the City ,of Palo
Alto, 2009-2015 and 2009·2025 "
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscollmpact Analysis
Entity I Cost Category 2009·2015
~(1)
DiredCosts $4,102,018
Soft Costs $0
Equipment and Other Costs $377£761
Subtotal $4,479,779
!Kt:I. (2)
Dired Costs $2,525,370
Soft Costs $0
Equipment and Othe~ Costs $70£803
Subtotal $2,596,173
S2M (3)
Dired Costs $406,220
Soft Costs $0
Equipment and Other Costs $0
Subtotal $406,220
TOTAl $7,482,172
Sources: Exhibits 51/ 52, and 53; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) See Exhibit 51.
(2) See Exhibit 52.
(3) See Exhibit 53.
2009·2025
$4,102,018
$0
" $539/025
$4,641/043
$2,525,370
$0
$70£803
$.2,596,173
$911,200
SO
$0
$911,200
$8,148,416
CBRE Consulting, 2/19/2009 N:\ Teom-Sedway\Proiecls\2oo1\ 1007043 $tonford\Working Documents\Model\SUMC Fiscollmpoct,R07 .xls
EMhlblt55
Conlfruclion Staffing Eatimale .. 2ooM025
SUMC Projed Flacallmpad Analyala
-RIg-EmpIO)'I1Ient
Du/Qflon Duration Awrage for ConatrvdlQII
EnIiIy/COnlltuCliOll PhcIte (11 fMonIhtHll lIea!!l EmDloYment III Period
(AI [B .. AIl21 Ie) tD-hCI
I'hcIIe 1: 2009 through 2015
SHe (Mgjn SYMC Sftal
latt 200910 Mid 2011 6 0.50 75 37.50
la1a 2009 '0 Mid 2011 10 0.83 100 83.33
Lata 2009 to Mid 2011 2 0.17 50 8.33
Mid'201I to La'_ 2011 .4 0.33 60 20.00
Lata 2011 to 20 15 11 o.n soo 458.33
I.aIa 2011 to 2015 16 1.33 600 800.00
Lata 2011 to 2015 ~ 2.08 800 1-'66.67
~ IHoovar fmljgn ilil
2010102012 4 0.33 1040 46.67
2010 to 2012 6 0.50 140 70.00
2010 to 2012 8 0.67 1040 93.33
ToIoI • SHe (2' 3,284.17
Annual A¥erasa • SHe (3' 505.26
Jm1
Mid 2009 to Late 2010 4 0.33 30 10.00
Mid 2009 to klle 2010 12 1.00 30 30.00
Mid 2009 to laIe 2010 2 0.17 30 5.00
Early 2010 to 2014 10 0.83 270 225.00
Early 201010 2014 14 1.17 300 350.00
Eody 2010 to 2014 18 1.50 450 675.00
Eody 201310 2015 12 1.00 200 200.00
Early 2013 to 2015 6 0.50 170 85.00
Early 2013 to 20 15 12 1.00 170 170.00
Talal.lPCH (2) 1,750.00
.AnnIIaI A_age -LPOi (4) 269.23
hIM
2010102015(51 .. 0.33 150 50.00
201010 2015 (51 4 0.33 175 58.33
201010 2015 (51 .. 0.33 225 75.00
TCdaI • SoM (21 183.33
Al\nuol Ayeroge • SaM (61 28.21
PraIad.1'tl!;I1 Onsita ID1I!!!!Io!!O!ure 1marovamanI. ,
2009 through 2015 84 1.00 28 196.00
Talal • Infmstrudure I2J 196.00
AMtIoI AwRIg •• Inlrottruclure, (7) 30.15
TOTAL suMC Project· PhaM 1 (2) 1,.nUo
TOTA.L SUMC Prelec1 Annual_rage • !'hot, 1 (8) 832.85
Nata.: Continued on n ... page
CMI c......1t." 2119/!009
&hibit 55, continutd
Condruclion Staffing Eatlrnatel, 2009~2025
SUMC "olee! Fitoallmpod ...".it
Dulallon Durallon Avarog.
~nllly/Conllrudlon Phat. II I !Mc:osdhllll1 I!-') ~mel!!imri II)
tAl [8-A/121 Iq
"'-2: 2016 Ihfough 2025
SHe /Ma!n SUMC De)
Early 201710 Lote 2019 30 2.50 120
Late 201910 Mid :2021 10 0.83 185
Loki 201910 loIe 2021 14 1.17 200
T 0kI1 • SHe 41l)
Annual Avaroge • SHe 41 01
~
2015 10 2020 45) 4 0.33 150
2015102020 (5) 4 0.33 175
2015102020 (5) 4 0.33 225
2017to2019;2013;ond2021 6 0.50 50
ToIoi -ScM (9)
Annual Averas--ScM (11)
fmiK!::!!!idi Qolilllnfroat[IIIOIYat 11llIl~lm.DlI
2016 Ih'au;h 2021 72 6.00 28
ToIol -Infr05ltuclur. (9)
Annuoi AvelOge ~ Inf_wet,,", 112)
TOTAL SUMC Project • PhaIe 2 (9)
TOTAL SUMC f'roled Annucd AYlnlQI • ""-2(131
Soun:ea: SUMC App/iCOlion, 'ton 8 • eontttvdion AdWjl_ reviaed April 7, 2008; ond CBRE eonsubing.
(I} ContIruclion phosO!, nllmber of month., aod -e-emp/oymoml ore pl'O¥ided by the SUMC Appli.:alion.
PI ReprO!enlS Ihe ellmulal;"" number offul time lIquNolenl jobe over the enlira 6.5.,..." construction per'tOd.
AVlII'CIgl EMpfo,ment
For Condruttlon
PtrIod
(D.-he)
300.00
154.17
233.33
687.50
68.75
50.00
58.33
75.00
25.00
208.33
20.83
168.00
166.00
16.80
l)ij3.83
106.38
PI Represenlilhe eurnulat ... number oHuU time lIquivoleni job, an on onn...,1 basis. ApprOJOimately 505 wrlter9 employ.d full time for 6.5 yeor, it the
equivalent of 3,284 eumuloliw joba oyer the entlt.coDltruction periad.
(4J Represents the eumulati .. number of full lime equiolalent jabs on on annual basis. Apptllllimalely 269 ..otI<era emploved full lime for 6.5 ~ it ."'.
equivalent af 1,750 CUmUlolw. jabs aver lhe anti,. conttruction period. .
(5) Actuol School of Medic:ine ~onalruction Ichedule OCIh, forthr •• , .Ight-month periodafram 2010 to 2020 ond one, oiJe·monlII period Irom 2017 to 2021. To
ollaeot .. the con .... uclian workers into 2015 and 2025 i;alegorie., CBRE Consulting assumed thai ror .he conalrudlan peRod bel_en 2010 and 2020, half of
the work will take place before 2015 ond half wUllak. place between 2015 and 2025.
(6) Rapr_nb t"'l1 cumulolive number of fuD time equivalent jobt an on onnual bali •. Approkimalely 28 workers employed Mllima for 6.5 Y8III5 it Ihe
equivalent of 183 cumulalive jobs OYer the entire eo,,",ruclian period.
(7) Rep-.... nt. the cumulative number of fuD time equivalent jobs on on annuol basia. Approximately 30 worker. employed full lime lor 6.5 yeoI'8 ilthe
oquiomlenl of 196 cumulative jobe oyer the enlire eoMlructian period.
48) Represenle the cumulative number of full lime equivalent lobs an on a""uol booie. Approximalely 833 workeu employed fun lime for 6.5 ~.Ie Ih.
equillQlent of 5,414 cumulallv .. jabs ave, tJ,e enti,. eonst,uction period.
(9) Rapmenfs the cumulolive "umber of full time equivalent jobs over the en're 10-)lllor conslrudion perKKl.
(10) Represent' the cumulative number of full "me equivalent job9 on Q!\ onnual bosil. Approximately 69 worker. employed ruB lime for 10 years" the
equivolen! of 688 .cumula/iye jobe f1'Ier the enlir'e constl'Udion period.
(11) itepr8$"n\s the cumoIoti .. e number of fuM time' equivalent lobe on an annual basi •• ApprolCirnotely 21 war"" .. employed fuU lime for 10 )lBare ia the
equ;.oJeni of 208 cumulati ... jabs 0"" the .nfn corml'\ldiOll period.
(12) Repremntl the cumu/oIi ... number cI full tim& equivolant jobe on an annuoI basi •• Approximately 17 worker. em~d full lime for 10 yecm ia tha
equivalent of 168 cumulative joba over the entire conlirudian perlod.
(131 RaP_Mis the cumulative number oHuillime oqujyalllll jobr on Q/\ annual basi •• Approximolely 106 worke" emplo.,..l full time for 10 ,..,11 ilthe
equMllenl 011,064 cumulative jobi 0"'" the entire camJruclian period.
Exhibit 56
One·TIme Salel Tax bvenv. from Construction Worlcer Spending, 2015 ond 2025
In 2008 Dollara
SUMC Project FIICQIlmpact Analysis
.... sUmptionI
Avamga Annual Retail Expenditures per Office Worker "Closer to Work" (1)
PM:ent of Salas TQlCQble(l)
Discounf Faclof for Ccinslrudion Workers (2)
Local Annual TCIIIOble ExpendilUres per Construction Worker In Polo Alto
SUMCEnlity 2009·2015
Stanford Hospltol and Clinics (SHC) Iw-. Annual ConsINdion Worker. for Period Shown (3) 3,284.17
Total Toxoble Spending In Palo Allo (4) $5,700,299
ToIol Soles TOIl Revenue@ 1.00 percen' (4) $57,003
Lucile Packard CllI1dren'1 Hoapltal (LPCH)
Average Annual Conskuction Worken for Period Shown (3) 1,750.00
lolal 10llabis SpendIng In Palo Alto (4) $3,037,459
Total Sale, TCIII Revenue@ 1.00 percent (4) $30,375
School of Medicine (SaM)
Average Annual Canslructlon Workers for Period Shown (3) 183.33
TotolTOIIobIeSpendfng in ParoAIto (4) $318,210
Total Sales TCIII ~u. @ 1.00 percent (4) $3,182
On·Site Infrastri..dunt Impl'Ollemlilllfl (5)
AvetOge Annual Construction Workar& for Period Shown (3) 196.00
Tolal Taxable Spending in Polo Alto (4) $340,195
Total Soles TCIII Revanua @ 1.00 percant (4' 13,402
Total SUMC Project
Average Annual ConlfNdion Worbn for Period Shown (3) 5,413.50
Totol Taxable Spending In Palo Alto (4) $',896,163
Toial SoIM lox Rwenue @ 1.00 pwmnt (4) $93,962
$3,258
93%
. 57'l£
$1,736
Tello'
2016-2025 2009·2025
687.50 3,971.67
$1,193,288 $6.893,587
$11,933 $68,936
0.00 1,15Q.00
$0 $3,037,459
SO $30,375
208.33 391.67
$361,602 $679,812
$3,616 $6,798
168.00 364.00
$291,596 5631,791
$2,916 $6,318
1,063.83 6,477.33
$1,846,486 $11,242,649
$18,465 $112,427
Saurcae: U.S. Census 8vraou, 2006 Businesa Patterns for Son Jose-Sunnyvola-Sonta Cloro, CA. Metropolitan Stoii&1lcol Area (MSA); EJihibit 55;
In1emoIionol Colmcil of Shopping Cantara {IC5q, OffiCII Worker Ratoll Spending Potter"' 2004; Bureau of Labor Stotl., Consumar
&pendlture Survey 2006; and CURE Consuhing. .
(1) See Exhibit 25. ,
(2) The diacount fador for conttruc1ion workers adlusta the office worker .pencl1ng "Closer to Work" 10 account for the assumption that
cOl'llltrudion ~J or. mora likelv to pock a lunch from home than purcha8B food oR·slte. The discount foetor was calculalad using Ihe
County BUJiness Patterns and the Consumer Expenditure Suvety, eJduding the Ifaad Awoy from Home" t;ategory. n,. 57 percellllMfimole
implies !hot the toIDl dollars splnt by conaltudion worker8 is equivalent to appIOllimalely 51 pe~ of offica worlcer&' spending. In order to
CO'cUQfe,he 57 percent, divide $21,063 by $36,769, which or, found in Exhibit 28.
(31 Figum reprBMnf the cumulative numbar of full time equivalent jobs over 111. period, shown. Sea exhibit 55 far IlClfOng estIma1ell.
(4) Figures ara rounded to whale dollars. .
(51 ConsIrudion workers aRllioted with general on-slte Infrastructure improvements may not be assodaled with Q spedfic SUMC entity, since the
1mpr0V8ll'llll'ltl benefit the entire SUMC Project area.
C8RE Ccinsolfine. 1J7/2009
,_. -. -. .... .. -._ ... ---_. __ ._-----_ ..
Exhibit 57
Estimated New PM Peak Hour Trips Generated by SUMC Proied, 2025
SUMC Project Ftscallmpad Analysis
Facilily
HosRitals
SHC .
LPCH
Subfotal
Medical Office Buildings
701 Welch Rd.
703 Welch Rd.
1101 Welch Rd.
Hoover Povilion
Hospilal Use Conversion
NewSpaca
Subtotal
TotaL. by Entity
Entily
SHC
LPCH
SHC
LPCH
Subtotal
lPCH
LPCH
SHC
SHC
SHC
SHC
LPCH
SaM
NetNewS~ce
Percent of
Sq. Ft. (1) Subtotal
459,670 54%
395 1300 (2) 46%
854,970 100%
(56,300)
(23,500)
(40,100)
84,230
60,000
144,230
Net PM
Peak Hour
Vehicle T ripa
693 (3)
373 (4)
320 (4)
693
(123) (3)
(51) (3l
(88) (3)
315 (3)
600
"46
0
Sources: AECOMIDMJM Harris (email correspondence from Nichola Seow; September 17, 2008);
Fehr & Peers, -stanford University Medical Center Trip Generation and Parking Demand Study,·
March 2008; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Square footage figures are from Table ES·3 (Summary of Medi<=al Center Project), page 3 of Fehr
& Peers study.
(2) Note that the lPCH Hospital square footage figure used for the March 200B Fehr and Peers study
has since changed; therefore the square footage figure presented here is cfrfferent than the one
presented in Exhibit t.
(3) Net PM peak hour vehide trip estimates are from AECOM.
(4) The neW PM peak hour vehicle trips for the Hospitals were allocated to the SHe and LPCH entities
by applying the percentage of total net square footage for each entity to the tatal Hospitals trip figure;
figures are rounded to whole numbers.
caRE Consulting, 2/1912009 .. N:\Teom·Sedwoy\Prajects\2007\1007043 Slanford\Working DccumenlB\Model\SUMC Fi.scallmpocl.R07.x1s
,
E.t.ibit58
Eitimot.d City of No AIIo and No AIID Unified Sc:hoeI DisIricf Impact Fe.
In 2008 DoIkn
SUMC PIajad FiIaIIImpact Anat,sis
NlfN.8IIOft.or -a.ft.or I!oIImaiIId
IqIOCI .... ....... Tripl2t NelIWT. .... 131
CIlulllWRMII ...,
~(S)
HCllpitaI 743,125 .... ft. (6) $0.00 /sq. ft. (71 SO
NonoHospilal . 126,893 III. ft. (6) 117.06 foq. fl. (II $2,'~m
SuI:JkiaI i2, 164.7'15
Till"""" (10, .xIlripo [11) $2.6114 IIrip 1111 ".110,.&00
CGmmuIIIIr I'IdIIeI
1'aob(121 870.018 sq. ft. (6) 13.972 /Iq. fI. !81 S3,455,711
Commwnilyc.r..s (13) 870,018 ocj. ft. (6) 10.224 1111. fI. 181 "94,884
Ubmrias 1'4) 870,0'8 sq. It. (61 10.214 1"'1' II. 181 SI86~
SubIuIoI 0;836
TOTAL '7,611,974
P&lm(15) 870.o1a ..... (61 $OA7 M fL (hI) s.a.908
NoIDI< Continuad OIl"'" PGilI't-
cae~ Ul7/2OOP
Noot .......... ft. ...
NootN_Trip (2)
471,300 III· II. (61
Ooq.fI.(9J
146!rips (11)
441,,00 "'I. It. 161
441,500 "'I' ft. (6, ""'.500 sq. II. (61
441.soo ..... If)
I.PCH SaM T ......
...... Ft.or l!oInIcNf .N;SIIiOFi ... ~Ft; .. . &Ii ....... I!IIImaIIId
.... "-TripI .... (3) ........... Trip(2) ........... T ... ....13) AlePJ
10.00 M It. PI SO o .... It. (6) SO.oo / .... I\. (7) SO SO
517.06 Mft. 18) SO 0 ... 1\.(6) 517.06 hq. ft. (8j 10 52.164,795
SO 10 s~.'I6Ui5
-"-----
S2,6UJlrip (8) $391,864 o IIfps (11) S2.6U IIrip IS) SO 12.002.264
--"
13.972 Irq. ft. 1111 51,753,638 o rq. ft. (6) S3.972 1111. II. (iIJ SO $5.209'.*'"
10:224 1111. ft. III) 198,8!l6 o III. It. (61 SO.224 /$q... (8) $0 $293.780
10.21" Irq. fl. (8/ " ..... 81 o sq. II. 16) 10.214 /sq. It. (8j SO 1280665
S1,94T,015 10 s5,183594
$2,3I8IlI9 $0 SJ.P5O.I58 _ ..... _ ...... -
$0.47 /tq." (16) $2I)7,5C15 o ... t.f6I . SQA7 hq... (16) $0 $416,413
N;\T~1XI7OII3·~ ........ ~_ ..... IP7 ...
Cd1Ibt 58, conlinuecl
EstiITlCllvd City of Palo Alto and Palo AIIo Unified School DisIrict Impact "
In 2008 DoIlen
SUMC Profac:t PIIcaIlmpad AnoJrsis
Sources: Exhibits 1 and 57; City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (see SecIion cfIoIlons in footnotes); City of Palo Alto Ne.. Details, "Description of Cily of Palo AIIo Affurclable Housing Fund _ 2005"; 'CIty of Flalo AIIo
o-.lapmenJ Impad Fees,' updated November 6. 2008; Or of Palo Alto. 'P\cmning and TronIpOItotIon Ccmmlssion SIaft Repoo1 Augt.at 27, 2003"; FIaIo Alto Unrtied School ~ (PAUSD)" ~. "School Impact
Fees'1 PBS&I; and CBRE Con$wIting.
(I) Indudes the Hoover Ptl'<filion site.
(2) Per page l.of 1he "City of Palo Alto DewIOpm6nllmpoa Fees", the Housmg lind Ownmunily Fcocilities impact "",. aN _eaecI on a per square ~ b=is. With raped to 1he Transporiallon impad fee, per $edion
16.59.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. "The fee imposed upon 0 new ~pnenI shall be calculated by multiplying ftl1he number of new PM peak hour -.ehide trips projected to be generated by a new
d_lopMent by Ui} the current fee rate.'
(3) Figures ore ~nded 10 whale numbers.
(4) Per Sec;t;on 16.58.040 of the Cily of Palo Alto Municipal Code, "The obligation 10 pay the fee ectobIished by this chaphlr '''''If CICQW as of the dole the lim cflSl;I'eIionory opprCNCII is gioten for the deYe{opment, or if
no dlsc:retionory oppI'CMIl is raoquired, os of the dale 0 <IOIIIplete aPJ'lical!on is submitted fer 0 building permit for the d!MIIoponel,l. Fees sholl b9 due ond pcryubl. CI$ of 'It.. cIoIe a complete application is submitted for
a building permit fer the ~efopment. Fees sholl be due and pa)QbI" 10 !he Cltyof.PaIoAiIo prior 10 issuance of a builcing permit for tho dGYeIopmant,ond&tloll be CQ~ althe rate ofth •• in eiNIct as oflhe
dol. the obligatioft 10 pay the .... accrued.'
(5) Par lhe. City of 1'010 Alto's n_ webpage, News Details t--w.pafd.org/~disploynews.osp'~D=532&TargetID-208, ao:emod Deeember 8,20(8), "The Affordable Housing Fund is a Iccal housing trust
fund eslablishud by !he 0Iy Coundl of the City 01 ,.., AIIo. CoIif'omio to provide finand'cd ossma,.a. fer the doMoIOf.lIIMII1I of housing afrordable to .. ry low. low ond moderale-in_ hoUMholcis that 1m. 0< "'Orlc
within the City.' TIle Affordable tblsing fund concisls of the '-;denlial Fund and !he CommerQa/ Fund. 1he eom",...ciol Fund is ~pgsod of housing mitigation fees coIleded from c.ommelda/ deveIooen under
Chapter 16.47 ofiheMUI1idpd Coda.
(6) I'IIr Section 16.58.010 of the CiIy of'cIIo Alto Municipal Code, "Now ...... opment she. mean. with resped 10 nonresidential doMoIopll'llll'll. any de..lopmenI that cnoaIes odditional lIqU<mll footage. Where a
deYlllapment project includes r~ 01 existing squor. fooIgge. the new dtweIaprnenl shIaIl .-" only the potIion !hoi eonsiilut. additional sqvore motoge." See Exhibit 1 for square fooIcge figure.
(7) Per page :2 of the "City of PClIo Alto [)ow,fapmerrtlmpad fees", hospilols end a>maI........t facililies ore """"'FIt from the Qy of Palo Alto ... Housing impact fee.
(S) Fees per square mot CiJ1d per net new trip ore from page 1 of the "City of folo'AIto Oew!Iopmenl Impact Fees'.
(9) If the new Squ0t9 footage is nGgQIiYe [I .... the proposed SUMC Projed is redudng !he omClUl'lf of spaw}, _ ElIhibit 1 fer square fooIoge figui'1lS, the n-square ii>atage is assumed to be _0 for the p .... pose of
this anolps ';11CIII impact fees 01'9 only ~ on odcfrtionol squor. fooIoge.
(10) Per page 2 of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Tronsporta1ion Ccmtrasion StaR' Report. the objedives of the Citywide Transportation Impod Fw are 'to reawer a fair portion of future City of Polo Alto
Ilal""",1o:IIion imprawmenl costs from futurelond deve10pmant and (~city wide'; 'to pto"ide 0 funding SOVIW for implementing the Palo Alto Camp""'sMil'lan, Biqd" Transpartafion Plan. and
TrOlospot1a1icm stratogi~ Plan f'"'ied$, induding bilce Io~, biqde ond pedestrian undecm>ssings of Coltrain. shlAlle transit seMcas and equi,,-. and odoanCJed traflic signal ~ 19chnolagi_ aty..ide'; and "10
pI'OIIidtt local match fundi (typically from 15 to 25 pe-.,t) for mlerat, state, regional \I'on.pailation gronls to ~ projects from the Polo Alto ComprehensMo "on, 8lqocle Transpaltafoon PIon. ond Tronsportaticon
Strategic: Plan_'
(11) See E'XribiI 57.
(12) Per Section 16.58.020 of the City of Palo Alto Munidpol Code, the parks dll'Vlllopment faa i$1o fund acquisition of land and impovBln8nls for neighborhood and d"1SIricf parks, in on amount as" forth in th"
municipal r-schi!d ......
ll3} Per Sedion 16.58.020 of the Cily of Palo Alto Municipal Code, th& ~mllnity a.nter ~ fee i.s 'to fund development and imp_ements Iv ~munity CIII1tets, in an amount CIS set rorth in the municipal
fee .chedule,·
(14) Per $ection 16.58.020 of the Ciiy of I'0Io Alto Municipal Code. the library deW!lQprneni fee is '10 Nnd de..lopment and imprr;wements 10 librarift. in on Clmount os set forIh in the municipal fee Idoedufe.'
(15) Aoxording 10 lhe PAUSO website (_.pQUld.org/_ity/fees/scno.:otimpad..ntml. oc:cessed on o.-mber 8, 2008). PAUSD impocl "fees ore used only for conslJuction and f9C:0nSh'YCtion of school focitmeS.·
(16) .Aa::ording Iv the PAUSO website, PAUSD impad 'fees ore oss_d 0" lItrucfu .. to be used for c:ommer-c:ial or industrial purpcoM!S, rnost senior heousing, adult-only mobile hom .... ond hotels and mOlGh.· ".... for
I:Omtnl!fcioi de-4loprnent are _ad at $0.42 per $qUO .... foot. . .
C8«1!~, 2/1912f1J' ""\T~~7\IOO1OQ~Wotfoiog_~oI\SU'oIC"""~lW""
e.hibit 59
City of Palo Alto GeniIroI fund ~ and Esfimaling Fac:Iors. RscaI Year 2008-2009
In 2008 DoIIar.s
SlIMe Project FisaIIlmpoct AnaIpis
OI,dl'alo-' '-Variabl. e.p...
~ .... ()penIIing Net ""'-'t v ......... ..... ea,.1lma Varioble e..--....
2OCI849 T....r.n Out (I) ~l!! Va ...... !!! ra.-_ "*-' s.wd ,041 "",,,Iov." Served ~
BudgotCaNgariel /A1 [a) (C-A-B! [OJ IE= c~ D] If -E /130,385] [0= F.dIO%]
ClIy Altom." $2.778,285 lO $2,178,285 10% (61 $277,829 52.13 51.07
City Auditor 5131,267 lO 5931.267 0% (7) SO $0.00 $0.00
City 0etIr;; 5',26'.485 SO 51,264,485 0%(81 $0 $0.00 SO.oo
City C...-iI $3104,606 SO $3104.606 0%(9) so 50.00 SO.oo
City Moncget 52,233,005 52,039 52,230,966 10% (10] 5223,097 51.71 50.86
AdmlnlstralMt SeMces $7.17l.853 so $7,171,853 20% (111 $1,4304,371 51 t.oo 5S.SO
Community s.r.Ices $21,642,469 $6,990 $21,635,"79 40% (12) $8,654.192 566.37 533.19
Fi .... $24,225,206 SO $24,225,206 80% (13) $19,380.1 !!oS $148.64 574.32
Human ResoutCl!lS 52,821,771 SO $2,821,171 40% (14) $1,128,708 SS.66 $4.33
Ub«Iry $6,569.566 SO 56,569,566 30% (15) $1,970,870 $15.T:2 $7.56
Pla"";"!1 & Co.........nily ftMtoM*lt $10,376,519 57.60] S 10,368,912 30% (16) $3,110,674 523.86 511.93
Pol;.., $29,810,1:28 SO $29,810,128 70% (17) $20,867,090 $205.73 {20) $102.86
PubkWottls 113.841,231 $16,574 $13,830,657 50% (IS) 56,915,329 S53.o.c $26.52
l'br!.o.p.mmenIQl $8,055,000 SO $8,055.000 48%(191 53.902.760 $29.93 SI4.91
TOTAL $13a,041.3'1 $33,210 $132,ClO8.181 $67 ,86S,0B2 $566..18 5283.11
,.""IN: Continued on ned page.
C8I!i Con.uIti .... 7/1 'f2(I(N N:\T~\1OO7\l0070d1ilarlonll.Wortirlg ~1'Iaa.t"",",",""
EIhibit 59. contiIwIed
CiIy of Palo Alto General Fund E.pandiIunlS and Estimating Factor., MtcaI Yaor 2008-2009
In 2008 Dollars
SlIMe ~FiIcaIIrnpact Analysis
Soutcas: EMhiblt 6; 'City of PalO Alto 2008-2009 Prapoeed ~ Budv-!;' .... caRl! CcInIuIIing.
(1) Per the City. pRlpcI!I8d budtet ........ tnlnwIws ore ....... of IIKI'Iinv _ ~ fundL The City of ftllo MdsGenooraI Fund mainklins abli8aficms fa..thar funds -=h _ SIonn Drainage Fund CopiIaI PrajecI
Fund and o.bt s-a Funds. •
(2) &pendilwel paid II)' the General Fund ........ rthCIII ott--.
