HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 325-05• Assessed to new developments and re-developments within one half mile on each side of the
centerline and' at each end of Charleston Road and Arastradero Road between Fabian and
Miranda within the Palo Alto city limits.
• Funds a share of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan proportionate to the percentage of
bicyclists and pedestrians added to the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor due to new
development and re-development.
• Provision to account for future inflation in these future capital improvement costs through
annual adjustment of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
Impact Fee based on changes in the Construction Cost Index published by The Engineering
News Record, the industry standard for infrastructure cost information.
• Includes exemption for public facilities, day care centers, small retail, and affordable housing
developments, including those in the Below Market Rate program consistent with the
methodology for other development impact fees levied by the City.
• The Fee is not assessed if a development is projected to generate the same or fewer weekday
bicycle and pedestrian trips than the prior use of the property to be developed.
• . Does not disturb existing impact fees and improvement programs in the Stanford Research Park
and the San Antonio/East Bayshore areas, which are geared toward mitigating local impacts of
development on the efficient operation of nearby intersections rather than impacts on safety of
bicycles and pedestrians due to increased numbers of potential conflicts between those on foot
and on bicycle and motor vehicles. Also does not affect the City's ability to impose
development conditions requiring local transportation improvements to mitigate impacts in the
immediate vicinity of new development.
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Improvement Plan to City Council by unanimous vote on December 10, 2003. Council adopted the
Corridor Plan on January 29, 2004. The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Safety Impact Fee Expenditure Program is based on the Corridor Plan the Commission
recommended and Council subsequently approved.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The following table displays elements of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan, the estimated
cost of each, and the proportion of cost proposed to be paid by the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee. Based on the methodology documented in the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft
Final Report (Attachment B), 12.2% of Corridor Program costs are assignable to new development
and redevelopment along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. The 12.2% share represents the
proportion Of projected weekday bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the Corridor to the year 2015
attributable to new development and redevelopment along the Corridor.
CMR:325:05 Page 3 of7
GRANT PROGRAM SOURCE FUNDING PROBABILITY OF
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Bicycle Transportation Caltrans Less than 10% High
Account (BTA)
SB 680 (pending) Santa Clara Valley Less than 10% High
Transportation
Authority (VTA)
Local Streets and Santa Clara Valley Up to 80% share Medium
County Roads (LSCR) Transportation
Authority (VTA)
Safe Routes to School Caltrans Less than 10% Medium
(SRS)
Transportation US Department of Up to 80% share Medium
Enhancements (TE) Transportation
(USDOT)
Transportation for Metropolitan Up to 80% share Low
Livable Communities Transportation
(TLC) Commission (USDOT)
Transportation Fund Bay Area Air Quality Less than 10% Low
for Clean Air Management Board
(BAAQMD)
In addition to these grant sources and proposed Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee proceeds, an analysis by staff indicates some elements of the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan not funded by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Impact Fee.
may be eligible for funding under existing Stanford Research Park and San Antonio/East Bayshore
Road Traffic Impact Fee account balances (see Attachment D). As discussed in the attached staff
memorandum, it may be feasible to use a portion of the Stanford Research Park Traffic Impact Fee
account balance to construct a new right tum lane at the Gunn High School driveway for westbound
traffic on Arastradero, as well as fund traffic signal automation for the Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor west of Alma. As indicated in the attached staff memorandum, these improvements may
mitigate traffic conditions for Stanford Research Park commuters. These funds, along with proceeds
from the proposed Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Impact Fee may
be used to match federal, state, and regional grants. It is important to note that such grants typically
require from ten to twenty-five percent of project costs in matching funding, depending on the grant
program and the project.
The Charleston Arastredero Corridor Plan will require future maintenance. Funding for these
maintenance costs are not included in the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan. Additional
maintenance activities will impact City staff workload. Annual estimated maintenance costs for the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Plan improvements are approximately 2% of total project costs
(assuming a 50-year project life), or $134,000. These costs will vary year by year with lower costs
expected in earlier years and higher in later years.
CMR:325:05 Page 5 of7
t'
NOT YET APPROVED
(f) The Study estimates the costs of each element of
the Program and substantiates a methodology for the Fee that
. will charge each new development proj ects only for the portion
of the costs of the Program necessary to mitigate the pedestrian
and bicyclist safety impacts expected to be caused by the
introduction of. addi tional bicyclists and pedestrians onto the
corridor by that development project.
(g) There is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the Program and the development projects on which the
Fee will be imposed because such development projects will
introduce additional bicyclists and pedestrians to the corridor,
necessitating elements of the Program that will improve the
physical design of corridor to permit their safe transit through
the corridor.
(h) There is a reasonable relationship between the
Fee I s use and development proj ects on which the Fee will be
imposed because the Fee will only fund the portion of Proj ect
costs necessitated by pedestrians and bicyclists introduced to
the corridor as a result of the development projects.
(i) The Fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable
cost of providing the services and facilities for which the Fee
is imposed. The Fee is not levied, collected or imposed for
general government purposes.
(j) Certain new development proj ects, though likely
to introduce at least some pedestrians and bicyclists to the
corridor, are exempted by this Ordinance from the Fee due to the
following considerations: (i) public schools, affordable housing
proj ects, proj ects with excess below market units and day care
centers are exempted because the City seeks to encourage the
provision of the critical social services provided by these
types of developments i (ii) municipal buildings are exempted
because the City already funds a wide range of pedestrian and
bicycle safety improvements throughout the citYi and (iii) small
retail establishments are exempted because it is the policy of
the City to encourage the development of 'such establishments in
order to enhance the economic health of the City and maintain
the unique atmosphere of the City's neighborhood retail
corridors.
