HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14074
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14074)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 6/13/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Direct Staff to
Update the Park, Library, and Community Center Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study to Create New Fee Categories, Update the Park Land Valuation
to $17.6m, Move to a Square-foot basis for Fees Imposed on Housing, and
Conduct an Economic Feasibility Study (Including on the Parkland Dedication
Fee)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Finance Committee and Staff recommend the City Council:
1. Approve the following recommended adjustments in the ‘Working Draft Supplement’ to
Park, Library, and Community Center Development Impact Fee Justification Study
(Attachment A) and direct staff to return to Council for approval of a ‘Final Supplement’
report:
a) Differentiate the commercial/industrial fee structure into five separate categories:
hotel, retail, office, industrial, and commercial;
b) Maintain the office density calculation of 200 square ft. per employee;
c) Update the fee study every 4-6 years (in compliance with new state law
requirements in Assembly Bill 602 that stipulates a minimum of every 8 years);
d) Amend the ‘Working Draft Supplement’ to apply the following land valuation for use
in calculating the Park Development Impact Fees: increase the land valuation to
$17.6 million/acre based on the average of the last 5 years of underutilized Palo Alto
properties sales data; and
e) Convert residential fees to reflect a per-square-foot basis, rather than a single
amount per dwelling regardless of size.
2. Conduct an economic feasibility study on the ‘Final Supplement’ to the Park, Library, and
Community Center Development Impact Fee Justification Study and park dedication in lieu
fee.
NOTE: If Council would like the park, community center, and library fees imposed on housing to
remain on a per-unit basis (instead of a square-foot basis as recommended by Finance
Committee on May 3, 2022), staff recommends that Council pull this item from consent and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
adopt a Final Supplement to the nexus study prior to July 1, 2022. Otherwise, the City will be
required under AB 602 to move to a square-footage basis if it makes any changes to the nexus
study after July 1, 2022.
Executive Summary
This report forwards additional work, originally directed by the City Council in 2021 as follow-up
to the 2021 Nexus Study regarding Parks, Library, and Community Center Development Impact
Fee. Staff have worked with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Finance Committee, and
consultants to review and update the six (6) additional tasks as directed by the Council. This
report reflects the Finance Committee’s unanimous motion that recommends 1) adjustments to
the current “working draft supplemental” report to the Parks, Library, and Community Center
Development Impact Fee, 2) commissioning of a feasibility study, and 3) a restructuring of fees
in alignment with current legislation that goes into effect on July 1, 2022.
The Working Draft Supplement itself is not being recommended for approval at this time. If
Council proceeds with the Finance Committee’s and staff’s recommendations, then the
following steps would occur:
• Working Draft Supplement will be amended to reflect changes approved by the Council
and a ‘Final Supplement’ report will be agenized at a later date for Council approval.
• The Final Supplement will amend the 2021 Nexus Study and serve as the basis for
implementing the changes to the impact fees as described in this staff report.
• Staff will commission an economic Feasibility Study based on the ‘Final Supplement’.
• Once the economic feasibility study is complete, staff will bring the results to Council
and recommended fee changes, including converting residential fees to reflect a per-
square-foot basis for Council review and adoption.
The discussion in this report addresses the tasks DTA completed so far in the Working Draft
Supplement that informed the Finance Committee’s recommendation and addressed the
Council’s prior direction.
Background
Under California law (AB 1600), cities can charge new development for its relative share of the
cost to fund the acquisition of land and improvements to public facilities. Impact fees are
established based on the reasonable relationship, or nexus, between impacts caused by new
development and the improvements to mitigate those impacts that will be funded by the fee.
New Nexus Study and Fees Approved in 2021
On November 8, 2019, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Parks, Library, and
Community Center Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. DTA was determined to be the most
qualified consultant. DTA prepared a Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact
Fee Justification Study, which provided a detailed legal framework for the imposition of impact
fees, defined the City facilities addressed in the study, illustrated the calculation methodology
used, and specified the maximum fee levels which the City could charge to new development.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
On December 15, 2020, staff and DTA presented the draft study to Finance Committee (Staff
Report) to receive feedback prior to presenting to Council. Finance Committee passed a motion
to recommend that the City Council approve any adjustments to fee levels and direct staff to
return with the necessary ordinance and fee schedule updates, and the addition of a possible
tiered approach to implement the fees.