(3} ~. of CCIIIItIhatn:-...!Jh 9'VWIh. III "PflCll"'lfa bod ..... caRl! Consulting ........ -*'Ie cost ~ based on tIIioIinO flAl-fi_ tlriing. DepcI ....... with ... than 10.00 flAJ.time pcIIitlons ore
~fa"-l00pen;antfited ..... OtherCBRE ____ ~.
i"J Dor!I'..,. pofHI/aIiCIn IIIIimaIed broddins "....,., .... 50 p-.t of fOIoI jobs. ToIOI..-__ in ... City and'" ....... of 1nRua",.. _ oIIITmaltid In llHIit 6.
IS) Casfsper....."... ,....,...50perI:IInt.CGIIs..,.~~ Fi ...... _r--wfa .......... .
(6) I'er the 0If$ prapcl!l8d budpt !p. 34), ....... ore 10.60~ IIfvff in the City IdIomI!}Is 0IIice. C8III! t:onMtlng esfimaIw that 1.00 fuU.fiIM posItIoiI, or '0 ..-.nt. iJ \Gtiollle.
(7) Per the CWI propooecl ...... _ (p. 4OJ, ....... are LOO W-ti ....... in !he CJty AMI ..... 0fIb. C8RE c..n.uIIing eetImoIes lhatttw. _ no,...,;Gbie .....
(8) Per !he ews. prapoMId budpt !p. 46), 1h-re Ore 6,75 foM..time SIcIIf in it. ClIy CIIH1!'a 0fIIce. CBIE ~ llfimalw!hat *'-ore no WIriaIoIe coct8.
(9) Per !he Cifts prapotoed budpt (p. 53), the,. .... 9.oor..u-.... """""",",the CIty CaundI. CBIE c::-uIIIfta wIIrnIIIeI!hat *'-__ .... riGbIe coct8.
(10) Per !he OIP proposecilluds-t (p. S6J. there are 9.50 fuI.4ime .... in .... City MIa ...... 0fIic0e; !hi. liS-does not incI ..... the Woddv_ c-lapmenl CootdI.-, pooitian that ,. NIIy funded thrwgh the Camrnunily
Se ..... DIp.I ........ aRE ~ estimaIM that 1.00 fvll.fime pqsitian,ar 10 ...,-.t •• -now ..
11'1 Per the CilJ'so ~ buclg.t (p. 62/. there ant 9Loo r..II-4ime oIaff in !h. AcImirillralioe s.r.w:. o.,atment. CBRE Corwulling estimates that al General t..dpr posItIorwlUO). ~I pooitIora 1'.00}, ...........
c::aIIecIio ... pa111Iions [9.001, or 20 pwoent. are .... riGbIe..
Ill} l'erthe Cifts prapcIIMIlIudpt [po 701. *'-ant 97.25 fwII.Iime ... in the Camrnunil)o s-icw Depart'""". CBRI! Consulting _mat. that oil paoItIcms ~ft>r CCCIIfdIna!ing P .......... and mai.......ar-(38..50).
or .010 I*cenI. ore -roblL
It3~ ..., the Otfs p"'flOS'lld budget (p. 841. there ant 126.oofv1lot;me sIaIf in fhoo fIIre 08p0rIment. CBRE C~ng ..a_ that 011 categories ..... ma .. than 3 paIIitiOIw (38.50). Qr 80 pomont, en -"""e. ·1'''' Pet the Otfa p~ bucIget (p. 92). there ore 16.00ilAJ.time ... in the HUI\'IQn ___ Depol'l'll8nl. caRl! CansuItine esfimaIIs !hot allaot.go_ wfth '" ..... 2 .,...._ (6.00); «"0 ...-n, .... w.iabfa.
,1" Pwthto oy. proposed bucIget (p. 100), ''-...... 43;75 full-time sIaIf .. the L'IIforr DepcI""*,,,. CSIlE CansuIting tlllimal • .tt"".RSpeciaIsI and ............ 1'aIIIio!w 113..5O)..r 30 pereIIIII, .,.-S ......
(16) Pw the C/tYI pro..-.. b~ IP-1081, theta ..... 55.50 full-time sIaIf in the PIonnin; andComIllUllllr f.'rroira_ Oepamnent. CBIIf ear...ti'9111firi1a1n """ .... PI_. AaocIote PIanner/Sudllinabilily CoorcInotor.
and Plclnning TKhnician palM .... in Cumnt l'Io"rWng (5.00); the Senior I'Ionner ond 1'1a_ Positfona in Ad",,1'D Plannil9l".llO); the Tftlt'IIpCIrfafion E'ngineers in Tnnpa,talian \2.00J; the a.AIdIng Ttoehnlcion pasiIiom
·in Building \2.0}; and the Buikling l""pedaI' porilia"" in Inspedian SoIrwi-I'.ocI). ar 30 percenl ...... _me.
1171 Pet the 0tYs proposed budgel(p. 1181. !hate are 163.00 fuI.fiMe IIaff in the Police DeparImInI. eBRf ConsultIng 8IIfmatw thai all c:aIagarI. with III least 8.00 paeIIIans (110.00). or 70 .,...-.t. 0l'Il _loWe.
(18) !let the Oty's proposed budget (p. 12SJ. there _ 21.5.ooWJ.liIMlIOffin.,. MIle Wat\I$ Department. CBRf ~ tIIIimaIec lhatall oaIagOrieswilhGt 1.-'.00 pcsItIane (107.00I.0I5O..-nt. -~.
(19/ Tolcenoso ........... ~based on depotfmlnlS'budglolsand f*C8III----pIions.
1201 n. IlllrAce popuIoIion for the Fire Deportment is !he City. or 101,430; _ EooIriIlil6.
C8II(~ ""'/'1009 ""\T_$al",,~""'\2OO7\IUQ1G13~w..tIIog~,.... ..... .III7""
&hlbIt60
SUMC P'Iafad r.Iated CIty r;I PalDAIIo GenanI( Fund ~ 2015 and 2025
In 2008 DcIJc:p
SUMC PIOjad Fiw:d Impact AnaIpis
VariaoIIIe ~ t!!It time:-m ................ SHe LI'Ot ScM NenSUMC T .... ... ~ s-d(1' 2015 -11'1 ~ 2015 2CI2!I 2015 2025 2015 2Q25
Estimated EmpIo,ee s.-dtsl '79 1,251 850 892 0 0 100 100 1,929 2,2'"
CiIr /IItomrYr 51.07 Sl,G411 51,339 S910 59SA so so 5107 5107 52,065 $2,.00
0Iy I\udiIor SO.OO $0 SO SO so so so so SO so SO
CilyOerl< SO.OD $0 so SO SO $0 $0 So so SO SO
CilyCourd SO.oo so SO SO SO so so '0 so SO SO
CiIy Memoget SO.86 5842 ",076 '131 $767 SO SO 5. $U 51,659 $1,929
Jwlminislnllivo SoMcas 55.50 55.311S 56,881 $04,676 "',906 SO so 5550 S550 $10,610 $12.337
Communii)' Sar.s-533.19 $32,.93 "",521 $28,212 $29,605 SO $0 13,319 S3,319 $641f1A $7 .. ,445
PiO'll $7".32 572,759 sn.97. 163,172 1*.293 SO SO $7,.32 $7,432 "43,363 5166.6"
Humon 1I.eIOu.-,...33 ,..,239 55,.,7 53,681 $3,862 SO so ,..33 Sd3 $8,353 S9,7U
UbIOf)' $7.56 57.401 "..,. $6,.z6 S6,7 .... SO SO S7S6 $756 $14,583 "6,9SS
Pl ...... ,ng & CammulllJ I ............... 511.'3 "',6'19 " ... ,z. 510.'41 $10,642 $0 SO ",193 $1,193 S23,o13 $26,71$9
Palla! 5102.86 "00,700 "28,678 S87,431 "',751 so SO 510,286 $10,286 5198,417 5230,715
I\iblicWDrIot 526..52 525.963 $33,177 S22,$A2 $23,656 SO $0 52,652 12.652 551,157 5",..
~rtrn"" . SlA.97 " .... 656 S18,727 512,725 $13,353 so SO ',..97 ",." S28,878 $33,577 --TOTAL 1283.11 $277.165 $354172 S2*).646 S252.5I3 .so 10 $28,311 $28,311 UoM.122 $AlP"
s---. &hibiIs A and 59; and C8Rl! c..:.n.IIing.
111 s.. bhib1159.
I2l Ro-alii ........w ......... dollars..
13} See bIIibit 4.
ClIIII_ ... ~'12001'
"
Embit61
Palo Alto Fi,. Deparlr/llnt SHe andSoM Colis far Semce (1)
F"ISCIIII Yecm. 2005-2006 ancI2006-2007
SUMC Pri:Ijec:t Filml Impact Ana~
W2OO$4I6 1II1C<&Mi'!l ""--........ T ...... 8HC .... SoM
Pf2lJ06.07 FY2Q0S.06 FY20D6-07 FY 1;;005-06 W20D6-07
ea.!.. !Want Cab far .... c..lIsfw ,...." &iitor' ..... &lib ....... CIIi"'" I'IIIDii Cal,... Senile "T .. s... ';T., s.w. ofT .... ...... .. T .. ... ..T ...... s.w. ofTCIIcII
Alarm s,.m SouncI.d due to Malfundian t 2% 4 3Y. 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 4 3"
Alarm Syotem SoundM. No fiM -U"-""';...,.,I 2 2% , ,,, 0 ow. 0 05 2 2% 1 ,'"
Aaiot lmalid 0 0% ,,, 0 0% 0 no 0 0% , 1"
8doit: Lif,o Suppoot lnhIcfadIiIy T rafUPOlt Only 046 42% 57 44" 3 18% 61ft 49 3'" 58 S9%
~r Adi¥aliDn. No fiN. Unil'tlwrWionat 3 • , '" 0 05 0 O'l' 3 2% 1 ,,,
ClIspcm:Md & Canc:.hd ." RIMa 23 2t" 36 2n 0 0'lIi 61ft 23 In. 37 :lsr.
fMS a.B. Clown;RICIed fw IllS 1nmIport 0 0" 0 ow. 2 12" 61ft 2 2% 1 ,,,
fMS CQJJ. e..:fudiio'9 vehide Mcident with "'jury . 5 5" 5 4" 11 65 ... '0 5ft. 16 ,. 15 10'llt
fMS CQJJ. Party TNnrported by Nan-fite.....,c,. 0 ow. 1 1 ... 0 ow. 0 0% 0 ow. 1 ,,,
....... Alarm or ""'-C .. 1I, 0.-:I 2" , 1 ... 0 0'lIt 0 0% 2 2% 1 1 ...
l'kI_bIoI Go. CII' Uqulcl CondItion, 0tfIw 0 0% 0 ow. 0 ow. 1 6 ... 0 0% , 1%
Good Imnt 0111, Of'-2 2% 0 O'l' 0 0'lIt 0 ow. 2 2'lfo 0 ow.
H .... DatecIot Adioatlon dw to Malfunr:llan 2 a ,,, 0 0% 0 ow. 2 2% 1 ...
Heat from $hQrt a-it fWiring). ~om 1% 0 ow. 0 0% 0 0'lIi 1 ,,, 0 0%
look-lr> 0 05 0 0'lIt 0 ow. 1 61ft o· no ,'lit
Lock-Ovt 1" , ,,, 0 O'J(, 0 ow. 1 ,,, 1 1"
Malicious. MiKhioMl ... 1'0_ ~II, Ott.r 0 0% 0 0'lIi 0 0'lIt 0 0% 0 ow. 0 ow.
on or OtherCcmbuoIioI.Uqwid $pim 0 05 2 2% 0 ow. 0 ow. 0 ow. 2 ,,,
"'""-I ofYlCllm[o) From Stalled a....r '5 0 0'lIi 0 ow. 0 ow. , ,,, 0 0%
It#IgCll'J~~ 1 ,,, 0 0'lIt 0 0'lIi 0 ow. ,,, 0 0'lIt
Smoke o.dot ~ due to /WIglfundion 8 7" 8 0$ 0 0'lIt 1 6'" 8 61ft 9 '"
Smoke o.Iwctor AdiYaIion, No Fi .. -Unilllenlional 8 7'!(, 5 4'lIt 0 ow. 0 0'lIt. 8 0$ 5 3!1o
Smoke s-.. Odor" SrnItU 0 0 ... 0 ow. 0 0'lIi 0 ow. 0 ow. 0 ow.
U~ITra",miAion of AIoI'II'I, Other :2 2% 2 2'lIo 0 ow. 0 ow. 2 2'lIo 2 ,,,.
Vehk:l.1ccid..,. with Injuria ,,, 0 ow. 0 ow. 0 0% ,,,. 0 0'lIt
'WIzkfI/' Ew!cUatIon 0 0'lIt 2 2'lIt 0 0'lIi 0 ow. 0 0% 2 1'Kt
Unldamifftld 0 0% 2 2'lfo , 6" 1 0$ 1 '5 3 2'lIt -
TOTAL· Cal ... "'" 110 lOllS 130 lOllS 11 lOllS 11 lDOS 127 1 DOS 147 1 DOS
5oute8o. CiIy ...... IoAko PI .. DIp 1 .. _. ond ORE c-Ating.
II) CaIIs_ ..... CIt to SIations 1 andel.
(2) Callsfw..-ii .. r..r 300 P ....... DtM .......... iI !he ......... farSHC and SaM.
QIIII! c-.IIins. 2/19,12_ It\T~\2fIIIJ'\lOO71lClSlanlord\~ 1Jo<u ....... ~ ,......,...." ..
Exhibit 62
Palo Alto fire Depar1ment LPCH and Total SUMC Call. for Service
Fiscal Yeal't 2005·2006 and 2006·2007
SUMC Project Fi.callmpact Analy.it
I
LPCH Toted SUMC 11~
fY2005.Q6 1'Y2006.o7 I'Y 2005-06 . 2006.07
Calli ~r PtJCInt Cal"~r PtlCent Colla ~r Pel'alllt Call1~r P4tJUni
Call Type Servrce ofToted ServIce of Totol, Service of Total Swe. ofTohII
Alarm System Sounded due to Malfunction 2 8% <1% 4 3% 5 3%
Alarm System Sounded. No Fire • Unlnlenlionol 0 ~ 4% 2 1% 2 I'll
AnlllllMllid 0 ~ 0 0% 0 ~ 1 1%
Balie life Support Inlarfocllily Transport Only 16 64% 0 0% 65 43% 58 34%
Oefedor AdjllDlion, No fj~ • Unintentional 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 1 1%
Diapakhad & Cancelled en Rout. 2 8'JIo 11 44% 25 16% 48 28%
EMS call. Downgraded b BLS !«IMpOrt 1 4% 0-0% 3 ~ 1 1%
EMS eog, e,dudlng Vahlde Accident with IniUIY 0 0% 1 4% 16 11% 16 9%
EMS Call. I'a!ty Transported by Non.fire Agency 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1%-
!'CIlle /\Iann or False Call, Other 0 0% 2 8% 2 1% 3 2%
Flammable Ga, or Llqu1d Condition. Othe, 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1%
Ooad Inl4lnt CoIl, Other 4% 0 0% 3 2% 0 0%
Heot Defedor Activotion duo 10 MoIfunction 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 1 l'lro
Heol from Short Cir~uil (Wiring). DefectivaJWom 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 O'J(,
Loc:k·ln 0 0% 4'16 0 0% 2 1%
lode· Out 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1%
MolicioUi. Mr.chiavoUl Fal .. Coli. Other 1 4% , 4% 1 1% 1%
011 or Olner Combufnbl. liquid Spill 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1%
Removal of Victlm(a) from S100ed Elevotor 0 0% 0 0% 1% 0 0%
Rlng or J_lry Removal 0 0% 0 0% 1 I'll. 0 0%
Smo~. Detee"'r Ac:llvalion due 10 Malfunction 4% 4% 9 6% 10 6%
Smoke Detector AdiYolian, No Fit •• Unintentional 0 0% 4% 6 5% I> 3%
Smoke Scar., Odor of SrnaIce 0 0% 4% 0 0% 1 1%
Uninjenliooo' Ttolllminion of Alarm, Olher 1 4% 4% 3 2% 3 2%
Vehkle Accident with Injllries, 0 0% 4% 1 .% 1%
Water Evacuglion 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1%
Un1denllfl&d 0 0% 2 8% 1 1% 5 3%
TOTAL· Calla for s.va 25 100" 25 100% 152 100% 172 100%
Sources: EKhiblt 61; CU, of Polo Alto Fir .. Pepartmeol; and CBRf Consuhing.
(1) Includes SHe ond SaM coils for .. /Vice; .ee bhibil61.
CBRE Comulling, 'J1l9n009
Exhibit 63 "
Polo Alto Fire Department Estimated Expenses for SUMC and sse Projects (1.)
ely-Provided Cost Estimate, at Bulldout
In 2008 Dollars .
SUMC Project F"lSCQllmpact Analysll
Per unit
Cod
Additiomil Stqff
Saby and 8eneIits 3 paramedic optIrators $154,900 (2)
Cqpj1g1 Expendjturas
Annual Vehide Replocemont CollI
Annual Vahicla Mointanonce Colis
Vehicle Communication Replacement Costs
Subtotal
TOTALANNUAL BCPENSES
ONE·nME EXPENSES
Hiring MdjtjgMI SIgH
New Hire Expenses (3)
Backgraund, Medical, Psych
Training CostS
Academy Fee,
ScJIary and 811ftalits during Academy
Uniforms and Other Equipment
Sublolal
Cgpifgl ExD!DdiJurtl
l00-Fool Ladder Truck
Equipment ond onboord electtonica .
Subtotal
TOTALONE-TIME EXPENSES
llacldartruclc
1 locIder truck
1 laclder truck
3 paramedic operators
3 paramedic operators
3 paramedic operolon
3 paromedic operator,
1 ladder .rude
1 ladder Irude
543,000
$5,000
$3,500
$51,500
$3,000
51,000
52?OOO
$ ,000
$34,000
5800,000
'$13,000
5813,000
Total
$464,700
$43,000
55,000
53,500
$51,500
$516.200
$9,000
$3,000
$75,000
$15,000
$102,000
$800,000
$13,000
5813,000
$915,000
Sourcar. City 011'010 Alto Adminlsll'Dllve Service, Department (e-maII.corresponciellClt fram David Ramberg;
. June 5, 2008); CIty of Palo Alto Fire Dapartrnenl (a·moiI CIOI'I'eSpOndence from Don Firth; September 22. 20(8);
and caRE Cantultinu.
(1) The City of Palo Alto cost Information was provided for both fhe SUMC Proi.ed Gnd th. Stanford Shopping
Canter (SSC) P(oied. The Fir. Deportment indicated their expedotian lhat the majority of COlI" would b. for lh.
SUM(: P,q.d, but no Ipedtk informotion "NOS provided regording the alloootion of lhe costs.
(2) rlOUre hg, been rounded 10 the neat'8lit hundl'ed.
(3) Paramadic operalor. for 24·hour medical unit.
CBRE Conllll1l11J, '21191200'
. \
Exhibit 64
Palo Alto Fire Depariment EStimated Project-Related Expenses, 2015 and 2025 (1)
In 2008 Dollars
SUMC Project Fiscal Impad Analysis
IIam
Total Expenses
for Both Projects (2)
SUMC Project (3)
SSC Project (4)
Total
SUMC Project
SSC Project
Total
2009-2015
Amount
1 ,929 net employees
958 net employees
2,887 net employees
67% of total
33% of total
100% of total
Annual
Expenses
$516,200
$344,908 (5)
$171,292 (5)
$516,200
2009-2025
Amount
2,243 net employees
958 net employees
3,201 net employees
70% of total
30% of total
100% of total
Annuaf
Expenses
$516,200
$361,711 (5)
$154,489 (5)
$516,200
One-Time
fxpenses
$915,000
$641,157 (6)
$273,843 (6)
$915,000
Sources: Exhibits 3, 4 and 63; Keyser Mal'$lon Associates, Inc. (KMAl, "Draft Housing Needs Analysis, Proposed Expansions: Stanford University
Medicol Center, Stanford Shopping Center,. June 2008i and CBRE Consulting.
(1) The Palo Alto Fire Deportment has indicated that most of the estimated expenses as a result of the SUMC and the SSC Projects would be
attributable to the SUMC Project. Since no additional information was provided regarding disfributing the estimated expenses fo each Project, CBRE
Consulting distributed expenses based on net employees. Expenses were not distributed based on net square feet since 34 percent of the SUMC
Project is due to right-sizing; see Exhibit 3.
(2) See Exhibit 63.
(3) See Exhibit 4.
(4) See Table 1·3 ("Projected Increase in Employment and Adjustments for Port Time") of KMA's report for employment -figures, which are rounded to .
whole employees. . .
(5) Colculoted by applying percenfoge of fotol net employees fo relevont expense figure. Figures are rounded to whole dollars
(6) Calculated by applying percentage of 2025 total net employees to one-time expense figure. Figures are rounded fo whole dollars
CBRE Consulting, 2/1.9/2009 N:\Team-Sedway\ProjecIs\2007\1007043S1anford\WorkingDocumen1s\ModeI\SUMCF*:a'impad.R07.lds
Exhibit 65
Palo A110 Rre Department Estimated Proiect-R.elated bpensesDy Entity, 2015 and 2025
In 2008 Dollars
SUMe Proiect FlSCOllmpad Analysis
2009-2015 2009-2025
AnnUal
Entity Amount (1) Expenses (2) Amount(l}
SUMC Project 1 , 929 net emplo)"MS $344,908 2,243 net employees
SHC 979 net employees 1,251 net employees
% of Project 51% ofSUMC'netemployees $175,047 56'" of SUMC net employaes -
LPCH 850 net employees 892 net employees .
% of Project 44% of SUMC net employees $151,981 40% of SUMC net employees
SoM o net employees o net employees
% of Project 0% of SUMC net employees. $0 0% of SUMC net employees
Non-SUMC , 100 net employees 100 net employees
" of Project 5i)b of SUMC net employees $17,880 . 4% of SUMC net employees
Sources: Exhibits 1, 4, and 64; and CBRE Consulting.
Annual One-lime
Expenses (2) fxpensas(2)
5361,711 $641,157
$201,739 $325,398
$143,846 $282,521
$0 $0
$16,126 $33,238
(l) See Cchibit 4 for net employee figures.
(2) Expet IS8S from Exhibit 64 are allocated amongst SUMC en1ities based on their respective perea'ltoge of SUMC net employees. For
presentation purposes, the analysis ossumes that one-time expenses will occur d","ngphase 1 of construction O.e., by 20 15} while in reality
these costs are likely to be spread over time.
CBRE Consulting, 2/1912009 N:\T~edway\I'rojed:I\2Q07\1007043 S1anford\Working Documenta\ModeI Fiscallmpact.R07.x1s
Exhibit 66: Palo Alto Police Department Calls for Service, 2007
Palo Alto, CA
• Stunrutd.MedicaJ Center
33 Add_
866 Tota( CGiIs /26 Call A.VImIgIt
• Sand Hill Rd ,. Add_
·64 Tot'" Cedis / 4 eol "'-age
• Other 75Add..-
154 Terlal Calls /2 eon A. ......
•
CB RICHARD ELLIS
Exhibit 67
Palo Alto Police Department SUMC Projed can. for Service, 2007 (1)
SUMC Projed Fiscal Impact Analysis
Addre ..
100 Pasteur Dr.
1000 Welch Rd.
. 1100 Welch Rd.
1101 Welch Rd.
1110 Welch Rd.
1120 Welch Rd.
1130 Welch Rd.
1150 Welch Rd.
1160 Welch Rd.
1170 Welch Rd.
1180 Welch Rd.
200 Pasteur Dr.
300 Posteur Dr.
-,01 Welch Rd.
7018 Welch Rd.
701C Welch Rd.
703 Welch Rd.
725 Welch Rd.
777 Welch Rd.
801 Welch Rd.
825 Welch Rd.
875 Blake Wilbur Dr.
900 Blake Wilbur Dr.
900 Welch Rd.
901 Blake Wilbur Dr.
905 8lake Wilbur Dr.
925 8lake Wilbur Dr.
Blake Wilbur Dr. & Pasteur Dr.
Pasteur Dr. & Quarry Rd.
Pasteur Dr. & Welch Rd.
Quarry Rd. & W.lchRd.
Welch Rd. & Pasteur Dr.
Welch Rd. & Quarry Rd.
, TOTAL
District
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113H2
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
Call. for
Service
1
5
14
30
11
1
7
3
1
2
2
24
534
4
1
1
1
86
4
2
1
40
42
8
1
19
1
1
1
7·
1
2
8
866
Sources: City of Palo Alto Police Department; and CBRE Consulting.
(1) Data for Command Area 1, Beat 1.
CBRE Conau11inO. 2/'9/2009 N:\Team.Sadway\Projeds\2007\ 1007043 Slanford\Warking Documen1s\ModeI\SUMC Fiacallmpoct.R07 .xis
/
Exhibit 68
Palo Alto Police Department Estimated Expenses for SUMC and SSC Proiecls· (1)
City.Provided Cost Estimate, at Bulldout
In 2008 Dollars
SUMCProject Fiscallmpad Analysis
Expen •• Amount hrUnlt(2)
ANNUAl EXPENSES
Additipnal Pal!" Officer
Salary and Benefits (3)
Capital Expendi!urea
Annual Vehicle Replacement CoslI
Annual Vehicle Maintenance CosII
Vehicle Communicotion Replacement CoslI
Subtotol
TOTAL ANNUAl. EXPENSES
ONE-TIME EXPENSES
Hiring MdiHongi PoIi" Officers
Boclcground, Medical, Psychologicol and Polygraph Tests
Training Costs
Academy Fees
Salary and Benefits during Academy (4)
Salary and Ben'elita during Field Training Officer (FlO) (5) (6)
Overtime in FTO ( New Officer) (7)
Overtime in FTO ( FlO Officer) (8)
Uniforms, Weapons, and Other Equipment
Subtotal
Capitol Expenditures
Patral Vehicle
Communicotion Equipment for Vehicle
Subtotal
TOTAL ONE·llME EXPENSES
Noles: Continued on DelIt page.
CBRe Consul_ng, 2/1912009
2 police officers $157,000
1 patrol vehicle $10,000
1 potrol vehicle $10,000
1 potrol vehicle $4,000
$24,000
2 police officers $2,100
2 police offic8l'1l $1,800
2 police officers $55,700
2 police officers $50,600
2 police officers $3,100
2 police officers $2,800
2 police officers $5,000
$121,100
1 patrol vehicle $44,000
1 patrol vehicle $161°00
$60,000
COlI
Total
$314,000
$10,000
$10,000
$4,000
$24,000
$338,000
$4,200
$3,600
$111,400
$101,200
$6,200
$5,600
$10,000
$242,200
$44,000
$16,000
$60,000
$302,200
L __ .•..... ____ . ___ . ---... ---.----~-~-.-~ .. ---~--'-----. ------_. ----...... _._ .... _-_._---;-
Exhibit 68, continued
Palo Alto Polite Department E.timated &pen •• s for SUMC and sse Projedl (1'
City-Provided ColI Estimate, at 8uildout .
In 2008 Oollal1l
SUMC Projed Filcallmpacf Analysis
• I
Souretll: city of Palo Alto Administrative Sarvlcea Departmenl (e-maB c:orreapondenc:e from Da'lld Rambergj May 12, 20(8); and .
caRE Consulting.
(1) The City of Polo Alto coallnforroatiGn WQiII provided for both the SUMC Pro!ect and fhe sse Project. The Police Department
indicated their upeetollon that Ilia mojori", of coala would be lor the sse Pi-oject,but no .pec:lflc informalOTl _ provided
. regarding the alloc:cdion of the cosIs. I
(2) FIgur .. hcmt bean rbunded to the nearest hundred. .
(3) eo.t of IOlary and benefits per officerassumaa $47.18 per hour for 2,080 hour, and .60 percent banefill.
(4) Cost of salary and benefits per officer during the AcOcIemy a_ $33.49 per hour for 1,040 hour, plus 60 percent ben ••
Thebenefitl percentage j. an Gveruae of the benefit costs for a police otrlCer, Indudingln-lieu holiday, retlretnent perwion,
medicol, r.tiree medical, d~l, watbn compensation, life insuranc:e, long·term disability, and relmbursemenh for educo1ionol
8lIpe~. _
(5) The Iirst phase of th.no program I. !he police academy, the second phase is the field .rolnill8 prograin, ond Ihe third phase
consislsof the aIflc:ers demOllllrating proficiency and ablily to do .the lob on their aWn before completing probation. During the
fOUl to five monlhe field ttvif\lng program, n-off'_ hove a. training off'~ with them at aU tImea.