(k) The Report methodology does not charge non-exempt
development projects for the portion of Program costs necessary
to mitigate impacts,of pedestrians and bicyclists introduced by
exempt uses.
050711 sm 0100384.1 2
l'
NOT YET APPROVED
(f) "Fee" shall mean the Charleston/Arastadero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee imposed pursuant to
this Chapter.
(g) Any reference in this chapter to the "Government Code"
or to a section. of the "Government Code" shall refer to the
California Government Code as it exists at the time this
ordinance is applied and shall include amendments to that Code
made subsequently to the adoption of this Chapter, it being the
intent of the City to maintain the Fee in compliance with
applicable law.
(h) "New Development" shall mean the construction of new
structures or additions to existing structures in the City and,
with respect to residential development, any development project
that creates additional Dwelling Units. "New Development" shall
not mean replacement or expansion of an existing Dwelling Unit.
With respect to nonresidential development, "New Development"
shall also mean any development project that creates additional
square footage of useful area or changes the use of an existing
structure.
Section 16.59.030 -Fee Imposed
The Fee is hereby imposed as a condition
permi t for any New Development, unless
this chapter.
of the issuance of any
expressly exempted by
Section 16.59.040 -Exemptions
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) City buildings or structures.
(b) Public school buildings or structures.
(c) Affordable Housing, either for sale or rental, which, by
recordable means, is permanently obligated to be 100%
affordable.
(d) . Retail service, eating and drinking service,
service, or automotive service when the total square
(including New Development) is 1,500 square feet or less.
personal
footage
(e) Day care centers used for childcare, nursery school or
preschool education.
050711 sm0100384.1 4
NOT YET APPROVED
(d) The City will experience a substantial cost savings or
service quality improvement as a result of private construction
or provision of the Eligible Safety Enhancements or the
dedication of land, (ii) the Eligible Safety Enhancements can be
expected to immediately and significantly improve bicyclist or
pedestrian safety, and (iii) the grant of the credit, in lieu of
the fee, will not cause the City to delay the implementation of
elements of the Program that are of higher priority, in the
judgment of the City Council, than the land or Eligible Safety
Enhancement that will be dedicated. The credit shall be applied
at the time the City accepts the land or Eligible Safety
Enhancement. Where the City Council has made the determinations
required by this subdivision, payment of a portion of the Fee
equal to the amount of an expected credit against the Fee may be
deferred to the date of final building inspection approval of
the development, provided the owner of the real property for
which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement
with the City prior to issuance of the building permit for the
development, which from the date of recordation, shall
constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable
against successors in interest to the property owner. The
agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not
be given until the fees are paid or the credit issued. The
agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the
Fees or any portion thereof, the City shall be entitled to all
of its costs of enforcement and collection, including reasonable
attorney's fees. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment may execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a
form acceptable to the city attorney. Any deferral granted
pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the
requirements of Government Code Section 66007. Where a credit
is given for the provision of a service that is an Eligible
Safety Enhancement, the deferral of the Fee, and the application
of the credi t" may be according to a schedule set forth in the
recorded agreement, which schedule shall be designed to ensure
that no credit is applied in advance of the provision of
services for which the credit' is made.
Section 16.59.060 -Calculation of Fee
(a) The Fee imposed upon a New Development shall be
calculated with respect to any residential use by muI tiplying
the number of Dwelling units (after the completion of the New
Development) on the parcels comprising the New Development by
the then applicable residential rate. With respect to any non-
residential use the Fee shall be calculated by mUltiplying the
number of square feet of such use (after the completion of the
050711 smOl00384,I 6
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Moneys in the fund shall be expended only on the
installation, acquisition, construction, maintenance and
operation of Eligible Safety Enhancement.
Section 16.59.080 -Accountability Measures
(a) At least annually and as required by Government Code
Section 66006, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall
review the estimated cost of the public improvements to be
funded by the Fee, the continued need for those improvements and
the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of
pending or anticipated New Developments. The City Manager, or
his or her designee shall report his or her findings to the City
council at a noticed public hearing and recommend any adjustment
to the Fee or other action as may be needed.
(b) The City Council shall review such report in the manner
required by Government Code Section 66006(b) (2).
(c) To
66001 (d) ,
the extent required by Government Code Section
the City Council shall make the findings required by
that Section.
Section 16.59.090 -Penalties
(a) All remedies provided for in this chapter shall be
cumulative and not exclusive.
(b) Violation of any provision of this Chapter, including,
but not limited to, converting an exempt use to a use to which
this Chapter applies without paying the Fee, is a misdemeanor
punishable as provided in this Code.
(c) Each person is guilty of a separate offense for each and
every day during any portion of which any violation of any
provision of this Chapter is committed, continued or permitted
by such person.
(d) Any person violating any provision of this Chapter,
including, but not limited to, converting an exempt use to a use
to which this Chapter applies, without paying the Fee, shall be
liable civilly to the City in a sum not to exceed five hundred
dollars for each day in which such v~olation occurs.
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee
positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in
the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
050711 sm 0100384.1 8
:.
.«?,~.~~~~~~~!!, ~,~~~~~,~,~~!:~, ~~~!:~~,~,r, ~I~!!, ~,~~~~,~, ~!! ,~~~~~, ~~,~,~)' .. ,~" J?':~.~. ~~I??,~""."." .. ,",",""" .. " ."
