HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2410-3732CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, November 18, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
9.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to
Modify the Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact Fees
From a per Unit to per Square Feet Basis for Residential Development. CEQA Status:
Exempt Pursuant to 15061(b)(3). Public Comment, Staff Presentation
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: November 18, 2024
Report #:2410-3732
TITLE
FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Modify the
Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact Fees From a per Unit
to per Square Feet Basis for Residential Development. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to
15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Review the attached Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study
(Attachment A); and
2. Adopt an ordinance amending the City’s FY2025 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule to
update the Parks, Community Center, and Library impact fees from a per unit to per
square feet basis for residential development (Attachment B).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on prior Council direction, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance
amending the FY2025 Municipal Fee Schedule to modify the calculation of Park, Community
Center, and Library Development Impact Fees for residential development from a per dwelling
unit basis to a per square foot basis. This change is in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which
mandates that impact fees be charged on a square footage basis, unless the City makes
specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric. This amendment
aligns with the City’s newly certified Housing Element and addresses Program 3.1: Fee Waivers
and Adjustments, aimed at balancing the need for public facility funding with the promotion of
housing affordability. The new fee structure, if adopted, would take effect in early 2025.
On September 23, 2024, this report was pulled from the City Council consent calendar by
Councilmembers Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Mayor Stone based in part on public written
comments received prior to the meeting (Attachment C). The report has been updated to
provide additional context and a modified staff recommendation.
BACKGROUND
Under the Mitigation Fee Act (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. These
fees are established based on the nexus between impacts caused by new development and the
improvements needed to mitigate those impacts that would be funded by the established fee.
In 2020, the Community Services Department retained DTA, formerly David Taussig &
Associates, to prepare a nexus study to update the Parks, Community Center, and Library
Impact Fees. The initial study1 was implemented in August 2021, and in May 2022, DTA
prepared and presented a supplemental analysis2 to address several policy items based on
Finance Committee’s request. This included direction to update the fees from the initial analysis
to address new legislation, AB 602, which came into effect in January 2022. AB 602 was
designed to provide new statewide requirements for local jurisdictions seeking to impose
development impact fees and articulated additional guidance on how local agencies comply
with their impact fee obligations.
In June 20223, Council directed staff to convert residential Parks, Community Center, and
Library Impact Fees from the existing per unit basis, to a per square foot basis. The current
report and staff recommendations respond to the specific, discrete direction provided by
Council on that date.
In February 2024, the Planning and Development Services Department engaged DTA to prepare
the conversion analysis.
In April 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Sheetz v. County of El
Dorado, California, applying the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine“ to development impact
fees, creating some uncertainty over the level of scrutiny courts will apply to such fees going
forward.
ANALYSIS
Prior to the initial nexus study that was implemented in August 2021, the City’s Park,
Community Center, and Library Development Impact fees had not been updated since their
inception in 2001. As a result of the updated nexus study and Council adopted fee levels,
beginning FY2022, Palo Alto developments were subject to a substantial increase in the Parks
Impact Fee driven by the current fair market value of land as well as comparatively modest
increases to the Community Center and Library Impact Fees (Table 1).
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-
cmrs/year-archive/2021/id-12163.pdf
2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/finance-
committee/2022/20220503/20220503pfcslinked.pdf
3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/6/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-
agendas-minutes/2022/20220613/20220613pccsm-final-amended-linked.pdf#page=53
Table 1: Impact of Initial Nexus Study on Development Impact Fees - FY2021 vs FY2022
Year Residential Land Use
Type
Parks
(Per Unit)
Community
Center (Per Unit)
Library
(Per Unit)Total
Single-Family $ 13,103 $ 3,499 $ 1,187 $ 17,789
Single-Family > 3,000 SF $ 19,565 $ 5,086 $ 1,766 $ 26,417
Multi-Family ≤ 900 SF $ 4,337 $ 1,128 $ 390 $ 5,855
FY2020 -
2021
Multi-Family > 900 SF $ 8,577 $ 2,235 $ 710 $ 11,522
Single-Family per unit $ 57,420 $ 4,438 $ 2,645 $ 64,503 FY2021 -
2022 Multi-Family per unit $ 42,468 $ 3,283 $ 1,956 $ 47,707
Source: City of Palo Alto, FY2021 and FY2022 Municipal Fee Schedule
Conversion of residential impact fees aligns with AB 602 and the relative impacts of new
residential development more proportionately based on development size rather than a single
amount per dwelling unit, regardless of size. For further details on the nexus study
methodology and guidance on AB 602, refer to Attachment A: Second Supplement to the
Development Impact Fee Justification – Assembly Bill (“AB”) 602 Compliance.
Using Palo Alto’s building permit data from 2013 to 2024, DTA calculated the average
residential square footage for single-family and multi-family residential units constructed in the
Palo Alto within the last 11 years. The average square footage per single-family and multi-family
unit was determined to be 3,602 and 1,124 square feet, respectively. Based on these average
unit sizes, DTA converted the existing Park, Community Center, and Library Impact Fee from a
per unit to per residential square foot fee.
Table 2: FY2025 Council-Approved Development Impact Fees – Current Fees
Current Fees Parks Community
Center Library Total
Single-Family (Per Unit) $ 67,650 $ 5,229 $ 3,116 $ 75,995
Multi-Family (Per Unit) $ 50,034 $ 3,868 $ 2,304 $ 56,206
DTA’s analysis resulted in two frameworks for implementation – distinct rates and a
consolidated rate. Staff recommend the distinct rates, however, as a more accurate and
equitable reflection of impacts caused by new development.
A distinct residential fee structure for single-family and multi-family fees is generally used when
(1) there is sufficient building permit data available and (2) a jurisdiction can anticipate the
number of projected units per residential land use type. When a jurisdiction has sufficient data
available, the distinct fee structure is preferred because it more proportionately reflects the
size and impact of the residential units. Table 3 provides the recommended fees in this
framework as well as sample impact fees based on residential land use type and square
footage.
Table 3: Framework 1 – Distinct Rates and Sample Impact Fees
Distinct Fees Parks Community
Center Library Total
Single Family (Per SF) $ 18.78 $ 1.45 $ 0.87 $ 21.10
3000 $ 56,340.00 $ 4,350.00 $ 2,610.00 $ 63,300.00
3602 $ 67,645.56 $ 5,222.90 $ 3,133.74 $ 76,002.20
4000 $ 75,120.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 3,480.00 $ 84,400.00
Multi-Family (Per SF) $ 44.50 $ 3.44 $ 2.05 $ 49.99
850 $ 37,825.00 $ 2,924.00 $ 1,742.50 $ 42,491.50
1124 $ 50,018.00 $ 3,866.56 $ 2,304.20 $ 56,188.76
1400 $ 62,300.00 $ 4,816.00 $ 2,870.00 $ 69,986.00
A single consolidated residential fee structure is generally used when (1) a jurisdiction may not
have sufficient building permit data or (2) may not be able to project the type of future
development. Table 4 illustrates what a fee could be in this framework as well as sample impact
fees based on residential square footage. This structure decreases the fee paid by the typical
multi-family unit and increases the fee paid by the typical single-family unit.