(6) COlt of aalolYafld benefits during FlO per new officer altum .. $40.55 per hour for 780 hours and 60 percent banafj($.
(7) Colt of overtime in FTO par new officer aMUMa& $40.55 per hour plUI 1.5.lImes for the overtime rOle for 51.5 ~.
(8) Cost of cwertima in FTO per FTO oIflcer _umeeS47.18 plr hour plus 1.5 times b the overtime rota for 39 hOurs. , .
-,
CIIRf Conouldng, 2/1911009
Exhibit 72
lPCH School Enrollment and StaffIng Estin:lQ1es
SUMC Project Fisc:oIlmpad Analysia .
Item FY2007-08
LPCH Inpatient Days (1) 70,752
LPCH Total Average Daily Census (2) 194
LPCH Schaol Average Daily Census (3) --.. 50
Students as Percent of PatientJ (4) 25.8%
Staffing fTID
Teachers (5) 4.0
Student to TeacherRCIlio (6) 12.5: 1
Aide, (5) 1.8
Student to Aide Ratio (6) 28.6: 1
Secretaries (51 0.6
Student to Secretary Ratio (6) 80.0: 1
TOTAL .LPCH School Staff 6.4
Sources: LPCH School; ElIhibit 4; and CBRE Consulting.
(I) See Ekhibit 4.
2015 2025
85,978 109.886
236 301
61 78
25.8% 25.8%
4.9 6.2
12.5: 1 12.5: 1
2.1 2.7
28.6: 1 28.6': 1
0.8 LO
80.0: 1 80.0: 1
7.8 9.9
Nat New
2007·2015 2007-2025
15,226
42
11
0.9
0.4
0.1
1.4
39,'34
107
28
2.2
1.0
0.4
3.6
(2) Averoge daily cenJ\II is calculated by dividing Inpollent days by 365 days. Flguree are roundad.
(3) Fiscal year 2007·2008 figunt was provided by LPCH School. Average daily attendance Is 18 for grades K.5 and 32 for
grades 6·12. Prcjactions for 2015 and 2025 were calculated by applying lhefiscal year 2007-08 ratio of sludents to
patien1s to the total average dally cenaua. FigUres are rounded. .
(4) Fiscal year 2007·2008 ratio of students 10 patients is estimated by dividing the school average daily census by the totol
average doily c:ansus. Ratio of studenis to patients is Q$Sumed to remain canstont for 2015 and 2025.
(5) Fi6col year 2007·2008 figure was provided by LPCH School. Projediona for 2015 and 2025 were colculotecl by applying
the fllSCOl year 2007·2008 ratio of staff to students to the achool average daily census.
(6) Fiscal ye.ar 2007·2008 ro1Io of staff to students Is estlmaled by dividing the number of alaH by the school average daily
census. Ratio of ~ to students it QSSlJmed to remain constant fQr 2015 and 2025.
CBRE Conwltmg, 2119J'J;W9
Attachment B
CBRE CONSULTING
December 9, 2009
Mr. William Phillips
Senior Associate Vice President
S1anford University, Land, Buildings & Reol Estate
2755 Sand Hill Rood, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 9.4025
CBRE
OB RICHARD ELLIS
101 California Street, 44,h FIoot
Son FrClncisc:o, CA 94111
T 4157720123
F 4157720459
RE Lie. 00409987
www.cbra.c:ornlconllJlting
Re: Dynamic Fiscal Impact Analysis for SUMC facilities Renewal and Replacement
Proiect Based Upon Revised Service Population
Dear Bill:
CBRE Consulting has completed a dynamic fiscal impact analysis of the SUMC Facilities
Renewal and Replacement Project pursuant to our meeting with the City of Palo Alto and the
City's peer reviewer, Applied Development Economics (ADE), on September 2.4, 2009. Bosed
upon our discussion 01 the meeting, this dynamic analysis includes annual analysis of the fiscal
impod findings through 2040 and calculation of the overage municipal service COlts based
upon the service population living and working within the boundaries of the City of Pafo Alto,
with the exception of fire services, which are additionally provided to the population within the
City's Sphere of Influence, i.e •• Stanford in unincorporated SantoOara County. The purpose of
these changes was to better fucilitate (1 comparison between the onolysis conducted by CBRE
Consulting ahd the analysis conducted by ADE. The ADE analysis colT!prises a peer review of
CBRE Consulting'S full report and was prepared on July 2"8, 2009. On September 22, 2009,
CBRE Consulting separately prepared and submitted a letter to the City of Palo Alto with
comments on ADE's approach and findings included in its peer review.
Approach
'" CBRE Consulting's dynamic analysis is documented in the attached exhibits. The analysis is fully
supported by the research and findings reported in CBRE Consulting's February 19,2009 fiscal
impact report for the SUMC project (hereinafter referred to as lIfull report.") The changes
refteded in the dynamic analysis are itemized below. The itemization also indudes reference to
adjustments not relevant to the static analysis included in the full report. Referenced exhibits are
included in the Appendix.
• Exhibit 1 indicates the average cost figures used in the dynamic analysis for all CitY
services except Fire. The City service costs are the same Cis included in the full report.
Only the variable expenses per day-time person served (column F) and per employee
served (column G) vary from the full report as they are now spread ocross the
population bases within the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. These population
figures are presented in Exhibit 2. '
I This exhibit is identical to Exhibit 6 included in the full report.
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. William Phillips
December 9, 2009
Page 2
CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
• Net new SHC and LPCH employment qnticipated to be in place by 2025 is assumed to
be phased in at equal annual increments starting in 2022, following anticipated 2021
construction completion.
• The existing Hoover Pavilion at 211 Quarry Road is assumed to undergo renovation in
2Q10 with new occupation occurring in 2011. There will be no net new employment
associated with this new occupation, but the building will transition from property tax
exempt to taxable.
• The New Hoover Pavilion Medical Office Building (MOB) is assumed to be under
construction in 2010,2011, and 2012. It will be completed in 2013 ot which time
building occupation will occur. Net t'ew employment starting in 2013 will total 100. A
proportional amount of sales tax associated with employee spending will begin to
accrue in 2013.
• Property tax payments for the New Hoover Pavilion MOB will be phased in during the
construction period based on work in place tax payments (i.e., assessed at the
beginning of each year based upon the proportion of construdion completed at that
time). The analysis assumes the property will be assessed at 1/3 its full value in 2011,
2/3 its full value in 2012, and its full value in 2013.
Findings
The results of CBRE Consulting's dynamic analysis ore presented in Exhibit 3 for the years 2010
through 2040. This parallels the years included in ADE's July 28, 2009 peer review of CBRE
Consulting's full report. CBRE Consulting finds that over the 30-year time horizon, the SUMC
Facilities Renewal and Replacement project will net the City of Palo Alto's General Fund
cumulative net revenues totaling $7.6 million. This reflects total cumulative revenues of $25.1
million ond total cumulative costs of $17.5. This net revenue figure increases to $8.4 million
when revenues associated with use tax payments from existing operations are included as
discussed in the full report.
In contrast to CBRE Consulting, ADE's analysis results in net costs to the City's Generol Fund
over the 2010-2040 time period. While not cited in its report, ADE's cumulative revenue figure
totals $23.9 million. This figure compares favorably to CBRE Consulting's figure of $25.1
million. In contrast, ADE's cumulative cost figure of $28.5 million is much higher than CBRE
Consulting's figure, largely attributable to the difference in the average cost methodology
employed by the two firms, with CBRE Consulting assuming that a portion of most City service
costs are variable, while ADE assumes that most costs are fixed, and therefore spread
proportionally across the service population. Furthermore, the ADE analysis also does not
include estimation of revenues attributable to the use tax payments received by the City of Palo
Alto attributable to existing purchases. ADE's total revenues would be higher with this revenue
stream included, and their net cost figure would be lower.
ADE's onalysis also included summary revenue and cost figures for four time periods: 2010,
2015, 2025 and 2040. For the sake of comparison, CBRE Consulting presents the
corresponding figures from the attached dynamic analysis for the same time· periods, based
upon the findings in Exhibit 3. Please note these figures may vary from figures included in CBRE
Consulting's full report because of the above-referenced adiustments associated with a dynamic
analysis.
CB.RE CONSULTING
Mr. William Phillips
December 9, 2009
Page 3
CBRE
CB RICHARD a:LUS
Table 1
Summary of Cumulative Fiscal Analysis
2010 2015 2025 2040
Revenues $1,539487 $743,626· $668,262 $668,262
Expenditures $0 $604,394 $702777 $702,777
Annual Net Revenue/ICost) $1 539487 $139,232 ($34515) ($34515)
Cumulative (201 0~2040)
Net Revenue/ICostl. $1,539487 $8006,371 $8896641 $8,378920
Source: Exhibit 3.
Pursuant to Exhibit 3, the year 2025 comprises the. first year with a net cost to the City of Palo
Alto attributable to SUMC. In ADE's analysis, the net costs begin to accrue in 2015. Again,
these differences are attributable to the cost factors assigned to each SUMC employee.
Closing Comment
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the preceding analysis. We will be
happy to answer any questions you may have or provide further information if necessary.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Herman, AICP
Senior Managing Director
RE Lie. 01821384
N:Proiacl8\2007\ I 007043\Peer RIlYi8W\ 1007043 Dynamic Analysis v3.doc
CIRE CONSULTING CBRE
CB RICHARD ELLIS
APPENDIX
Edtil
atr-PaIoAao GenenI PuncI ~ and Estillllllirlo ~ .... Y __ 21J1)8..2009
In2008D11_
SUM<: ftnIiact FiIaII ..... Anal,..
SaM_ ............, .... Uplift Cilrlloundarlel (I!!IapI far Fin4
Budget CalIIIgarles
CIty AItomey
City AuoIifor
CilyCierk
City Council
QlyMGnooer
AdministraIM s-iC811
Community Servicoeo
Fi ...
Hull'lOlllfaso.
I..ibtary
PIonning & Community & ...... _.
Palice
I'ubrIC wotb
Mon-o..,lttMntaI
TOTAL
NaIeI: ContilMOd on mIIIt page.
CIlIa! c::ar.uIlIn&. 11f312W'
CiIr-two AIIo
I'RI.-d .....
20CBM
(AI
$2.778,285
$931.267
$1,264,485
5314.606
$2,233,005
$7,171,853
521,642,4651
$24,225,206
U,all,771
$6,569,566
S10.376.519
$29,810,128
$13.847.231
$8,055)100
1,32,1)41,.,
I.-~ ___
0penIIing N.t .... VariaYe Pwo.,.nn. VariaIIIe ___ Pw
TnnfIrs 0It OJ uu_ EiIpendiIurw (2) H ___ Variable PI u_~ ~ SIMId (4) ~!!I'!I" SIMId t5l
(8) [C .. "-II [D] IE = c: " D) (1''''' 'e/l01 ,430)---tG .. f " 50'1')
$0 $2,)')'8,285 10.0'lI0 (6) $277,829 $2.74 51.31
$0 m1,267 O.~ 17} SO $0.00 SO.OO
$0 $1,264,.485 0.0'lI0 (8l SO SO.OO SO.OO
$0 $314,606 O.~ (9) SO $0.00 SO.OO
12.0351 52,230,966 10.0" \10) $223.097 $2.20 51.10
SO 57.171,853 20~ (11) $1,434,371 514.14 $7.07
$6.990 521,635,.479 40.~ (12) $8,654.192 $85.32 142.66
$0 524,225,206 80.0910 (13) 519,380.165 $148..64 (201 574.32
$0 52)321,771 40.O'X. (14, 51,128,708 511.13 55.56
SO $6,569,.!166 30.,* (15) 51.970,870 $19.43 151.72
$7,607 $10,368,912 3O.O'A (161 53.110,674 $30.61 515.33
$0 $29,810,128 70,,* (17) $20,867.090 S2C».73 5102.86
516.574 $13,830,657 SO.mt. (181 $6,915.329 168.18 $34.09
SO 5s.o55.ooo 48.5" (19) $3,902,760 538.48 519.2" -----133,210 $132.008.181 $61,116!i,082 1626.65 $313.32
1tM'~,..mua~r-~RoooI"""""_~OoI302009_
..
&hlbill, CD<Ifinued
City of A:IIo Alto Genenli fund E.pendiIunII and EstimaIIng fadalll. FacaI Y_ 2DOS-2009
In 2008 DoRa ...
SUMC Ptoje m.:aI ~ AnaIP.
50_: E:d1ibit 2; "Ci1y of Palo Alto 2008-2009 ~ OpeRlling Budget, fkzr 6, 2008;" and CBRE .Consulting.
(I) I'w the City's ~ budgel.. ope!':IIing l........nn ar. a means of""";ng NSOUrCa I>oot-. funds. The City of Palo AIIo's General Fund rnointI:Dns obligations to other fund, such as Stotm Ominage Fund Capital I'roiec:t FurRf and Deb! s.r.k:e Funds. . •
(2) Expandit..... paid by the General Fund rcth.-tfton other ...... f'C8!!.
{3) ~e of ....... that il'lCreCJSa.,.jfh growth, as opposed to IixacI ""'lIs. CIIII£ Ccns..Iting estimat ...... rioble ""'" aaumplions based on exisling full-time slaffing. DepQr1menIs with less lhan 10.00 full-lime
posilions are 8IIi6motwd '" hov. 100 peoant iI.wd cosIs. OIhor CBRE estirncdes cra rovnded..
I4t Day-lime population III1imated by adding ~o" and 50 ptmIf1I of1olo1 jobs. Service area is c:onsideted the City of Polo AIIo for all dllpQltment$ _ept for Fi .... which has a semC8 a,ea cormpcnding 10 the
Palo Alto Spt-of 1triIuenc*' TOIoI f*"I'OlI' ~ in the City ond the Sph_ of 1nII-.ca are a1Imated in &hibit 2_ Figum for Fiscal Year 2008-09 weN used, i .•. , City day-tirna population of t01,43O and Sph_
of 1nII_ ~ pcpulalian of 130,385.
(S) CasI$ per emplo,aa nopr..m 50 p4PI'C«It fIf casts pet day-time population. Figures are rounded to whole Qlnta.
{6} P«lh. CitYs prcposacl budg.I {p,. 341. ther. or. 10.00 full-li",. staff in th. City AIIoITI8f'£ OfIiea. C8RE Consulting estimales that 1.00 full-lima position, or 10 percent, i$ -nable.
{7} ...... lha Crtta pr~ budget (p. 401, there ons 4.00 full-time staff in ,I!. Oty AucIitor's Office. C8RE Consulting estimD1es that there are no ",,"0" ccsts.
{B} ...... ,.,., CftrAs Pl'l:lpOSed budget (p. 461. iher. 0 .. 6.75 fuU-li.,..1Sfaff in the QIy aerie's Office. CBRE Consulting estirnalelS thai there are no ...noble casts.
«I) P .... lhe C~ propotacl bWgat ,po 53), there are ,9.00 full-time staff supporting the City Council. CBRE Consulting eotimales thallhere OI'e no "",nable QIISIs.
(10) P .... the CitYs pI'l:lpOSed budg.t (p. S6),1har. ere 9.50 fu11-4ime I10fF In tl!. City Manager's Office; this figure does no! i"dude the W~ o.,.IClplTlMlt Coordinater position lhat is fultt funded through the
Communily Ser.;ces~. CBRE Consulting estlmalas thai 1.00 full-ti",. position, or 10 pen:.ri, is -"'biro. .
(II) Per lhe CrIy'a p~ budget (po 62), tl!.re 0'" 94.00 full-4ime stoff in the AdrninisiratMo Servicec Oepottmant. C8RI! ConrNIting estimai_ that atl General Ledger positions (4.50}. PayroS positicns {4.CO}, and
Revenue CoIledions positions (9.001. Of 20 pen:errI, are variable. \.
(12) Per the C"rIy'a proposed budget.". 70). there ore 97.25 fu!l-lirnel1OfF in , .... Community Sa...;ces Department. CBRf. eo.-lting esti""""" thai all pasiIi ..... .-ponsIbIe for coordinating programs cnd mai_
(38.50). or 40 percent. ore 'IOriobie. '
(13) P.,.the CitYs proposed budget (p. 84), there are 126.00 full-6me ISfaff in lhe FA Oeporlment. CBRE CotIsuIting estlrmtes thai all allegories Mth mono than 3 posiII~ (38.50). or 80 pan:enI, ant'IIQriabl&..
(14) Per the City's proposed budgd (p. 92), there are 16.00 fuII-lime stoff in the Human Rarouras DepomwnI. CBRf Canlulling estimales that aR caIagoc8 with alleait 2 positions (6.001, or 40 1*'*11, are variable.
(15) p.,. the City's prapoad budgd (p. 100), Ihere 0 .... 43.75 Nil-time $Ivff in theljb ... IIY Department. C8RI! Consulting .eimales that 011 Special'1SII and AaillQIIt PositiaI'1$ (13.50). or 30 percent, ........ rio ......
t' 6) Per the atts propo&ed budg_ (p. 108), there 0 ... 55.50 NU-time staff in .he Planni"ll and Cammunityl!nvironment o.porlrnerrl. CBIU! Consu/fing .eimatas !hot the Planner, AuociaIe Planner/Svltainablrrry
Coon:Iinator, ond Planring Techniean positians in Curl1!ll1l Planning (5.00.; the Senior Plann ... and Plannar l'tIdions in Ad.anc:e Planning 14.00); II!. Trancportation I!ngn-r. in Transpcr1DIion \2.ool:1he Budding
T echnicion positions in Building (2.0); and Ito. Building Inspac:lor positions in Inspection s-ic-es {4.00I, or 30 percent, ..... ...nabIe.. .
{17J ..... the C~ proposed bud9"I {p,. , 181. .here 0 ... 163.00 full-time stoff in the Pcdiat Oepotlment. C8Rf Consulting aslimatas that all Co!egories with alleaat 8.00 .-;tions (110.00). at 70 peiQnI, are variable.
(18) P .... the C"~ p~ budgMlt {p. 1281, thare ...... 215.00 full-time staff in the Public worb Oeparttnoent. CBRE Consult;ng estimates that all <aNion. with alleost 3.00 positions (107.00),or 50"....".. I:n ooriabl
(191 Toloon "" 0 "";ghIed ~ baaed an departmenb' budeels «I<i patt;ent .... riabI .. assumptions.
{201 The Sl!l'liea POPlAati«l forthe fir. ~·iI the Sph«e of lne-..
CBRE ConsoAmg. 11131200II H:\T~\2IlO1\l007OQ~";"~IW..I",~. __ o.301OO9""
..
Elhlb12
aty of PafoAIID and Sp .... of """-Dan!agnlpitb, 2C05-2010 and f'IIa:II Y ..... 2005-2006 to 2OQ8...2O(W
SUMC Project .... Impoct AnoIJIis .
a: of PI:doAile PalaAlla .... of~·
PWWOnrI DG;Oftlnll ,.,..., Slanbd TGilal Da,o-T ....
Y-PbpuIatioII HouIIIhoIclt HoaaMhold T .. Jobs ~ tfcM JlIIhoIck in HI llltu1ds 5Iud.a PapUICiIran TalaiJails PapuIaIion
Calelldar :t:!!9t
2005 61,650 (l) 27,522 (6' 2.2 (ll) 75,610 (12) 09.455 (14) 28,282 (15) 62,220 (16) 14,458 (17) 76,678 (20) 95,710 (12) 124,533 (14)
2006 62,424 (1) 27,642 (7' 2.3 (11) 75.968 (131 100.408 (14) 28,613 (15) 65,810 (16) 14,455 (17) 80.265(20) 96,212 (21) 12~3'11 (14)
2001 62.615 (1) 27.763 (6) 2.3 (11) 76,.326 (13) 100,778 (14) 28,948 [15) 66,580 116} 14,476 (17) 81,056 (20) 96,714 (21) 129,413 (14)
2008 62.846 (2J 27,888 (8J 2.3 (11) 76,684 (13) 101,188 (14) 29.078 [15) 66,880 (16) 14.570 (18) 81,450 (20) 97,216 (211 130,058 (14)
2009 63,150 (2) 28,014 (8) 2.3 (11) 71,042 (13) 101.671 (14) 29,209 (15) 67.181 (16) 14,670 (18) 81.851 (20) 97.718 {211 130,710 (141
2010 63.424 (2) 28,126 (8) 2.3 (11) 77,400 (12) 102,124 (14) 29,.341 (15) 67.,483 (16) 14.710 (18) 82,253 (20) 98,220 (12) 131,3~ (14)
fiscaJ Va
2005-06 62.148 (3) 27,582 (9) 2.3 (111 75,789 (9) 100,0013 (14) 28,448(9) 6.4,015 (9) 14,456 (19) 78,471(20) 95,961 (9) 126,452(14)
2006..07 62,615 (3) 27,7m (10) 2.3 (111 76,147 (10) 100,689 (14) 28.781 (10) 66,195 (10) 14,465 (19) 80,660(20) 96,463 (10) 128,892 (14)
2007.08 62,731 (4) 27,826 14) 2.3 (11) 76,505 14) 100,984 (14) 29,013 (4) 66,7~ (4) 14.520 (19) 81.250 (201 96.965 (4) 129,733 (141
2008-09 62,mJ (5) 27,'151 (5) 2.3 (111 76,863 (5) 101A30 (14) 29,144 (5) 67,031 (5) 14,620(19) 81,651 (20) 97,467 (5) 130,385 (14)
N ..... : Cantinued an next page.
C8IIEc......Ating. '1I3l2009 J!I"T~I~SIanfordI,U""~I'II=lIrnpact.JP8_00r3112009".
~ 2, cunlinued
City t:I,.. Alto and SphenJ of I~ D.n!ographics, 2005-2010 and fWcaI Y.al'$ 2005-2006 to 2008-2009
SUMC Project FiKuIImpatt ~
~rc:es: City of ;010 Alto, .Dapariment af PIo~ing al'!d Community En'lironmenl; City of Polo Alto "2008-09 I'ropo$ed Operating Budg.'; State of Corlfomio, Deportmetlt of Rnanee (DOFJ, 'E-l Population
Est,I"IIIQIeS for Cities, COunlie$ and the State with Annual PeromI Chgnge -January 1,2006 and 2007', Sac:rarnento, Colifornia, Mey 2007; Aosociotion of Bey Area G~mments (ABAG). 'Pro'ections
2007'; Stunfocd Univer.siIy Land, Buildings and Rea! Estate; StonlVtd UnMarsity, "SIanford Fads 2008'; ond CBRE Consulting. I
(1) OOF dofg pravided by the City af Palo Alto Department of Planning and Comnunily Environment.
(2l EstiI!'lClNl$ pnwided by the City af Palo Alto ~lIi"ll of PIonning and Convnunily Environment.
p)Demographic doto from page 293 of the City of Polo Alto's "2008-09 Propc:oed Operating Budgei'", Fiscal year 2006.2007 population figure c.onsishlntwith 2007 001' January 1 2007 populotion
es1imote, i.e" the mld.point oFthe fisccl Y9Gr. '
(4) CUE CansuJling emmotes based on 2007 and 2008 ~; figu .... ate rounded.
(5) CBRE Consulting estimafes based on 2008 and 2009 ~; figUnlS ON rounded.
(6) City of ,Polo AlIa's toIoI housing units fnom [)OPs May _malo$.
(7) CBRE Consulting estitnale based on the 2005 and 2007 doto; figure is rounded.
(81 The 2008 and 2009 household estimam are cakulafed by inQ'eQling the ~ous.,.egl"s estimate by 0.45 percent and the 2010 estimote by increming the 2009 estimate at 0 lUte of 0.40 pereem per
the C1ly of Palo Alto Department of PIonning and Community En-.inHlment. Figures are rounded.
(9) CBRE Consulting estimate based on 2005 and 2006 _age; figUf. are ~nded.
(10) CBRE ConSlllting .timate based on 2006 and 2007 ~rage; figures arel'Q\lnded.
(11) CaRE Consulting estimofas based on dividing population by households; consiSfent with fis-provided by the City of Polo AIIo Deportment of Planning and Community Envif')l1ment.
(12) Employment dofg from ABAG 'Proj9dions 2007:
(13) CBRE Consulting estimate based on annual job growth from 2005 to 201 0 of 358 io~.
(14) Day-time population eslimaled by odding papulation and 50 pen::ent of totol jobs; figures al'll rounded.
(IS) Sphere of InfIuenQe ISOQ househcld estimates are eonsistent with CBRf's "Draft Stonfwd Shopping Center Expansion eC:onomic ImpactlUrban Decay AnoIysis", Jllfte 200'3. The 2005 estimate
of 501 households is the 27",522 households that the OOF eslirnole5 W9I'e in the City of Palo Alto in 2005 plus the 760 household, that Stanford UnMmlity Land, Siliidings and Real &kde
esrimot8S 6ved an the Stanford Campus (pari of the: City of Palo Alto SOQ as of 2000. The 760 fig\11'9 exdudes households living in the Stonfflrd West Aportments because those households are
local9d within City boundarie5 and Gf1! already counted as sur;h. Households in 2006 are in1erpolatvd·between the 2005 Miim_ and a 2007 estimoIe. The 2007 OISIimotv is the OOPS May
, 2007 esfimate of hoUsing units in the City of Palo Alto plus the 760 households tivill9 on the SIanfotd campus, as of 2000 pllls 425 n.w flousing units that SIanford University Land, Buildings and
Real Estate eslimales were built on the Stanford campus by the beginning of 2007. Annual growth roles from '2008 to 2010 far households in pOlo AltVs SOl are fom the City of PoloAllo's
Department of Planning ond Community &Mronment. The 2008 number of hO\lSl8holds in the SOl is estimated by increG$ing the 2007 estimate by 0.45 peromt as provided by the City of Palo
Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment; the 2009 figure is estimated similarly. The 2010 number of households in the SOl is estimated by increasing the 2009 estimate bp
0.40 percent as p!'O'Iided by the City of Polo AlIa Deportment of Planning and Cotnmllftity EnviI"Oll1'l'l8itl. This approach was , ... iewed and approYed by Rolond RiYete of the City of Polo Alto
Deporimenl of Planning 0I'Id Community Environment.
(16) Estimated by multiplying SOl households by City of Palo AIIo per.rons per holl8ehoid eslimote. Figures ere rounded.
(17) C8RE Consllltlng estimate based on school calendar ~r data po'U"ided by 5Ianford UrriYersity, mrduding the studen1s living in the new 425 individllGl sNdent housing units built by the beginning of
2007, which are already induded in the SOl houaeholds estimahl; figures are rounded.
(18) CBRE Conwlling estimate based on onnualgr-'" in student popu/alion from school years 2000 to 7OO7.of 100 studems, bas.d on dafo from Stanford University. n 9) Demogrophic: dota p1"O"icIed by SIClnford Un;-"ity, .duding the studeclls living in the n_ 425 individual student h_ing units built by the beginni"9 of 2007, whkh are already induded in the SOl
he IISehoIds ..mmale. Estima1es assume a school calendar,....,. is the equloolenr of a fismI year.
(20) CBRE Comulling fISfimote bcned on the sum of population in households and Stanford students.
(21) CBRe Consuhing estimole based on onnual job growth from 2005 to 201001502 jobs, based on dolcfromABAG.
CilI'J:~ llf.JJ2009 N,\T....,~\2flO7\10117043~ ...... r..Iooo'"SUMC ~ 1~_Oct302flIlI!.
'"
I!oI6ItI SlIMe,...