On February 23, 2021, staff and DTA presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (Staff
Report). The Commission passed a motion with a 5-2 vote to recommend that City Council
adopt an ordinance based on study recommendations to update the City’s Park, Community
Center, and Library Impact Fee Program. Dissenting commissioners expressed concerns that the
fair market value land valuation figure seemed too low and square footage per employee used
as demographics information seemed too high. Additionally, there was a request to see
commercial fees differentiated between retail and office space.
On April 12, 2021, staff and DTA presented the study and recommendations to the City Council,
and the Council passed a motion approving the nexus study and the fees recommended in the
study. Council also directed the Finance Committee and Parks and Recreation Commission to
review the fee structures in Fiscal Year 2022 with a focus on:
i. Updated land acquisition costs;
ii. The differentiating fee structure for retail space versus office space;
iii. An update on office density;
iv. Recommendation from the Finance Committee on the frequency these schedules
should be updated; and
v. Recommendations on if there should be changes between multi and single-family fee
structures.
The April 12th Staff Report and a Parks, Library, and Community Center Development Impact
Fee Nexus Study can be found here. Following in Table 1 are the City of Palo Alto’s current
Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact Fees.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 1: 2021 Development Impact Fee Summary Adopted by City Council on April 12, 2021
Land Use Type Park
Community
Center Library Total Fees
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $57,420 $4,438 $2,645 $64,504
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $42,468 $3,283 $1,956 $47,707
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.)
$16.837/
sq. ft.
$1.301/
sq. ft.
$0.776/
sq. ft.
$18.914/
sq. ft.
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.)
$2.866/
sq. ft.
$0.222/
sq. ft.
$0.132/
sq. ft.
$3.220/
sq. ft.
*Note: Some figures may not sum due to rounding.
Follow-Up to the 2021 Nexus Study
Staff engaged DTA to prepare a follow up analysis to address the tasks from the April 12, 2021
Council motion. DTA is currently in the process of drafting a Supplement to the Development
Impact Fee Justification Study. This staff report contains DTA’s analysis that will be included in
the Final Supplement. If approved, the recommendations above will help staff and DTA move
forward on finalizing the proposed changes in the Final Supplement (see next steps described in
the Timeline section below).
Following is a discussion of each of the additional tasks requested for follow up by Council:
• Task A - Update land acquisition costs.
• Task B - Differentiate the fee structure for retail space versus office space.
• Task C - Update office density from 250 sq. ft. per employee to 190 sq. feet per
employee.
• Task D - Recommend the frequency with which these schedules should be updated.
• Task E - Evaluate whether the multi- and single-family fee categories should be divided
into multiple categories based on total square feet or some other measure.
• Task F - Evaluate options for a reduction in fees for new multi-family housing
construction for projects that exceed required percentages of below market rate
(“BMR”) units.
Working Draft Supplement to Nexus Study Reviewed by Parks and Recreation Commission
On February 22, 2022, staff and DTA presented the Working Draft Supplement to the Parks and
Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission passed a motion approving the
methodology detailed in Tasks B, C, and E (no comment on D) of the nexus study as found in
the Working Draft Supplement. The Commission requested further study related to Task A on
land valuation costs based on realistic considerations for acquiring land, including residential
and commercial teardown acquisition data, and to provide alternative fee calculation data
based on a) existing per unit methodology, and b) residential square footage. The following
motion was approved by a 5-0 vote:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends:
1. The Finance Committee approve the methodology for points 2, 3, and 5 (no comment
on 4) of the nexus study as found in the Supplement to Park, Community Center, and
Library Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Study”).
2. Further study on land valuation costs based on realistic considerations for acquiring
land, including residential and commercial teardown acquisition data.
3. Provide alternative fee calculation data based on a) existing per unit methodology, and
b) residential square footage.
Discussion
On May 3, 2022 staff and DTA presented the Working Draft Supplement to the Finance
Committee. The May 3rd Staff Report can be found here. The Finance Committee passed the
following motions by a 3-0 vote:
Finance Committee recommend the City Council:
1. Approve the following recommendations from the Supplement to Park, Library, and
Community Center Development Impact Fee Justification Study:
a) Differentiate the commercial/industrial fee structure into five separate categories:
hotel, retail, office, industrial and commercial.
b) Maintain the office density calculation of 200 square ft. per employee.
c) Update the fee study every 4-6 years, in compliance with new state law requirements
in Assembly Bill 602.
2. Apply the following land valuations for use in calculating the Park Development Impact Fees
a) Increase the land valuation to $17.6 million/acre based on the average of the last 5
years of underutilized Palo Alto properties sales data.