Table 4: Framework 2 – Consolidated Rate and Sample Impact Fees
Consolidated Fees Parks Community
Center Library Total
Residential (Per SF) $ 22.68 $ 1.75 $ 1.04 $ 25.47
850 $ 19,278.00 $ 1,487.50 $ 884.00 $ 21,649.50
1124 $ 25,492.32 $ 1,967.00 $ 1,168.96 $ 28,628.28
2000 $ 45,360.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,080.00 $ 50,940.00
3602 $ 81,693.36 $ 6,303.50 $ 3,746.08 $ 91,742.94
4000 $ 90,720.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 4,160.00 $ 101,880.00
Staff recommends implementation of the Parks, Community Center, and Library Impact Fees
using the distinct rate fee structure because this framework more proportionately reflects the
size and impact of the land use type and is in further compliance with AB 602. The intent of AB
602 is to ensure that impact fees are more proportional to the size of new development and
distinguishing the rates by land use type allows for a more precise assessment of impact fees.
Notably, both frameworks will lower the fees for smaller developments regardless of land use
type.
As noted in the City’s newly certified Housing Element4, high fees can impede housing
production by increasing the per unit cost of development, impacting projected returns and
4 https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-6.pdf
potentially discouraging new home building. Conversion of this fee will complete one of the
objectives under Program 3.1: Fee Waivers and Adjustments in the Housing Element.
Subsequently, as part of the Housing Element program implementation, the City will be
preparing an economic feasibility study to analyze implications that all development impact
fees may have on housing production. These fees will be included in the assessment, and based
on the study, Council may adjust fees and/or development standards to enable a reasonable
return on investment and ensure sufficient fee collection to support City services.
Response to Public Comments
Since the initial publication of this report in September, the City Council received
correspondence expressing concern about the recommended fee schedule and ordinance
(Attachment C). In summary, the letters assert:
•The recommended action is a positive step in the right direction but the proposed fee
structure disproportionately affects smaller housing units such as apartments and ADUs
compared to larger single-family homes.
•High impact fees could deter the production of housing, particularly multi-family units,
which are already disadvantaged under the current and proposed systems.
•The staff report is unclear about the treatment of ADUs, home additions, demolitions,
and basements under the revised fee structure.
•The report fails to include adequate data to assess policy impacts and lacks detailed
information on past and future allocation of impact fee revenues.
•The Council should consider excluding the first 750 square feet of all housing types from
fee calculations, enhancing transparency regarding the use of impact fees, and offering
refunds for fees previously assessed.
•The attached letter from Grubb Properties further illustrates that an 850-square-foot
rental unit would pay the same fee as a much larger 2,014-square-foot single-family
home and asserts this disparity inequitable and counter to the goals of AB 602, which
aims to make impact fees fair and proportional.
Staff disagrees that the proposed fee structure (with distinct fees) disproportionately and
inequitably affects smaller housing units such as apartments. Development impact fees are
charged to offset the impacts created by new residents on City resources. The combined fee
structure assumes that all types of housing have the same population density per square foot.
In other words, it assumes that a 1,500 square foot single-family home and a 1,500 square foot
apartment will house the same number of residents. Alternatively, it assumes that a 4,500
square foot single-family home will house three times the number of residents as a 1,500
square foot apartment. Because, in fact, apartments will typically house more residents in the
same square footage, it is more equitable to charge distinct fees to multi-family and single-
family development. The distinct fees recommended by staff are based on the consultant’s
analysis of average unit and household sizes.
Similarly, because development impact fees are charged to offset the impacts of new residents,
they are not charged to renovations or replacement of existing units. While there may be cases
where a renovation or replacement does result in new residents, the current nexus study does
not support application of impact fees to these situations. Should the Council desire to explore
application of impact fees to renovations and replacements, it could direct staff to initiate a
new nexus study that calculates fees on a per-bedroom basis. While this would be a departure
from the per-square foot scheme set forth in AB 602, staff believe the Council could make the
required findings to adopt this alternative measure of impact.
Development impact fees are not collected for ADUs containing 750 square feet or less. For
larger ADUs, the recommendation in this report applies the per square foot feet fee, which is
preferrable to the current approach which applies a fee based on the size of the ADU compared
to the primary residence. The average size of permitted ADUs in Palo Alto for 2024 is
approximately 565 square feet.
With respect to other suggestions in the public comment, such as fee refunds and charging fees
below the level authorized in the nexus study, staff would defer to Council for guidance. Staff
acknowledges more work, analysis, and policy recommendations are needed to assess the
development impact fee structure for residential development.
In fact, this work is scheduled to begin next calendar year. Consistent with the City’s certified
Housing Element Program 3.1B the City will prepare an economic feasibility study to analyze
implications that development impact fees, may have on housing production and adjust fees or
development standards as appropriate to enable a reasonable return on investment and ensure
sufficient fee collection to support City services.
Finally, the City Council does have the option of imposing a lower fee for multi-family housing
development in this action while staff initiates a more comprehensive analysis as described
above. The concern, however, about lowering the fee is that the City does not collect sufficient
revenue to support further park, community center, and library services needs for an increasing
population. This concern may be somewhat mitigated depending on how many permits for new
home construction are permitted over the intervening period and how timely the updated fee
study can be completed.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Development impact fees provide funding for capital improvements in parks, community
facilities, and libraries to mitigate the impacts of new development in the community.
Revenues fluctuate each year based on the amount of residential and non-residential
development occurring in Palo Alto. Currently, staff and DTA are not able to forecast revenue
impacts due to the variability of development and changing economic conditions. DTA has
provided an illustrative example using last fiscal year’s permitting data to demonstrate the
financial impact of the fee conversion. The transition to the recommended fee structure may
result in decreased revenue for the parks, community facilities, and library impact fees as
smaller multi-family units are built but this too could be offset in part with greater housing
density in multi-family projects.
Table 5: Estimated Revenue Calculation – Current Fee Schedule
Table 6: Estimated Revenue Calculation – AB 602 Compliant Fee
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 to restructure fees based on articulated City
policies within legal limits and economic feasibility. The information provided in this report
Fee Category Land Use Type Proposed Fee per Unit Total Est. Revenues1
Park SFD $67,650.00 $1,353,000.00
Community Center SFD $5,229.00 $104,580.00
Library SFD $3,116.00 $62,320.00
Total SFR2 $1,519,900.00
Park MFD $50,034.00 $0.00
Community Center MFD $3,868.00 $0.00
Library MFD $2,304.00 $0.00
Total MFR3 $0.00
$1,519,900.00
Notes:
1. Estimate, subject to change based on actual new development that occurs in FY 2024-25.
2. Assumes approximately 20 new single-family residential units in FY 2023-24.
3. Based on actual number of new multi-family units in FY 2023-24; however, these figures are for illustrative
purposes only, as the City anticipates that MFD will increase in future fiscal years and subsequently, the revenues
for multi-family development.
Total Estimated Residential Revenues
Fee Category Land Use Type Proposed Fee per Sq. Ft.Total Est. Revenues1
Park SFD $18.78 $699,273.30
Community Center SFD $1.45 $53,990.75
Library SFD $0.87 $32,394.45
Total SFR2 $785,658.50
Park MFD $44.50 $0.00
Community Center MFD $3.44 $0.00
Library MFD $2.05 $0.00
Total MFR3 $0.00
$785,658.50
Notes:
1. Estimate, subject to change based on actual new development that occurs in FY 2024-25.
2. Assumes approximately 37,235 square feet of new single-family residential development occurred in FY 2023-24.
Total Estimated Residential Revenues
3. Based on actual number of new multi-family square footage in FY 2023-24; however, these figures are for
illustrative purposes only, as the City anticipates that MFD will increase in future fiscal years and subsequently, the
revenues for multi-family development.
allows Council to evaluate and adjust the City’s Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community
Centers, and Libraries.