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Table of Contents
PAGE
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1
Impact Fee .................................................................................................................... 1
Fee Structure and Recommendations ............................................................................. 2
Chapter 1.. I ntroduction ............................................................................................... 1-3
The Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan ................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2. Rationale for Proposed Impact Fee ............................................................ 2-5
Fee Purpose and Use .................................................................................................. 2-5
Impact Fee Use Period ............................................................................................... 2-5
Area to be Subject to Fee ............................................................................................ 2-5
Nexus Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2-6
Chapter 3. Recommended Fee level .......................................................................... 3-11
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3-11
Impact Fee Calculation ............................................................................................. 3-12
Impact Fee by Land Use ........................................................................................... 3-12
Projected Fee Revenue ........................................................................ ~ ...... ; ............. 3-12
Chapter 4. Recommendations ........................... : ......................................................... 4-14
Exemptions .............................................................................................................. 4-14
Expenditure of Fee Revenue ...................................................................................... 4-15
Index Linking ........................................................................................................... 4-15
Accounting for Changing Uses ................................................................................ A-15
Credits for Improvements Provided by Developers ............................... : .................. .4-16
Credit for Existing Development .............................................................................. .4-16
Total Impact Fee Level ............................................................................................. 4-16
Appendix A: Planning Context of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee,
Appendix B: Planned and Proposed Projects in Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan
Area
Appendix C: Illustrative Projected Fee Collections based on Current Development
Proposals
Appendix D: Total Potential Fee Schedule with Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee
July 2005 Page i • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
\'
~_~,~,r.!~~!~~_~!~~!~.~~~!? ,~~~!i.~?~. ~~."'~. ~.~~."'~~~~~.~~~~~. ~~':I.~.~, ....... £?:~~. ~~I??!! .... , ... " ' .. ,.. ... ..... ... ""
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Executive Summary
This report presents a recommended Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee for the
Charleston Arastradero Corridor plan area in Palo Alto. The Corridor Plan improves safety,
particularly for bicycle and pedestrian travel along the Charleston Arastradero corridor.
This fee would charge new developments for their fair share of the cost of implementing
this Plan.
Impact Fee
New development along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor over the next ten years is
expected to significantly increase pedestrian and bicycle use of the Corridor, which is
currently a major North-South vehicular thoroughfare through Palo Alto. To properly
mitigate the safety issues that arise as a result of the presence of the increased numbers of
pedestrians and bicyclists, the City has proposed a set of pedestrian and bicycle safety
improvements for the Corridor. This Study analyzes the costs of these necessary
mitigations, and proposes a development fee to appropriately allocate those costs to new
development to the extent that costs will be incurred to mitigate the impacts of that
development.
This Study recommends a fee level $930 per new residential unit and $.27 per square foot
of new non-residential development in the corridor, which is estimated to raise up to
$819,000 for the Plan over the 10-year plan period based on population and employment
projections for the corridor. This would cover 12.2% of the cost of the proposed
expenditure plan.
Actual collections may be lower or higher, depending on actual development occurring
during the Plan period. The City is currently aware of specific potential projects that
would be estimated to generate $765,000 in revenues. However, that number is likely to
change as new projects are added, deleted or modified over the ten-year I ife of the project.
Many other cities in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California levy fees to mitigate the
impacts of new development. These cover a wide variety of impacts, including
transportation, transit, housing, open space, and community facilities.
The City of Palo Alto already levies citywide development impact fees for parks,
community centers, libraries and housing. In the Stanford Research ParkiEI Camino Real
and the San Antonio/Bayshore zones, it also levies traffic impact fees to cover the cost of
intersection improvements. The City is also considering a citywide transportation impact
fee. Appendix A discusses the planning context for imposing this additional fee in Palo
Alto.
July 2005 Page ES·1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~.~.~.~~~~~~~.~.~~~~~~~!.'-o..~~~~~~.o.~. ~~~~. ~.~~~~.~ .~!! .~!~~~. ~~':I.~.~ ... ~ ... £?,-~.~.~~p.?~ .................................. .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Chapter 1. Introduction
As is true throughout the State, Palo Alto increasingly relies on impact fees to ensure that
new development contributes fairly to' the City's fiscal needs. For example, the city's
Commercial Housing In-Lieu fee, in place since 1984, has provided an irreplaceable
funding source for over 400 new affordable housing units. Along with the housing fee,
development impact fees are in place citywide to fund parks, community centers, libraries,
and transportation improvements.
Palo Alto is interested in introducing an Impact Fee to mitigate the impacts of new
development along the Charleston Arastradero corridor on the safe function of that
corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians. This report outlines a recommended option for the
scope and structure of such a Fee in Palo Alto.· It first discusses the scope of the City's
existing impact fees, and the requirements for levying such fees in California. It then
outlines the nexus, or relationship betw'een new development and the projects on which
the Impact Fee revenue will be spent. Following, it outlines the methodology of
calculating the Impact Fee for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, and estimates total
fee proceeds. Finally, it presents recommendations about· implementation, including
which uses should be exempted, and how the fee should be applied.
The Charleston Arastradero C.orridor Plan
The project funded by the proposed impact fee is the Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Plan, a streetscape improvement plan encompassing Charleston and Arastradero Roads
from Fabian Way to Foothill Expressway. The Plan includes the following components:
• Reorganization of auto travel lanes throughout the corridor, with removal of an auto
. travel lanes in some locations in favor of bike lanes and landscaped medians.
• Provision of a bike lane in each direction that is tinted or painted to enhance safety
• Lighted (in-pavement, pedestrian activated) crosswalks in several locations,
particularly near schools·
• Pedestrian bulb-outs and median island refuges for pedestrian safety, along with an
irrigated, planted center median interspersed with left turn pockets
• Installation of frontage improvements including new street lighting to improve
pedestrian and bicyclist visibility and safety.
These physical improvements, and associated contingencies, design, and management
costs, are projected to total $6.698 million (in 2005 dollars).' In addition to these physical
improvements, a traffic adaptive system to coordinate signals along the corridor to
1 The cost of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan (not including the cost of traffic adaptive signals) was
estimated at $6.224 million in 2003 $. For this analysis costs have been brought up to date using the Engineering
News & Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which totaled 7.6% for 2 full years from Jan
03 to Jan 05.