3. Direct staff to conduct an economic feasibility study on the new nexus study and park
dedication in lieu fee.
4. To convert residential fees to reflect a per-square-foot amount, rather than a single amount
per dwelling regardless of size.
The following Discussion addresses the tasks DTA completed so far in the Working Draft
Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study that informed the Finance
Committee’s recommendation.
Differentiate Fee Structure for Retail vs Office (Task B)
Currently, the City’s Development Impact Fee structure reflects two non-residential fee categories:
commercial/industrial and hotel/motel. Staff was asked to break commercial/industrial into more
specific categories for (1) retail, (2) office space, (3) industrial; (4) other commercial. Other
commercial includes any non-residential project with a land use that does not fall under the Retail,
Office, Industrial, or Hotel/Motel categories. Table 2 show the maximum fees under the new
valuation. Finance Committee supported this change.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 2: Maximum Development Impact Fee Summary using a $17.6 Million/ Acre valuation
Land Use Type Park
Community
Center Library Total Fees
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $138,742 $4,438 $2,645 $145,826
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $102,613 $3,283 $1,956 $107,852
Retail
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $22.247 $0.712 $0.424 $23.383
Office
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $48.699 $1.558 $0.928 $51.185
Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $32.966 $1.055 $0.629 $34.649
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $6.925 $0.222 $0.132 $7.279
Other Commercial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $27.709 $0.886 $0.528 $29.124
Update on Office Density (Task C)
In response to the request from the Parks and Recreation Commission to evaluate a revised fee
structure with the “sq. ft. per employee” assumption reduced from approximately 250 sq. ft. to
190 sq. ft., which is the average based on supporting data from sources the PRC provided, such
as the U.S. General Service Administration’s 2012 public sector survey and a 2017 Cushman
Wakefield analysis, which indicates that the Bay Area has one of the fastest shrinking square-
foot-per-employee ratios in the country.
The CoStar data that DTA evaluated in the Study supports this adjustment as well. By isolating
office development into a separate land use category, rather than combining with retail as
outlined in the Study, the office fee calculation reflects approximately 200 sq. ft. per employee,
therefore the proposed fees outlined in Tables 4 and 5 reflect the requested office density
update.
Frequency of Nexus Study Updates (Task D)
It is generally recommended that impact fees be increased annually and that a new fee study
be completed every five (5) to eight (8) years to ensure that the fees are reflective of the
most current projections of future development, as well as infrastructure needs and cost
estimates. New state law requires a fee study at least once every eight years (see AB 602).
The Finance Committee recommends updating the nexus fee study every 4-6 years, which
would meet the requirements of AB 602. Updating the nexus fee study is typically done by
retaining a consultant who specializes in drafting nexus studies and utilizing staff resources
to provide the necessary information requested and oversight of the work.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Between updates of the nexus study, the amounts of the fees themselves increase annually
based on the construction cost index (“CCI”) in compliance with PAMC 16.58.090. The fees
are also subject to annual approval as part of the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Update Land Acquisition Costs to Include Teardown Properties (Task A)
The original Study analyzed sales transactions of vacant land within the City over the previous
ten (10) years, as well as in the neighboring cities of Campbell, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
Saratoga, Mountain View, San Jose, and Los Altos. Using vacant land sales is the industry
standard for calculating the development impact fees for park facilities. Based on DTA’s
research and discussions with the City’s real estate and planning teams regarding their fair
market value analysis, a land valuation of $5.7 million per acre was utilized in the Study and
in the corresponding updates to the City’s Municipal Code. Feedback from the City Council
suggested that the $5.7 million per acre land valuation was too low.
Per the City’s direction, DTA examined transactions that occurred in the 12 months since
completion of the Study, finding that the average vacant land valuation per acre within the
City has increased from the $5.7 million per acre outlined in the Study to approximately $6.5
million per acre.
In cases where a city is fully built out and there are very few vacant parcels available,
alternative methodologies can be utilized to value the specific types of properties that might
be suitable for acquisition and conversion by a city into parkland. Examples of alternative
methods include an improved property on which structures could be demolished in the
future and replaced with other uses, or “teardown properties.”
On February 22, 2022, DTA was directed by the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommendation to evaluate the market value of teardown properties within the City. The City
provided DTA with a list of residential and commercial properties classified under this
designation; however, sales data for these properties was not available. After discussions with
City staff, it was decided that the assessed valuations of teardown properties were not
representative of the cost to the City of acquiring potential parkland. In lieu of data on
teardown properties, DTA analyzed sales data over the last five (5) years for “underutilized”
sites within the City that would be classified as parcels that:
▪ Are considered practically uncompetitive with respect to the needs of typical tenants;
▪ May require significant renovation; and/or
▪ Are possibly functionally obsolete.