ArInuIII.i I'rIIjIdioa cI "-tI1n,..a, 2010 -2010 Note: mntinlllld on ,.., page __ >
"""31-"-~ "..... 2D1O 20n 201t .... 1014 201S "'6 2017 201. 2019 !!CIllO
IiIIIIIBmd
SHC{1) 5,260 5..240 5,2&0 5,2. 5.2. 6,219 6.21' 6,,21' 6,2" 6.219 6.219 LlCHt11
I_ I"" I"" 1.666 1.-2,516 :r"s16 2.516 2,516 2,516 2,51' 110M un tJm un
2_
%,8Z3 2,823 2,8Z3 2.A123 1._ tJm 2,823 Non-SUMC:!2l ]!l ~ ,)I ~l 251 251 :lSI 251 Jl m :m ,.... i.-f ,.,., ' .. li_ n_ ti_
nJIll!' 11..., 11
· ... ~ .... _bilrt~ ..... .,
$tIC 0 0 0 0 0 m ''If ''If 9" m m LICH 0 0 0 0 0 ---aD --110M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NonoSUMC 0 0 0 100 100 lOll lOll lOll '00 lGO lGO
T .. II 0 _Ii Ui lao lTJ!' 1;;& I. 1;;5 lTJ!' I •
.... Fl!I!d ..... __ LIotTa.
U!CEhd~ S909.129 so SO so so $0 511.:112 St1.$22 .,1.52% 118,5:12 n8,52% 118,52%
.!IUMC ........ 0n0SI0 ..... S3;C33.7CII so $0 so so $0 5125,-"3._ S13._ .,25.,. SI25.-Sl25.-
SUMr: ~Spordrw 11,459.14 so so so 51,736 .'.136 $SO.-$.5O,3'ee sso ... SSO.368 s.,tee $SO,tee
5UMC~YiMw"""" 59 .... so SO so so so 5187 $187 S117 slar SIa7 na7
~~PI sa.l .... 16 S1,4~ $'....,. ... 14 ",496,'" SI",P6,434 11 ... ",4$4 195.171 195.178 595.178 US.l78 595.178 195.'" c:..-...w ..... ,.........PI 5112,.127 , Sll.m 11.,792 11',m SIB,.1'9Z SI •• _ b.-S2,638 12'-12,631 1:2,638 12,63&
~'-W PI-'!' Ta. -...... ...... 1loMoIIiM 151 1S36'2.'3OI so (112",,, 1512.0811 (l12,os1/ (112.0811 \512,0811 (512.0811 1$12,0811 {S12,081, (l12,osI, 1112,081)
211~IIoooIMOI_ -.a10 so 123,277 123,277 bun 122.277 m,217 nun m:z,., m.21t 523.277 523,277 __ """'"'" ...,...'''0lI10. 11.3.&5.571 so S15,u6 S30,933 $46,399 SoI6..399 146,3f9 "',3f9 146.39' $46,399 SoI6..399 .... 31'9
TtWIIItnI~Ta. SlCl,806 so. so so 10 so 13,823 "'. S3.B23 ra,a:z3 S3,B'Z3 sun
UlilityUoonoTGII S7.m1.522 so so so so so $nI,JS7 18:13,337 S323,J37 S323,JS7 S323,3'37 5323,337
C'JIhwT_ ""'" "-
MoIor If'<IHcIe h-IIw"" (<II S4!O.5D! so S6.5Ot 110,2&5 51,,061 514.061 514.001 $14061 114.061 114.1l61 SI4.001 S14.061
fi_ ............. _,676 tel tel to so so 1127.720 .mil .1121J£ 527l,!!! ~fJl S2~ T ................ _ szs;:125,Ad1 11.51tB1' st;iiU9il 1i)i1,641 11'-,6" $1 .... ,. filii 1719'" i719
'MhLIIIIT_,*",,~""'''''
E\olIIIIIIoI'InI-Iil5"I7T .s-SI'-""" II..".. 11,5P1.fO'1 11,612,P1 11,612.1111 57Q.-~ .. ..,. S7Q,fiU I7QA!6 1743_
-Batll Om
QIr-,.., 576,513 IU so so 1137 5137 12M3 S2.6G S2,6G 52,643 S2.643 S2,6G
QIy"" III so so tel III so 110 so so 110 III so
QrOork so so so so so IU $0 so so so so so
Ql>' C'.IMd so so so $0 III so so ·so so so so tel
a,..",.,., . S61,4$4 so so so sno ,"0 12.122 52,ltt S2.1tt $2,122 S2.12% $2.122
AdnIWII ..... SoM .. S394.1S2 so so so 5707 1707 5'".. 51',638 513._ S13,6311 $1'.-113,63&
~-'2,382,518 so so sa .. .:M6 U,266 SIt.l91 S8Z.l91 512.2"1 S8Z..2f1 S82,291 S8Z,291
FIre S4.1SO.698 so so so 57.m S7,422 S1~ IIon.-SIG,3a 11~ S1Q,.J63 11",343
tfumon-"-S310,5rlO so $0 so -S5S6 SlO,725 510,ns IIUt,125 "0,n5 S10,725 *,0.725
IlbroIr S542,a,2 so so 10 S972 5972 ''',750 $11.750 $18.780 118.150 St8.780 11&.750
"-Ine&~hi_ S8S6.1~ so SO so 11,533 Sl,533 529,5-n 529.5'12 529,572 m,5n S29"sn 529,1172 ....... ",7",628 so so so 110.216 510,286 .,,,,,,17 1198,417 "",417 1198,417 1198,417 1198,417
~.-11.903,1192 so so so S3,1D11 13,409 _,760 S6S,160 S6$,160 Sds.7«1 U5)'«I '6$,'160
Hoo>OF--Sl,074,!!! so so so ~~ S1,m .::~ JI!jt is: .::~ 137,114 .s ,.. ...... ,..., ......... ''''.-.-II ill ii Ei'i.---.-_ ..... ,..."""'"... S7M4NO $1,5111;117 $1.-.-11,561,64' .',557.-$1,557.216 $114J112 '114,972 S116,912 $1l4.f'2 In4,f7.Z 1114.912
_LIIIIT._~_ ..
1!oIIIIow"'"'-a.m..no 11'-""" 11,572JIIII ""'.fO'I ..,.,,w 11 ... .-...... aI .... SIII',212 1139,212 ST •• 1'39"
.;
it t,
1!iHlit3
SUMCPtajed
~~_fiomI"""2010-2040 NoIv: """';IIIIIId Oft MIlt paga -">
ToIoI31_V-
CoIopr II-oIdon 2112\ 2022 21123 2IIN JGCa5 21116 lI027 lIQIl!I 2II2P ,:lIII0
~
S1C('I) '-'" ..., U5S '.423 ....,. """ ""PI 6,4'" 6,.1'" 6"", 1ICHfl) 2,116 2)127
2_
2,548 2 .... 2,IS8 2,HI 2.55t 2,558 2,558 !WI! 2,.823 2.B23 2,823 2.823 2.B23
2_
2,IZ3 2,82J 2,823 2,823 ~121 " .. 25' 25'1 ~, .' 2&1 251 251 2i III T .... 11.-11,966 '2.1M5 1~123 lOB Illii ti,12I 12;1 1:l,123
*111,-._I!aIiIst~
SHe: '" 1,tM7 t,115 ',IA '.2S1 1,2$1 1,2$' 1.251 1.251 1.251
IICH 810 161 I" 112 en 8ft &92 en en en
W4 II II 0 0 II II II 0 II 0
No:WiUMC: II 100 .00 100 100 JJ .00 100 100 100
T .... I liIiIi iliii ..,. 2lii 2,143 2,143 2,243 u.a
CianI"""! SaI .. _UooT.
SUI:oIC Diro:It """"" SP\W.I29 '",52:2 1041,025 104'.1125 S41,1l'lS 141,025 S4I,IDS S41,GZ5 $41,_ 541,025 541,1X1S
SIJMC """ ..... c.:..shs.t.. SS~:"'OI "25,931 nl4,323 S13oC,s2S $13oC,323 11$4,323 SI:14,fta SI:14,31l3 IIU,$23 113oC,323 S13oC,323 IIUMC.....,.. 5pon4,. $1,.1$9,14 . .-U2,45/1 S54,54 _,630 $$8,7" $511.11' S$8,7'7 _,717 SSl,717 SSl,717
$UIoIC o-iIpYloiar$per:dlng W.-SI87 S4C1 S441 S441 S441 S441 S441 SUI S4Cl S4Cl
~""""""v\ll _,'4"", $95,'78 to so so so so so so so so
~w.mr~~ 'n2,42)' .2,631 $0 so so so so $0 so so so
"'-" r.1II
"...,1_ ................ ~ 151 1Df2A3OJ \S12.01l1 "'2.os" 1512.G1I'1 1$12,081) 1112.osl1 I51Ulll, ($12.os., 1S1:1.oal) ($12.os1, CS12,081J
211 "'-'r_MOII--.. _.al0 521':177 m;Z77 m,2t7 m.277 123,277 123,277 123,211 ftU11 523.277 m,277
,.... _ """'""..,.....0lIl-. SI,sd)l7' $4U1I' s.c."" 146.39' 146,399 s.c6,399 146.-S46,399 s.c6,.,.,. 146,399 146,399
T_Oa:upar:cr r. SltZ,IOf n.m S3,/123 SI,.1123 $3,/123 S'.11J6 W,c1S6 3P,Il36 59,036 3P,1136 .,1136
UIiItr ",,","T_ $7,9~ S32U37 an,l3' $323,137 $323,137 $296)172 nH,IIn S296.m S296,.5n $296.sn S29un QlwT ___ _V ...... ....u..._Id! 541o,lQ1 314,061 .14.061 114P61 .,4.061 SI4.06. 1'4P61 "4,061 114,C16' 114.061 "A,061 --, ..... ~a gil .. " ."./116 .B .-JIll .--.. .. T .... ,..,.,.fI:M ...... tit _,123,
WIh .... T«r:h:I ............... .... """'--JR718 S7.:1,G1 SMD,1 • ...... ...,., SoWI,MI! ---.... SoWI,MI! s...uz .... -BIII--cn,-..., 176,.513 --S2,15II S2,II58 S2,965 $3,1)71 • .an .,IlP3 SlP73 53.073 SI,I)73
Qlr IuIA1JIt so so $0 $0 so $0 $I so so so so
ChyOwk so so so so so $0 so so $I so so
CIty c:-.;J so so $0 so so 10 $I so 10 $0 so
CIty~ S61,n.1 12,127 S2,201 SZ,2!'5 12",' S2,C6' S:lM7 12",61 S2,C67 12 .... 7 S2,A67
~.s."""" $3",832 S13,-Sl4,193 114074. IIs.D SlS'-1\$,IItII SIS", 115,858 S15 .... S15_
c.-.....,.s.r.;.. 12,382,111' m.zyl SIS,640 -,-m",. "',686 3P5.-Sf5,.6e6 -.-S!IS.-1M ....
II .. s.c.lSO,698 SlC3,Mil 11.,1" 11$5,1132 SUO .... Sl~.1'DO "~,7DO SlU,1OO "~)IIO 51"-'GO "~.1OO
H_~ 5310.s20 110)25 S11.l62 sn,998 512,Q1$ $12.0'71 SI2,A71 $12,<111 $12,C71 '512,.111 112,.111
:::z., .. c:....:..m,-............., SS42;852 '18,7$0 ''',513 S20,27. ft1,0J9 UI. S21_ 121_ ftl. 521.-.,.,-
5856,'65 $29.11'2 130,775 $31,971 533,112 Gt,385 S34,3OIIS
1:14_
Gt,385 $34,385 $U,385
li<:lioo 55,7"_ $1",4'7 1206.49' 52'4,566 $'222,610 $23OJ"5 52311,715 mo.,,5 S230,715 S230,715 S23II,71S .......... 31,901.892 $65,760 Ull,436 171,112 173,'7111 116.A6A ". ....... '7..-S7 .... 64 576,464 $76,A6A
Nan ". IUM'-'" ". Ja4 .a .::., .=.~ '::;1 M .. ~ sa SC3,t55
T .......... fI:M ......... Ii~ -'I r-"" SlfII.;TT7
,..,.,.fl:MNof_ ..... "'-'-''''',972 II..,,' ... 11'5,1411 fS5I,77lII ....,."., ($SII)7IJI ~ ($SII)7IJI (PU7IIt
_IA::oTef_~_ ...
1!!d:II::8"""'-....,.,... $l.,:&IlI $51.11. sz,,,.,. ....... _,1115) ($1'.11151 ($1',IJ15) ($1',515) 1SM"'5) 1JM.515)
&h1blt3
SUMC Project
Annualillld """IecfiocI of FiIcaIlmPQCII, 2010 • 2CWO
r ..... 31.Y_
~ I'N/edioft
faIIt.IrmmL
SHC(11
U'Otll)
SaM
~UMC[21
T .....
tilt I;J • .-... •• fmID asiM Q.-D!d:II!iIIJ
$tIC
U'C11
&oM
~
T .....
..... w ....
So"" and 0.. f ....
suw;: Choct """"""'"9 W09.12!'
5UMC ......... Qn.IIIeSo\e S3,A33.703
5UMC~~ ... "P','" suw;:~_~ n.-
~~~\3I sa,I.AI.
~WGIPr~13l $112.A27
~T"'fA1
l'hIpoItJ r...~" ... ~15l (SUIl.A3GI
21! Quorry Rood MOIl ~ _.3111 __ ..... ,_ ",,"_0II00J
$1,345,$11
T_~_ 5182)!06
US1<Ir~T ... 57."",522
OIhorT_OIIIIR_
_ ........ Inollwr-(6) $410,502 "---Sme'6
T ..... o.-I,... ...... it5;IJ5,..
WI1h U.T4KtIhd .................. -..""'"'-'S25j617 /1'18
-"B;aI--at,-".,. 576.$13
at,-$0
CIIt a.t; so
Cil1000.0d so
car """"""" SIll,434 ...... _ .......
$39" •
c-nurily-52,382,518
fito ~,I50.69B --S31Q,521t II......,. SS42,$S2
......... & eommuoifr e...i.....,_ $1156.165
fIoko $5,744,628 ,...cw. 51,903,892
Mon.oo.p .... ~ $~.074,S3(! r ..... GoNoaI AnI."........-11 ... ...-
0.-1 ,... Mot FiooaI....,.., "'-...0
_U.T_tlhd...,..... .......... ....... ~ .$8,311,92D
2031
6"'~1
2,558
2,1123
251
12,123
1,251
892
0
100 u:a
$oI1P'l5
SI:M.323
e4,717
$.&.11
so so
1$12)l811
523,277
su.m
$9,036
5Z96pr2
514.D61
4iji
-.26Z
$'J,D13
$0
so
so
$2,467
'15_
$95,686
$166,700
s12..."
521,802
134.385
$230,715
S16.A64
i a
pa.mJ
(S34,51~
21132 2033 211M
6,~'1 6..491 6,.491
2,558 2,558 2,558
2.an 2,823 2.1123
251 251 251
12;123 12,.123 12,123
1,251 1,251 1,251
892 892 892
0 0 0
100 100 100
~;m z.za 2.2AI
$41,11'l5 $41,C1'.l5 $011,025
51,.,.323 $134,323 S1:M,323
S58,711 ssa,711 158)17
$.&.11 $461 $441
so so so so so so
1$12,.1] (1'12,081) 1S12,081)
$23,277 $23,277 323.277
546,3" $46,399 su.m
19,036 59,036 S9,036
$296.s72~ $296,572 S:I96pr2
514..061 514,G61 514,061
s!!'Jii S3l~ s3 $6W.I1CI2
-.--.-_:M2
$2,D73 $3,073 S3P13
$0 so so
SlI so so
so so $0
$2,467 $2,467 S2,467
$15,858 $15,8.58 S15)!58
$fS.,d86 $9$.-S95.,d86
5160,700 5166,700 5166)'00
$12"'71 512 ... 71 512"'71
521,802 S21.l102 521,802
134,385 134,385 S34..38S
S2aO)t5 S230.715 $2311,715
576,AOO s;r6"'~ S76,464
JB1 ~ $43'.155
11IIIl,177
(S5It,715I jI5I,775I {S!8.77!IJ
lS34,51~ lDf,5151 1$34,515)
:103ti 20M 2037 2031 203P 2OofO
6 ... '1 6"'91 6,.49' ..... , 6 .... 1 6",'1
2,5!i8 2,5$8 7.,558 2,sse 2.558 2,5S8
2,823 2,823 2,.823 2,823 un 2,823
251 251 251 251 it; 12,m 12,,123 12,123 12,.123 12,.123
1,251 1,251 1,251 1.251 1.251 1,251
892 ·892 892 en 892 892
0 0 0 0 0 0
100 100 100 100 100 100
2.2AI UA3 2.2AI 2.14 2;m 2,.2A3
$41,Q'.1S 541P'l5 $011.025 $oIl,C1'.l5 $oIl.QZ' $41,!1'l5
SI34.323 5134,323 513&.323 $134,323 $134,323 $134,323
$58)17 558,717 $58,711 558)17 558)17 558,717
$461 $441 $461 $441 $441 $441
so so so so so so so so so so so so
ISI2,081) ($12,0811 ($12.oell ($12..oe1) ($12,081) (512,0811
$23,277 523.277 S23,277 $2U77 123.277 123,27)'
$46,35'!' $46.m su.m $46,399 $46.m S46,399
19,036 19,036 $9,036 59.036 $9,036 59,036
5296.572 S2t6,572 $296.572 $296,572 5296,sn S296,572
$14,0111 S101.061 SI~.Q61 510(,0111 S14,061 S14,0II1 -J::fj JZ§ .::~ JS .::;.
-.--.,:ra _.Ht -.-l61Ua _.262
S3P13 S3pn $3,07~ $3,07~ $3,073 $3,013
so so so so so so so so so $0 so so
so so so $0 so so
$2,467 $2 .. 61 52,467 S2.A67 12,467 $2 ... 67
$15,858 S15,858 '15,158 $15,858 515,1I5B SU,BSI
5fS.-S..s,686 sts.-S9',~6 195,6116 595,_
$166)00 '166,7110 SI66,7QCI SI66)'OO. 1166,700 S166JOO
512,471 $12...,1 $12 ... '" '12,471 112",71 512,471
$21.802 $21,802 $21,802 $21,8D2 S21.s«1 521,1lO2
S34,3II5 134..385 S34,3II5 134,385 $34,385 534,385
S230,115 $2311.715 $230.71$ 5230.715 $230)15 52311,715
S76,AOO $16..464 S76.,064 $76,<1~ $7~ J16 .... ~
i ~ .-S::~ i::~ ~ ~ j-
I$SV15I _.77SI It5II.mt ~ ... .77SI ~
(DI,5I~ ...,..~ 1StI.51~ fSM,5151 (Do1,SI5I (SIC.mI
51·
Exhibit 3, continued
SUMC Project
Annualized Proiection of Fiscallmpacls, 2010 -2040
Source: CBRE Consulting.
(1) Net new SHe and lPCH employment anticipated to be in place by 2025 is assumed to be phased in at equal annual increments starting in 2022,
following anticipated 2021 construction completion.
(2) Assumes the new Hoover Pavilion medical office building, with 100 employees, opens in 2013.
(3) The total Phase I and Phase II revenue estimates for construction-related purchasing and construction worker spending are from the CBRE Consul1ing
fiscal impad analysis. These iotals by phase were spread across the five years from 2010 through 2014 for Phase I, and the seven years from 2015
through 2021 for Phase II.
(4) New assessed value from the original C~RE Consul'ling report. Assumes the renovated Hoover Pavilion facility at 21 1 Quarry Road is placed into
service in 2011 and the new medical office building at Hoover Pavilion is placed into service in 2013, with construction starting in 2010; resulting in
(5) Assumes demolition of the following structures in 2010: 701 Welch Road; 701 Welch Road A, 8, C, and 0; 703 Welch Road; and 1101 Welch Road.
(6) These payments parallel the property tax payments, at '24.4 1 percent (rounded) of the property tax revenues to the City of Palo Alto.
CBRf Consulling 11/3/2009 N:\Team~Projeds\2007\ 1 007()j13 StanforcMDE Peer Review\SUMCFiscallmpcict.R08 _Oct 30 2009.x1s
., )
AI,'
" ' ,-. ' .
JULY 28, 2009
(Revised March 2010)
Prepared tor the
City of Palo Alto
prepared by
Attachment c
Applied Development Economics ,
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560· Walnut Creek, California 94596 • (925) 934·8712
2151 River PlaZl1 Drive, Suite ISO • Sacramemo,CA 95833 • (916) 923·1562
www.adeusa.com
A, p p, ~:l El~,
l~ E\I E,lP'; piMJtN: T
.E~("'O:"~ '0: 'M. , C f$:
i
CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................................................................. ~ .•• ".,J •••••••••••••••••••••• l
Revenue Analysis ••••••••••••••••••••.••.••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••••.••..•.••••• , ....................... 5
Sa~ and Use Tax ............. , ••..••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••• , ........................................................... 5
Property T ax •••.•.••.•.•••• ~ •••••......•••..••• , ................................................................................ 7
Transient. Occupancy Tax (1'01') ................................................................................. 8
Cit:y Se.nice COsts'~ •••• , ...... " .......................... f ......................................................................... 9
'Revised FiScal Analysis ••••••• " ............................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Sales and Use Tax Background Information ............................................... 15
Appendix B: Detailed Fiscal Projections ..................................................................... t ......... 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Applied Development Economics has been engaged by die City of Palo Alto to
conduct a peer review of the fiscal analysis prepared by CBRE/Sedway for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
<(February 17,2009). CBRE estimated potential tax and fee revenues that the project
would pay to the City of Palo Alto as well as the anticipated costs of providing·
municipal services to the projects. The fiscal ana1ys~ is concerned with whether the
revenues would meet the project costs or whether the City will be raced with an
unfunded service obligation. Our conclusion upon reviewing the fiscal report is that it
generally follows accepted industry standards in terms of the methodologies and data
sources. However, certain assumptions made in the report regarding economic
conditions and the impacts to City service departments lead to conclusions in the
. report that suggest a more positive fiscal impactor the proposed project than may
actually occur.
Based on our review I the City asked for a revised fiscal analysis to indicate the effect of
. alternative methodologies and assumptions on the conclusions about the fiscal effects
of the proposed project. ADE prepared a report (fuly 28, 2009) to provide this
information, which was reviewed at a ;neeting with City and Stanford officials on
September 24,2009. Subsequently, CBRE prepared a revised analysis (December 9,
2009), which addressed one major concern with their prior analysis related to the
service area used to calculate City service cost factors.
The present report acknowledges the CBRE report of December 9til and compares the
results of the two studies. In addition, ADE has made revisions to projected Police and
Fire Department costs based on further discussion with City staff about the anticipated
impact of the project.
Despite the various revisions undertaken by the two sides, there remains a signifICant
difference in the figures presented in the two fiscal reports. The ADE analysis indicates
a cumulative net cost of the project in Year 30 of about ($1.1 million) while the CBRE
report shows a positive net benefit of $7.6 million. Positive net revenues occur in the
early stages of the project as the result of large Use Tax payments anticipated during
the construction phase of the project. By Year 25 when the project is complete, both
analyses show an annual negative impact from the project: ($374,238) in the ADE
report and ($58,775) in the CBRE memo. I Under the CBRE scenario, the cumulative
fiscal impact of the project would eventually be negative if the time frame of the
analysis is extendc:d-
1 CSRE has also estimated existing hospital operations muld generate an additional $24,260 in Use Tax pet year.
which is not iocluded in this analysis.
ApplIed DweIopment EconomIcs, 'nc. 1
\
--_ ....... --. -.-.'. -.........
This report summarizes the peer review findings and provides the additional analysis
incorporating the critique of the CBRE reports. The initial CBRE report was pre~red
. before the cUrrent economic downturn was in fullswmg, and there are questions about
whether the assessed values and taxable sales levels, as well as possibly the hotel
revenues, would be lower than projected. This would reduce the amount of revenue
generated for the City budget. We prepared alternative projections based on a "worst
case" assessment of existing market conditionS. Since economic changes are occurring
. rapidly, actual conditions o~tainingat the point the project is constructed may be
different.
In addition. ADE updated its analysis to include City budget data based on mid-year
changes adopted by the City Council on Aprll6, 20q9. While CBRE did not have
access to that information at me time they prepared their initial report. it appears they
have also updated the budget data for their more recent analyses.
We have provided altemate figures for certain revenues and costs to indicate for the
City what the possible worst case scenario may be in terms of the fiscal impact of these.
projects; This is intended to provide some perspective on the sensitivity of certain
asSumptions in the report to the final outcome of the analysis. We expect the true
fiscal impact of these projects will lie somewhere between the figures prepared by
CBRE and the figura provided below in our review. Table 1 summarizes the
differences in the cumulative and annual results of the two studies. Table 2 breaks out
the results for revenues and costs at interim time frames.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF CBRE AND ADE FISCAL ANALYSES
2010-2040
Annual
General Pund Net "Ical Imp!ct CUmulatIVe In 2040
AD! Ane!vsls {$1,Q94,192} ($374,238)
caRE AnaIpIs* $1,626.868($58.775)
... Not in!:luding the Tax from existing operations.
Source: ADE, Inc.
The first phase (2009~2015) construCtion revenue, mainly the Use Tax on construction
materials, provides II. net gain for the City. However, beginning with Phase 2 (2016-
2025) when construction activity is reduced, the net fiscal balance declines and turns
negative in both studie.s by 2025.
2 Applied o.v.Iopment Economics, Inc.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY Of ADE CUMULATIVE FISCALANALYSIS
AD! AUMI. 2010 2015
Revenues $1,499,326 $635,946
ExpendltUftll $0 $867,748
Annual Net RevenueI{Cost) $1,-199,326 ($231,802)
Cumulative Net R.eyenueJ(Cost) $1,499,326 $7,264,826
ClRE AnaMI,· .
Revenues $1,515,227 $719,366
Expenditures $Q $604,394
Annual Net R.evenue/(Cost) $1,515,227 $114,972
CUmulative Net RevenueJ(Cost) $1.515,227 $8,006.371
• Not including Use Tax from existing operations.
Source: ADE. Inc:.
2025
$634,762
$1,008,999
($374,238)
. $4.519.373
$644,002
$702,777
($58,775)
$7,626,868
$G34,762
$1,00&,999
($374,238)
($1,094,192)
$644,002
$702,m
($58,775)
$7,626,868
To summarize, our questions about the CBRE aniUy;sis include the following:
• Construction related Use Tax calculations depend on numerous assumptions
about the size of construction contracts, the location of suppliers and the
willingness of contractors to obtain seller's sub permits.
• Property Tax calculations are based on market data that may be compromised
by current economic ~nditions. .
• Transient Occupancy Tax calculations make assumptions about visitation for
adult inpatient care that may not be warranted.
• In their analysis of City service costs, CBRE significantly reduced the
departmental budget fIgUl'es on the basis that large segments of City operations
are fixed and not subject to expansion as City service demands grow. ADE
believes· this is inaccurate given the long projected life of the project.
It should be noted that neither the ADE study nor the CBRE study take into account
the effects of inflation on City costs and potential increases in projected employee
costs. Also, the studies do not address the potential City contributions necessary to
complete funding for mitigations of project impacts nor the contribution that is
necessary from the City General Fund to development jmpact fee accounts in order to
complete funding of capital improvements. These issues will magnify the full impact of
the project on City finances.
Applied ""'.'opment EcetnoIIIb, Inc. 3
"This page intentionally left blank"
Applied Development Economic-, Inc.
"
-. _..... ~. . --
REVENUE ANALYSIS
SALES AND USE TAX
The analysis of potential use tax from the construction of the project relies on a
number of assumptions about the nature of the construction process and the
subcontracts for the work.
• Stanford University would obtain a California Sel1er's permit, under which the
contractors could obtain sub-permits.
• 80 percent of contracts and subcontracts will be $S million or more, thus
qualifying for seller's sub-permits.
• All qualifying contractOis and sub contractors will voluntarily obtain seller',
sub-permits for the SUMC construction site. If this does not occur, the Use Tax
will £low to the county pool, of which the City gets a much smaller share.
. • SHC and LPCH will both obtain direct pay permits to repon and pay use tax
on qualifying direct purchases.
• Sales and Use tax will be paid on 85 percent of qualifying transactions.
• CBRE does not appear to assume any rebate for construction-related Use Tax,
although a 20 percent rebate is anticipated for non-construction purchases.