Based on Government Code §66017, new or increased development impact fees go into effect
no sooner than 60 days after adoption. Should Council adopt the recommended fee conversion,
these fees are expected to be effective on January 18, 2025.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Community Services Department presented the initial nexus study and supplemental
report for review to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Finance Committee between
December 2020 and May 2022. On June 13, 2022, Council directed supplemental work related
to the conversion of fees outlined in this report.
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 original
2021 nexus study associated with these fees have been fully analyzed as part of City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and its Environmental Impact Report as well as the City’s Parks and Open
Space Master Plan and its Mitigated Negative Declaration; no further CEQA analysis is
necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Second Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification – Assembly Bill
(“AB”) 602 Compliance
Attachment B: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2025
Municipal Fee Schedule to Transition Certain Development Impact Fees from Per-Unit to Per-
Square Foot Fees
Attachment C: Correspondence
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
www.FinanceDTA.com
Irvine | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside | Dallas | Houston | Raleigh | Tampa
MEMORANDUM
August 20, 2024
To: City of Palo Alto
From: DTA
Subject: Second Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study –
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 602 Compliance
A Background
DTA, formerly David Taussig & Associates, was retained by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”)
to prepare a Development Impact Fee (“DIF” or “Fee”) Justification Study (the “Study”) in
2020. This Study was adopted by the City Council and the proposed fee schedule was
implemented in August 2021. In January 2022, DTA prepared a follow-up analysis in the
form of a Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Supplement”)
that addressed a number of items requested by City Council. Additional detail related to
these tasks can be found in Attachment 2.
B Second Supplement to DIF Study
In September 2023, the City requested that DTA prepare and issue this Second Supplement
to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Second Supplement”) to address
the requirements of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 602, which was approved by the California State
Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2021 and provides new statewide requirements
for local jurisdictions seeking to impose development impact fees on development projects.
The Mitigation Fee Act, AB 1600, establishes specific requirements that local officials must
follow in establishing, increasing, or imposing development fees. Specifically, local officials
must conduct a “nexus study” to demonstrate a “reasonable relationship” between the fees
and public facilities funded by the fees, and the development project on which the fees are
assessed. AB 602 is designed to provide additional guidance on how local agencies comply
with their impact fee obligations, which affects the methodology used to calculate DIFs. Key
portions of the bill affecting future DIF calculations are summarized below:
On or after January 1, 2022, fee justification studies must identify the existing level
of service (“LOS”) for each public facility, identify the proposed new LOS, and (if
proposed new LOS is greater than existing LOS) include an explanation of why the
new LOS is necessary.
For housing development projects, nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must
calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the
development, unless the local agency demonstrates that another metric is more
appropriate. The bill would require that a “local agency that calculated fees
proportionally to the square footage of the proposed units be deemed to have used
a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and
the burden posed by development.” This would also apply to multi-family
residences.
2
City of Palo Alto August 20, 2024
Second Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study
The bill also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development
(“HCD”), on or before January 1, 2024, to create an impact fee nexus study template
that may be used by local jurisdictions to calculate their fees. The bill requires that
the template include a method of calculating the feasibility of housing being built
with a given fee level. The template must be completed by 2024, and local
jurisdictions will have the option (it will not be required) to use the HCD template.
The bill authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a
development project, to submit evidence that the city, county, or other local agency
had failed to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. The bill requires the legislative
body of the city, county, or other local agency to consider any timely submitted
evidence and authorize the legislative body to change or adjust the proposed fee or
fee increase, as specified.
If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review
the assumption of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the
amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
Large jurisdictions (county population greater than 250,000) and cities within those
counties must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
Nexus studies shall be updated at least every 8 years from the period beginning
January 1, 2023.
Importantly, AB 602 does not apply to (i) water and sewer connection and capacity charges,
(ii) school fees, (iii) Quimby fees for parks, and (iv) Mello-Roos or other taxes. These other
fees, taxes, and charges are subject to their own statutory accountability measures.
B.1 Standards-Based Fee Methodology
The methodology used to establish the Park, Community Center, and Library Fees
outlined in the Study adopted in 2021 was based on “standards,” where costs are
based on existing LOS. This Standards-Based Methodology establishes a generic unit
cost for capacity which is then applied to each land use per the existing LOS. The
LOS is based on the existing number of applicable units, such as square feet of
building space or acres of land or per resident for each facility. This standard is not
based on cost but rather on a standard of service. The Standards-Based
Methodology ensures that City facilities are appropriately developed and sized so
that future residents and employees do not cause a reduced LOS by unduly
burdening the infrastructure system, thus leading to decay and deterioration. This
methodology provides several advantages, including not needing to know the cost
of a specific facility, how much capacity or service is provided by the current system,
or having to commit to a specific size of the facility. Another advantage of this
methodology is that it does not involve the planning of any future facilities. This
methodology assigns 100% of the fees to new development and allows the City to
apply the fee revenue to any project. Additionally, this methodology complies with
the requirements of AB 602.
17000-02975 1/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 3 575 MAYBELL: PLAN 1, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2275 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1670 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (216 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES (495
SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER. ***Plan check
done under 17000-02973***
4,161
17000-02976 1/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 4 587 MAYBELL: PLAN 4, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2296 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1978 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (218 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES.
SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER. ***Plan check done
under 17000-02974***
4,492
17000-02983 11/8/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 10, 4135 ORCHARD: PLAN 3, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2304 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1773 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (667 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
***Plan review done under 17000-02980***
4,291
17000-02984 6/27/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 11, 4139 ORCHARD: PLAN 3, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2304 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1773 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (584 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
***Plan review done under 17000-02980***
4,291
17000-02985 7/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 12, 4150 ORCHARD: PLAN 3, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2304 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1773 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (650 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
***Plan review done under 17000-02980***
4,291
17000-02986 7/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 13, 4158 ORCHARD: PLAN 3, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2304 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1773 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (624 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
***Plan review done under 17000-02980***
4,291
17000-02990 8/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 16, 4188 ORCHARD: PLAN 8, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2308 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1533 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (217 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
***Review done under 17000-02979***
4,295
16000-02610 9/30/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued NEW 2 STORY SFR 5169 SF W/ BASEMENT 3008 SF AND ATTACHED GARAGE 571
SF 8,748
16000-03225 6/16/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (4,045 SF), FULL BASEMENT (3060 SF), WITH ATTACHED TWO
CAR GARAGE (447 SF)7,552
17000-01002 6/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY HOUSE (2213 SF) (WITH 17000-01211 DETACHED GARAGE (223 SF)) 2,213
17000-02833 9/17/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME (2431 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1184 SF) ADD (N) BOILER
WATER HEATING SYSTEM 3,615
17000-02981 5/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 9, 4131 ORCHARD: PLAN 7, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2290 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1476 SF), AND COVERED PORCHES (188 SF). SCOPE OF WORK
INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
3,766
17000-02987 8/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 14, 4168 ORCHARD: PLAN 6, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (1986 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1276 SF), AND COVERED PORCHES (166 SF). SCOPE OF WORK
INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
3,428
17000-02989 8/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 15, 4178 ORCHARD: PLAN 2, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2185 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1787 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED
PORCHES (424 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,186
17000-03128 9/27/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 237SF 3,704
18000-02300 12/3/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (2418 SF) WITH COVERED PORCH (347
SF) ATTACHED GARAGE (232 SF) WITH TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND A/C.2,650
19000-02306 10/27/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
NEW SFR (FACTORY BUILT) APPROXIMATELY 2667 SQ FT WITH SITE BUILT
ATTACHED GARAGE 297 SF AND SITE BUILT SCREEN PORCH 695 SF
**Two approved plan set one is the state approved stamped set one is the PA
approved set for the porch and garage, inspectors to review both***
2,964
17000-01543 9/20/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2 STORY SFR 3440 SF W/ BASEMENT 2082 SF AND ATTACHED GARAGE 312
SF 5,834
18000-02385 9/30/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO-STORY HOUSE (3272 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (68 SF),
UNCONDITIONED BASEMENT (199 SF)3,539
18000-03079 4/15/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2486.7 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (213 SF) 2,700
18000-03246 4/17/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW TWO-STORY SFD (2548 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (293 SF)
No grading permit required/PW will stamp plans when all departments have
approved and building is ready to issue.