An analysis of this data across three land uses – industrial, office, and retail – substantiated
an average sales price of approximately $17.6 million per acre had the City acquired these
properties with the purpose of converting them into parkland facilities. Utilizing data from
both vacant land and “underutilized” property sales, DTA determined the anticipated
increase in the Park Fees that would occur under the following two scenarios, which are
summarized in Tables 3 and 4:
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Table 3: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($6.5 Million /Acre Scenario)
Table 4: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($17.6 Million /Acre Scenario)
Land Use Type Current Park Fee
($5.7 M per Acre Valuation)
Proposed Park Fee
($17.6 M per Acre Valuation)
%
Increase
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $57,420 $138,742
141.62%
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $42,468 $102,613
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $16.837 $40.682
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $2.866 $6.925
While the land valuation of $17.6 million dollars may be based on a more realistic set of
residential and commercial teardown acquisition data, raising the current Park Impact Fee by
141.62% may have an impact of discouraging development. The proposed fees displayed reflect
the maximum possible fee, and the City could choose to set actual fees lower than those shown
above. The Finance Committee recommended updating the land valuation to $17.6 million per
acre but conducting an economic feasibility study to examine the feasibility of fees based on
this significantly higher land valuation. Should Council approve this change, the land valuation
will become part of the updated nexus study and will be used to calculate the maximum
possible park impact fee and the separate park land in lieu of dedication fee, which is similarly
based on the cost of acquiring land for parks. A core tenant from the Finance Committee
feedback was a desire to set the nexus study based on the best and most accurate data while
acknowledging the policy choice and need to study feasibility. This two-step process, as
recommended in this report, would likely result may be setting fees below the maximum
possible level.
Conduct Economic Feasibility Study to Evaluate Feasibility of Fee Levels
As discussed above, the City needs to prepare an economic feasibility study, which is not
included in the current DTA scope of services. The feasibility study would evaluate potential
Land Use Type
Current Park Fee
($5.7 M per Acre Valuation)
Proposed Park Fee
($6.5 M per Acre Valuation)
%
Increase
Single-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $57,420 $62,802
9.37%
Multi-Family Residential
(Per Unit) $42,468 $46,448
Commercial/Industrial
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $16.837 $18.415
Hotel/Motel
(Per Net New Sq. Ft.) $2.866 $3.135
City of Palo Alto Page 9
impacts that increased fees may have on all categories of development, including housing
production and especially multi-family housing. Staff anticipates working with a consultant to
conduct this analysis reviewing the impact on all segments. Staff would report back to the
Finance Committee and Council with its findings and any recommended changes to fees once
the study is completed.
Move to a Per-Square Foot Basis for Fees Imposed on Housing (Task E)
The City’s pre-2021 fee program separated residential land uses into four categories – single-
family units 3,000 square feet or less, single-family units greater than 3,000 square feet,
multi-family units 900 square feet or less, and multi-family units greater than 900 square
feet.
After discussions with City staff, DTA’s 2021 Study recommended a revision to this structure,
given that the distinction between these land uses no longer reflected the types of proposed
housing currently under construction in the City and was difficult to align with underlying
residential data and current development industry practices. As a result, residential land use
types were reduced from four to two categories, as reflected in the fees adopted as of August
23, 2021, and illustrated in Table 1. DTA and staff continues to recommend this simplification
of the fee structure.
AB 602, which was recently adopted by the State Legislature and came into effect in 2022, will
require that impact fee studies adopted by the City Council after July 1, 2022, designate all
impact fee amounts imposed on housing to be charged on a per-square-foot basis. For any
updates reflected in this Working Draft Supplement approved after July 1, the per-square-foot
fee structure will be required.
The Parks and Recreation Commission requested an alternative fee calculation data based on
residential square footage, which is displayed in Table 5 below using the average square
footage of recent residential single family (2,154 square feet) and multi-family unit sales (1,255
square feet).
Table 5: Land Valuation Impact on Park Fees ($17.6 Million /Acre Scenario)
Land Valuation
/ Acre
Est. Residential
Park Fee / sq. ft.
Sample Park Fee: SFR Unit
(2,154 sq. ft.)
Sample Park Fee: MFR Unit
(1,255 sq. ft.)