In addition, the analysis calculates Sales and Use Tax from ongoing operations of the
new medical center facilities. As noted above, a portion of these revenues to the City
are based on the asSumption that any program the City would adopt to induce
facilities like Stanford Hospital to obtain a permit would only include a 20 percent .
rebate of the revenues back to the permit holder. This is at the very low end of the
range cited for other cities in the study. If the University sucCessfully negotiates a
higher rebate, it will further exacerbate what we project below to be a negative fiscal
impact of the project on the City.
A detailed discussion of the construction-related Use Tax process is provided below.
CALIFORNIA USE TAX AND DIRECT PAYMENT PERMITS
The California State Board of Equalization administers local taxes under the BrdJey.
Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, and district taxes aie administered under
the Transactions and Use Tax Law, both of which are governed by California Revenue
and Taxation Code S72000 et. seq. This section highlights the application of the use tax
to large scale construction contracts and the establishment of a Direct Payment Pennit .
program. The administrative requirements of the program have dissuaded local
jurisdictions from obtaining a greater share of sales and use tax from large construction
projects. In recent years there has been increasing interest on the pan of local
AppUecI Development Economics, 'nc. 5
I '
".
jurisdictions to recoup a greater share of construction contnct material and fixture use
taxe.s.The Stanford University Medical Center project could potentially be Iil source of .
increased n:venue to the City.
Use Tax
Use tax is imposed on the purchase for storage, use, or other consumption of tangible
personal property purchased from a licensed retailer. When property or tide to a
tangible good is transferred to a purchaser inside california from a seller outside
California, the transaction is subject to use tax regardless of whether any registered
place of business of the retailer participates in the sale. Much like the sales tax revenue
allocation, use tax is generally allocated through a countywide pool to the local
jurisdictions in the county where the property is first "used". In many cases, the
delivery address of materials is considered to be the place of use. Construction
equipment and material purchases are often cited· as examples of use tax eligible
tl'ansactions by construction contractors who are purchasers and consumers of
materials used in propeny development and redevelopment and whose job sites are
regarded as the place of business. .
Use Tax Direct Payment Permit
Revenue and Taxation Code $7051.3 authorizes the State Board of Equalization to
issue a Use TofJC Direct Payment Permit to qualified applicants. The pennit allows
purchasers and lessee's of tangible property to self-assess and pay use taxes directly to
the State Board of Equalization instead of to the vendor from whom the tangible
property is purchas~.·
Permit holders who acquire property under a certificate must selfMlilSsessand report the
use taxes directly to the Board on their tax returns, and allocate the local taxes to the
county or city in which the property is first used. To qualify the applicant must agree
to 1) self assess and pay directly to the Board any Use Tax· which is due on property
for which a Use Tax direct payment exemption certiflcate:was givent and 2) the
applicant must certify to the Board either of the following a) the applicant purchased
or leased for its own use tangible property subject to use tax which cost $500,000 or
more in aggregate during the calendar year immediately preceding the application of
the permit, or b) the applicant is a county, city, or redevelopment agency2.
Under a BOard of Equalization resolution adopted in 1994, an installing construction
contractor or sub.contractor may elect to obtain a sub-permit for the jobsite of a
contract valued at $5,000,000 or mote. This option provides local jurisdictions the
2 Governmental agencies who do not hold a California sellen permit or a consumer use tax a«OURt must obtain a
consumer use tax account and thea complete the application for a Use Tax Direc;t Payment Permit. sign the
certification statement anesting chey qualify for a permit !."lder the conditions described above. and submit 111
additional statement to that effea under official letterhead and signed by and autborizedgovemmental
representative.
6 Applied Development Economics.. Inc.
opportunity to receive the full one percent local tax revenue on materials consumed
and fixtures furnished by the contractor directly rather than through the countywide
pooling process where the local jurisdiction of sale would only get a portion of the one
percent based on a complex allocation formula. It is important to note that
participation by contractors is strictly voluntary. Construction contractors Use Tax
requirements are detailed in the State Board of Equalization Regulation 1521.
The Stanford University Medical Center project is a multi-billion dollar project that,
under the $5 million dollar regulations, the City could potentially benefit from
establishing a Use Tax Direct Payment progratn. Contractors may elect to allocate the
sales and use tax directly to the local jurisdiction, but the $5 million contract price
applies to each contract and subcontraCt for work performed on site, .not the overall
construction value, or construction budget, for the project.
As stated previously, the Stanford University would need to obtain a California seller's
permit and then the contractor, and his sub·contractors, must obtain a sub.permit
under the University's seller's permit for the jobsite in order for the allocation of use
tax revenue to take place.
Anoth~r mechanism for the City to recoup additional project related use tax revenue
would be the establishment of "purchasing corporations", which is essentially the
prime contractor establishing a purchasing company for better control of project
inventory and procurement for large scale and complex construction projects.
Establishing an entity such as this is extremely complex, but offers tax and non-tax
benefits for both the City and the prime contractor.
There are relatively few (less than 200 statewide) Use Tax Direct Payment Permits in
the State of California. There are many complexities to establishing such a program,
and the reality is that establishing a permit is completely voluntary to the contractor.
The few California cities that have existing permits have established Use Tax Direct
Payment rebate programs in order to entice taxpaying firms to establish these types of
relationships with the state, relationships that ultimately benefit the local jurisdiction.
Appendix A includes publications of The HdL Companies, an independent California
revenue and taxation consultancy. The Construction Contracts memorandwn of July
15, 2002 highlights the opportunities, pitfalls and issues associated with establishing a
Use Tax Direct Payment Program. The Purchasing Corporations and Buying Companies
document discusses the benefits and requirements of establishing purchasing
corporations under California State Board of Equalization Regulation §1699.
PROPERTY TAX
CBRE based the medical office valuation on a capitalized net income formula using
lease rates from last year. We feel certain that market condjtions will not be so
favorable going forward, although we recognize that this project is long term in nature
and hopefully the effects of the recession will not be significant by the time these
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7
facilities come online. Nevertheless, we belieVe it would be prudent for .the City to
consider what the project impact would be if the property tax revenues were ten
percent lower than projected. This would reduce the revenues from this source by
about $5,700 per year and the Motor Vehicle In-Lieu property tax by about $1,400.
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)
We have reviewed the analysis used to calculate TOT taxes for the project. We
understand that better data are available regarding l<?dging stays related to the Lucille
P3ckard Children's Hospital (LPCH) than for Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC). .
Akhough CBRE has estimated that hotel stays for the latter would be half the amount
generated by lPCH, we question whether even that-is too high. Only family members
traveling great distances would be inclined to stay over night to visit adult patients, but
the CBRE report does not provide any indication of the residence patterns of in
patients at SHe. In ADE's analysis, we have removed the $2,923 in annual TOT
revenues from SHC.
UnLlTYUSERS TAX
The City levies a five percent tax on certain utility bills including water. electricity,
gas, and telephone. We have reviewt;d the data sources and methodologies used by
CBRE to calculate these utilities bills and resulting revenues. Much of the key
information appears to have come from the City Utility Department or the ElR.
consultant from related impact studies for the ElR.. We have also calculated a straight
per capita revenue estimate based on the increased employment from the project.
The estimates of this tax in the CBRE are substantially higher than a per capita
estimate, but we recognize the demands of a hospital for electricity and water are
particularly high. The usage figures are provided by SUMC in their application or
estimated as a function of current demand at the medical center. We do not have
independent information to question these figures.
OTHER REVENUES -FINES AND PENALTIES
CBRE has revised its initial analysis to reflect a City-boundary based service area and
the per capita calculation of fines and penalties matches that of ADE, at $32,232.
8 AppUed o.",'oplNnf Economics, 'nc.
CITY SERVICE COSTS
The City costs in the CBRE analysis are generally calcu1ated on an average cost basis,
meaning that the costs al1~cated to the proposed project are the same per employee as
existing non-residential uses in the City. The tw~ studies have been aligned in terms of
the service areas used for the analysis; however, the cost basis for calculating the per
capita factors is still in qu~ion. \
CBRE has postulated that certain portions of City service costs are fixed and not
subject to increase as City service demands expand." Overall, they have estimated that
49 percent of City service costs are subject to this limitation, ranging from 100 percent
of costs for the City Auditor and City Clerk to 20 percent of Fire Department costs.
The analyses or rationale leading to these specific percentage adjustments for each
department are not provided in the report. ADE views this as an issue of time .
perspective. Over the long term, nearly all City costs are subject to increase as the City
expands. As cities grow, not only do line departments need to expand to serve the large
population and employment base, additional1ayers of management are often needed
and the salaries paid to top managers increase as well with the complexity of the City
service network.
In addition, we believe CBRE has underestimated the impact on City Administrative
Departments. Based on the fISCal model we have developed for the Comprehensive
Plan Update, we calculate that general government costs to be much higher than the
figure estimated by CBRE.) In part, this is because we believe the average cost
approach should be applied to administrative departments as well as line departments."
As City government grows to serve more residents and businesses, the demands on
administrative depamnents grow as well. Therefore, we have calculated the cost
impact on the general government depanments as an overhead charge based on the
costs to provide direct services to the proposed project.
If we accept CBRE's estimates of direct service costs, then our general government
costs would be about $122,600 per year, compared to CBRE's estimate of $21,400.
However since our estimates of direct costs are also higher than those of CBRE, our
projections of general government costs are about $150,800, about seven times higher
than those of CBRE.
Table 3 shows the per capita City cost facton ADE has calculated for the fIscal model.
These figures also take into account the midyear budget adjustments approved by the
City Council on April 6, 2009. The 62138 percent split reflects the standard
, AppUed Developmen~ Economics, Inc. FimJ B«kgromtd Report. March 10, 2009
4 Administrative department. in tbis context include the City Attorney, Oty Auditol, O'Y Clerk, City Manager,
Administrative Services, and Human ServiceS. These Departments cOlUtitute the "general gQVmunent" function of
the City.
Applied o.ve'opment Economics, Inc.: ,
assumption employed by CBRE that the impact of employment generating uses is half
the impact of the residential population. However, for Community Services and the
Library, we have allocated a gre~ter share to residential uses since these services are less
in demand from workers not residing in the City.
TABLE 3
ADE CALCULATED PER CAPlfA cosr FACTORS FOR PALO ALTO
Retlclentlal Non-R_ldanDa.
CItY Department
General Government [a]
Community Services
fire
library
Planning and CommunIty E'nvlron.
PolIce
Public Works
Non=Departrnentill
Source: ADE. Inc.
Percent Allocation
18%
90%
62%
90%
62%
620,(.
62%'
62%
Note: raj Percent of direct line department cosu.
70
DoHar Factor
NA
$298.36
$164.13
$92.30
$51.69
$274.90
$130.99
$57.91
"rcent Alfogtlon
18%
10%
38%
100/0
38%
38%
38%
380,(.
Dollar Factor
NA
$27.39
B2.06
$8.47
$25.84
$143.10
$65.50
$28.96
App'~d Development Economics, Inc.
REVISED FISCAL ANALYSIS
Table 4 below shows ADE's cost estimates, including the City estimates of Police and
Fire costs, as well as adjustments to the other City costs and revenues as discussed
above. The primary difference with CBRE's analysis is in the cost estimates. While
ADE's annual revenue estimates are only about $10,000 lower than CBRE"s, the City
annual City cost estunates are more than $300,000 higher. This is primarily due to the
reduction CBRE made in the City service cost per capita factors.
TABLE 4
REVISED FISCAL ANALYSIS OF STANFORD UNlYERSITY MEDICAL
FAcn.mES PROlECT BASED ON ADEANALYSIS (YEAR 2025)
GMtral',ygcI I",DUII
Sales Tax
SUMC DII'ect Putdras/ng
SUMC FtIdIItfe6 On-site s.Jes
SUMC Emp/Dy8e SpendIng
, SUMC OVfJrn/ght WIftw SpsndIng
ConsInJaIon ReI8ted Purdlaslng
CbnstnIctfrJn Wirier Spending
Property Tax
Transient Oa:upanc.y tax
UtIlIty Users Tax
other Ta. and FInes
MoIor vehk'M /n-l./eu FeIfIs
FInes and PBn/I!IIe$
~AmoIInt
One-Time AIImMI
$8,1&1,719 $235,375
$42,036
1134,123
154718
1298
$51,836
$6,104
$296,572
$44,875
/12,643
$3WJ
TotIII Generat fund Reftllu.. "'164,71' S§27"7 Ge".' ruM IxMndltgrg
OtyAttomey
Oly Auditor
CllyCfert
Clly Q:lundl
$26,"182
$7,356
$10,298
Qly Manager $16,183
Admlnlslral1Ve ServIces $68,411
Human Resources $22,068
CominunIty Services $61,436
fire-' $186,288
Ubrary $18,998
Planning and COmmunity Enviromnent $57,959
Polk:~ $321,646
PUblic Works $1<46,917
Non-Departmental $64,9$7
Total Gene'" Fand !xpendltuns '0 $1Jt08.9!'
Gen •• 1 Fund Net Flscallmpac:t $8,164,719 ($374,231)
Note: 'fop Jine figures for Sales Tax and Othtr 'faxes and Fines are totala of the
italicized line iteJm below them.
It AnnUli cost estimata include allocation for additional equipment .. well as
per.onnel.
Source: ADE, Inc.
Table 4 represents a snapshot for the year 2025 when the project construction is
completed and operations are stabilized. However, the potential cumulative impact of
the project is much greater, considering that annual losses for the City will occur year
Applied Deve' .... ent Economics" Inc.
after year. Table 5 summarizes the results of a 30 year projection, from 2010 to 2040,
of the complete construction period and subsequent operations of the expanded
medical facility. The complete year by year analysis is provided in Appendix B.
CBRE's analysis is divided into two time frames 2009 to ~015 and 2015 to 2025. In
preparing our analysis; we have assumed that the initial construction period would last
through 2014, when the initial buildings would be available for occupancy. Therefore,
there are no operational impacts, or revenues, unti12015, when we assume the initial
. phase would be occupied and operating.
TABLES
THIRTY YEAR CUMULATIVE FISCAL ANALYSIS
General Fund Revenues 2010 2015 2025 2040
SlIuTu:
SUMC DIrect Purdlaslng $0 $36.151 $42,036 $42,036
SUMC Fadlities On-site sales $0 $115,519 $134,323 $134.323
SUMC Employee Spending $0 $50/498 $58,718 $58,718
SUMC OtIemlght Visitor Spending $0 $256 $298 $298
Construction Related Purchasing $1,496,434 $95,178 $0 $0
Construction Worker Spending $2,891 $264 $0 $0
Property T.~ $0 $40,241 $51,836 $51,836
Transient OccuPBIlC{ tax $0 $5,249 $6.104 $6,104
utility Users Tax $0 $255,055 $296,572 $296,572
OtherTI.IJ(e5 and Fines
Motor Vehrde In-lieu Fees $0 $9,815 $12,613 $12,613
fines and Penalties $0 $27,720 $32,232 $32,232
Total General Fund Revenues 111499.326 ~635~946 ~63V62 i634,762
General Fund EJtpendlturel
CltyAtlDmey $0 $22,774 $26,"182 $26,482
aty AudItor $0 $6,326 $7,356 $7,356
CityOerk $0 $8,857 $10,299 $10,299
City Coundl $0 $0 $0 $0
CIty Manager $0 $13,918 $16,183 $16,183
Administrative Services $0 $58,834 $68,411 $68,411
Human Resources $0 $18,979 $22,068 $22.068
Community 5ervtr::es $0 $52.835 $61,436 $61,436
FIre $0 $160,209 $186,288 $186,288
Ubrary $0 $16,339 $18,998 $18,998
Planning and Comnunity Environment $0 $"9,845 $57,959 $57,959
Police $0 $276,619 $321,646 $321,646
PublIc Wprks $0 $126,350 $146,917 $146,917
Non-Departmental $0 $55,864 $64,957 $64,957
TotatGeneral Fund Ex~nditures fO !§67,748 f1 1OO8,999 1110081999
General Fund Net FIscal Impact $1,499,326 ($231,802) ($374,238) ($374,238)
Cl.rmulatlve General Fund Iml:!act fl I4991326 f7,264&26 ~5191373 (ll.094",192}
Source; ADE. Ine.
The Phase n construction is then assumed to be completed in 2021 and the remaining
permanent employment and patient level$ would phase in and ramp up between 2022
and 2025.
Under these assumptions, the project produces substantial benefit for the City during
initial construction phase as use taxes are paid but little city cost if incurred. In 2015,
this changes dramatically, as construction revenues decrease ~d the City begins to
incur the ongoing costs of providing services to the newly occupied medical facilities.
12 AppUed Development Econom~ 'nc.
This negative impact stabilizes at about a $374,200 annual loss by 2025. The
cumulative net revenue gained through the initial construction period continues to
erode and turns negative in the year 2038. By 2040, it reaches a level of negative $1.1
million. If the time period of the analysis were extended to 50 years, the cumulative
impact of the project would be a negative $8.6 million.
CONCLUSION
ADE's analysis indicates that from a fiscal perspective, the SUMC project will be a
relatively low revenue generator for the City of Palo Alto General Fund while still
exerting strong demands for City services 'such as police and fire protection, among
otherS. The resulting negative flScal impact of the project will affect the Cityts ability
to pay for services needed for this project and other service recipients in Palo Alto.
CBRE's analysis does not adequately portray the fiscal impact for several reasons:
• Construction related Use Tax calculations depend on numerous assumptions
about the size of construction contracts, the location of suppliers and the
willingness of contractors to obtain seller's sub permits and may overstate the
benefit from this revenue source.
• Property Tax calculations are based on market data that may be compromised
by current economic conditions.
• Transient Occupancy Tax calculations make assumptions about visitation for
adult inpatient care that may not be warranted.
• In their analysis of City service costs, CBRE significantly reduced the
departmental budget figures on the basis that large segments of City operations
are flXed and not subject to expansion as City service demands grow. ADE
believes this is inaccurate given the long projected life of the project.
It should be noted that neither the ADE study nor the CBRE study take into account
the effects of inflation on City costs and potential increases in projected employee
costs. Also, the studies' do not address the potential City contributions necessary to
complete funding for mitigations of project impacts nor the contribution that is
necessary from the City General Fund to development impact fee accounts in order to
complete funding of capital improvements. These issues will magnify the full impact of
the project on City finances.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 13
-This page intentionally left blank-
r4 Applied Dw&lopmenf Economic., 'nc.
Ap·PENDIX A: SALES AND USE TAX
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
:1Pr·
;J.J.&'f&.
.. " w, J\.-I;ft,!Il'v.I'CI. ~~~'1'~~ -~..,"'~
Applied Development Economia, Inc. J5
" Applied Dwelopmenf Economb, Inc.
Ap""'" o.v.Iopment Economb, Inc. '7
· ~.
II Applied Development Economics, h:.
1J,
Applied Development Economic-, Inc. 19
Applied Development Econom~ Inc.
'm)D~·eon~'-\-UO •. ANJ)'D'f:~~GO~~;Af" ~~y' •... ,.. •..•. ' ";"'" ... ~ •• -_ ......... "0-••.• ~~~.:.. ... ~~!, ..
ApplJed Development Economla, Inc. 2'
22 Applied Development Economics, 'nc.
AppIHHJ Development Economic-, Inc. 23
"This page intentionally left blank"
24 Applied Development Economics, 'nco
APPENDIX B: DETAILED FISCAL PROJECTIONS
TABLE B-1
. FISCAL PROlEmONS
. Gen .... 1 Fund Reven!!!! 2010 2011 :IOU 1111 2014 2015
'11. 1M
SUMC DIrect Purch85lng $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,151
SUMC FacIlities On-llte Sales $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,519
SUMC Employee SpendIng $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,498
SUMC OvernIght VIsItor Spending $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256
Construction Related PIrdlasIrig $11196,434 $1,496,434 $1,496,.434 $1,496,434 $1,496,434-$95,178
Construdlon Worker Spending $2,891 $2.891 $2,891 . $2.891 $2,891 $264
Propert:yTax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,241
TranSIent Ocwpancy talC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,249
UtIIIly Users Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $255,055
Other TIICeS and Fines
Motor Vehlde In-Ueu Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,815
Fines and !lena1l1es $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,720
Total General Fund Revenues ~11499,326 i 1,499,326 $1,499/3~ ~ll·99J26 §1,499,326 1635.946
General Fund Expendl.,..
OtyAttorney $0 $0 $0 $0 to .f22,n4.
CIty Auditor $0 $0 to $0 $0 $6,326 ,
Oty Clerk $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,857
CIty CouncH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OtyManager $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,918
AdminlslralWe Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,834
Humen Resources $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,979
Community Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,.835
FIre $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,209
library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,339
Planning and Communlly EnvIronment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,845
Police $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $276,619
PublIc Work, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $126,350
Non-Departmental $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,864
Total General Fund S!l!!!ndItures ~ fO fO fO $0 f8fi7,748
General Fund Net Fiscal Impact $1,499,326 $1,499,326 $1,499,326 $1,499,326 $1,499.326 ($231,802)
CUmulative General Fund Im~ IL49~1326 12,9981651 14,4971977 fS19971302 17,496,628 !7,2641826
Employment Change 1,929
Cumulative fmOIovment Increase 0 0 0 0 0 11929
Source: IDE. Inc.
Applied Deve'opnmnt Economics, Inc. 25
TAlLEBM2
FISCAL PROJECTIONS
General Fund RevetlUft 201& 2017 2011 2019 2020 2021
hili'"
SUMC Dtrect Purthaslng $36,151 $36,151 $36,151 $36,151 $36,151 $36,151
SUMC FacRltles on-site'Sales $115,519 $115,519 $115,519 $115,519 $115,519 $115,519
SUMC Employee Spending $50,498 $50,498 $SO,"I. $50,498 $50,"198 $50/498
SOMC OvernIght VIsItor Spending $256 $256 $256 $256 $256 $256
Constnittlon Related Purchasing $95,178 $95/178 $95,178 $95,178 $95,178 $95,178
Construction Worker 5DendI!l1 S6"l j26"l !264 S6"I @6"1 1£6"1
'ropertv' Tax $42,174 $4"1,106 $46,03.8 $47,971 $49,903 $51,836
Transient Ocxupailcy tax $5/249 $5,249 $5,249 $5,249 $5,249 $5,249
UtIlity Users Tax $255/055 $255/055 $255,055 $255,055 $255,055 $255/055
OIherTaxes and fines
MolorVehide In-l.leu fees $10,287 $10,758 $11,229 $11,701 $12,1n $12,6"13
. Fines and PenaltIes $27,720 $27,720 $27,720 $27,720 $27,nO $27,720
Total General fw\d Revenues f§38~ !640,154 f§:!3,158 H:!51561 ~71965 $650.369
General Fund ~
CIty AttorneV $22,774 $22,774 $22,774 $22,774 $22,774 $22,774
City AudItor $6/326 $6,326 $6,326 $6,326 $6~6 $6,326
City Clert $8,857 $8,857 $8,857 $8,857 $8,857 $8,857
.CltyCoundl $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIty Manager $13,918 $13,918 $13,918 $13,918 $13/918 $13/918
AdMInIStratIve Services $58,834 $58,834 $58,834 $58,834 $58,834 $58,834
Human Re5ou~es $18,979 $18,979 $18,979 $18,979 $18,979 $18,979
Community ServIa!s $52,835 ~2,835 $52,835 $52.835 $52,835 $52,835
fire $160,209 $160,209 $160,209 $160,209 $160,209 $160,209
LIbrary $16,339 $16,339 $16,339 $16,339 $16,339 $16,339
Planning and Community EnvIronment $49,&45 $49,845 $49/845 $49,845 $49,845 $49,845
'. PolIte $276,619 $276,619 $276,619 $276,619 $276/619 $276,619
PublIc Works $126,350 $126,350 $126,350 $126,350 $126,:.50 $126,350
Non-Departmental. $55,86"1 $55,864 $55,86"1 $55,864 $55/86"1 $55,864
Total General Fund ExDendilUres .867,748 ~8671748 ~71748 !867,148 t!67,748 S867.748
General FUnd Net Fiscal Jmpac;t ($229,398) ($226,994) ($224,591) ($222,187) .. ($219,783) ($217,380)
Cumulal:iYe General Fund !!matt 17,0351428 i~808I433 ti.583.843 16.361,656 i6.141JR2 fS.924,492
Employment Change
Cumulative Emolovment Increllse 11929 1,929 11929 11929 1,929 . 1,929
Source: ADE. Inc.
26 ApplIed Development Ec:onom~ 'nc.
TABLE8-S
FISCAL PROJECTIONS
General Fun. Revenue. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 .... "'x
SUMC Direct Purchasing $37,627 $39,103 . $40,579 $12,036 $12,036 $42;03&
SUMC FaciUtJes On. Sales $120,235 $124,951 $ 129r667 $134,323 $134,323 $134,323
SUMc: Employee Spending $52,560 $54,621 $56,683 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718
SlIMe OvernIght VIsItor Spending $26' $277 $288 $298 $298 $298
Construttlon Related Purchasing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Constructfon Worker Spending $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property TIIx $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 . $51,836
Transient OccupallCy tax $5,464 $5;678 $5,892 . $6,104 $6,104 $6,.104
Ulliity Users Tax $265,'167 $275.879 $286,292 $296,572 $296,572 $296;572
other Taxes and Fines
Motor VehICle In-lieu Fees $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12.643 $ 12,64:l
fines and Penalties $28,851 $29,983 $31,115 $32.232 $32,232 $32,232
Total General Fund Revenues $574,949 $594,971 $614.994 $634,762 1634,762 9634,762
G....,.I Fund IJlpendlturu
CIty Attomey $23,704 $24,634 $25,564 $26;482 $26,482 $26.482
ely Auditor $6,584 $6,843 $7,101 $7~3s6 $7,356 $7,356
ely Clerk $9,218 $9,sao $9,941 $10,298 $10,298 $10,298
OtyCoundl $0 $O~ $0 $0 $0 $0
oty Manager $14,_ $15,054 $15.622 $16.183 $16,183 $16,183
Administrative ServIces $61,236 $63,638 $66,040 $68,411 $68,411 $68,411
Human Resources $19,753 $20,528 $21,303 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068
CoR.JmUnlty Servtces $54,992 $57,149 $59,306 $61,436 $61,436 $61,436
fire $166,750 $173.290 $179,831 $186;288 $186,288 $186,288
Ubraty $17,006 $17;673 $18,340 $18,998 $18,998 $18,998
Planning and Community EnvIronrrient $51,880 ,",915 $55,950 $,57,. $51,. $57.959
POlIce $281,911 $299,204 $310,497 $321;646 $321,646
Public Works $136,666 $141,824 $146,917 $146,917
NOn-Departmental $64,957 $64,957
Cumulative Employment Increase. 2.243·
Source: ADE, Inc. .
Applied Development EconomkJ.. 'nco 27
TABLE 8-.
FJSCAl PROlECPONS
G ........ fund Rave .... 2028 202. 2gt 2031 lOU 2033
SllhllTax .
SUMC Dlrett Purchasing $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036
SUMC facilities on-sb Sales $134,323 $134,323 $1341323 $134,323· $134,32.3 $134,323
SUMC Employee Spending $58,718 $S8,718 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718
SlIMe OvernIght VlsIlDr SpencIng $298 $~ $298 $298 $298 $298
CGnstruc.tIon Related Purcbaslng $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Worker Spending $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax . $SI,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836
Tralllllent ~panty tax $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104
UtlIly Users. Taic $296,572 $296,572 $296,57,2 $296,Sn $296,Sn $296,572
other T8XIIS and Anes
Motor Vehldeln·ueu Fees $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643
fines and PenaltIes $32,232 $32,232. $32,232 $32,232 $32,232 $32,232
Total General fund Revenues J§341761 S634.162 i 634,762 1634,762 $634.762 ~34,762
General fund bp8IIdItureI
ely Attorney $26,482 $26,482 $26,C $26,482 $26,482 $26,482
Oty AudItor $7,356 $7,356 $7,356 $7,'356 $7,356 $7,356
OtyOerk $10,298 $10,298 . $10,298 $10,298 $10,298 . $10,298
CltyCoundl $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CIly Manager $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183
Admlnlltrallve ServIces $68,"'11 $68, ... 11 $68,411 $68,411 $611,411 $68/l11
Human Reeources $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068
Commurdly Services $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 $61. ... 36
fire $186,288 $186,288 $186,288 $186,288 $186,288 $186,288
Ubr8fy $18,998 $18,998 $18,998 $18,998 $18,998 $18,998
Planning and Community Erwll'Cnment $57,959 $57,959 $57,959 $57,959 $57,959 $57,959
Police $321,646 $321,646 $321,646 $321,646 $321,646 $321,646
Public Workt $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 $146,917
Non-Departmental ,$64,957 $64,957 $64,957 $64,957 $64,957 $64,957
Total Ganem! Fund Elcoendltures ~11008.999 11.008,999 ~110081999 ll.OO8c999 !1dl!!.999 !1.oo8.999
Generlll Fund Net FIiciII Impact ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238)
0ImuIat1\le General Fund lmoad $3.3961660 $31022 1422 $216481186 12•2731947 $1.899.709 $1 16251472
Employment Change 0 0 0 0 0 0
cumulative EmI!I!M'.!ent Increase 2,243 21243 2&243 21243 2,243 ~~43
SOUrall ADE, Inc.