July 2005 Page 1-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
:,
'i
~.h.~r.~!:~~~~.~,r.~~~~~~!~~.~~~.r.i.~.~.r., ~~~~.~~p~,?~ .. ~~~.~!:~~~. ~~.~.~! ........ £?:~~. ~f)I?'?'! ................................ .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
effectively automate traffic signal timing will be installed as part of the City's signal system
modernization program now well underway. This will allow vehicle throughput to
increase, despite the loss of auto travel lanes in some locations. The plan also includes
improvements tp the Palo Alto Shuttle service in the corridor. The impact fee does not
fund these additional improvements, but only the physical streetscape improvements
discussed above that are most directly linked to the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in
the corridor. .
July 2005 Page 1-4. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~~,~~~~~~~~.~,~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~, ~~~~. ~.I!.'~~C:.~ .~!!.~~~~~ .~~.lI.~.Y, ,.~ ... e~~~, ~e.f!?!! ..... , .. "" " ..... ,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Chapter 2. Rationale for Proposed
Impact Fee
Fee Purpose and Use
The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare
by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Plan Impact Fee is to implement the Corridor Plan, which will
increase the safe use of the corridor by pedestrians and bicyclists. These improvements are
needed to mitigate the impacts of development, which will generate additional bicyclists
and pedestrians, thereby increasing the number of bicyclist and pedestrians exposed to
potentially dangerous conflicts with vehicles in the corridor if impact fee revenues were
not available to fund the needed improvements. The Corridor Plan improvements are
intended to reduce the exposure in space and time of non-motorized traffic to motorized
traffic. To properly mitigate the safety issues that arise as a result of the presence of the
increased numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, the City has proposed a set of pedestrian
and bicycle safety improvements for the Corridor.
No element of the Plan funded by this Impact Fee is intended to directly improve auto
traffic. In fact, elements of the plan will remove auto lanes of travel along the corridor.
However, a project funded through other sources will implement traffic adaptive signals
within the corridor to maintain vehicle throughput.
Impact Fee Use Period
The Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan is a defined project with ~ defined timeline. The
Plan is intended to be built during the next several years, and completed before 2015. As
this Plan will be fully funded through a variety of public sources, including the Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee, there is no projected need
for funds for plan implementation beyond 2015, and this plan current~y anticipates
termination at the end of that year.
Area to be Subject to Fee
The Charleston Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee will be
charged to all new development in an area with Yz mile of the corridor in the City of Palo'
Alto, beginning at Fabian and ending at Miranda near Foothill Expressway, as measured
from the centerline of the street. Figure 2-1 shows the area within this 12 mi Ie corridor that
wi II be subject to the fee.
July 2005 Page 2-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
"
~.J:1,~!~!~!~~_~,!~~~~~~~,r.o.,~~~_r.i_~~_r,~~~~_~~~,~,?~_~!!_~!~.':'~_~~_~_~.~_._~ ___ '?:~~.~~I?~!! __ . ____ , .. ,, _____ .. _______ ",.,., ..
CITY OF PALO ALTO
public library. Increased residential and non-residential development of the corridor will
increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclists making short trips that start and/or end
within the plan area. Such trips include school children going from home to school; office
workers walking to lunch; and visitors walking from one non-residential establishment to
another (e.g. from a health club to a store). In this context, additional development
increases the demands on the Corridor for walking and bicycling. In doing so it multiplies
the conflicts between these users and vehicles, as development has a matching increase on
the demands for motor vehicle transportation.' Without changes, additional motor
vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians using the Corridor means an increased amount of
conflict, hence increased probability of collisions between autos and pedestrians and autos
. and bicyclists. Unmitigated development therefore diminishes the overall safety of the
corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mitigation Plan
This plan is intended to address the safety concerns of pedestrians and bicyclists using the
Charleston Arastradero Corridor. For that reason, the Y2 mile Plan Area was chosen to
approximate the area of greatest mitigation effects.
The Corridor is currently configured primarily for vehicular traffic. Pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are adequate, but the existing facilities are not specifically designed to minimize
vehicle conflicts with bicyclistS and pedestrians. The Charleston Arastradero plan seeks to
minimize these potential conflicts and maximize the safety for pedestrians and bicyClists.
The Plan will create continuous bike lanes for the length of the corridor, marking them
with textured paint or tinted concrete for additional safety. For pedestrians, additional
crosswalks will. be installed and crosswalk safety enhanced. In several locations,
pedestrian activated lighted crosswalks will make pedestrians more visible. Bulb outs and
pedestrian refuges in the new planted medians reduce the amount of unprotected space a
pedestrian needs to cross the street. In addition, since those crossing the street need look in
only one direction at a time before and after reaching the center median refuge, the
cognitive task pedestrians face is made simpler, thus safer. Finally, street lighting will be
enhanced in order to improve the lighting of bike lanes and sidewalks, and to increase the
visibility of bikes and pedestrians to the vehicles that must interact with them.
Project Benefits by Land Use.
The project provides safety mitigation effects associated with all land uses in the area, as
bicyclists and pedestrians make many types of trips, including walking or bicycling to
school, biking or walking to work, and walking or bicycling between work and retail uses.
Based on the short average trip length for bike and pedestrian trips, most of these trips will
be between sites within the plan area.