2,841
18000-03250 8/2/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY WOOD FRAMED HOUSE (2472 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (214
SF) WITH FULL BASEMENT (1702 SF) 18-3250 4,388
19000-00322 7/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (4313 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (427 SF), WITH
BASEMENT (2932 SF),7,672
19000-00396 6/5/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2758 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1668 SF) 4,426
19000-01258 9/18/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (3521 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2216 SF) 5,737
17000-02973 11/8/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 1: PLAN 1, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2275 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1670
SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (216 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES (497 SF). SCOPE OF
WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER. ++++Structural calcs and
supplemental documentation in Annie's overhead bin+++
4,658
17000-02974 11/8/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 569 MAYBELL 2: PLAN 4, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2296 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1978 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (218 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES.
SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,492
17000-02977 1/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 5, 589 MAYBELL: PLAN 5, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2283 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1616 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES
(450 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,119
Building Permit Data - Single-Family Residential
Total Sq. Ft.
Incl. Basement
and Garage
Permit No Date Issued Construction Type Description Status Description
17000-02978 4/11/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 6 4103 CLEMO AV: PLAN 9, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2303 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1616 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES
(450 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,139
17000-02979 4/11/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 7, 4121 ORCHARD: PLAN 8, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2308 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1533 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES (229
SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,055
17000-02980 5/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
LOT 8, 4123 ORCHARD: PLAN 3, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2304 SF) WITH
BASEMENT (1773 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) AND COVERED PORCHES (542
SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.
4,291
18000-00572 10/4/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2254 SF AND CONDITIONED
BASEMENT 1426SF 3,680
18000-00789 9/6/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE-STORY SINGLE HOUSE (2067 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (320 SF)
(Bone Structure)2,387
18000-00817 10/26/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (3257 SF)3,257
18000-00936 1/16/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 4056SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
235SF 4,250
18000-01006 11/9/2020 Residential New - SF Permit Issued ONE-STORY HOUSE (3247 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (504 SF), NEW
BASEMENT (3097 SF)6,848
18000-01219 12/11/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3847SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
213SF.4,060
18000-01223 10/9/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE 1545SF (DETACHED GARAGE 223SF SEPARATE
PERMIT)1,768
18000-01227 9/27/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1,545SF (DETACHED GARAGE
223SF)1,768
18000-01307 10/1/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2023SF 2,023
18000-01312 9/27/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (2030 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES TANKLESS
WATER HEATER. ***PW to stamp plans prior to permit issuance***2,030
18000-01316 10/2/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2023SF 2,023
18000-01365 9/18/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY SFD (2711 SF) WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (224 SF) 2,935
18000-01392 3/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY FAMILY (1672 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (443 SF) 2,115
18000-01395 3/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (1672 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (443 SF) 2,115
18000-01398 10/2/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2670SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
227SF 2,896
18000-01420 5/23/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY HOUSE (2459 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (258 SF) 2,712
18000-01447 9/10/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2519 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (335 SF) CURRENTLY
REVIEW WITH IR PLANNING PROJECT 18PLN-59 (address to be changed to 3219
Waverley after final inspection - see pending address assignment in documents
tab)
2,854
18000-01511 7/22/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2084 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (223 SF) 2,307
18000-01583 9/20/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (3867 SF) SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A NEW
TANKLESS WATER HEATER.4,082
18000-01663 9/25/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2985 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (304 SF) 3,289
18000-01680 8/27/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO-STORY HOUSE (5,799 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2551 SF) WITH ATTACHED
TRELLIS (662 SF)8,350
18000-01718 11/2/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,620SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
225SF 2,845
18000-01804 11/6/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW SFR (4380 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (419 SF) A/C AND TAKNLESS
WATER HEATER (2 QTY) AND NEW LANDSCAPE***Modified scope of work to add
install VIF sewerage ejector pump to be installed per plan notes on sheet C-2 dt
7/16/19***
4,799
18000-01832 10/23/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2390 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1798 SF)***Add 400 amps
to scope of work is approved by utilities dt***4,188
18000-01849 1/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled UNIT 1: NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (1803 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (212 SF) (356
& 358 Hawthorne at front of lot - 357 Bryant Court at rear of lot)2,015
18000-01850 1/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled UNIT 2: NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (1791 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (212 SF) (356
& 358 Hawthorne at front of lot - 357 Bryant Court at rear of lot)2,003
18000-01851 1/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled UNIT 3: NEW 1-STORY HOUSE (967 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (237 SF) (357
Bryant Court at rear of lot - 356 & 358 Hawthorne Ave at front of lot)1,204
18000-01877 10/11/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE, TANKLESS WATER HEATER
AND A/C 3,437
18000-01960 11/16/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2047 SF. (DEMO RESIDENCE IN
PREPARATION FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)2,047
18000-02003 11/1/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (3341 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (256 SF) TANKLESS
WATER HEATER AND A/C 3,597
18000-02056 4/5/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2672SF) WITH A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. 2,672
18000-02073 12/17/2018 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2264 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (213 SF) 2,477
18000-02173 7/29/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2366 SF WITH BASEMENT 1640 SF
AND ATTACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE 231SF. INCLUDES LEVEL 2 ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING UNIT ON SIDE OF GARAGE.
4,237
18000-02215 12/2/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFD (3452 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (2227 SF) 3,679
18000-02235 2/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (1643 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (225 SF) AND TANKLESS
WATER HEATER.1,868
18000-02236 2/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SFR (1652 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (225 SF) AND TANKLESS
WATER HEATER. HOUSE IS AT REAR OF LOT (FRONT HOUSE UNDER 845
WEBSTER)
1,877
18000-02291 8/28/2019 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: FRONT HOUSE: 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 2102 SF WITH
ATTACHED GARAGE 230 SF 2,332
18000-02292 8/28/2019 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: REAR HOUSE: 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2102 SF AND
ATTACHED GARAGE 230 SF 2,332
18000-02294 1/8/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (NEW DETACHED GARAGE 372 SF
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)2,949
18000-02324 3/27/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (3993 SF) WITH BASEMENT(2066 SF) 6,059
18000-02401 7/1/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2955SF WITH BASEMENT 1971SF.
***grading permit and letter regarding dewatering required to be submitted,
reviewed and approved prior to building issuance***
4,926
18000-02568 4/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY FAMILY HOUSE (2908 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (235 SF) 3,143
18000-02617 4/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOME (2101 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (223 SF) AND
BASEMENT (1459 SF) INCLUDES A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER.3,783
18000-02657 12/10/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 5800SF (NEW DETACHED 4-CAR
GARAGE WITH WORKSHOP ON 2ND FLOOR 2040SF SEPARATE PERMIT 18-2658)5,800
18000-02733 4/15/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,277SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
221SF.2,498
18000-02819 2/1/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW SINGLE STORY SFD (2920 SF) WITH ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE (244 SF).
SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES TANKLESS WATER HEATER. ****PW to stamp
approved sets****
3,164
18000-02840 6/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2706SF AND ATTACHED 211SF
GARAGE.2,917
18000-02940 4/16/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2474 SF) AND ATTACHED
GARAGE (702 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER 3,176
18000-03023 6/11/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (1479 SF). 1,479
18000-03059 6/17/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY ACCESSORY HOUSE (2689 SF) WITH ATTACHED ONE CAR
GARAGE (300 SF) ***4/2/19 Scope of work modified to New two story main house
(2731 sf) with attached garage (300 sf)
3,031
18000-03123 6/3/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2856 WITH BASEMNT 2025SF AND
ATTACHED GARAGE 211SF 5,092
18000-03177 10/15/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO STORY SFR (2784 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (269 SF) TANKLESS WATER
HEATER AND A/C.3,053
18000-03265 8/21/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,730 SF WITH BASEMENT 1,515 SF
AND ATTACHED GARAGE 241SF 4,486
19000-00005 9/17/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1957 SF WITH BASEMENT 991 SF. 2,948
19000-00123 5/20/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, A/C AND TANKLESS WATER
HEATERS (QTY 2)2,855
19000-00202 5/24/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SINGLE STORY HOME (2380 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (441 SF) WITH
A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER.2,821
19000-00332 6/26/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2772 SF WITH BASEMENT 1643 SF 4,415
19000-00339 9/4/2019 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 5796 SF WITH BASEMENT 3301 SF. 9,097
19000-00387 6/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY HOUSE (2355 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF). SCOPE
OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.2,575
19000-00410 7/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2330 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (221SF) INCLUDING
A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER.2,551
19000-00508 6/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (2561 SF) INCLUDES INSTALL (N)
A/C, TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND 200 AMP UPGRADE.2,561
19000-00531 10/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled RES: TWO STORY HOUSE (2092.6 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1401 SF) 3,494
19000-00575 7/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY (2422 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (275 SF) TANKLESS WATER
HEATER AND A/C.2,697
19000-00588 2/12/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
SINGLE STORY SFD (2725 SF) WITH ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE (259 SF) AND
COVERED PORCHES (370 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES TWO TANKLESS
WATER HEATERS.
2,984
19000-00627 8/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled SINGLE STORY SFR (2918 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (290 SF),TANKLESS
WATER HEATER, A/C AND HEAT PUMP.3,208
19000-00641 9/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2696 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (213 SF) G& E not
required 2,909
19000-00723 8/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (3660 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (410 SF) 4,070
19000-00765 8/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 219SF 3,370
19000-00811 10/10/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY 3083SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ***change in scope of work
to remove the basement*** 10/7/19 oc 3,083
19000-00850 7/18/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2371 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (273 SF) WITH A/C (QTY
2) AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER.2,644
19000-00851 8/9/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY SFD (2248 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS
WATER HEATER.2,688
19000-00888 8/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (3672 SF), WITH BASEMENT (1,177.27 SF) 4,849
19000-00898 10/22/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY HOUSE WITH A BASEMENT (3282 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (231
SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.3,513
19000-00902 10/25/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY (3509 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (479 SF) 3,988
19000-00907 7/18/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW (2) STORY SINGLE FAMILY 2250 SF RESIDENCE AND BASEMENT 1440 SF
WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 224 SF.3,914
19000-00918 8/29/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY HOUSE (1943 SFT) WITH BASEMENT (1330 SF) 3,272
19000-00936 1/10/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2319 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (229 SF) WITH TANKLESS
WATER HEATER AND A/C.2,548
19000-00938 9/10/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SINGLE STORY SFD (2453 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (223 SF). SCOPE OF
WORK INCLUDES A TANKLESS WATER HEATER.2,676
19000-00994 9/3/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 4,606SF WITH BASEMENT 2421SF
AND ATTACHED GARAGE 223SF. INCLUDES (1) LEVEL 2 EVSE AND (1) LEVEL 3
EVSE AT GARAGE AREA. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DEFERRED TO SEPARATE
PERMIT.
7,250
19000-01004 10/28/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (2575 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (260 SF) 2,835
19000-01043 10/11/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2493 SF) HOUSE IS ALL ELECTRIC 2,493
19000-01092 9/18/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SFR (3116 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2834 SF) ATTACHED GARAGE (441 SF) A/C
AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER.6,391
19000-01111 9/9/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE-STORY HOUSE (3358 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (340 SF) AND
BASEMENT (3161 SF)6,859
19000-01142 9/13/2019 Residential New - SF Expired NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (3021 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1821 SF) 4,842
19000-01236 10/7/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (2104 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (211 SF) AND
BASEMENT (1435 SF)3,750
19000-01310 8/22/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2185 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
218 SF 2,403
19000-01381 1/30/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY HOUSE (3787 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (216 SF) 4,003
19000-01417 8/19/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFD (2228 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (221 SF) 2,449
19000-01453 2/13/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY SFR (3247 SF) WITH BASEMENT (871 SF) ON EMPTY LOT. TO INCLUDE
HEAT PUMP FOR COOLING AND BOILER UNIT FOR WATER HEATING 4,423
19000-01479 11/26/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 1-STORY WOOD FRAMED HOUSE (3032 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARGE (219
SF)3,251
19000-01485 9/6/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFD (2482 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (232 SF) AND BASEMENT
(1558 SF) COVERED PORCH (265 SF) AND AMMR FOR BOOSTER FAN 4,272
19000-01501 9/23/2019 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY HOUSE (2729 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (213 SF) 2,942
19000-01519 7/14/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (3166 SF)3,166
19000-01608 3/6/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,265 SF. INCLUDES TANKLESS
WATER HEATER. DETACHED GARAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.2,265
19000-01723 10/3/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,687 SF AND 220 SF ATTACHED
GARAGE.2,907
19000-01844 1/10/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3,970 SF CONDITIONED SPACE AND
698 SF AGGREGATE COVERED PATIO. (NEW DETACEHED GARAGE 257 SF WITH
HALF BATH UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)
4,227
19000-01879 11/15/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2217 SF (DETACHED GARAGE 221 SF
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)2,438
19000-01922 6/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2419 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF), ATTACHED
COVERED PORCH AND PATIO (428 SF) (Batched Outside to Shum Coda)2,639
19000-01955 7/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE (2773 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (237 SF) 3,010
19000-01959 12/9/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE STORY HOUSE ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE (3015 SQFT) 3,015
19000-01986 12/13/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY HOUSE (5557 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (443 SF), BASEMENT (3518
SF)9,519
19000-01989 12/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOME (3521 SF) WITH A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. 3,863
19000-02110 2/12/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (3349 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (289SF) TANKLESS
WATER HEATER, A/C AND 200 AMP SERVICE.3,638
19000-02122 1/28/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NSFR 1697SF SINGLE STORY 1,697
19000-02156 1/15/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3,686 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
451 SF. ***no grading permit required**4,137
19000-02210 11/12/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE (2463 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (214
SF)2,677
19000-02213 2/19/2020 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR 2 STORY 3088 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF) AND BASEMENT (1600
SF)4,908
19000-02237 5/28/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled SINGLE STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (3730 SF) TO INCLUDE A/C,
TANKLESS WATER HEATER, HEAT PUMP, 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE 3,730
19000-02290 7/2/2020 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY SFR (4257 SF) WITH A/C UNITS (2) TANKLESS WATER HEATER (2) AND
EVSE (BATCHED 4LEAF)4,257
19000-02312 6/16/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW SFR (2276 SF) CONDITIONED SPACE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (256 SF)
A/C, TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND EVSE. (BATCHED OUTSIDE PLAN CHECK
4LEAF)
2,532
19000-02491 12/18/2019 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3,527 SF WITH BASEMENT 2,063 SF
WITH 400 AMP SERVICE 5,591
19000-02750 8/18/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (3799 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (391 SF) AND
BASEMENT (2507 SF) PORCH (586 SF)6,697
19000-02797 8/20/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled
2-STORY SFR (2766 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1877 SF) COVERED PORCH AREAS (676
SF) TO INCLUDE TWO (2) A/C AND TWO (2) TANKLESS WATER HEATERS.