$5,700,000 $28.93 $62,323 $36,317
$6,489,851 $31.64 $68,164 $39,721
$17,634,659 $69.91 $150,588 $87,752
Note: Figures are estimates and subject to change.
The Finance Committee recommended the City convert residential fees to reflect a per-square-
foot amount, rather than a single amount per dwelling regardless of size. To implement this
change, the Working Draft Supplement to the nexus study will be updated and the fee
recalculated.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
If Council would like the park, community center, and library fees imposed on housing to
remain on a per-unit basis (instead of a square-foot basis), staff recommend that Council pull
this item from consent and adopt a Final Supplement to the nexus study prior to July 1.
Otherwise, the City will be required under AB 602 to move to a square-footage basis if it makes
any changes to the nexus study after July 1, 2022.
No Changes Proposed to Current Fee Exemptions for Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Units (Task F)
In April 2021, the City Council voiced concerns about fee updates disincentivizing multi-family
residential development, and therefore negatively impacting the City’s goal of increasing the
supply of affordable housing. DTA evaluated a potential reduction or credit in park impact fees
for new multi-family housing projects in which the number of BMR units exceeds the City’s
requirements for that development. Currently, as outlined in PAMC 16.58.030, any BMR units
that exceed the minimum number required by the City’s BMR Housing Program are exempt
from park, community center, and library impact fees, so this incentive appears to already be in
place.
Municipalities take many different approaches to providing fee credits for BMR units, including:
• Reducing development impact fee obligations within the Development Agreement
between the city/county and the developer, which is a commonly utilized approach but
would be burdensome for staff to implement;
• Implementing an across-the-board fee discount for BMR units, such as giving a 50%
reduction of the fee applicable to all BMR units (whether or not they exceed the
required number); or
• Implementing an across-the-board fee exemption for BMR units (whether or not they
exceed the required number).
The Finance Committee did not recommend any changes to the existing exemption for BMR
units at this time.
Timeline
Based on Council recommendation and approval, an economic feasibility study would be
completed in FY 2023, and the results of this study would be brought forward for Finance
Committee and Council review in FY 2023. Changes to fees would be adopted via an impact fee
ordinance that would require City Council approval and formal public notice and would not
become effective until 60 days after adoption on a second reading. As the potential changes
discussed in this staff report are not anticipated to be adopted with the FY 2023 budget cycle,
the existing fee structure will remain for the time being, subject to an inflation adjustment
pursuant to PAMC 16.58.090 and Council approval.
Resource Impact
The City needs to prepare an economic feasibility study, which is not included in the current
DTA scope of services. The feasibility study would evaluate potential impacts that increased
City of Palo Alto Page 11
fees may have on all categories of development impacted by the fees, including housing. Staff
anticipates that the cost of the economic feasibility study would be in the range of $50,000 to
$75,000 and staff would request these funds during the FY2023 midyear budget process.
Development Impact Fees provide funding for capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of
new development on public services. The revenues received each year vary based on the
amount of development occurring in Palo Alto during that timeframe and impacts are subject
to the fee levels approved by the City Council. CSD will monitor revenues from the Parks,
Community Center and Library Development Impact fees and revenue adjustments will be
brought forward in the future budget processes as appropriate to recognize the projected
impacts of any fee updated and adopted by the City Council.
According to the FY 2020-21 Annual Status Report on the Development Impact Fees Schedule
(CMR #13798, January 24, 2022), a total of approximately $318,561 was collected in Park,
Community Center, and Library fees. Note that these fees were collected before the increase in
fees that went into effect on August 23, 2021.
DTA projects that the total fee revenues will increase significantly should the fee levels be
associated with the increased land valuation of $17.6 million per acre be approved and adopted
as new fees. Please see Table 6 below for more detail on projected fees. However, these are
the maximum projected revenues under the assumption that the level of development activity
is the same as FY 2020-21 and the fees based on a $17.6 million per acre land valuation are
adopted. An economic feasibility study would evaluate potential impacts increased fees may
have on development, which may result in setting the fees at a lower rate than the potential
maximums, changing the revenue projections.
Table 6: FY2020-21 and Projected Revenues1
Fee Category Total Revenues
Collected FY 2020-20212
Maximum Projected Annual Revenues
based on a $17.6 M/ Acre Valuation3
Park $219,423 $1,316,538
Community Center $70,000 $210,000
Library $29,138 $87,414
Total $318,561 $1,613,952
Notes:
1. Projected revenues are an approximation and subject to change
2. Total revenues collected reflect last available report as of period ending June 30, 2021.
3. Projected revenues do not take into consideration whether an increase in fees will
generate additional revenue or discourage new development and result in a reduction
of total fees collected.