Land uses vary by the nature and intensity of their use, and their consequent volume of
trips of all types. Typically, land development impact studies focus on vehicle trips, and
substantial information has been collected to define the likely range of vehicle trips by
specific land use. Information on pedestrian and bicycle trips is less rigorously studied
July 2005 Page 2-7. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
"
'f
~.~,~!~~~~~~.~.r.~:>.~~~.~~~~.~~~~i_~_~.~. P'_I~~.~".:'.P'~~~.~~~ _~~~.':I~_~~_~_~~ .. ~ __ J?:~.~_~~I??_rt ... ' ................. _ .......... .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
with fewer data sources than is the case of motor vehicle trip generation, and predicting
the overall number of bicycle and pedestrian trips by specific land use is consequently a'n
inexact science. For this reason only two land use categories are assessed in this Study:
residential and non-residential. .
Typically, in cases where roadway capacity is an issue, the peak vehicle commute period
is the greatest concern, and additional peak period trips is the measure used to calculate
impact. However, in the case of the Charleston Arastradero Plan Area, overall use of
corridor pedestrian and bicycle facilities is a greater concern. For example, office uses
have heavy peak period use, as workers arrive at work in the AM and leave in the PM
hour, but the same use may have very little mid-morning, mid-afternoon or post peak hour
evening use. On the other hand, retail uses may have a steady stream of trips throughout
the day and into the evening. The kind of trips which are very likely to be made on foot or
bike -short trips to stores, health clubs, and schools -often take place outside of "peak
hours".
Safety mitigations for bicyclists and pedestrians are therefore concerned with all day
volumes rather than any concept of peak hour capacity. This analysis therefore uses 24-.
hour weekday bicycle and pedestrian trip volume counts as the more appropriate measure
of trips.
One excellent source for understanding local resident travel behavior is the City of Palo
Alto's Transportation Survey (2004), which surveyed adult residents on travel behavior by
mode. From this resource, we have a good estimate that bike and walk trips constitute
14.7% of all household trips in Palo Alto.4 The survey results are conservative to the
extent that the survey did not include Palo Alto residents under 18, who are even more
likely to bike or walk than adults. Home-based trips constitute the bulk of bike/ped trips.s
In general, home-based trips are much more likely to be made by walking and bicycling
than work-based trips, as home to school and home to shopping trips, for instance, are
more likely to be short distance neighborhood trips, while work locations draw from a very
broad area and these trips are consequently more likely completed by car or transit. A
peer-review study by the respected Texas Transportation Institute is one of the few surveys
that study trip generation for bicycles and pedestrians for both residential and employment
uses, and this study confirms that employment sites are less intense generators of bike and
walk trips.6
4 2004 Palo Alto Residents' Electronic Travel Diary, Palo Alto Transportation Division and DataCycles, May 2004.
Bicycle mode share 8.3%, Pedestrian 6.4%. The Palo Alto rate is in the same order of magnitude with data from the
Bay Area Travel Survey (2000), which shows that 10.3% of trips were walk trips, and 1.5% of trips were bike trips.
5 87% of walking trips in the Bay Area, for example, are home-based, meaning that either the origin or destination is
the individual's home. See Bay Area Travel Survey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2000.
6 The TTl study found that on a per' capita basis, residences generate 4.1 X the bike trips, and 2.7 X the walk trips,
than commercial employment sites for mixed-use urban sites generally similar to Palo Alto. Cumulatively, this yields
a per capita rate of 29.7% of the residential rate of 14.7% bike/walk, or 4.4%, Turner, Shrunk, and Hottenstein,
"Development of a Methodology to Estimate Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Demand", Texas Transportation Institute,
September 1998.
July 2005 Page 2·8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~!'_~!~!::".~~~_~_!~:".~~~~!~~_~~~r.~~_~_r_~I~~_~~.P.~~~_~«i!!_~!~~~_~~_':I_~~ __ ~J!~'!.~_~~I!~!! ________ .... _________ ._ .. __ .. __ _
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Chapter 3,. Recommended Fee Level
This section pr~sents and describes the methodology for determining the recommended
fee level. It also presents examples of fee levels for different land uses, using standard
residential and employmentdensities.
The basic impact fee formula can be described as the cost of impact mitigation divided by
the amount of impact, yielding a cost per unit of impact. The general impact fee formula is
shown below:
Impact Fee Rate Cost of Projects to Accommodate Development
Aggregate Unit Impacts Generated by Development
Methodology
There are several methods to calculate impact fees, depending on the characteristics of the
facility type addressed. In shorthand, these can be characterized as standards-based,
capacity-based, and plan-based. In a standards-based analysis, fees are calculated based
on an adopted standard, such as parkland per user, or library books per user. The cost of
additional facilities demand created by new development can be calculated in a
strai ghtforward man ner.
In a capacity-based system, the actual capacity of an existing facility must be known, and
fees calculated based on the cost of expanding the capacity of these facilities to meet
demand. This approach is limited to facilities such as water and wastewater systems where
such accuracy is possible.
A third method, which is used in this analysis, relates the set of facility improvements to
the land use plan for the area. This approach is used for cases in which .it not possible to
devise a simple standard, and for which it is not possible to accurately measure capacity.
In this approach, the total cost of the proposed facilities is divided by the total demand per
unit of development to arrive at a cost per unit of development. This plan-based approach
is typical for facilities as diverse as fire stations, streets, and administrative buildings.
The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of developments. Facility costs
are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the amount of
development and the relative intensity of demand for each category. Demand is
represented by a quantifiable indicator. The total cost of facilities is divided by total
demand to calculate a cost per unit of development.