28 Applied Development Economics, Inc.
TABLE 1-5
FISCAL PROJECTIONS
Generlll Fund bYelluel ag4 2035 203. 2037 2038 2031
SalelTax
SUMC Direct Purchasing $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036 $42,036
SUMC facilities 0tHlte Sales $134,323 $134,323 $134,323 $134,323 $134,323 $134,323
SUMC Employee Spending $58,718 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718 $58,718
SUMC Overnight Visitor Spending *-$298 $298 $298 $298 $298
·Construction Related Pun:haslng $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Con!truttIon Worker Spending $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836 $51,836
Transient Occupant)! tax $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104
UWlty Users Tax $296,572 $296,5n $296,572 $296.sn $296;512 $296,sn
Other Taxes arad FInes
MotorVehIcIe In-lleu Fees $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643 $12,643
Fines and PenaltIeS $32,232 $32,232 .$32.~ $32,232 $32,232 $32,232
Total General Fund Revenues ~634e162 $6341762 $634.762 l634l62 16341762 5634.762
Genel'll' Fund Expenditure.
CIty Attorney $26,482 $26,482 $26,482 $26,482 $26,482 $26,482
CIty AudIlDt $7,356 $1,356 $7,356 $7,356 $1,356 $7,356
CIty Clerk $10,298 $10,298 $10,298 $10,298 $10,l98 $10,298
CltyCoundl $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
atyManager $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183 $16,183
AdmInlstratWe ServIces $68,411 $68,411 $68,411 $68,411 $68.411 $68,411
Human ReaoutaIS $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068 $22,068
Community ServIces $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 $61,436 .$61,436
file $186,28S" $186,288 $186,288 $186,288 $186,288 $186,288
Library $18,998 $18,998 $18,998 $18,998 $18,9gs $18,998
Planning and CommunIty Environment $57,959 $57 •• $57,959· $57,959 $57,959 $57,959
Police $321,646 $321,646 $321,646 $311,646 $321,646 $321,646
PubkWor!cs $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 $146,917 . $146,911
Non-Departmental $64,957 $64,957 $64,951 $64,957 $64,957 ; $64,957
Total General Fund ExDendltures . il1008£999 ~110081999 fl.008.999 !I.ooa.999 ~110081999 tL0081999
General Fund Net FIscal Impact ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238) ($374,238) ($37'4,238) ($374,238)
Cumulative General Fund tmDaCt 1111511234 f77~996 1402,759 ~81521 ($3451717) (!719,9S4}
Employment OIange 0 0 0 0 0 0
CUmulaUve fmDIovment Increase 21243 2~43 2£243 21243 21243 ·2,243
_ SOvtCel ADE, Jnc:.
Applied Development .Economics, Inc. 29
30
TABLE B-6
FISCAL PROJECTIONS
General Fund Rev.n ....
sale. tax
SUMC Direct Purchasing
SUMC Fadllties On·slte Sales
SUMC Employee Spending
SUMC Ollefl1lght VIsitor Spending
ConstructIon Related Purchasing
Construction Worker Spending
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy tax
UtIlity Users Tax
Other Taxes and Fines
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees
Anes and Penalties
Total General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
Oty Attorney
CIty Auditor
CIty _Clerk
CltyCoundl
CIty Manager
AdministratIVe Services
Human ReSOurces
Community Services
Fire
library
Planning and COmmunity Environment
Pollee
PublicWorb
Non-Departmental
Total General Fund E!!I!endltures
General Fund Net Flscal.Impact
Cumulative Gener.ll Fund Impact
Employment Change
Cumulative Employment Increase
Source: ADE. Inc.
$42,036
$134~3
$58,718
$298
$0
$0
$51,836
$6,104
$296,572
$12,643
$32,232
$634,762
$26,482
$7,356
$10,298
$0
$16,183
$68,411
$22,068
$61,436
$186,288
$18,998
$57,959
$321,646
$146,917
$64,957
$1,008,999
($374,238)
($1,994,192)
o
2,243
Applied Development Ec:onomia, Inc.
e
"
ATTACHMENT B
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 6, 2010 CMR: 197:10
SUBJECT: Review of the Stanford Univenity Medical Center F.dlities Renewal
and Replacement Project Development Agreement Proposal ,and
City's Preliminary Counter Offer
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the Stanford University Medical
Center (SUMC) proposed Development Agreement Proposal and the City's preliminary counter
offer.
BACKGROUND
The' Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) comprises the general area between Sand Hill
Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive. The Project applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and
Clinics (SHC) at 300 Pasteur Drive, construction of a new hospital building, renovation and
expansion of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH). reconstruction of the School of
Medicine (SoM) facilities, and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover
Pavilion to meet State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity
issues, changing patient· needs and modernization requirements. SB 1953 requires hospitals to
retrofit or replace noncompliant facilities by January 1,2013, but Stanford has requested a two
year extension pursuant to SB 1661 from the Office of Statewide Planning and Health
(OSHPOD), the California State agency that has jurisdiction over hospitals.
The renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed over a IS-year horizon,
would result in a new increase of approximately 1.3 million squm-e feet of hospital. clinic~ and
office space. The following entitlements are anticipated: .
• , Certification of an Environmental Impact RePort
• Comprehensive Plan amendments to:
o Change 701 and-703 Welch Road and a small portion of Santa Clara County land
on Welch Road proposed to be annexed "Major Institutional/Special Facilities·'
land use designation.
o Amend Program L-3 to revise the citywide 50-foot ~ight limit to allow
exceptions for talter buildings within the proposed "Hospital· District."
o Amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the hospital and treatment uses are exempt from
the development cap.
• Zoning Code and Map anlendments to:
o Create a new "Hospital Zone." J
CMR: 197:10 Page 10f5
o Pennit limited heritage tree removals
o Pre-zone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital Zone."
• Annex the small parcel described above. ,
• ARB review of the Stanford Hospital Clinics (SHC), LPCH, FOlmdations in Medicine
(FIMl). medical office building at Hoover Pavilion, and Design Guidelines.
• Conditional Use Pennit .
• Development Agr~ent
The Project applicant bas submitted eight substantive project amendments with. the most recent
amendment submitted on March 8, 2010. Since the Project was fIrst submitted to the City,
SUMC has made changes based upon Staff analysis and ARB, Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council input. 1bese changes include modifications to site planning and
building massing; revisions to the location of parking garages and site access for automObiles;
refinements to the pedestrian and bicycle network to promote stronger linkages and connections;
and changes to building placement and design to protect significant oak tree specimens. As part
of the entitlement process for the project the City and SUMC have agreed to complete a Fiscal
Impact Analysis. A companion staff report (CMR: 196: 1 0) details the fiscal findings.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report is expected to be relea.~ in early May for public
comments. A summary of the major impacts and mitigations is contained in CMR 453:09.
(Attachment C.)
DISCUSSION
Development Agreement Negotiations
Stanford is seeking a Development Agreement which wiD lock in the proposed zoning
regulations for a specified period of time. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts
between the applicant and City. Developers typically apply for a Development Agreement to
ensure that local regulations will not change over time and to help secure financing for large
scale projects. In exchange, local governments negotiate an acceptable "community benefit
package." Since they are the product of voluntary negotiations rather than a unilateral imposition
by the local government, community benefits under a Development Agreement are typically
broader than EIR mitigation measures and project conditions of approval. As such, community
benefits are not legally required to have the same rigorous nexus as mitigation measures or
development conditions. A Development Agreement is a legislative action and may be subject to
referendum. See Attachment D for more detail on these different entitlements.
On June 15, 2009, the City received a Development Agreement proposal from Stanford
(Attachment A). Stanford proposed a 30.year Development Agreement with. some terms
extending to 51 years. The proposed agreement focuses on the following major categories of
community benefIts: (1) health care, (2) fiscal benefits, (3) reduced vehicle trips, (4) bicycle
link.age~ and (5) housing. The proposal noted that the most important conununity benefit would
be the applicants' investment in seismically safe, state of the art facilities that would enable the
hospitals to continue to provide high quality patient care. In additio~ Stanford also offered some
additional community benefits~ including the following significant proposals:
CMR: 197:10 Page 2 ofS
1. Establislunent of two new programs for the exclusive benefit of residents: a $3 million
fund to assist qualified low-income residents and a $4 million fund to subsidize
community health programs within Palo Alto.
2. Construction spending and associated use taxes of $8.3 million and provisions to obtain a
use tax direct payment permit that will generate approximately $26.000 annually.
3. Purchase of Caltrain Go Passes for all SUMC employees at an estimated annual cost of
$1.3 million. (Currently only Stanford University employees are entitled to this benefit.)
4. Expansion of the Marguerite service by purchasing additional shuttles in the amount of
$2 million and by funding additional annual operating costs of$450,OOO.
5. Funding a range of improvements to encourage use of transit and enhance pedesttian. and
bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown: $2.25 million for pedestrian
and bicycle connections around the Intennodal Transit Center; $400,000 for right of way
improvements along Quarry Road; and $700,000 for a pedestrian connection between the
Medical Center and Shopping Center (Stanford Barn area).
6, Payment of housing in-lieu fees in the amount of $23.1 million which is equivalent to
what a commercial project would pay.
Staff believes Stanford's proposal is substantive and responsive to many project impacts. The
proposal focuses on the key areas of concern raised by the Planning and Transportation
Commission. the City Council, and the community. However, it is also important to note that
with a project of this magnitude many of their proposed community benefits would typically be
imposed as conditions of approval or ElR mitigation measures.
Staff has had ongoing negotiation sessions with Stanford representatives and as part of the
prelimin81j' negotiations staff has developed the following guiding principles for discussions:
1. Minimize fiscal impacts to the City. Ensure that the project does not have a negative
fiscal impact on the City through focusing, among other things. on revenue guarantees
and robust analysis of long term project expenses.
2. Require project mitigation. Ensure that zoning ordinance and Conditions of Approval
adequately address all project mitigations. Ensure that the General Fund is not unfairly
burdened witb long term impacts of project.
3. Preserve community health care. Ensure that local benefit'! of hospital and clinics will be
retained, despite transition towards world class hospital 8ta:tus.
4. Enh811ce City infrastructure. Recognize mutual interest in preserving high standard of
economic and community vitality. Partner with Stanford to fund the long-telm
infrastructure needs of the community (capital programs, housing, transportation,
broadbandj.
Based on these guiding principles. staff recommends that Stanford's June 15.2009 Development
Agreement offer be supplemented with the Development Agreement Terms listed below. Note
that these items are staff recommendations and any fmal Term Sheet is subject to Council
approval. The purpose of developing prelinlinary deal tenns at this stage of the process is to
assure adequate coverage, where applicable, by the DEIR and Final EIR. Development
CMR: 197:10 Page 3 of5
Agreementtenns will be developed and negotiated following release of the DElR review process
and Council and the public will be provided additional opportunities 10 comment in detail on
both the high level community benefit priorities as well as the specific deal terms.
Supplemental Development Agreement Terms
A. Health Care
"B. Fiscal
• Extend financial assistance subsidy to qualifying residents ($3 Million) from
10 years to life of Development Agreement
• Extend community health programs payment ($4 Million) from 10 years to
life of Development Agreement
• Continue appropriate hospital privileges for community practitioners
• Continue SUMC~s current community hea1th1wellnessldisease prevention
programs
• Capital funds co-located Emergency Operations Center (EOC) facility in new
buildings within Palo Alto
• Explore innovative health care initiative/partnership in area ofbroadbandlfiber
to the premises
• Ensure project is at least cost neutral by guaranteeing revenue projections to
offset expenditures, funding extra public safety FTE's and fully funding
mitigations
• Payment in lieu of property tax
C. Transportation
• Explore re-defining IDM program (00 Pass) and re-directing funds toward
expanded shuttle program and other citywide infrastructure improvements.
See o below.
D. Pedestrian and Bicycle Linkages Benefit
• Note: These items will be covered as project mitig~tions.
E. Housing Benefit
• Note: Hospital zone will include additional measures to address jobslhousing
impact identified in the ElR
11. School Fees Benerlt (PAUSD)
• Work with School District and City to minimize impacts to schools
H. Economic: and Community Vitality
I • Contribute $30 Million to help fund needed Citywide Infrastructure such as
Public Safety BuUding, EOC~ roadways and expanded shuttle programs
A complete copy of the Preliminary Counter Proposal Term Sheet is attaChed as Attachment B.
CMR: 197:10 Page 4 of5
The City's Counter Proposal seeks to distinguish between those elements in the proposal which
can be imposed as mitigation measures and those which are more properly characterized as
community benefits. Also~ the Citis preliminary counter proposal increases and spreads the
health care benefits through the entire time horizon of the Development Agreement. In addition,
. the City's preliminary counter proposal focuses on a one time contribution to improving citywide
infrastructure. As the hospital project is largely exempt from property taxes and has a nominal
retail component, a sizable contribution to the General Fund earmarked for infrastructure will
enhance the economic vitality of the project. An investment in citywide infrastructure not only
benefits both parties to the Development Agreement, but also benefits the school district, the
University and the Research Park. It should be noted that staff is amenable to shifting some of
the funds Stanford has already proposed in their community benefit package (such as the Go
Pass) towards other infrastructure programs that have more cityWide benefit. However, Stanford
will still be expected to mitigate project identified impacts albeit in a more cost effective manner.
NEXT STEPS
Given the significance of this project, staff will present this report to the Policy and Services on
April 13, 2010 for further feedback and will submit it to the full Council for additional
discussion and possible action on May 10,2010.
SCHEDULE
A project schedule flow chart is contained in Attachment E.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report for this project.
PREPARED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
Attachment A: Draft Development Agreement Proposal from Stanford University
Attachment B: Preliminary City Development Agreement Counter Proposal
Attachment C: CMR 453:09
Attachment D: Comparison of Land Use Entitlements
Attachment E: Project Schedule Flow Chart
CMR: 197:10 rage 5 of5
• ~oIp~~r~,~R··.
-~ .............. ....
s"'I!~,1 t.,,', ...... ;;, v,.,y .. u· ... w
i".
'J~1S,2Qof
.di!Y.Mmlaaerl8l?los leone
cttjof.Pal9J\lto .
2SbHam11tOnAvenue
Jlal()Alto, CA943'Ol
,":": """ :,
lleatCity~ot~Cone: .
. .
ATTACHMENT A
. , .. ~ ....... ~ .
". L. uc.'.ne .. ,p,.".C., ,.0, .. 'd...... )-.. t, -._.... .. CbUciren'. Ho.Pltal " . ".
" . AT STANFORD .......•...
. '. . . . ~ ":: .' .
. .
..
Sta¢ordHospltal. 8nct CtiniC8.LucilePacbrdChil~·s Hospitala*d Stanford UDivetaitY
submit ·thCfoUowiqpropPlalfor a ~10plneilt AlreerllCDltloves.tOll,t1tlOrlientstbrthe .'
'Siarit0r4Univeriity Medical Center Reoewaland Repl~ementProject.···· .. .'
.•....
In arriving at this proposal, weCO!1$1~ not only o. discussions, with' Citystafr~verthe
p. ~ y~bUt also the aubstantial inputteceivedtrom members of tl\epublic, 1ht '.' .'
PJailnmgand Transportation CommissiQil.andthe CityCouncilduiingsessioD$ .. dedicated .
tG discussioDSOfeommunity,benefj.ts. We considaW carefollythe e~cte<Jilnpacta,
mcludiAgpositivc impacts,ofthe.~j~ct on JocaJ residonts,<;:it):~i~",~City, . .'
revcnucs,.and.wc.cOusideredthc~c .consttaintsfaclng·;~.hOSPitala\fuPdi,ngpf "
Project CQ~ctiOJL. Finally, ~mostimportantJYJ weconsid.mdthe rolethatthe.
m~cal'''''plays in the community and the ways ~ which. we feclwe are particularly
suited and situated to p~vldebenefits, that are withino~ expettiae. .
B8se4 on an'of~ oonsideratioQl,m.tt1'f9posalbelo!,Cooaseson nlanYofthe:b~fitf·
. suggested. anddesOribed previously 'bythCCity,btClu~J1g the inhem1t direct inti indirect
collUllUnity ~ts~vlded by the ,hOS;Pltalstoday:~into. the" future. In addition, the
p1'OJlQ$1lomphaslzea b~efitJ that_. ate best suited to,Provide tothe~and arc
dedtotheimpllcts tbatthe ProJ_ eouldhavti on the ~uility. \Yo cannot asree to and· .'
!Ilona. proposina itemsUDreI~.to medlcalcenter.~.anJiAnlpa~t. ' . ," . . ....•.•. -. . , '. ':.' , .... ", ."
In addition to the ~iplcsthat ·gWdcd'kuJ:sel~tkxl.~f ~wlltYbenefits_ the.items and
-U8ociaied dplJar amounts fdontified in,this propolal·ate based upon our best estimates of
the cost ofProj~ construction and'Project ini1i"ation .. These are diftlcult ~ic times
and ~ hospitals have a"limitedamount ofmolH')'they. can coQUllit to providing bene~ts to
the·.City, over.attd above what Is a reasonable mitl"atlon of impacts. 'Vie do not yet know
precisely what wiU,,~·requiredby;1he.City. a "mitigatiOn" nor whether th~ ~~~n, ..
change its eXisting regulations to increaae tli(, cost of the hospital9·project~·\;:;>:' .....
" . ; . .. ," ". . , •... ";},,'~::' . ".... .
300 ra.thr I)rlve,.. Jll200. MIC 5230. SfllnflJrdCA ,.,. TekphODe 6SO-nl·28'11
..
I'
" CI1}I Manis« James K.Iono ,.2
"
. .
• The Project is approvCci by the Ci~ substantiallY as described in tbecurrent ver~n,
ofthd'roject appUoatlon ~ as p1'e8ented lOtbe Architectural Review Board,
.. inclu4ing.the appl~ts' proposed Comprehensive PIm atnen~nts, zoning,
jurisdictional boundary change, and arohiteCt\U'al review approYBIs •.
. .
, .
• The City does not enact DOW reauhiticms ot modifY existing regulations that would
app!yto the Project prior to approval of the Developmont J\gtoeJnent.
• ~ CitY doeS DOt im.posO,~ thezoning~. ~nditions of apProval or
.other.meams, reqQiremonta other than those ~~by the City's
M~pal Code or those that constitute feasible miti~ measures that win
~ucetbe Projcc.t~s significant envlrOamentai impacts.
'. ', ..
; The term of the DevelopmcntAgroemCnt Will be fot 30"~~ ObUgations in the
~t Alrcement that are1bl"the life of the Project" ar.e for Styears.
. . . .
The following .(feat poiJlts arepresentc;d f~ CQJlsideradoriby City statT as the CQIlCeptuai
basis fora Degoti8ted'Dev~lopmentAgtoement.Of cOUl'M, the8e deals POintS em be
changed at any tilp.e liP and until the Development ~entia final and Biped by the
pardes." . ,.
HeaDlaCar_
HYltb Caie:Oilgojua Diteqt and Indirect Homit8JsCgmmun!tY Benefit.
The Agreement llVill recoPize ~ the ~st impm1antcomrmmity benefit
wntbe~ applicants' inVestrnOnt in.selsmica11ySafe, state-of-the-art
facilities thatw.ill enable the hospitals to~tlnue to provide high..quality
~tcaro and theSchoQlot~iciDe to perform research leading to
ground brCaIdq technoiogies~ t~ts. .'" " ;
Advanccmont$ln medicine thathaYO"takeI:l placc at the StanfOld University
.. tdedbl ~ter 1nQ1ude p~g achicYemcnts in u.nsplantatiOll '.
medic •• , advlDOementS in Oancercatetbroughthe introduction of the
lm.au' acoe~tor aDd the cyberknito,leaderfhJPbl J)fOIlIltal diagnosis and
treatmcm.t,4i8CO~of~ protein~ appears toho the root cure of type I
diabete$,and d18coVOJYottbOlink~tween exerciSe and increased "good's cholesterol levels. ' .'.' . . . . ... .. .
In addkiOnto World-renownedmedi~:~aha, in 2007 the ben~fits provi¥d by th~ bQspitals ·~tO.the fcillowiDg: '
• 37,138 inpatteDts,admitted .
• 44,073 emergency department visits
• 5,432 babies delivered
. ' "
r,"
'.' .. ' 3
It· is importanttoemphaaizc that the hospit8l. served moJe than two-thirds
of the '''oAlt&l.dentlWhOrequiredhospital!atl~ in290l'.':'c!he .
.. ' "addition oflDOie bedS'1bt 8dultsand chIldmli·)\riUallovtate,bV.wding
artdauow 1hot\\'o;~itatjtoservepati_1Vho~YID1IIfrbetuMed
aWay.1D2008;924 . .,.....·couldnOtbe 8dm1tte'dtotbeh08piid,~e
o(a~ofavaila1*.b." . ',. . ',".
• ,:' ~ ',' "" ',:~~. ':.' ";, ·i1."'f ..
"
'I "
"
4
Palo Alto JJ'lseal Benefits '
lato Alto f'Dca1 BeiJpfigi Qimct and Wiling HP!pitals Community
BciD. The hOspitals provide a positive economic benefit to Palo Alto
and b ·surrounding area. Project coaatroctlon will provide additional jobs,
increase spending, and bring immediate added nwmues to the City of Palo
... Alto •. The Fiacallmpact Report prepaied by CBRB Consulting estimates
·that construction spending and asaoclated use taxes will bring $8.3 million .
·to t1ioCi~ts general tbnd 88 the Project is built out. .
In addition, tho hospitals wiU pay Community Facilitiea and Citywide
TruiSportation Impact Fees 88 follows:
• $S.8 million in cOmmunity FacBitfos Fees for parks, communitY
centCJ8 ancllibraries. .
• $2.0 milUon in·Citywide 'IiaDsportatiop ImpaCt Fees for public
¥litiea 8Ild services ~t Rllieve citywide trat1ic conpationcaused
by new developm.entprqjecta, including advanced traDaportation
lD8JlIlpment and information syatellll, expenaed shuttle transit
aervices; 8nd bicycle aDd pedeatriani:mprovements. fte oppIlCimu
. wlU not seek credit agolut dau/ee for jimdlng the l"jp;oWmenu to
ll'anau, pedatrian and blt:Jlcl, l",,",ge.r described below.
Palo AltO Fiscal Bmieitai . AdditlgnaI otferod Community Benefits. 1be
hoipitala propose to obtain a use tax direct payment permit tiom the State of
California in order to increase, on an OJllOina ~ the local-tax. allocation
for the hospitals' purchases. 1be hospitals win maintain the use tax.direct
p8yment permit for the lite of tho Project, US1JlDin& the State continues to
~iniater the use ·tax direct payment pennit program or 8 substanttaUy
equivalent program. '.
Redueetl Vehlde Tripi
ReducldYehicti Trim: Direct _Indirect Homftalt Qmummity Benefit.
The ho~ita" provide 8 robust propam to minimize commuting byway of
drivc-alone vebiclea, wt,ich includes the followins components!
• ~v08 to Rfi1Wl trom dri~ or to parti~ipate ill carpools,
including p8)'D1Clllts to ~ployoea who apee not to drive to work of
. . $282 in "Clean Air Cashlt or otlicr aedit for participating in a
~ proaram, cxmlPlimentary parking for c~lat Je8Cl'Yed
parldng apaoeB ~r crupoola ancl.vimpools, online ride matchina,
pr~ payroU deduction for transit passes, emmgencyridea home.
free air RIltal vouchers, Zipcar car sharing credits, and other lifts
aad 1W'8l'ds.
300 , •• teur Drive -H3200· M/C 5U., Stanfcrl'd C A 94305. Te1epllollt ti5O·721·U78
• I ...
\ , . I
... , ,
,. ,S~ford University runs' a free comprehensive Marperite Shottlo
system, supp0rtc4 by payments. ~ tho hospitals, that connects the
h~pita1s to local transit, Caltrain, shopping and dining.
• The hospitals provide an Bco Pass to their employees, which allows
ftee ustrofVTA buses and lipt rail. the Dumbarton &press, and
, the Hlpway 17 Express, and the MonteMy-San Jose Express.
• Tho hospitals provide flee use of tho U .. LiDe Stanford BxPJess that
conneota BART and the ACB train, and the Anlenwood Park & Ride to Stanford. ' .
• Stanford also provides an extenaive transportation website, transit
pass aalea, ·altematm transportation infonnation at new employee
orientation; reauJar HIl8il updates to cOman. Club members and
.: parldna permit holden, one-on-one c:ommute planniDs ~
aDd a oommute cOst IDd carbon emissions caloulator •
• ' 1)e hospitals also provide serviCes to bicyclists; including maps,
olothes lookera and showera, bike lookers, safety education, and
commute planning ,
. .
At desoribed above, in connection with this Project, the hospitals also will
be pa'yina $1 milHon in Citywide Transportation Impact Fees for public
facilities and aervicu thai rclieye citywide trafIlc conaestion oaued by new
, developm. projects, ino1udina advanced transportation management and
'. infopnation systems, expanded shuttle transit services, and bioyole and
, pedestrian improvements
. .
licduce4 Yehiclo Trlgs: AdditinnaJ Offered Compmity Benefits. To
fUrtbcr miDimizo commute tripi'in drive-alone vehicles, the hospitals
~ to provide the following benefits.forthe life of the Project:
• 'l1le hospitals will purchaae ammal Caltrain 00 p_ (tiee train
passes) for all exiatiDg and new hospital employees who work morc
than· 20 hOUlS per week at a cost ofll)). to $1.3 million per year,
.' . uminl Caltrain continues to offer the Go Pau pmpam at its .
CUImlt cost (plus cost of living atVustmeDt8) or Caltrain offers a
substantially equivalent propun at approximately the Bamo cost.
WhIle tho hospit$1s cannot guanuitee a specifio level of CaJtrain
• ridership, if Caltrain ridership by hospital employees reaches tho
. Bime levelu is being aohieved ourrontly by University employees.
thia program w9Ukl res'tllt in oft'$etting all peak hour trips from the
Project's new employment.
..
• The hospitals will fUnd expansion ofMlrguerite service by
Purchas.ina additional shuttles at a total oapital cost of up to $2.0
~lUon, and by fbncting 1DD\l8l opei'atina QaSts of providina .
6
. increased shuttle Servioe in an 8mouDt ofup to S4S0,OOO per year in
oider to 8CCOJIlmodate the increase in demaDd for shuttle services
~pltiDg ti'ofu iil~ ~tram ~hjp by hospital: employees.
• . The hosPitals will provide an onaite T~aportatjon Demand
. Mana~ Coordinator.
• 1he.totaJ.value of these benefits over the life of the Project is $90.4
million.
..
LInkaps
UDkIgeSj. Ad •• 0fJ'en;d Community ·RePefi... To tbrtber euooUl'lle
use of.Qalt:rain, bus and.other tranaft setVice8, and to enhance pedestrian and
bloygle comecdoJl8 between the hoapitals and downtown Palo Alto, 'the
.hospitals propose ~ tund the foUowina improvements:
-..