Parkland Dedication in Lieu Fee
In some projects, a parkland dedication in lieu fee applies instead of a park impact fee. This
occurs for residential projects that require a subdivision or parcel map, and developers can
City of Palo Alto Page 12
choose to dedicate land for parks or pay an in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee is required for
subdivisions resulting in more than 50 parcels. (See PAMC Ch. 21.50). The fee is based on the
cost to acquire land for new parks because of housing development. Should the City change
the land valuation for the park impact fee, it should similarly update the parkland in lieu fee.
The Finance Committee recommended including the parkland dedication fee in the economic
feasibility analysis.
Stakeholder Engagement
The Community Services department presented the Working Draft Supplement to the Parks
and Recreation Commission (PRC) on February 22, 2022, for review and to the Finance
Committee on May 3, 2022.
Policy Implications
City Council has the authority to charge new development for its relative share of the cost of
specific public facilities, as calculated based on a nexus study and pursuant to state law
requirements. Council also has the authority, for policy reasons, to restructure fees based on
articulated City policies within legal limits and economic feasibility. The information provided in
this report allows Council to take the next step towards reevaluating and adjusting the City’s
Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries.
Environmental Review
The recommended actions are not considered a Project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA regulation 15061(b)(3). The projects in the 2021
nexus study associated with these fees have been fully analyzed as part of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and its EIR, as well as the City’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration and no further CEQA analysis is necessary.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Consultant Report: Update on Park, Library, and Community Center
Impact Fees by DTA
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF)18,772 23,323 0.80 0.29 6,839
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF)1,946 2,418 0.80 0.29 709
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $6,489,851 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $210,213,753 $44,548.00
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $64,899 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $66,058,156 $13,998.89
Total $276,271,909 $58,546.88
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,334 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312) ($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,723 $4,255.03
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $62,801.92
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES ONLY TASK A)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Park FacilitiesFacility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF) 18,772 23,323 0.80 0.29 6,839
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Commercial/Industrial (per 1,000 SF) 1,946 2,418 0.80 0.29 709
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 0.05 0.65
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $17,634,659 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $501,204,061 $106,213.97
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $176,347 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $133,415,475 $28,273.09
Total $634,619,536 $134,487.06
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,334 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312) ($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,723 $4,255.03
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $138,742.09
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES ONLY TASK A)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 0.05 0.65Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $6,489,851 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $210,213,759 $44,548.00
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $64,899 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $66,058,157 $13,998.89
Total $276,271,917 $58,546.88
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,335 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312)($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,724 $4,255.04
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $62,801.92
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS A, B, AND C)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
City Parks Acres 174.10
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00
Integrated Facilities 1.00
II. Existing Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
City Parks Acres 174.10 2.02
Natural Open Space Acres 4,030.00 46.66
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.) Integrated Facilities 154.00 1.78
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza) Acres 4.33 0.05
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.01
IV. Future Recreation and Park Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
City Parks Acres 2.02 26.11
Natural Open Space Acres 46.66 604.38
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 1.78 23.10
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 0.05 0.65Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 0.01 0.15
VI. Park and Open Space Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by
Future Development Land Acquisition per Acre Acres Being Developed
Park Development
per Acre [6]
Planning and Design
per Acre [7]Administration (5%) [8]
Total Facility Cost
for New Development Cost per EDU
City Parks Acres 26.11 $17,634,659 26.11 $1,406,530 $84,392 $70,327 $501,204,075 $106,213.97
Natural Open Space Acres 604.38 $176,347 604.38 $40,000 $2,400 $2,000 $133,415,479 $28,273.09
Total $634,619,554 $134,487.06
VII. Parks & Recreation Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Recreation Facilities (Courts, Play Areas, Ball Fields, etc.)Integrated Facilities 154 23.10 99,326 1.78 23.10 $663,173 $15,316,335 $3,245.80
Special Recreation Facilities (Winter Lodge, Gamble Garden, King Plaza)Acres 4.33 0.65 99,326 0.05 0.65 $6,693,925 $4,346,862 $921.18
Bayland Preserve Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $25,000,000 $3,749,274 $794.54
Foothills Park Capital Improvements Integrated Facilities 1.00 0.15 99,326 0.01 0.15 $15,000,000 $2,249,564 $476.72
Offsetting Revenues ($5,583,312)($1,183.20)
Total $47,357,098 $20,078,724 $4,255.04
Parks LOS Facilities Fee Total $138,742.10
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Park inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Park improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
[6]Park development costs have been escalated to Fiscal Year 2019 according to the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
[7]Planning and Design Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities.