In this case, therefore, the total value of the plan is compared to the total projected bicycle
and pedestrian volumes within the plan area. The total amount of projected new bicycle
and pedestrian trips in this area is assessed, and its proportionate impact on the new
July 2005 Page 3-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~,~.~.!~!~~~~.~.!~~~~.iI~~'-:~.~~~~~~.~!.. ~~~~. ~,'!I~~~~.~~!.~!~""'~. ~~.'.I.~.¥ ... ~ .J?:~.~.~~fJ.?!! .............. , ............... , ..... ,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
anticipated by current growth projections. The City is currently aware of specific potential
projects that would be estimated to generate $765,000 in revenues. However, that number
is likely to change as new projects are added, deleted or modified over the ten-year life of
the project. Importantly, fee credits must be calculated when existing uses are replaced,
even if they are currently vacant. Employment growth may also take place within
currently under-tenanted office space, which would not be subject to fee collections.
Potential Development: 2005·2015
There are several potential development projects that have been discussed within the
corridor during the last few years. These plans are itemized in Appendix B, which also
indicates major school projects planned in the corridor. As these plans are in various
stages of development, they may not proceed as described, and fee collections could be
significantly different than currently projected. However, this Appendix illustrates many of
the major opportunity sites within the corridor. If all of these projects are implemented as
described, they will add a total of 995 new dwelling units and 113,000 square feet of
commercial recreation. This total would result in more residential development than
projected by the Palo Alto Traffic model, but less non-residential development.
The projects listed in Appendix B consist largely. of the replacement of existing non-
residential uses with multifamily housing. If projects proceed as planned, housing will
replace 565,000 square feet of office space, a 30,000 square feet fraternal organization,
and a 345-room hotel.
Projected Revenue
The actual amount of fee collections, of course, will depend on the amount of
development that is permitted and constructed in the Plan Area, and this may be greater or
less than the amount calculated in this analysis. Appendix C displays calculations from an
illustrative list of potential developments, which would total $765,000 as currently
proposed.
July 2005 Page 3-13. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
l'
~.~.~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~.r. ~I~~. ~.~~~~~ .~!! .~~x.~~. ~~.~.~.¥ ... ~ ... e~~.~.~~F??'! ............................... .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Chapter 4. Recommendations
Exemptions
Certain development types should be exempted from the Impact Fee, consistent with the
City's existing impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries
For reasons of administrative simplicity and consistency with other impact fees, it is
recommended that exemptions from the Impact Fee be the same as those for the Parks,
Community Centers and Libraries impact fees, enacted in 2002. The exemptions, as listed
in Chapter 16.58 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code are currently:
• City buildings or structures;
• Public school buildings or structures;
• Residential housing, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is
permanently obligated to be 100% affordable;
• Retail service, eating and drinking service, personal service, or automotive service
when the total additional square footage is 1,500 square feet or less. This
exemption shall apply only when the additional square footage of new
development does not exceed 1,500 square feet. New development that is larger
than 1,500 square feet shall pay a fee for all square footage, including the first
1,500 square feet.
• Day care centers used for child care, nursery school or preschool education.
• Below market rate housing units above and beyond the minimum number required
for projects subject to the CitY's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program. The
additional units must be offered and constructed in a manner consistent with all
requirements of the BMR program.
For each exemption, a rational policy basis must be articulated. A brief summary of the
basis for the exemptions is provided in Figure 6.
The model used to calculate fee levels includes trips expected to be generated by all uses,
including exempt uses. Consequently, the model allocates an appropriate portion of
project costs to exempt development. Therefore, although exempt development will not
be required to pay this calculated share of mitigation costs, the costs of mitigating impacts
generated by exempt development will not be borne by non-exempt development but will
need to be funded by the city from another source.
July 2005 Page 4-14. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~h,':'.!~!:~~~~,~,r.~~~~~~!:~~,~~~~~~,~~,~~~~,~~~~.«?~,~~~_~~~.':I~_~~,':I,~,~,,,~,,,fJ.~l!~,~~l??!!_,,,,,,,, " ___ ",_"",",,",,,,, __
CITY OF PALO ALTO
The recommended option is to levy impact fees on any new trips caused by the change in
use or an increase in square footage. The trigger should be the issuance of a permit for
construction or reconstruction, or the approval of a zoning change or conditional use
permit. For consistency with other impact fees, a threshold of 1,500 square feet for non-
residential development, or the addition of a new dwelling unit for residential uses, is
recom mended. "
A change of use that reduces pedestrian and bicycle trips should not entitle the developer
or tenant to a partial refund.
Credits for Improvements Provided by Developers
If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct
improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged, the impact fee
imposed on that development project should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of
those improvements. In the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, for instance, the City
may wish to negotiate with developers to provide frontage improvements during initial
construction to avoid coming back at a later date ata potentially higher cost. It is very
important to note, however, that such improvements should provide a logical and
meaningful element of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Plan, rather than a short,
disconnected piece. "
Credit for Existing Development
If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing
development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that
represents an increase in demand for City facilities. In other words, the developer should
be credited with the fee that would have been chargeable against the existing use.
Total Impact Fee Level'
Appendix D shows the total fee that would be levied on different development types,
following the adoption of the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Safety Impact Fee, and, potential, the proposed Transportation Impact Fee. If the
recommended Charleston Arastradero Fee were to be adopted, the total impact fees levied
on developers would amount to $4,430 for a small multi-family home (a 24.9% increase),
and $17,886 for a large single-family home (a 5.5% increase). It's important to note that
fees rise at a higher percentage for multi-family, because this analysis set one uniform
residential fee level. Fees on non-residential uses wou Id total between $17.41 and $19.78
per square foot, and would increase less than 2%.
July 2005 Page 4-16. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
~~,~!~~~~~~.~!~~~~~~~!~,~~~!~~~~,~~~~.~.~P~~-~.~~~.~~~.':'~.~~.':I,~,l(, .. ~ ... l?:~.~.~~e?!!., ... "."",_ ... _ .... ,,,,,,, ..