[BATCHED SHUM CODA] - Grading Permit Required-See Attached in documents.
5,224
19000-02817 2/24/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2725 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (214 SF) COVERED
PORCH AREAS (742 SF) TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND A/C.2,939
19000-02858 1/29/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO-STORY HOUSE (2999 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (210 SF) 3,209
19000-02895 5/7/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2753 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (217 SF) - no grading
permit required.2,970
19000-02922 6/25/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2292 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (200 SF) 2,493
19000-02925 9/8/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY SFR (2062 SF) WITH A/C AND TANKLESS WATER HEATER. 2,062
19000-03036 6/9/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE (2784 SF) WITH ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE
(224 SF) 19PLN-00227 (BATCHED TO 4LEAF)3,006
19000-03112 10/15/2020 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
RES: 1 STORY HOUSE (4889 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (524 SF), WITH BASEMENT
(3833 SF), AND COVERED PORCHES (300 SF) **GRADING PERMIT REQUIRED - P.
CHUN**
9,246
19000-03145 9/9/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (2796 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (220 SF) 3,016
19000-03177 8/7/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2625 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (242 SF) WITH TANKLESS
WATER HEATER, A/C AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. (BATCHED TO 4 LEAF)2,867
19000-03181 6/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WITH A/C AND BOILER. NEW
LANDSCAPING THROUGHOUT.(Batched Outside to Shum Coda)3,357
19000-03201 7/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE 3,431
19000-03206 11/4/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SFR (2835 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (237 SF) TO INCLUDE
TANKLESS WATER, A/C AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.(Batched Outside
Shum Coda )
3,072
19000-03224 9/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2403 SF) TO INCLUDE A/C (QTY 2) (BATCHED OUTSIDE 4
LEAF)2,483
19000-03275 11/4/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 2,400 SF TWO STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE 308 SF 18PLN-00318 (BATCHED OUTSIDE 4 LEAF)2,708
19000-03292 8/18/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2390 SF ONE STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE 214 SF 2,604
19000-03297 2/8/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (2103 SF ) WITH BASEMENT LEVEL (1601
SF ) , NEW HARDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING. ( CHANGE OF SCOPE 10/6/20 )3,704
19000-03301 8/16/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY HOUSE (4509 SF) WITH BASMENT (3070 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE
(425 SF) (grading and excavation permit required)8,004
19000-03307 1/20/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW TWO STORY HOUSE (2984 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (459 SF) 3,443
19000-03329 8/17/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled CONCURRENT REVIEW WITH ARB 19PLN-00390 NEW 2-STORY HOUSE (3088 SF)
WITH BASEMENT (1161 SF)4,249
19000-03344 10/23/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE-STORY HOUSE (2154 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (256 SF), FRONT/BACK
PORCHES (62 SF)2,410
19000-03350 9/3/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,841 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
233 SF. INCLUDES 350 SF COVERED PORCH(BATCHED OUTSIDE 4 LEAF)3,074
19000-03366 8/13/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ONE STORY HOUSE (~3314 SF), AND
ATTACHED GARAGE (425 SF) INSTALL TANK LESS WATER HEATER.3,739
20000-00282 8/18/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE-STORY HOUSE (3660 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (504 SF),
COVERED PORCHES (75 SF)4,164
20000-00337 6/10/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled BUILD NEW TWO STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE [BATCHED 4LEAF] 6,000
20000-00465 7/15/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled CONSTRUCTION OF 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE (~2456 SF) WITH
ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE AND SITE WORK. (BATCHED SHUMS CODA)2,456
20000-00469 11/18/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO STORY HOUSE 2696 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 213 SF 19PLN-00308 2,909
20000-00487 10/27/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. TO INCLUDE A/C AND TANKLESS
WATER HEATER. (BATCHED SHUMS CODA)2,644
20000-00525 7/14/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled 1-STORY HOME (1705 SF) ON A FLAG LOT WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (229SF) 1,934
20000-00548 10/27/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3575 SF AND BASEMENT 2403 SF AND
206 SF ATTACHED GARAGE.6,183
20000-00579 9/4/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2637 SF TWO STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE 214 SF 19PLN-00316.2,851
20000-00594 9/1/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled
2-STORY SFR (2200 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (230 SF). A/C, TANKLESS
WATER HEATER, 200 AMP SERVICE. PV DEFERRED. [BATCHED 4LEAF] **No
grading permit required**
2,430
20000-00624 6/25/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2 STORY SFR 2720 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 223 SF. 2,942
20000-00665 5/3/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ~5799 SF WITH FULL BASEMENT. ~5239
SF AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING (GRADING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED)11,038
20000-00668 1/8/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled
SFR (4200 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (281 SF) TO INCLUDE COVERED
PORCHES (545 SF) 3 TANKLESS WATER HEATERS AND 2 A/C UNITS. ***basement
(905 SF) to be removed from scope, given valuation to change from $1,250,000
to $1,000,000 and calculated valuation to change from $665,409.28 to
$554,582.98 per applicant revision 1/22*** ***21BLD-00033: REVISION TO
INCLUDE REMOVAL OF BASEMENT AND ASSOCIATED ASPECTS (LIGHTWELL,
SUMP PUMPS) FROM APPROVED SCOPE OF WORK. ADDING POWDER ROOM,
MECHANICAL ROOM. DOORS AT FAMILY AND MECHANICAL ROOM. UPDATED
DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE, T24, FOUNDATION PLAN AND LOCATION OF
A/C***
4,481
20000-00670 7/2/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE ~2376 SF WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE ~221 SF 2,601
20000-00701 6/7/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY SFR (2800 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (446 SF) WITH A/C, TANKLESS
WATER HEATER ON AN EMPTY LOT.3,246
20000-00712 9/3/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2-STORY SFR (2767 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (257 SF) AND BASEMENT
(1781 SF) A/C (QTY 3) AND TANKLESS WATER HEATERS (QTY 2)4,805
20000-00791 11/17/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled RESIDENTIAL NEW ONE STORY 5 BEDROOM, 5 BATH, 1 HALF BATH HOUSE OF
3,505.03 S.F. AND 460.49 S.F. GARAGE TOTALING 3,965.52 S.F.3,965
20000-00870 11/3/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled SFR (2548 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (227 SF) COVERED REAR PATIO (140 SF)
ATTACHED TRELLIS AT ENTRY (94 SF) TANKLESS WATER HEATER AND A/C.2,775
20000-01012 2/8/2021 Residential New - SF Expired RESIDENTIAL 2-STORY SFR (2811 SF)2,811
20000-01017 3/25/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled 19PLN-00199: TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED ONE-
CAR GARAGE 2,900
20000-01198 11/19/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,549 SF ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE. **No Grading permit required**1,777
20000-01479 7/12/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
TWO STORY RESIDENCE ( 2287 sf ) WITH FINISHED BASEMENT ( 1715 sf ) AND
ATTACHED GARAGE. ( 431 sf ) NEW LANDSCAPING THROUGHOUT. Do not issue-
Grading permit required.