• S2.2S million tor improvements to enban", the pedestrian arid
bicycle cOnnection ftom the Palo Alto Jntermodal Tl'fIIlJit Center to
the existing intcraection at B1 cimino Real and Quarry Road, with
. .up to $2.0 million oftbat amount goina to the development of an
.. -attrQotive. landscaped passive parklpeen apace with a elMY
m8rked and liahted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower
boRters. This amount win bePafd to the City QfPalo Alto upon
. . issuance of~ ftrBt gridina permit for the Project, and the City wili
be reaponsible for oo~ these improvements.
• $400,000 f~r improveme~ts to the public riabt-of-way to enhance
the pedes1rian and bicycle COIIIleCtion ftom B1 Camino Real to
. Welch Road alODg QUarry Road. including urban desip elements
and way finding, wider bicyole lanes, as nooessary, on Quarry Road,
enhanced trBDsit nodes for bus and/or sllut11e stopa, and prominent
bicyole fadlities. This amount will be paid to the City of Palo Alto
. upon issuance of the fint pading permit-for: the Proj~ and the City
will. be respOllBl"bte for CODStruotina these improvements.
•. Up to $700,000 for improwmenta to enhance the pedestrian
comection between the Medical Center and the Stanford Shopping
Conter loins ftom Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area
adjacent to the StanfoId Bam. 1he hospitals wiD be responsible for
constructing these improvements prior to Project campledon.
308 '8t1e"r Uri .. -1I31Ot. MlC 5230, StanronJ CA ,..305. Tel., .... 650-121-2878
• . .
7
B01IdB.
Housing; Additional Offered CoDllDlDli1y Dmefita. The Hospitals are
exempt from the City'. housing impact requJrementsWlder Section 16.47 of
the Palo Alto Municipal o,de. Uke other exempt entities (churches.
· schools ancI Qty facilities), hospital. provide needed 8t'4'Yices 10 the
community, mUherefore are not expected 10 aIeo provide community .
services in the fbrm of affordable houaini. Nevertheless. in J'eC9gnitio~ of
the relatively Jarae number of joba created by the Project, the need for City
· subaidies to entiee affordable housina deVel~, and the City'. stated
· desbe to increaae ita aftbrdable houain& supply in Palo Alto, the hospitals
propose to provide payment to the city's housin& fmid in the amOunt of
$23.1 miOion.· ' , . .
"
" 1bia amOunt is the same 8mount that a for-profit developcr would pay under
. Municipal Code 8eCtion 16.-4', baled OD: the City's current in·lieu housing
, fee; The. A&reanent will provide that the portion of the fee that corresponds
~ ~h new structme will be due ancl payable prior to tho ia8uance 'of tho
buitdbag permit by the CIty Or OSHPD for that atructure, and the amowit of
the fee will be calcUlated at the·:tee rate in eJfect on lW101. 2009.
City Semen
. ,
City Seryicesi Direct end Jndireqt Homitals CmmmmityBgflts. The
Fiscal Impact Report p~ by CBRE Conaultin& Concludes that
revenues geiJorated by the Project will more than .offset the City's on.goin,
cost ofprovic:ting servicca.
CitY Sm1ces: AdditloaaJ Offered Commupity Benefits. To tUrther support
the provision of City services, the hospitals proposo to provide $70,000 in
~ for ajurlsdiction~wide Standal\'l ofSorvice Fire Study. This .
funding wiD be proVid~ to the Palo Alto Fire Departtnent prior to issuance
of tho ~ ~,permit for the Project. ' .
Sehool Fees'
\ , ,
Sgbnnl Fees: Direct and Ipdirect HnariW' Cgpmmnity len_ The
lioJJpiials will pay School F.'to the Palo Alto UnifiecJ School District in
the amount of $616,413. ba8ecJ upon the cummtly applicable School Peo.
n., applicabl~ fee far each new or expanded building will be due and
payable prior to reeeiviDa a buildin, pennit ftom the City ofPllo Alto. 1lle
hospitals propose, that, fOr buikUnp subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, school
feei wiD be due within five clays of issuance of a b~ding permit from
OSHPD.
38& "Reur Drlvl' -H3200· we ruo, Sblllford CA 943os. Telepllonl' 650~721~28'18
Dev.lopaeDt AgreemeDt
Condltlo~ aDd UDdenta~c1IDP
The propoSal is baaed on9Ul' undintandin, that the ~lopment ~peemcnt will apply
only to development oltho Project; and not to any other property owned by Stanford or
any otberpmject proposed ~y the hoapitaJa or Stanford~ In acklitkm, we have base our
~poaal on the followins anticipated beaofits of ontoring into a Development .Agreement:
'Project Ap,rov.lI. atJ Replatloal
The Aat=nent wUlvest tho applicantS' right to ~ use and occupy
the Project in accordaDco with <a> 8JPOV8ls for the PJoject pated by'the
aayt specified in the Agreamellt and acceptable to the hoapitata and
-$tanford, inclu" imencImema ~ the Comprebenalve P1aa and zoninl
.~~ ajuriedicdoDal boundary chatp. imd archi~tura1 twiow
app.roval (collCotivel)" ~ Project AppnwaJs"); (b) the ordhumcoa, rules,
JejUlatlons, and 06icial ~iciea of tho City in force and eftbct on lune It
~009 as modified by the Project Approvals ("City ~pIatIons'') and Buch
8
, ofhe1: ministerial and discretionary approvals ,that are necessary or deaitable
for the· economic and efficient' conJtruction. usc and occupancy oftbe . . , Pr9joct that may be granted subeequont to the execution of tbis Agreement
("Subaoquen.t Appmv.j. Throuab incorporation of the Project
ApprovaJs, ~ Agreamellt will apocify tho 'permitted ueea oftbe property,
tb~, density or-intmllity Of.80, tho maximum height and aiR of pmposecl
bU11d1np, and provisicma (if any) fOr morvation or dedication ofland for
public purposes. '
The City will'apee to cram aU Subsequent Approvals. wbeCber ministerial
or dilCRdonary, aubjCOl only to ita reasoaabIe detenDiDation tbat the
..,pllca1ion for the,requested Subsequent Approval ,. complete and
. COD8iatont with tho Project Apprcmls, aty RoplatiODS,·8Jld any neW City
rules, reaulaticma, andpolicies which do not conflict with the Ptoject
Approvals and City iogulatkma. The City will agree not to impose any
tequUanent or COJldi~OD QJl Subsequent ApprOvals or development or
operatlqn oftbo PIoject other than those required by the Project Approvals,·
City Rep1ati~, im4 any DOW City ~es, regulatioMJ and policies which do
not C9Jlfllct with the Project Approvata aDd City R.eplationa. ,The
Agreement' wi~l provide that the parties will cooperate .. dDi,pnt1y work
to impIemeat 8)l P;ro..iect Agpmval8 aDil to expoditiou"lyrmew and act
" upon,ap mquests 8»' SUbaequent. Appro.vaIa. From and after approval, each
Subsequent ApproVal shall ~ vested under 1bia Aarcomflnt to tho 88me
extent ... the Project Approvals.
300 'asteur DriVe -"3200· MIC sue. Stallford CA 94305. Telephon.65tI.'I2VZ171
..
t I .... ~I'"
9
Project DuJp
The Agreement will include the Desip Guidelines for the Project 8S an
~t. For those portiOtll of the Project that ~ve not yet received .
arch1tectura1 review approval by the time the City approves the
Development Apecment, the Deaip O~lines will be the exclusive
design Criteria applicable to t)le Project components, and tho exercise. of the
City;s·architectural roview disoMion win be limitecl to detenninina whether
a proposal is substantiaJ1y ~ with the'Ocsign Quidclines-. If .
, irehitecbual teYi~ approval or any othe,r type of site or design appfoval is
~ for Subacquent Appmvall, 'the decisions shall be made by the
DiNQtor ofPIanDina and GoJm:punity Environment, after recommendation
, by tho Architectural RevIew Boan\ subject only to appeal to the City
Council'(PUU~t to SeCtien18.71.070 of the Municipal'Code).
PubIc: l.provemeD~ Fees IUld, IDette.
The' ASreement will describe the public improvements (if any), fees,
dedicaticns and cxa.cti001 required by tho Project Approvals or otb.orwise
requited UDder tho D~lopment Agreement, and tho Apement will
provide that no other public improvements, ties, dedications or exactions win be required. . ,
~DJpeetlo ..
The AgRement will describe protocols and procedures for Subsequent
Approvals and ~spections. ~ludiDi agreed Upon tum around times.
Pus .. Sdled~le
Phasing Schedule: The Agreement will con~ that the applicants are not
required to initiate or complete development of tho Project, or any portion
thereof, or to Initiate or complete tho Project components witlUn any period
of time or in any particular order., The Aareement wiU acknowledp that "
the appUcants may develop the Project components in such ordor BDd at
such rate and times as they deem apprOpriate within the exemise oftbeir
sole and subjective b~ judgment. The applicants also may c::hoose. in
their discretion, to phase the Project.
Project ModUieatlo.
The Agreement will provide a process and standard of review for future
City consideration of applicant-proposed modifications to the Project,
including to Project phasing if the app~ts so choose, with the objective
aeo raMen 01'1,.. -K321l8 -Mle Sl3O, stllft'ol'41 CA 94305, Telephone 6511·121·2818
'.
"
10
of o~dited review ofprojoct modifications and Ciiy apprdval of such
modifications if no new or substantially morc severe environmental impacts
would result.
No Morat.dum
'.
Tho Aprilent will Fande that neither the riahtto develOp nor the thmng
. of developblent will be affected or Jbaited by a.phaaina achedule. pwth
~. 0J'CIiDanCe, moratorium. or auapen&ion oftigbta, whether adopted by .
~o City,COui1Oll or a vote of tho cltizenl1liroup the iui~vo p~
___ rCqaired by lupervCDina fedin1 or· ..... w, order; rule or .,' ,
tesuJetion., If a moratorium neptively atfeda tiniinl of tho Project, the
' .. applicants' may eloct to extend the tenn of the Development A&reanent for
the duration of tho moratorium plus teD years.
Term of AI~ment
The term oftbe Agteemeat wiD CODUl1CIlCe as oftbe EffeCtive Date BDd
. ~ 30".. fi."om the Bft"eettve Date, orlllltll earUer tenninated by
. mutuIl consent of the parti08, except ia tothotC obHptiOnJ that ~preasly
extend 'for the life of die Project, WhIch is dc~ to be si years. .
Other
,
The Agreement will include provisions addressing annual review,
amendment, dispute reaolution, teJnedies and notices • . Thanlc;,oo fat OOD8idedng our proposal. We look forward to cHacuising those tenns with
you during the next feW weeks.
300 r.8lIur DrI~ -unto· WC 5230. SCallIon! Cit 94305. Telephone 6SO·721·2878
.) .. . .
<
Stanford University Medical Center
Development Agreement Negotiations.
Preliminary Counter Proposal Term Sheet
Updated March 29, 2010
Attachment B
Introduction: Staff recommends that Stanford's June 15, 2009 Development
Agreement offer be supplemented with the Development Agreement Terms listed
below. Note that the below items are staff recommendations and any final Term
Sheet is subject to Council approval. Approval of a Development Agreement is a
legislative action subject to CEQA review. The purpose of now developing deal
terms is to assure adequate coverage, where applicable, by the DEIR and Final
EIR.
Guiding Principles: Staff has developed the following. guiding principles in
approaching the preliminary negotiations:
1. Minimize fiscal impacts to City. Ensure that the project does not have a
negative fiscal impact on the City through focusing, among other things,
on revenue guarantees and robust analysis of long term project expenses.
2. Require project mitigation. Ensure that zoning ordinance and Conditions of
Approval adequately address all project mitigations. Ensure that General
Fund is not unfairw burden9d with long term impacts of project.
3. Preserve community health care. Ensure that local benefits of hospital and
clinics will be retained, despite transition towards world class hospital
status.
4. Enhance City infrastructure. Recognize mutual interest in preserving high
standard of economic and community vitality. Partner with Stanford to fund
long term infrastructure needs of community (capital programs, housing,
transportation, broadband).
Supplemental Development Agreement Terms
A. Health Care
• Extend financial assistance subsidy to qualifying residents ($3
Million) from 10 years to life of DA
• Extend community health programs payment ($4 ,Million) from
10 years to life of DA
• Continue appropriate hospital privileges for community
practitioners
• Continue SUMC's current community health/wellness/disease
prevention programs
• Fund co-located EOC facility in new buildings within Palo Alto
1
• Attachment 8
• Explore innovative health care initiative/partnership in area of '
broadbandlfiber to the premises
B. Fiscal
• Ensure project isatleast cost neut~1 by guaranteeing revenue
projections to offset expenditures, funding extra, public safety
FTE'sand fully funding mitigations '
• Payment In lieu of property tax
c. Transportation Mitig*tlq,n
• Explore re-defining TDM program (GO Pllss),andre..directing
funds toward expanded shuttle program and other citywide
infrastructure improvements.SeeG below:
D. Pedestrian and BicycleUnkagesBenefit
• Note: These items will be covered as project mitigations.
E. Housing Benefit
• Note: Hospital zone wiUinclude additiOnal measoresto address
jobslhousing impact identified in the ',ElR '
F. School Fees Beneflt(PAUSD)
, • Work with School District and City to minimitEfilTlpactsto
, schools ' ,
G. Economic and Community Vitality ,
.COntiibute $30 Million to, fund needed Citywide Infrastructure
such as Pub,lic Safety Building, EOC,'andexpanded shuttle,
programs
2
ATTACHMENT C
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER " 2009
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
. DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
cOMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 453:09
. SUBJECT: Review of the Stanford Ulliveraity Medieal Center Faeilities Renewal
and Repilleement Projeet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will provide an update to the City Council of progress regard~ng the Stanford University
Medical Center (SUMC) project, particular]y the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
preparation and the Development Agreement discussions. The City contracted with tbe
environmental consulting finn PBS&1 to prepare a joint E1R for the SUMC Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project (Project) and Simon Properties -Stanford Shopping Center Expansion
Project. In April of 2009, Simon Properties fonnally withdrew their request for the Stanford
Shoppi~ ~ter Expansion Project.
Over the past several months. staff has been working with the environmental consultant to'
extract the Shopping Center Project from the environmental analysis. This involved updating
~ost sections oft~ EIR and updating the City's traffic model.
In June 2009 Stanford provided the City with a Development Agreement proposal.
Representatives from Stanford and the City have initiated discussions about tbe draft business
tenns of the Development Agreement. '
RECOMMENDATION .
The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the EIR
and the status of the Development Agreement negotiations and allow for Council comment The
current City Council has provided substantial input and direction to Staff and the applicants
throughout the review peri.od of the project. This session is an opp~ity for this City Council
to provide their additional Project comments before the new City Council is seated in January.
BACKGROUND
The Stanford University Medical Center comprises the general area between Sand Hill Road~
Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive.
The Project applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics
{SHC).at 300 Pasteur Drive, construction of a new hospital building, renovation and expansion
1
•
of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction. of the School of Medicine
(SoM) facilities t and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover Pavilion to meet
State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity issues, changing
patient needs and modernization requirements. SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace
noncompliant facilities by january 1,2013. There have been some legislative attempts to extend
1his deadline and Stanford has received a partial concession from OSHPD to receive early plan . .
review.
The; renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed over a 1 S-year horizon,
would result in a new increase of approximately 1.3 million square of hospital, clinic, and office
space. The Project includes a request for the following entitlements: '
• Comprehensive Plan amendments to:
o Change 791,70] Welch Road and a small portion of Santa Clara County land on
Welch Road proposed to be annexed "Major InstitutionaUSpecial Facilities" land·
~ de$ignation. . .
o Amend Program L·3 to revise the Citywide 50-foot height limit to allow
exceptionS for taller buildings within the proposed c'Hospital District."
o Amend Policy LoS to clarify that the hospital and treatment uses ate exempt from
the development cap. .
• Zoning Code and Map amendments to:
Q Create anew "Hospital Zone.,t
, 0 Rezone 701 and 703 Welch Road fromMOR to the new "Hospital Zone."
.' o' Prezone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital·Zone."
• ¥neX the small parcel described above. .
• ARB review of the SHC, LPCH, FIM1, medical office building at Hoover Pavilion, and
Design Guidelines.
• Development Agreement
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report
The Project applicant has submitted seven substantive project amendments with the most recent
amendment submitted on June 2, 2009. Since the Project was first submitted to the City, SUMC
has"made changes based upon Staff analysis and ARB, Planning and Transportation COmmission
and City Council input. These changes include significant modifications to site . planning and
building massing. revisions to the location of parking garages and site access for automobiles,
refinements to the pedestrian and bicycle network to promote stronger linkages and connections,
and changes to building placement and design to protect significant oak tree specimens.
DISCUSSION
EDvironmotal Iinpaet Report
The EIR will address the potential environme.ntal effects of the construction and operation of the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. The Project
would demolish and replace on-site structures. ,adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of
net new floor area.
2
r
~ 'f()l1~wing isa sumtnlfyofthe leer BIit ~~tio1iS and possiblefuit,iptionmeasures.
Ltiha'tis~ '.
ElR.:anaiyses of land use and planning 'generally cQnsidtr, thecom:p~tibilityof • proJ~t\Vith
neighbOring areas_ ,chan&e't~()fdisplacement of existing uses,and cOlUI~Y of a projeetwith
. releVantioc8I land usepolic1es that havebeenacloPtedwiththeintenfto mitigate or avoid an
environmental etTect.Withrespect toland Use contlictsor compatibility issues, the magnitude of
these irnpactsdepends on bow a'projectaff~stheexisbn& development pattern, development
intells,ltYt,traffic circulation, noise!,'andvisjla). Setting in the immediately :sUiToUnc1ingarea., " , '
,-:~:"."
Comprehensive Plan 'Policy (l.-8) adchesses groj¥th innon-resIdentiifsquare foOtage for nine
planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Tral1SJ)Ort~nStudy. The City bas
initiatcd,'aComprehensivePlanamendm~toprovidecWificatioriof.tbispplicy.'City staff will ,
r~¢ricHhat the policy shoul(j'n(jt limitgrdwtb ofhospital8Ji<l~~~*t~ter uses. If
,) . ado'j)tedbyt}MrCityCoimcitthe amehdnientwillmodify~thet~fofth~l)oiiCyto clarify that
suehusesareexempt u~ this policy. Textm<Xlifications tQthe COhiprehet1sivePlan are also
ptOPbi;oo', to~larify'toposoo. 'building', heigbtex.ceptions ,withintlie(pi'oriosedhospiial zone
distP~t(discussedbelow) .. Pollowing~option oftfie'proposedamenili:J:lents.tlie· Project would
'oot:cohl1icfvrith'anyCOmprehensive Planp6licies. . '.
Toaddre~s' zoning issues~ the Projeclsponsors propose~ion'(,fanewmningdisfrictthat
oouldbe4j)plied by the City to land used specificat1Y'forhoSpitalstmdclinics, associated
medical research,' medical office,andwppon,uses;'i'be . new ""J:lospital ZOne" would include
deye1op~ent standards tlult accommodate the Project. ' ,
ViSiialQualil)' ". . ", "
This section of theBIR will discuss how development of the Project would affecfthe existing
visual quality in the Project Area and its vicinity. Vi~ quality pertailtS t()howj)coplesee and
. experie.nee the enviromnent.particularly its visual charactert Viwalcharacter e«>nsistaofspatial
and sc8Ie re.latiQ11Ships,and the line, fonu, color, and~meofanareatsnatural features and
man,,~e·elements. '., Naturalfeatureslncludtdandforms. street tte~t\l',oek ollJcrOPS. vegetati0l'l' '
and Wi,ter ',bodies .... ,' Mah;.made:ele~nts' include buildings.str,Uqtures,·, parking; ',,~ roads,.
road~y interchanges'and, overpyses, ,abovegro\Uld utilities,'signs,'lll1d'Jighting 'fixtures, ·',Pull.
buildoutcondiooru; 'will .be depicted,'through visual' simUlatiODS:prepated by Willialn Kanemoto
andASsociate8i . ' ' ,
The ProJect ,may degradetheexlsungvisUal ch8racterand c:tuatity of :Qt~St1MC 'Sitesduring
construction. ,Possible mitigation measures ,could be to aesthetically improveponions of the
proj~ site that would remain unimproved for' an extended period • and screen the'poJlSftucuOl)
zone nom view ijy passersby along the public streets. andsidewalks.~conCeal, stagingareas·with'
fencing and remove;Constructionde~and ",refuse 'w6uldredu(iCvisualimpac1s' during
construction toleSsthan significant. ' , .
The analysis also considers if the Proj~ would substantially deg~e the existing visual '
character or quality~ of the SUMC Site and its surroundings, and alter public viewsheds. view
corridors oueenie resources. Given the size and scope of the Project it isl}kely that there Would
c
3
be visual character or quality impacts. Architectural Review of the Project would consider
among other factors, whether the Project has a coherent composition, and whether its bulk and
mass are harmonious. with surrounding development. Architectural Review approval catinot be
. granted unless the Project. meets stringent criteria, including a finding of consistency with the
sixteen· Architectural Review Board (ARB). findings. Compliance with the ARB findings and
Comprehensive Plan visual quality policieS would typically reduce impactstoa less than
significant level.
Transportation .. J
This .. section of ~e' EIR will evaluate the . potential transportation impacts resulting from
construction and operation of :ilieProject. Potential impacts include. the addition of project .
reJated pedestrian,' bicycle, transit, and auto trips to the surrounding· transportation system.
resulting in an increase in traffic which issllhstantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the stre~t system; exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of service
standard established by the ~un pgestion management agency for designated roads or
highways; result in a change' . r traffi patterns; substantially increase hazards due to a design.
feature. or· incompatible uses; res n Inadequate emergency access; result in inadequate parking ...
capacity; or conflict with adopted policies, plans. or. programssupportingaltemative
.1ransportation.
The basis for the traffic analysis will be the. revised citywide transportation model that was
originally developed in 1996 and last updated in 2008. The purpose of the model is to accurately
forecast demand for travel by vehicles, and conforms. to upgradedmodeUng methodologies
adopted regionally. The cityWide transportation model has been updated to ac~unt for changes
in Palo Alto demography, street network, transit services, and landuse patterns.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).travel.dernandmodel formed the basis
for the City's model, using 200S Association of Bay Area Government (ABAO) projections for
.growth. The traffic conditions of the (')cAo (City/County Association Of Governments of San
Mateo County) were investigated for the study area and reviewed by the City and the project
team .. The .Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)tl'avel demand. model'growth
estimates were modified to an average 1.6% annual traffic growth through 2025. The·Citymodel
Was initially developed without constrained volumes in the Palo Alto area. The City, model was
then constrained at four identified locations (Sand l-lillll-280,El Camino RealISan Antonio, EI
Camino ReallSand Hill"MiddlefieldlSan Antonio) based on those roadway capacities and VTA
travel demand growth .rates. The ·traffic volumes at the freeways ·,were constrained to their '.
capacities. The model results were. reviewed and refined ,several times py the City to calibrate
intel-sectionturningmovement countsfor'both A.M. and P.M. peak hour, link and intersection
turning movement volumes of years 2006, 201S, and 2025 for both A.M. andP.M. peak'hour;
and 66 study intersections with turning movement volumes.
Recent updates to the Palo Alto mod~l have 'resulted in a more accl,ll'8.te tool to analyze traffic
within Palo Alto as compared with other adjacent and nearby cities.' The limitations of the Palo
Alto model are evident as when the analysis reflects. traffic VQlwnes . entering Palo Alto from
other Jurisdictions. The result is that more traffic would ellterPalo Alto through the.roadway
gateways than what wouldbe expected due to intersection capacity constraints. Concerns have
4
. '
been,raised with the traffic model·s regional growth assumptions. To address this. the model has
been modified to constrain additional gateways in addition to the four gateways mentioned above
(for a total of 11 constrained intersections). to limit traffic entering the, City during peak hours.
Post~processing the model win also look ,at the trips and spread some trips beyond the peak. hour
, and/or be transfened to other roadways. The process of constraining gateways is commonly
practiced to more precisely addI:ess these variables. The VTA has pre~ously accepted ,these
adjustments to address model limitations. , .
Some possible mitigation measures include: Participation in region·wide commute incentive
programs, construction/improvement of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings, expansion of the
City shuttle program, adjustment of traffic lanes, and signal timing adjustments. The EIR is also
evaluating the potential for CalTrain Go Pass .use and remote par~g as a potential mitigation.
The City Council has 4istorieally not approved physical widening of traffic ~es or physical,
increases to intersections to accommodate increased traffic. These types of mitigations are not
expected to be recommended in the EIR.
A revised Traffic Impact Analysis is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (ColJllllission) and City Council prior to the release of the Dmft BIR.
A.ir Qu(llity
This section of the EIR will evaluate the 'potenti81 impacts on air quality resulting from
constructio.D and operation of the proposed Project. Possible air quality impacts could result from
construction activities, emergency generator testing and operation, increased vehicular traffic to
the hospital. and other stationary source emis~ions.
'j Possible mitigations include the development and approval of a construction management plan to
limit the opemtion or machinery and control on~site dust, limits on the ,testing on generator~. and
similar practices. '
Climate Change
It i.s recognized that anthropogenic (human caused) emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols
are cOntributing to changes in the global climate, and that stach changes are having and will have
adverse effects on the environment, the economy, and public health. These are cumulative
" efiects of pas~ present, and future actions worldwide.
Pursuant to SB 97, the State Secretary for Natural Resources is in the process of promulgating
thresholds of significance for assessing greenhouse gases. The Governor's office of Planning
and Research (OPR) has recommended guidelines for assessing the significance of the project's
impact on greenhouse gasesj and it is expected that'the Secretary will fonnally adopt such
g~idelines by Januat'Y 2010. While OPR's suggested guidelil'\eS hav~ not been fonnally adopted,
in anticipation of their adoption the EIR applies the guidelines for assessing the greenhouse gas
impacts of the project. The OPR recommende4 guidelines provide that a lead ag~cy should
make a good-faith effort, based on available infonnation, to describe., calculate or estimate the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions, reSulting from a project. In making this assessment the
agency may. consider "[t]he extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted. to implement a statewid~ regional t or local plan for the reduction or
..
,t> .
•
(
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions." In accordanoeWith thbse draftguideUnts, the Em will assess how the Project complies with the City adoPted Climate Protection Plan. " ,'.
During,buildout and operation Qf the Project, greenhouse gases would be 'emitted as the, :result· of
construCtion activities and . deliveries;·, new direct' operational SOlJlCCS, sUch ,as· . operation of
, emergency ~St natural gas usage, medical nitroUs. oxide ~get,and. oper_ion . of fleet
vehicles and helicopters; and i¢irectoperational sources, sUch as' productionol electricity,
",steam and chilled water, transport ot water, and decoiDpOSiiion of project-related wastes. The
~wiU discuss bow t~developnient proposed ~.theProject would contribtltcto Clllissions
ofgr~ouse gases,' . ., . ' ,
Forthe EIR. emi~onsftorri sources such as constniction,vehicles.energyco~ption,;and
solid ,waste generation will be inventoried and discussed qUantitatively and 'qualitatively.
Emissions associa.ted with the water supply' .aQd' w~water treatme~ will also. be discussed The
Project ~d reault in, a cumulatively COD!3iderable contri~tion t()si&nifio~ cliJQaie' change
eff~if they would fail to further ,'the goals and pollcies established in th~CityJsClimate
Pro~tion Plan." '. . ..
The City's ClinuneProtection Plan proWlesa roadmap that the City, of Palo Alto will follow in
complying with (or ex~g) tl1eSt$of CaJifomia's.greenhouse ~emissi()ns goals. While
the City has not mandatted~pecific measures for individualprlvate projects, its goals and policies
are a \lSeful toolJorevaluatihg whether an individual proJect. wcjul~go'its part to minimize its
contribution to emiSSi()1lS0f greenhouse g~ses. The~itYrecognizesthat meeting ~e state's
'g0abwill require both substantialredq,ctions in emissions from existingsour~,and ,rec.tu~ions
in,C!itjSsions nODl new sources co~Pared. toa "business flSusual" standard .,Aproject that
furthers ·the City'. Climate Protection P~policies wOllld be,Jl project ,that rnininlizes its
ellliss'ions. of~ouse gases by. including design ~lJtur~· and C01WJ1itmenf$··thatiro.pl~ent the
rel~yant policies of the elimateProtection PlIn and . 'Which. mitigaie w~rever possible; incieased·
emiSsions.