CITY OF PALO ALTO
The California courts have interpreted the AB 1600 finding requirements to also require
that a development fee be shown to "bear a reasonable relationship, in both use and
amount, to the deleterious impact of the development." This report is intended to describe
the proposed fee, and to provide an evidentiary basis and a rationale to support these
required findings.
July 2005 Page A·3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
July 13, 2005
Page 2 of4
2010 Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 4744' adopted in April 2002, amended
Section 16.45.060 of Chapter 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for New Non-residential
Development in the Stanford Research ParkJEl Camino Real CS Zone) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to reflect the revisions made to the list of intersection improvements and
costs to be funded by the Stanford Research Park fee. The revised list of improvements
and costs as identified in P AMC Chapter 16.45.060 are as follows:
Intersection
Page Mill Expressway/
Hanover Street
Middlefield Road!
Oregon Expressway
Foothill Expressway/
Arastradero Road!
Miranda Avenue
Page Mill Expressway/
El Camino Real
Improvement
Add SB right-tum lane
and restripe NB approach
Add NB and SB left-tum
lanes
Add WB lane at Miranda
Avenue
Add right-tum lanes on
three approaches
Cost
$1,072,469
$1,212,617
$4,598,554·
$7,807,133
Current
Status
Active CIP
Incomplete
Incomplete
Completed
Partially
Completed
Based on a report produced at the end of December 2004, the Stanford Research Park
account contains approximately $1.9 million, .excluding fund dedicated to improvements
recommended at the intersection of Page Mill Expressway/Hanover Street, which has
already been transferred from the Research Park fee to the Capital Improvement Project
for Page Mill Expressway/Hanover Street (CIP 19923). .
As noted above, improvements recommended at the intersection of Foothill
Expressway/ Arastradero Road/Miranda Avenue have already been implemented.
Projects recommended at the remaining intersections are not yet ready to proceed. Staff
is currently designing the improvements at the Page Mill Expressway/Hanover Street
intersection in conjunction with bike lane improvements and will implement this project
during the coming year.
The scope and budget of the Page Mill Expressway/El Camino Real intersection can be
reduced since one of the three recommended improvements has already been·
implemented by VTA. Page Mill Expressway/El Camino Real currently operate at Level
of Service "D" during the PM peak hour, which is acceptable based on the City's LOS
.,'
July 13,2005
Page 3 of4
standards. Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway also currently operates at Level of
Service "D" in the PM peak hour. Staff will continue to monitor traffic conditions at
these two intersections and will recommend priorities for their implementation at the'
appropriate time. It should be noted that these projects will need the cooperation of Santa
Clara County and/or CaItrans, who control these two intersections.
Ordinance No. 4744 stated under the Use of Fund "The moneys in the fund shall be
eligible for expenditure only for the capacity improvements at the designated
intersections, as direct expenditures, or reimbursements if improvements are constructed
prior to deposit of moneys into the fund, or for alternative improvements or alternative
intersections that are determined by the Chief Transportation Official, subject to the
'approval of the City Council, to provide adequate feasible alternative mitigations of those
jmpacts addressed in the' EIR that are proposed to be mitigated by the capacity
improvements ... The priority for spending moneys in the fund among the eight· (sic)
intersections shall be determined by the chief transportation official." The Ordinance
allows use of the Fee in order to implement alternative improvements that would mitigate
impacts of developments within the Research Park subject to City Council approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In January 2004, the City Council approved the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Improvement Plan. The, plan included capacity and signalization improvements at the
Gunn High driveway/ Arastradero intersection. Gunn High School is located on the north
side of Arastradero Road approximately 700 feet east of the Foothill/Arastradero/Miranda
intersection, which is in very close proximity to the Research Park.
The segment of Arastradero Road adjacent to the school's driveway presently has two
lanes serving vehicular traffic in the westbound direction. One of the two lanes is
designated for through movement, while the second lane is designated for the through
movement in addition to the right-tum_.movement onto the school's driveway. Queuing
ofvehic1es waiting to tum into the school site combined with the large volume of through
vehicles heading west reduces the roadway capacity and significantly impacts traffic
operations in the westbound direction of Arastradero Road. The queuing of vehicles also
impacts traffic operations at the nearby intersection of Foothill/ Arastradero/Miranda,
particularly in the westbound direction. The capacity improvement recommended at
Gunn High contains the addition of a westbound lane designated for the right-tum
movement onto the school. The addition of this lane would leave two through lanes for
the heavy flow of westbound traffic. This lane addition would improve the overall
operational conditions on Arastradero Road near the Stanford Research Park. It will also
further enhance the effectiveness of the improvements made at the nearby intersection of
Foothill/ Arastradero/Miranda (only a distance of 700 feet away). It should be reiterated
. BUILDING REGULATJONS 16.45.060 .
Est.· Cost
Intersection . Number and Name CapaCity Improvement* ($)**
B-4 Foothill Expressway/Hillview Avenue Add ~outhbound right-nun lane; 138,000
close Miranda
B-5 Page·Mill Expressway!Hanover Street Add southbound right-tum lane; 313,000
restripe northbound approach
C-1 Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway Add north-and south-bound left-412,000
tum lanes;
C-2 Alma Street/Charleston Road Add northbound left-tum and south': 355,000
bound right-turn lanes; construct
bike and pedestrian improvements
C-3 Foot:1;ri11 Expressway I ArastraderoRoad. Dose Miranda; eliminate shared 497,000
lanes •
C-ll Foothill Expressway /new Miranda Construct new at-grade intersection· 409,000
D-1(a) Foothill Expressway /page Mill Add left-turn and right-turn lanes all 721,000
Expressway appro~ches
C-2(a) Page Mill Expressway/El Camino Real Add right-tumjanes all approaches. 1,440,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CAPACITY iMPROVE11ENTS $4,285,000
Notes:
.*Full. descriptions of the capacity improvements are contained on pages IV.B-69 through 81 of the EIR.
and in Section VI.D of the EJR Final Addendum~" ' .... , " . ..... ..' ', ... , . .. . .. :. ~. . " ....... ,'
**The estimated cost of the capacity improvements refl~ct the EIR estimates, re:vised in accordance with
current rates, as set forth in a report entitled "Citywide Land Us·e and Transportation Study Intersection
Improvem·ent Cost Estimate," dated May 18, 1989 from Lee Saylor, Incorporated, Construction
Consultants.