4,433
20000-01552 2/9/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY HOUSE 2995 SF 19PLN-00301 2,995
20000-01949 3/8/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 2 STORY HOUSE (2364 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (236 SF) 2,600
20000-01979 3/22/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled
TWO (2) STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ~2343 SF
AND CORRESPONDING SITE ALTERATIONS, INCLUDING NEW HARDSC -
REVISION TO 20000-01979: MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL CONNECTION REVISED
TO BE UNDERGROUND
2,343
20000-02004 5/14/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY SFR 2950 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 3,232
20000-02072 3/22/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO-STORY HOUSE (2660 SF), WITH ATTACHED ONE CAR GARAGE (270 SF) No
Grading permit required.2,930
20000-02136 6/16/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued NEW TWO STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 18PLN-00269 3,230
20000-02634 8/16/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY HOUSE (2771 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1,632 SF), FRONT, BACK, AND
SIDE PORCHES (326 SF)4,403
21BLD-00090 3/25/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW 1-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE (1364 SF) *no grading permit required* 1,364
21BLD-00473 12/13/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, 1,455 SF 1,455
21BLD-00548 9/20/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled ONE STORY SFR 1,170 SF 1,170
21BLD-00668 10/6/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ~3626 SF WITH ATTACHED CARPORT 3,626
21BLD-00699 9/8/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled TWO STORY HOUSE OF 2549 SQ.FT WITH ATTACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE (200
SF)2,749
21BLD-00704 2/23/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY HOUSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 6475 SF LOT. WITH 2474 SF
LIVING AREA, 217 SF GARAGE, TOTALING 2692 SF.2,691
21BLD-00791 6/28/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 1 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE 2,592
21BLD-00837 8/4/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3,344SF CONDITIONED SPACE WITH
ATTACHED GARAGE 488SF. 156 SF COVERED PORCH. NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE
400AMPS. (SEPARATE RELATED PERMITS FOR 219 SF PERGOLA,
DECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING HOUSE 1389SF AND DETACHED GARAGE 476
SF) (DEFERRED SOLAR AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE EQUIPMENT)
3,792
21BLD-00919 9/7/2021 Residential New - SF Expired CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE 2861 SF WITH AN
ATTACHED GARAGE OF 454 SF 3,315
21BLD-00964 10/6/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
NEW 2-STORY RESIDENCE 5,537SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 459SF (NEW
DETACHED ADU 897SF UNDER PERMIT 21BLD-00965 AND NEW ACCESSORY
BUILDING 120SF WITH COVERED PATIO 21BLD-00967)
5,996
21BLD-01006 9/28/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY RESIDENCE ~2095 SF WITH BASEMENT ~1447 SF AND ATTACHED
GARAGE ~228 SF. **Do not issue-grading permit required**3,770
21BLD-01192 1/3/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY SFR (2564 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1636 SF) 400 AMP ELECTRICAL
SERVICE, HEAT PUMP AND TRASH ENCLOSURE.4,530
21BLD-01391 4/8/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY HOUSE (3938 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (237 SF) , FULL BASEMENT
(3511 SF)***The approved plans and document are for permit #21BLD-01393***7,686
21BLD-01621 1/20/2022 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY HOUSE (3127 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (215 SF) WITH LANDSCAPE 3,342
21BLD-01684 1/13/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY SFR 2550 SF 20PLN-00239 2,776
21BLD-01805 12/8/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled 1-STORY HOUSE (2254 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (418 SF) 2,672
21BLD-01821 10/14/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (5330 SF) WITH PARTIAL BASEMENT (1831
SF) WITH BREEZEWAY, ATTACHED ADU (800 SF) **Grading permit required**7,161
21BLD-01956 12/1/2021 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR (2521 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (226 SF) 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE,
HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER.2,747
21BLD-02207 12/15/2021 Residential New - SF Finaled SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE 2202 SF. & ATTACHED GARAGE 514 SF WITH 579 S.F.
COVERED PORCHES 2,716
21BLD-02385 2/2/2022 Residential New - SF Finaled 2-STORY HOUSE ~3258 WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ~200 3,458
21BLD-02434 6/21/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
NEW SFR (2865 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2805 SF) AND ATTACHED GARAGE (564 SF)
TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, OUTDOOR KITCHEN
AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.
6,235
21BLD-02783 10/20/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A SINGLE STORY (3,554 SF),
ATTACHED GARAGE (789 SF), BASEMENT (1625 SF) [DETACHED ACCESSORY
UNIT IN REAR YARD (691 SF) on separate permit]
5,968
21BLD-02944 2/17/2022 Residential New - SF Finaled RES: SINGLE STORY SFR (3158 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (462 SF), HEAT
PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER.3,620
21BLD-03052 6/7/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued ONE STORY HOUSE 2,253 SF, WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 310 SF 2,563
22BLD-00019 5/11/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR 2,778 SF WITH ATTACHED SINGLE STALL GARAGE. GRADING,
LANDSCAPING, & HARDSCAPE PER CIVIL & LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.2,778
22BLD-00107 4/28/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: 3,954 SF. 2-STORY, 3-BED, 3.5 BATH SFR 4,208
22BLD-00129 10/24/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO-STORY HOUSE (2420 SF), WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (434 SF), PORCH (221
SF)2,854
22BLD-00302 8/18/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO-STORY HOUSE 4655 SF, WITH ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (424 SF).
ALSO PERMIT 22BLD-00302, 22BLD-00303 AND 22BLD-00304 5,079
22BLD-00433 8/24/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY HOUSE ~2244 SF AND 434 SF ATTACHED GARAGE 2,675
22BLD-00502 7/13/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued Res: 2-STORY SFR (2489 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (263 SF) TO INCLUDE
HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.2,752
22BLD-00603 6/5/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR 2119 SF WITH BASEMENT 1758 SF AND ATTACHED GARAGE 347 SF 4,224
22BLD-00773 6/23/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
NEW 2-STORY SFR (2,600 SF) WITH CONDITIONED BASEMENT (1,700 SF) AND
ATTACHED GARAGE (400 SF) TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER
HEATER, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, OUTDOOR FIREPLACE, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL
SERVICE.
4,700
22BLD-00781 12/7/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued Res: ONE-STORY SFR ~1448 SF 1,448
22BLD-00992 9/6/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: 2-STORY SFR (4,018 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP AND HEAT PUMP WATER
HEATER. 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE, EVCS 4,018
22BLD-01044 10/25/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR (1883 SF) WITH BASEMENT (1868 SF)3,982
22BLD-01048 11/17/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued Res: TWO STORY SFR 21PLN-00144 3,244
22BLD-01165 7/11/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR: (3092 SF), ATTACHED GARAGE (231 SF) AND ATTACHED PORCH (76 SF) 3,323
22BLD-01219 11/17/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY SFR 3026 SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 231 SF 3,257
22BLD-01368 2/22/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY HOUSE (2515 SF)WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (247 SF) AND
UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE 2,772
22BLD-01371 9/27/2022 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW ONE-STORY HOUSE (717 SF) WITH 2 ATTACHED GARAGE (390 SF) 1,107
22BLD-01580 12/1/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 1-STORY HOUSE WITH 2646 OF HABITABLE AREA, WITH ATTACHED GARAGE
227 SF, 87SF PORCH 2,873
22BLD-01643 11/4/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY 3 BED AND 3 BATH HOUSE.