Projeotdesign' f~t\lr~ llUlybe considered toJnitigategr,eenhou~g~.Mitigationmay al~o
include . partiCipation or compliance with a. plan ormiti~tUionprogram .that' would .. reduce
gieerthousegas ,emissions. A series of.copscrvation ~es are .being ex.plored, including:
eI)~~y~ffi~entbl11lding desi~,preferential~ch8S,iJlg of rccy~ed. co~~t mat~and
exterisiverecycling programs, consideration of the GO Pass for all eligiblebospital employees,
expansion' of the Marguerite .Shuttle service, green' building practiCes to optimize shadiI1&
oaylighting and natural ventilation and the use of sustainable building lJlaterials. .
~ ,,' '.
Nois,. .. ...... .... ... . .' . . .............. '. ...... . . . lliliI. $ectionor the mR~ll evalU8tethepotentiBl for noise and,gro~:-bOI'l1eVibration impacts
re5\1lting. from impletpenta1ion of the Project.· ~roj~ted increasos~~,nQise level~ .. h1.·~. Project
Area can 'be expected from. additional traffi.c. il1creas~m~c.al heliC():Pt;ert1ights~ated with
the Project, new mechanieal systems installed at the new facilities, andco~struction ectivities.
These n()ise.so~es are evaluated to determine whether they w().uld cause .asubstantial
teropQrao'aridlorpennan~iincrease in ambient noise lev.els in,theyiciriity. of the Project Area;
exposUre of peOple to excessive noise l~els orgro.Ulld~bome ':ibiation; and/or excee4anceS of
6
standards established in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, or any other applicable
standards.
Implementation of Best Management practices to reduce construction noise would help reduce
construction ~lated noise impacts. Special demolition and construction requirements would help
reduce vibration impacts on Hoover Pavilion.
Cultural Resources
Thinection of the EIR will assess the Project's potential impacts on cultural and paleontological
resources. Cultural resources' are .commonly classified in three categories~ (I) prehistoric
resources, (2) historical resources. and (3) Native American resources. Historical resources Can
include buiJdings. structures, Objects, or sites.
The Project could have a significant impact on two identified historical resources --the Hoover
Pavilion and the Main Medical Center Complex designed by Edward· Durell Stone with
Jandscaping designed by Thomas Church. Implementation of mitigation measures such as
establishing a protective zone around the Hoover Pavilion during construction ~d demolition;
would reduce potential vibration and construction-re1ated impacts to the Hoover Pavilion.
The Stone Building (Main Hospital), the location of the first North American heart transplant, is
proposed to be .demolished. Mitigation measures that could reduce this impact include
preparation of documentation using the National Park Services' Historic American Building
Surveys Level III Guidelines for each of the buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to
demolition of each bwlding that compriSes this historic resource (East, West, Core, Boswell.
Edwards, Lane, AJways, and Grant). In addition, site-specific history and appropriate contextual
information regarding the Stone Building complex to focus on the reasons for the buildings'
significance: the groundbreaking heart transplantation program and thei"ole of B.D. Stone in the
design of the complex. This would include: architectural descriptions of the major exterior
features and public ~oms within the Stone Building complex as well as descriptions of typical
. patient, office, laboratory and operating rooms; photographic documentation of the interior and
exterior of the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church designed landscape features; and
distribution of ·written and photographic documentation to agencies and the preparation of
pennanent interpretive displayslsignage/plaques. B~ause none .of these mitigation measures
would completely mitigate thi~' impact an Historic Preservation alternative is also analyzed (see
AlternativC$ section below). . .
Biological Resources
This section addresses potential effects on existing biological resources, which are special·status
plant and animal species within the Project Area. Biological characteristics, such as habitat types
and plant and animal species present, will· be described in the EIR based on federal, State and
local regulations using site-specific infonnation developed for the Project from published
technical jnformation, consultant analyses and on-site surveys.
The Project could have a significantJmpact on protected oak. and redwood tree species within the
Project area. Potential mitigation measmes wo~d require avoidance of tree removal, design
mqdifications to allow adequate soil and solar access during construction, and site-specific .,
7
preservation measures. If avoidance measures cannot be achie~ and protected trees are'
removed, not retained, or reloCated, then the Project could result in a significant and unavoidable
impact. Because it is unlikely that avoidance measures can be fully implemented to the extent
that. all protected trees to be removed would be repl~d or relocated, impacts would be
conservatively assumed to be significant and Wlavoidable.ln response, Stanford has prepared an
Alternati ve to be studied in the EIR that shifts the· SHe and one of the, SoM building (FIMl)
footprintS around to avoid significant oak trees, (See Alternative section below.)
Geology. Soils, and Seismicity ,
Geol~gy, soils, and seismicity conditions are important aspects of all development projects in the
San Francisco' Bay Area. Although most projects have little or no effect.on geology, any project
involving· Construction would have some effect on soils and topography, and all projects may be
affected by certain geologic events, such as earthquakes or landslides. Protection from the
effectS of geologic . events is provided through existing building ·codes and construction
standards, land use policies, and State and local regulations.
Because one of the major effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in; receiving waters, erosion
control'standards are set by the State Water Quality Control BOard through administration of the
NPDBS pennitprocess for stonn drainage discharge. Erosion and sedimentation issues are
addressed in Hydrology because they are they are primarily· related to turbidity and other
depositional effects in local and regional water bodies. '
Hydrology ,
This section descn'bes the hydrology and water quality conditions present at the Project Area
including surface and groundwater resources. This section evaluates whether the Project could
affect stonn drainage 'and streams, as wen as local groWldwater resources in the area. Potential
impacts expanded upon in this ElR section are grolU1d and surface water quality degrad~tion
. . during construction and operation, flooding and drainage) and loss of groundwater recharge.
The Project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction',
Mitigation measures' would be required to prevent construction site run~on and direct infiltration
to reduce this impact to less than significant.
HlUardous Materillis
This section provides an ,analysis of the potential for the Project to expose persons or the
envirorunent to hazardous materials. Potential environmental impacts can be associated with the
potential disturbance of contaminated soils or groundwater, if present in the Project Area, as. well
as ·risk of spills from increased. future use disposal. and transport of hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes associated with project construction or operation. Specific topics presented in
this section include the types of hazardous materials that would be handled and hazardous wastes
that would be generated, known on-site contamination from historic uses, the regulatory setting
applicable to such activitieS, and applicable health and safety policies and procedures.
Population and Housing
This section documents the existing population, housing, and employment conditio~ in the City
of Palo Alto and estimates changes in current conditions that could result from implementation
8
of the Project. Demographi:c changes in population and employment that would resutt from
development of the Project are not intrinsically pbysical envirorunental impacts. However.
environmental effects associated. with increased population or daytime employmen4 such as
increased traffic, traffic-generated air quality 8nd noise concerns, increased demands on public
services and utilities, and growth inducement could result from population growth. The impacts
associated with population growth are addressed separately in various sections of this EIR. The
City's significance criteria treat substan!ial population growth and increases in the jobs to
housing ratio as significant environmental effects in order to ensure the effects of such growth
are analyzed. . .
The Project. as proposed, would not directly result in substantial population gro~. It would,
however, increase local employment, which in turn could create demand for additional housing
and result in associated population.
In addition, the Project could have a significant adverse impact on the City's jobs to employed
resic;lents ratio and the related jobs to .housing ratio because it would generate a large nmnber of
new. jobs without adding housing to increase the number of employed residents in the City.
Possible mitigation measures include dedicating housing andlor providing a site near the Project
to house Medical Center employees, payment ,of housing fees. and minclusionary housing'
requirement in the Hospital ZQne. -
Public Services
This section addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project on public services,
in.cluding police and rue protection, schools, and parks and recreational services. Increases in
public service demand alone do not constitute a significant environmental effect. Instead. an
increase in demand fot: public services, such as additional staff or lengthier response times, could
lead to potentially signifiCant environmental impacts only if constructing or expanding a new
facility were required and the construction or operation of the facility might adversely affect the
air, water, noise, or other aspects of the physical environment. The current EIR analysis
concludes that while the Project will likely increase demand for public services, such demand
will not result in an environmental impact.
For impacts to school, under proposition 1 A, payment of school impact fees by new development
is the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on sthool facilities that may o~<;ur
as a result of appr~~ of development of real property.
Utilities
The Project would result in increased on-site employment, visitors, and developed floor area.
These increases have the potential to create greater demand for utilities, including water supply;
wastewater collection and treatment,· stann drainage, solid waste disposal, and energy (which
includes electricity and natural gas). This section assesses whether the potential increase in
demand would overtax, to a significant degree, the capacity oCthe infrastructure systems serving
the Project Area.
A' Water-Supply Assessment (WSA) was conducted for this project. In April 2009 the City
Council reviewed the SUMC WSAand directed staff to return to Council with a revised plan for
9
the Project that quantifies ~ignificant reductions in water use due to oo~rvationmeasures. The
WSAhesbeen amended and is tentatively scheduled for Council consideration in.early 2010
prior to release oftbe Draft EIR. The EIR wiJl inc~udeanalysis and conc1usion$ftom the WSA.
Alternatives .. ..
. CEQA.'and thcCEQAGuidelin~ require that theElR "d~cribe a range of reasonable
alt~tivesto· the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen· &nYo! the. significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits ofthe.altematives".
Based on the oijeotive ~f subStantially reducing significant impacts.r.yo~o ProjeetAltematives,
two Reduced Intensity ALternatives, a Preservation Mtemativc$ a Tree Preservation Alternative
and a Village Concept Alternative have been deveJopedfor the SUMCProjectJor evaluation in
theEIR. .
. ,
No Project Alternatives .... .... .. .
Thctwl)'N'o Project Alternatives Jnolude: (A) Retrofitting olllY those hospital faciJ~t~es that could
. be retrofitted and no new buildings would be constructed; (B) Replace only sa 19S3
noncompliant structmes with new structures. . .
Reduced Intensity AlternAtives . .
The two Reduced Intensity Alternatives include: (A) Right-sizing SHCand LPCH. so .
\. consf1Uction ()f new hospital facilities would be limited to ,the minimum additional·square
footage. required. to right.size the existing LPeH and SHe facilities with9u~ adding. SPace f()r
additional growth; (B) R,ight-size SHCand LPCH plus add 60-percent of the floor~of the
sUMe Project medicaloftioes and 60 percent of the floor area of the SOMe Project hospital
space,,~ove~ attl9unts neededfor1'isht~izi9g.
PreservgtionA1temative . ; .. .. . . . ....
The~ation A1teniative would retain the 1959 Hospital Building complex. whic~ incl\ldes
130M buildings (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards). along with the following SHe hospi~lIclinic
buildings: West PavilionC'Wesfj, Bast Pavilion (uEast"), Boswell, andCor6; However, these
'buildings havc:alQw seismic ratmgand do not comply with structural andnon-sPuctural criteria
tha.tm~t be met by tbe deadlines imposed. by Senate Bm (SB) 1 ~S3 fQr retront or replacement
of hospital faciUties. Accordingly, under the Preservation Alternative, these buildings would not
be used as hOspital buildiflgS,as detined by the Office of SpltewKle Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD). .
I.te Preservation Aitemative . ..;
In response toa number of significant. trees phumed for removal. an Altemative is being prepared
that wouldpreservc protected oak trees locatediu tbeportion of the S'(JMCknown as Kaplan
Lawn and near Welch Road: Under the proposed SUMC Projecta hospJta}moduleis proposed
to be located on the Kaplan Lawn, resulting in removal of nine protected trees. Under this
Alternative, tbesquare footage and pl'OgraInlllatic functions ·planned for1his mOdule :would be
incorporated into ,the other hospital· modules·· and the proposed ·ambu1ancero~te ·would be
~nfigured. In addition, tbe previously proposed undetgi-ound SHe patklngstructure at the
. 10 .
WelcbIPasteur intersection wo~ld instead be conStructed as a structure with three levels .
underground and four levels above ground along Welch Road. The Emergency Department
entrance/parking would be moved from its proposed location along Welch Road to the Pasteur
Drive side 9f the new SHC. The SHC patient and visitor drop-off loop would continue to be from
Pasteur Drive; however, the drop-off loop would be located farther down Pasteur Driv~. The
Kaplan Lawn would not be developed, and no protected trees woul~ .be removed at that location.
Tllis Alternative would also include a redesign of one of the SoM buildings (FIM1) to save as
many protected trees as possible. Due to the requirements of the program, and the location of the
pro~ted trees on the site, not all·of the protected trees could be preserved in place with this
. alternative and would need to be relocated. .
Villa" Concept Mtemative
The Village Concept Alternative provides opportunities to enhance the SuMC Project to create a
more waUcable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban environment. A
key goal of this Alternative is to 'ensure that the Project contributes to, and does not preclude, .
future opportunities to create . an urban, transit-oriented village that·can capture the' Potential
travel behavior, air quality protection and greenhouse gas reduction benefits associated with the
performance of well-designed urban villages. To achieve this end, the Village Concept
Alternative proposes features that potentially can attain the basic objectives of the Project. lessen
environmental effects of the Project t and provide benefits of an urban village environment.
cons~nt with the values and character of the City of Palo Alto.
This Alternative includes the SUMC Project, recommendations for housing at the Pasteur
Drive/Sand Hill Road site and the Quarry Road housing sites, pedestrian linkages between the
Project. the Stanford Bam area, Stanfo~ Shopping Center, Stanford University, the Intennodal
Transit Center and downtown, urban design recommendations and potential Development
Agreement components that the City seeks to negotiate with the SUMC Projec~ sponsor. These
~cements can be implemented through one or more of ~e following mechanisms: zoning
amendments associated with the Projects, conditions of approval. or Development Agreement
conditions.
City staff and the Stanford project team have collaborated on both the Tree Preservation and
Village Concept Alternatives and through a series of meetings. technical report exchanges and
innOvative thinking, have advanced two alternatives that will continue to acconWooate advanced
medical space planning while promoting broader land use principles and mitigating impacts in a
way that cannot be addressed through standard mitigations.
Suatabulbility Program
The Project's unique operation needs require a tailored sustainabllity program for each project
component. The Hospitals have 24-hour. seven days per week operations that differ from those
of the medical office buildings and the S~ol ~f Medicine (SoM) buildings.
For conservation and energy efficiencYJ the Hospitals and Clinic buildings would be designed to
achieve EnergyStar scores of 90 -95, which means they will perform better than 90 -95 percent·
of similar hospitals and use 35 percent less energy than typical hospitals. The SoM buildings
11
•
would meet Stanford University's 2008 Building Performance Guidelines. which set a target.
energy efficiencyinnew.buildings of 30 percent belowCalifomia Title 241ASHRAE 90.1
(2t}()4). These. buildings. wOuld. include exterior sunshades. 'hj~ly insulated. building shells and
fenestration, high efficiency building ,lighting systema atlti JIVACeql1ipment, use of passive
cooling lind smart builcling technology to coordinate building systems 'Operations wit!' occupancy
and ~se patterns. . .
'Oreenbuilding components inclu.dethe use~fsustainaQJe .. m,li'diqg n.terlals, Wh~e feasible,
,suCh as recycling crushed concrete from ·demolition. reneWablel¢cyclable. materials in floOring,
paint, cOnstruction a.dhesives,cabinet substrates, insUlation, cel1ingacoustic~ panels and
furniture. Penneableasphalt~ penneable cohcrete~and grasspav~ Willbe ",aed. The Hospitals
woUld incllidetn'easures such as: occupancy ~ntroli forpa(ient roo~. arid occuPancy sensors
forUghtingsttategic areas, reduced lighting pow~, densities, use EPA Bnergygtar labeled
equiPl1lent . where available, link to the S'tanfordUniversit¥~.~generation1thennaIst«agesys~m
for· generation' of chilled' water and steam, . and. implcJnCrit'varlouswater . saving . f~res. The
Hospitals and SoMwouldcontinue tofocu8on'envi~tally preferabJC'purchasing and
extensive recycling programs. . . . . ,
Transport~ti01l programs proposed would include consideration of the 00 Pass for all eligible
hospital employcie$. eXpansion of the l\Wguerite Shuttle~Ce betWeeri the Palo Alto Transit
Centetand the. SUMC,and inclusion of hospital employees in the Stanford· C9mniUte Club that
gives,~bsidiesfor vanpools arid for nofdrlving. guaranteed'~de ho~BcoPass for free use of
VfA'buseliandJigbt raUs~ Dumbanon Express. HighwaY!7 Ex.pressand U LincStanford
EXpress 'thltcon~ BART and ACE Train to Stanford. .' .' ~ ". .
, ~ . '., , -, :' .",' " .
Development AgteeDlmt Negotiations .'
Stanfot;d'is . seeking a. Development Agreement. whiCh will lock in. the zoning regulations ·fOr. a
negotia\ed period' of time. 'Development Agieementa .ate. negotiatoo"contracts betWeen 'the'
applicant and City. Developers typically apply for I Development A,greement to ensure that the
regulations will not chanF over time and to help' 8eCU{C finllncingfor large-scale. projects. Ip.
exchange,. the partiesncgotiate an acceptable community benefit package. Since tbeYare the,
prodUctofvp]u~tary negotiations rather tban a unilateral imposition bythegovelllment,
community benefitsunfier a Development Agreement are' typica].ly broader than EIRmitigation
rileas~a.nd project~tionsof approval.. As such, commu~tybcnefita '8fc ~ot J~gany
required, to have the same rigorous nexus applicable to other' development conditions .. A
Development A~t ial legisl .. tive a~tion and is subject to f6r,er~ndum. ' ...
On June 15, 2009, the City received I DeveIoplllCtlf Ag~ent .. proposal from Sttilfoid
{AttaChment~}. . Stanfempraposed a30-year ~\lelop~iApemenf with sOllleterms
exten:dingto 51 years. The propcisaJ focused On thefoUowing' niajorcategOries of oolDlllunity ,
benefits: (1) health care, (2) fisCal benefits, (3) reduced"vehi~le trips, {4} linkages, and (5)
housing. The propos81nOted that the most imp6rtant,conununitybenefit would ·be.· the
applicants' investment in seismically safe, state of the art facilitiesthatwouldenab(ethe
hospitals, to continue to provide high quality patient care. '. Inadciition,. StanfordoffeIed some
additional\'community.beriefits, including the following si~ficant proposals: " . ..... . .
. -,' ", . .
12
•
• . Establishment of two new programs for the exclusive benefit of residents: a $3 million
fund to assist qUalified low-income residents and -a $4 million fund to subsidize
community health programs within Palo Alto.
• Proyide construction spending and associated use taxes of $8.3 million and obtain a use
tax direct payment pennit that will generate approximate1y $26,000 annually.
• Purchase of "Caltrain 00 Passes" for all SUMC employees at an estimated annual cost of
$1.3 million. (Currently only Stanford University employees are entitled to this benefit.)
• Expansion of the Marguerite service by purchasing addition~8huttles in die amount of
$2 million and by funding additional annual operating costs of $450,000.
-Funding a range of improvements to encourage use of transit and enhance pedestrian and
bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown: $2.25 million for pedestrian
and bicycle connections around the Intennodal Transit Center. $400,000 for right of way
impm.ements along Quarry Road and $700,000 for pedestrian connection between the
Medical Center and Shopping Center (Stanford Bam area) ..
• Payment of housing in Heu fees in the amount of $23.1 million which is equivalent to
what a 'commercial project would pay.
Staff believes Stanford's proposal is substantive 'and responsive to many project impacts. The
prop~sal focuses on the key areas of concern raised by the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the City Council and the community. However, it is also important to note that
with a project of this magnitude many of the proposed community benefits would typically be
imposed as conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures. Staff has had several meetings
with Stanford to pJscuss areas where the community benefit package can be enhanced. These
discussions to date have focused on health care. fiscal impacts and housing. Staff plans to -
continue these discussions and will provide a further progress report in January or February. At
that time, staff will seek input from the COUQcil on whether the offered package is acceptable and
if not which areas to prioi?-tize.
NEXT STEPS .
Substantial progress has been achieved in the preparation of the Project for fannal entitlement
reviews, though significant work remains to see the project to completion. Initial staff work
focused on the preparation of the update to the Stanford University Medical Center Land Use
Area, Plan (Area Plan). which was, presented to City Council in July 2007 for review and
comment. Staff and the applicant have since focused on four genemlly concurrent tracks: 1)
Preparation of the Draft EIR, 2) Preliminary ARB reviews of project components, 3)
Development Agreement preparation and discussions with the applicants, and 4) Community
outreach and updates with the Planning & Transportation-Corilmission and City COlDlcil, Due to
the complexity of the Project and the potential for substantial environmental impacts upon the
community. the timeline for. preparation of the Draft Em. has been extended from initial
eXpectations. In addition, the withdrawal of the SSC Project has resulted in additional delays in
the completion and issuance of the DEIR.
Staff, in cooperation with the SUMC applicants and Stanford University representatives, is
committed to completion of the Draft BIR. the Development Agreement discussions,
13
l
•
Architectural Review and .the.o1her. p1.!blic review proc~$esin a timelymapner.Thecurrent
schedule anticipates the following milestones diliing2010: .... ... . . ., .
' •. ·Council revie~ of Water SuppIY.Asse5sment
• Transportation impact review
• Development Agreement terms review
• Fiscal impacts review
• RelettSe of Draft EIR and fiscal report
• ArchiteCtUral reviews· .
• ])raftEIRhearings
• Preparationo! response to Draft ElR comments
• Plamling& Transportation Commission review of entitlements
• City Council·re.view of entitlements
late January
. early February
mid February
late February
. March ..
March-June
April.
May-July
July
early August
The intent is to complete the CityColincllentitleinent review before the August 2010 recess or
immediately thereafter. . .
PREPARED BY:.
:-' .
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
AttACHMENTS
AttaChment A: Draft Development Agreement Proposal fromStanfotd University
. 14
COMPREHENSIVE .
PLAN: ;
HOSP1TAt.AREA
.PlAN
REZONING
ENVIORNMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
(EIR)
CONDITIONS Of
APPROVAL
D~PMENT
AGREEMENT
. Comparison of Land Use Entitlements
Stanford University MediCal Center'
Primary tool for guiding future
development of theCllY;
Establishes long term goals 8S
. well as polices to guide day to
day decisions.
Guidance document for the
SUMC area. Required by Palo
Alto . Comprehensive Plan
programLAe. '
Establishes allOwable uses and
dewl~ standards fo{each
area. Framework for nMeWlng
projeCt applIcaIIon&.
OHIicult to .-mend ..
not·Qdchss . project
specib .
uiniled geciOraptical~ .
Broad 18V\ew' of a varIetY
ofisaues. .
Does not Impose
cond\1iOnS ofapprov~1 or
~Ion measures.
Requited by State 'laW. Analyzes TopIcs8re IimIIed to
en~impacts ande,nvinm1entaI issues
propoees mllgationmeasuresfor assOcIated. With . project
those impacts. ExarnineS . project .• . .·.Imci :'~. Development
allematives. Ag~ent. Very _lied
Vehicle for Iricorporating feasible
mitigations identified In' EJR and
other project rel8ted conditlon&:·
typically tied to' a discretionary
permit, such as a Concfltional uSa
Permit (CUP).
Negotiated agreement between
. the .8Jll)1iCantalJdthe City to
provide. development e_inty to
applicant in exchange for public
benefits beyo,nd the condltic)ns Of
project . approval and mitigation
measures.
. teVl8w ,of these lSS\les.
.. ConditIa1s itWolvIJ'Ig
dediCatlQns d land or
~~of an ad hoc tee .
...,UBt ha~ a legainexus to
th$ d6veIopment's Impact .
TerlTl6 are nego1Ieted and
are; I'IQt limited to
conditkllis ormeasure8
necessmy to mlllgatethe
projects; impacts. Public
benefits provided by' the
appl'lCar't 'in exchange tor
a development agreement
may extend to ...
outside.of the boUndaI1es
of the prqect.
ATTACHMENT 0
Ame~ adopted by
.' ResoIu1ion.
. C()I'ICeptueI .~ ·and .
;lfiputl7jCouncil In July
2008.' ; Rnalacceptan~
byreSolulionat'e,nd of th~
project..
Certification by the City
Council after appropriate
pubic review. ~cy
must adopt findings.
Statement of Overrldilig
Consideratlcms needed
for unmiligable impacts.
-Director of Planning or
COtlncil(on appeal)
approves through Record
ofl.and Use Action.
Adopted . by Ordinance . _approval of the
project.;
Rev. March 29,2010
'il.,
~ .. ,"
Pl.ANNI~
SI'OR1'A1IDi
AI!OIIlKIIM.
RE~8QARD
C/IY OF PALCI ."'m.
ENTIREMENT REVIEW OF SUMC PROJECT
MAY 2010 JULY 2010
1.
.,
> :I > o
:J:
!: m z
-I
m
fJ··
Finance Committee, Policy and Services Committee, and Planning &
Transportation Commission Summary of Comments
April 6, April 13, and April 28 2010 .
Fiscal
• SUMC's CBRE Fiscal Analysis and City's ADE Peer Review are generally in
agreement.
• Support the goal of a "revenue neutral" project, at a minimum. Don't
underestimate long-term costs to the City.
ATTACHMENT C
• Support guaranteed revenue projections to offset expenditures shortfalls as
described in City's Development Agreement counter offer. A process should be
developed for tracking revenues and expenditures that is agreeable to all parties.
• Discussion items: variable vs. fixed costs difference; what incentives can be
offered by the City to meet revenue projections.
• Question whether analysis included inflation. Response: inflation analysis
conducted, but speculative because difficult to determine long term macro
economic trends.
• Costs of complying with AB 32 as related to increased automobile trips and utility
usage should be addressed.
• Question whether the costs of housing needed for increased employment should
be included in the analysis. Response: Housing costs would not typically be
analyzed, as housing is not within the project description.
Development Agreement
• Support current direction and scope of Development Agreement discussions,
including the City's guiding principles and focus on infrastructure.
• Encouraged by willingness to reconsider the expensive Go Pass program; Go Pass
fees may be better used elsewhere.
• Provision for health care service funding should be increased and extended for the
life of the agreement.
Ii Need to be sensitive to the total amount requested in the DA; Project needs to be
fiscally sustainable for Stanford and City.
• Not in favor of housing as mitigation or as a community benefit.
• Do provisions for community practitioners need to be in the agreement?
Response: privileges for community practitioners are not guaranteed and should
be codified.
• Encourage negotiations that do not ignore the list of benefits developed
previously by the public and Council.
• School district-is there any assumed or shared responsibility between the City
and school district? Is there any other'requirement beyond fee payment that
should be considered? Response: Stanford to work with school district to address
their concerns.
• How does the new federal health care bill requirement for providing coverage to
un-insured people affect the SUMC's offer for provision of health care services?
Response: City is looking intC: this.
• Continue to explore other benefits such as College Terrace bicycle path
dedication, utility sub station leases, EOC construction, low-cost train station
lease extension; bicycle sharing program, bike maintenance facility, open space
off-sets for increased heights.
• What is the nexus between City's counter-offer to provide infrastructure
improvements and a new public safety building? Response: Relates to City's need
for community and economic vitality, which would be an overall benefit to
SUMC/Stanford
• Explore receiving Housing Element! ABAG credit for housing in County/Explore
annexation. Stanford should assume ABAG risk.
• Why was the upstream retention on San Francisquito Creek benefit removed from
the list? Response: Did not fit within the City's four guiding principles established
for negotiations.
• Explore SLAC or other backup/redundancy infrastructure to serve hospital
expanSIOn
• Explore paid parking for construction workers and employees with revenues
applied to transit.
• Hospital is community benefit.
• Look at due dates for payments to ensure City has funds before capital programs
begin.
• Look at land lease for housing.
• Explore priority to Palo Alto residents for non-emergency procedures.
• Explore hotel bonus in Hospital District.
• Many of Stanford's community benefits are actually mitigations.
• Linkages study should look at 2000 Study for Performing Arts Center at end of
University.