[8]Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City staff's time.
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS A, B, AND C)
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
Foothills Park Capital Improvements
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Community Center Facilities
Facility Facility Units Quantity
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5
II. Existing Community Center Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046 753.09
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203 141.28
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000 173.67
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000 266.29
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071 521.82
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5 0.06
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5 0.06
IV. Future Community Center Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 753.09 9,755.01 Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 141.28 1,830.10
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 173.67 2,249.56
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 266.29 3,449.33
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 521.82 6,759.34
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
VI. Community Center Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development Cost Per Unit
Total Facility Cost
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 9,755.01 $629 $6,135,363 $1,300.19
Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 1,830.10 $629 $1,151,029 $243.92
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 2,249.56 $629 $1,414,852 $299.83Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 3,449.33 $629 $2,169,439 $459.74
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 6,759.34 $718 $4,856,117 $1,029.10
Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 0.75 $12,469,894 $9,350,610 $1,981.56
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 0.75 $171,692 $128,744 $27.28
Total $25,206,155 $5,341.63
VII. Community Center Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Cubberley Community Center Square Feet 65,046 9,755.01 99,326 753.09 9,755.01 $629 $6,135,363 $1,300.19Lucie Stern Community Center Square Feet 12,203 1,830.10 99,326 141.28 1,830.10 $629 $1,151,029 $243.92
Mitchell Park Community Center Square Feet 15,000 2,249.56 99,326 173.67 2,249.56 $629 $1,414,852 $299.83
Palo Alto Art Center Square Feet 23,000 3,449.33 99,326 266.29 3,449.33 $629 $2,169,439 $459.74
Junior Museum and Zoo Square Feet 45,071 6,759.34 99,326 521.82 6,759.34 $718 $4,856,117 $1,029.10Improvements, Upgrades, and Renovations Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $12,469,894 $9,350,610 $1,981.56
Building Master Plans Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $171,692 $128,744 $27.28
Offsetting Revenues ($4,261,898)($903.17)Total $12,644,820 $20,944,257 $4,438.46
Community Center LOS Facilities Fee Total $4,438.46
Notes:
[1]Employee Adjustment Factor of 19.64% has been applied to capture the reduced hours of facilities usage for an employee compared to a resident.
[2]Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 January 1, 2020.
[3]Persons Served per Unit based on U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 2018.
[4]Estimates based on current Community Center inventory as identified within the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan.
[5]Estimates based on cost assumptions for Community Center improvement costs provided by City of Palo Alto.
APPENDIX A-5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
I. Inventory of Existing Library FacilitiesFacility Facility Units Quantity
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5
Volumes Volumes 485,157
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5
II. Existing Library Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 42,392 15,443 2.75 1.00 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 12,310 2.03 0.74 9,104Retail (per 1,000 SF)1,849 4,200 0.44 0.16 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)13,778 14,300 0.96 0.35 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)3,145 4,823 0.65 0.24 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)216 1,577 0.14 0.05 79
Total 86,372 52,653 NA NA 31,465
III. Existing Facility Standard
Facility Type Facility Units Quantity
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043 69.96
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392 27.69
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046 104.73
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000 474.69
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608 342.80
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5 0.06
Volumes Volumes 485,157 5,617.05
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5 0.06
IV. Future Library Facilities EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Number of
Persons Served [1]
Number of Units/
Non-Res 1,000 SF [2]
Residents per Unit/
Persons Served per
1,000 Non-Res. SF [3]
EDUs per Unit/
per 1,000 Non-Res SF
Total
Number of EDUs
Single Family 6,911 2,517 2.75 1.00 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 2,007 2.03 0.74 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)192 435 0.44 0.16 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)1,428 1,482 0.96 0.35 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)326 500 0.65 0.24 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)22 164 0.14 0.05 8