1687· Rev. Ord. Supp. 6/92
the accounting records for the fund, suc4 moneys shall
considered committed to the designated, improvements
alternative improvements in accordance with subsections (f)
(g) hereof.
be
or
and
(f) Use of Fund. The moneys in ·the fund shall 'be
eligible f9rexpenditure only for the capacity improvements at
the designated intersections, as direct expenditures, or
reimbursements if improvements are constructed prior to .deposit
of moneys into the fund, or for alternative improvements ·or'
alternative intersections that are determined by the chief
. transportation official,subj ect to the' approval of the city
council, to provide adequate feasible alternative mitigation of,
those impacts addressed in . the EIR that are proposed to, be
mitigated by the capacity improvements in subsection' (a)herebf.
In . no event shall .fund moneys be used for. regular road
mainteman'ce; "The priority for spending moneys in. the fund among
the ~t· intersections shall be determined by. the chief
transportation official. '.£t . . .
(g) Budget Approval. The uses proposed for
expendi ture by the moneys in the fund shall be. reviewed annually
by the city· councilal'ong with its review of the . capital
improvement program, and fund moneys shall .be appropriated for
such expenditure in the manner provided' for adoption of the
annual budget by the charter of the city.
SECTION 3. The changes . effected by this. ordinance are
consistent with the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
1998-2010 Comprehensive Pl'an, which· was certified by the City
Council on July 20, 1998. Individual. proj ects which may be
required to pay the fee shall be subj ect to appropriate.
environmental review.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
020313 sm 0032532
('
r.' ),
Document Page 2 ofSi'.
(1) "Site" means a parcel ofland consisting of a single lot of record, used or intended for use under the
regulations of Title 18 (Zol1ing) as one site for a use or a group of uses.
(m) "Use" means the conduct of an activity, or the performance of a function or operation, on a site or
in a building or facility.
(n) "Designated intersections" means those eight intersections listed in Section 16.45.060(a) to which
capacity improvements will be made and paid for by the fee collected pursuant to this chapter.
(Ord.3.89..4 § 1 (part), 1989)
16.45.030 Declaration of relationships of use, type and need between fee and new development.
The ErR Final Addendum, February 1989, pages VI. 12 through 22, showed that new nonresidential
development in the area will create additional coinmute period vehicular traffic that will travel through, among
others, the designated intersections, which are already operating at level of service "E" or worse, or will be so
after adding projected traffic: from the new development. The city defines congestion as beginning at level of
service "E" and considers an increase in traffic under these conditions to be a significant adverse impact. The
ErR final addendum showed that specific capacity improvements are necessafy to mitigate the demonstrated
significant traffic impacts of the new development.
(Ord. 4f!4_Z. § 29,2000: Ord. 3894. § 1 (part), 1980)
16.45.040 Declaration of relationship between amount of fee and cost of capacity improvements
attributed to new development.
Data developed for the ErR showed that new dev~lopment in the'area will generate from sixty to ninety
percent (average eighty percent) of total new commute period traffic from all nonresidential areas in the "city at
the designated intersections. Areas 2-7 and 9 studied in the ErR will each generate from zero to fifteen percent
of such traffic at the designated intersections (City Manager's Report CMR:154:9, 2/16/89). On the basis that
the area is projected to generate almost all of such traffic at the designated intersections, and that the shares of
Areas 2-7 and 9 are too small' to calculate for purposes of assessing the fee, such new development in the area
will be assessed the full.cost of capacitY improvements' at the designated intersections.
(Ord. 3894 § 1 (part), 1989)
16.45.050
(a)
(1)
. Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to the following development in the area:
New development of a nonresidential use of two hundred fifty square feet or greater on a site;
(2) Any existing development of two hundred fifty gross square feet or greater on a site that undergoes
a change in use from an exempt use as described in the following subsection (b), to a nonresidential use.
. (b) This chapter shall not apply to the following development or uses in the area ("exempt uses"):
(I) An on-site cafeteria facility, recreational facility, credit union, and/or day care facility to be
provided for employees and/or their children and not open to the general· public;
(2) An accessory hazardous materials storage facility required to comply with Title 17 of this code;
provided that such facility does not, in itself, generate new employment;
(3) A thermal storage facility provided for the purpose of energy conservation, provided that such
facility does not, in itself, generate new employment;
(4) Residential development;
(5) Temporary uses oflessthan six months' duration;
(6) Any development that replaces all or part of the square footage of an existing or previous
development on a site, whether or not the existing development is in active use, provided that the resultant
increase in gross floor area on the site is two hundred square feet or less;
(7) Development for which a building permit has been issued on or before the effective date of the
ordinance enacting this chapter (September 6, 1989);
(8) Retail service, eating. and drinking service, personal service, or automotive service when the total
additional square footage is 1,500 square feet or less. This exemption shall apply only when the additional
square footage of new development does not exceed 1,500 square feet. New development that is larger than
http://nt2.scbbs.comlcgi-binlom isapi.dll ?clientID=172411 &hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode... 7/8/2005