Total 12,953 7,106 NA NA 4,719
V. Future Facility Standard
Facility Type [4] Facility Units
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facility Units Funded
by Future Development
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 69.96 906.27
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 27.69 358.73
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 104.73 1,356.64
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 474.69 6,148.81
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 342.80 4,440.34
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
Volumes Volumes 5,617.05 72,759.46
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 0.06 0.75
VI. Library Summary Cost Data
Facility Type [5]Facility Units
Facility Units Funded by Future Development Cost Per Unit
Total Facility Cost for New Development Cost per EDU
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 906.27 628.94$ $569,997 $120.79
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 358.73 628.94$ $225,622 $47.81
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 1,356.64 628.94$ $853,250 $180.82
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 6,148.81 628.94$ $3,867,262 $819.54
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 4,440.34 628.94$ $2,792,729 $591.83
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45VolumesVolumes 72,759.46 $50 $3,637,973 $770.95
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Total $12,696,687 $2,690.65
VII. Library Facility Cost Summary
Facility Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development
Buildout Persons Served
Population
Facility Units
per 1,000 Persons Served
Facilities Funded
by Future Development Facility Cost
Total Facilities
for Future Development Cost per EDU
Children's Library (1276 Harriet) Square Feet 6,043 906.27 99,326 69.96 906.27 $629 $569,997 $120.79
College Terrace Library (2300 Wellesley) Square Feet 2,392 358.73 99,326 27.69 358.73 $629 $225,622 $47.81
Downtown Library (270 Forest Ave.) Square Feet 9,046 1,356.64 99,326 104.73 1,356.64 $629 $853,250 $180.82
Mitchell Library (3700 Middlefield) Square Feet 41,000 6,148.81 99,326 474.69 6,148.81 $629 $3,867,262 $819.54
Rinconada Library (1213 Newell) Square Feet 29,608 4,440.34 99,326 342.80 4,440.34 $629 $2,792,729 $591.83
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Volumes Volumes 485,157 72,759.46 99,326 5617.05 72,759.46 $50 $3,637,973 $770.95
Technology Upgrades Integrated Unit 5 0.75 99,326 0.06 0.75 $500,000 $374,927 $79.45
Offsetting Revenues ($214,779) ($45.52)
Total $1,003,195 $12,481,908 $2,645.14
Library Facilities Fee Total $2,645.14
APPENDIX A-6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
DRAFT
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/**
Number of Adjusted Adjusted Persons Served EDUs per Unit/Estimated Number of
Land Use Type Persons Served*Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Units/Non-Res. SF Total EDUs
Single Family 42,392 100%42,392 2.75 1.00 15,443 15,443
Multi-Family 24,992 100%24,992 2.03 0.74 12,310 9,104
Retail (per 1,000 SF)9,420 19.63%1,849 0.44 0.16 4,200,000 673
Office (per 1,000 SF)70,206 19.63%13,778 0.96 0.35 14,300,000 5,019
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)16,027 19.63%3,145 0.65 0.24 4,822,578 1,146
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)1,101 19.63%216 0.14 0.05 1,577,422 79
Total 164,138 86,372 31,465
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; U.S. Census Bureau (ACS); City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 20% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change.
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/**
Number of Adjusted Adjusted Persons Served EDUs per Unit/Estimated Number of
Single Family 6,911 100% 6,911 2.75 1.00 2,517 2,517
Multi-Family 4,074 100% 4,074 2.03 0.74 2,007 1,484
Retail (per 1,000 SF)977 19.63% 192 0.44 0.16 435,418 70
Office (per 1,000 SF)7,278 19.63% 1,428 0.96 0.35 1,482,496 520
Industrial (per 1,000 SF)1,662 19.63% 326 0.65 0.24 499,962 119
Hotel/Motel (per 1,000 SF)114 19.63%22 0.14 0.05 163,533 8
Total 21,015 12,953 4,719
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; California Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit - Report E-5 May 1, 2020.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 20% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. Subject to change.
Number of
Potential Recreation Number of Work Hours Per Weekend Days Potential Recreation Hours Percentage of
User of Facilities Hours per Work Day Days per Week Weekend Day Per Week Per Week Per Person Household Population Person Hours Employee User Percentage
Resident, non-working 10 5 10 2 70 52.38%37 NA
Resident, working 2 5 10 2 30 47.62%14 NA
Employee 2 5 0 0 10 NA 10 19.63%
City of Palo Alto Household Population 67,384
City of Palo Alto Labor Force 32,085
Employee Percentage of Household Population 47.62%
APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO
EDU & EBU CALCULATION YEAR TO BUILD-OUT (2040) (INCLUDES TASKS B AND C)
Existing EDU Calculation (FY 2020)
Employment Adjustment
Factor
Future EDU Calculation (FY 2040)
Employment Adjustment
Total Hours of Potential Park, Community Center, and Library Usage per Week
DRAFT