DETACHED GARAGE / ADU UNDER PERMIT 1,948
22BLD-01675 3/7/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: SINGLE STORY HOME OF ~3436 SF.3,436
22BLD-01760 4/19/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued TWO STORY SFR 3239 SF WITH BASEMENT 1368 SF 21PLN-00337 4,607
22BLD-01880 8/1/2022 Residential New - SF Finaled
NEW SINGLE STORY SFR 1500SF WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 232 SF ***THIS
PERMIT RECORD WILL TAKE PLACE OF 16000-02545, REFERENCE REVIEW, FEE,
DOCUMENT AND INSPECTION HISTORY IN 16000-02545
1,732
22BLD-01882 10/20/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SINGLE STORY SFR (2399 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (226 SF) HEAT PUMP,
HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.2,625
22BLD-02107 12/14/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: 2-STORY SFR (3070 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (228 SF) HEAT PUMPS,
HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.3,298
22BLD-02191 5/2/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued 2-STORY SFR (3515 SF) WITH BASEMENT (2,275 SF) ATTACHED GARAGE (227 SF)
HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.6,017
22BLD-02198 4/12/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
BUILD SFR (3108 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (455 SF) HEAT PUMP, HEAT
PUMP WATER HEATER, SOLAR WATER HEATER, PV (5.1 kW) 12 MODULE SYSTEM,
EVCS (32 AMP/ LEVEL 2) AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.
3,563
22BLD-02407 8/28/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: 2-STORY SFR WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER
HEATER AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.2,930
22BLD-02890 3/29/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued NSFR ~4,422 S.F.WITH ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE ~ 574 S.F. 4,996
22BLD-02965 8/28/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY HOME ~2270 SF W/ ATTACHED ONE
CAR GARAGE & AN ATTACHED ADU ~797SF.2,470
22BLD-03061 8/9/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: BUILD SFR WITH HEAT PUMP, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, LANDSCAPING,
AND 200 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.2,623
22BLD-03081 6/22/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
2-STORY SFR (3327 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE, ENCLOSED HEAT PUMPS,
HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, GREY WATER SYSTEM, AND 400 AMP ELECTRICAL
SERVICE.
3,327
22BLD-03175 8/22/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY 3,824 SF HOUSE WITH 2,166 SF
BASEMENT. NEW COVERED PORCHES, HARDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING.
(shares plans with new garage 22BLD-03176)
5,990
22BLD-03217 6/30/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued CONSTRUCT A NEW 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED
GARAGE.2,623
22BLD-03252 7/12/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued NEW 2-STORY SFR (2096 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (449 SF) HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, AND 200 AMP UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE.2,545
23BLD-00219 6/28/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued RES: TWO STORY SFR 2966 22PLN-00389 2,966
23BLD-00422 9/5/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued CONSTRUCTION OF A (N) SINGLE STORY SFD OF ~2,372 INCLUDING A ONE CAR
ATTACHED GARAGE 2,372
23BLD-00490 7/18/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued SFR (1831 SF) WITH HEAT PUMP, ELECTRICAL WATER HEATER, AND 200 AMP
ELECTRICAL SERVICE.1,831
23BLD-00563 7/3/2023 Residential New - SF Permit Issued New two-story house ~2398 sf. (permits 23bld-00564/00565 are part of this plan
set)2,398
20000-00706 9/25/2020 Residential New - SF Finaled NEW SINGLE FAMILY ONE-STORY HOUSE 2430 SF. **DETACHED GARAGE UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT**2,430
20000-00703 1/21/2022 Residential New - SF Permit Issued ONE STORY HOUSE ~3524 SF WITH BASEMENT ~3551 SF AND ATTACHED
GARAGE ~225 SF (needs grading permit)3,749
Average Sq. Ft.3,602
20000-00728 10/15/2020 Residential New - MF Finaled 59
WILTON COURT APARTMENTS: NEW 4-STORY, MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX (56,143
SF) TO INCLUDE LAUNDRY FACILITIES, COMMUNITY SPACES, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICES, SUPPORT SPACES AND PARKING AT THE BASEMENT AND GRADE LEVEL. SOLAR WATER HEATING UNITS
AT ROOF LEVEL. SITE WORK TO INCLUDE BIO TREATMENT AREA WITH ASSOCIATED FENCING,
OUTDOOR BBQ/KITCHEN AREA, BIKE RACKS AND SEATING AREAS.
WILTON COURT APARTMENTS: INSTALL (N) SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEM
2,495 952 3.73% 35
18000-03077 2/14/2020 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 57
NEW FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING (37,929 SF) WITH 57 UNITS AND ONE LEVEL OF
UNDERGROUND PARKING (15,593 SF). THERE IS ONE WATER AND GAS METER FOR THE BUILDING WITH
SEPARATE ELECTRIC METERS PER APARTMENT.
*** U&O REQUIRED ***
37,929 665 3.60% 24
22BLD-02633 8/10/2023 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 6 MF: BLDG 3: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,362 1,727 0.38% 7
22BLD-02634 TBD Residential New - MF Permit Not Yet Issued 6 MF: BLDG 1: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND 600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,362 1,727 0.38% 7
22BLD-02636 TBD Residential New - MF Permit Not Yet Issued 6 MF: BLDG 4: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,102 1,684 0.38% 6
22BLD-02637 TBD Residential New - MF Permit Not Yet Issued 6 MF: BLDG 5: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,102 1,684 0.38% 6
22BLD-03149 TBD Residential New - MF Permit Not Yet Issued 102
****SAFEBUILT*****LINK APARTMENTS: BUILD NEW FOUR STORY 102 UNIT APARTMENTS WITH RETAIL
SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND A BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE 19PLN-00079 (UPDATE 4/24: GRADING PERMIT REQUIRED PRIOR TO BLD ISSUANCE, AHMAD)
92,736 909 6.44% 59
22BLD-02635 10/3/2023 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 6 MF: BLDG 2: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,362 1,727 0.38% 7
22BLD-02638 12/18/2023 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 6 MF BLDG 6: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND 600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,362 1,727 0.38% 7
22BLD-02639 12/18/2023 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 6 MF BLDG 3: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,102 1,684 0.38% 6
22BLD-02640 12/18/2023 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 6 MF BLDG 8: CONDOMINIUM BUILDING TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS, HEAT PUMP WATER HEATERS, AND
600 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE.10,102 1,684 0.38% 6
22BLD-02330 1/24/2024 Residential New - Mixed Use Permit Issued 50
MF: BUILD 4-STORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX (45, 411 SF) WITH SUPPORTING SPACE ON THE
GROUND FLOOR. VARIOUS LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 2000 AMP ELECTRICAL SERVICE. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING DONE UNDER SANTA CLARA COUNTY JURISDICTION.
38,348 767 3.16% 24
18PLN-00043 TBD - Entitled 4 190 CHANNING AV 4,551 1,138 0.25% 3
19PLN-00079 TBD - Entitled 102 788 SAN ANTONIO AVE 83,466 818 6.44% 53
19PLN-00347 TBD - Withdrawn 4 486 HAMILTON AVE 5,375 1,344 0.25% 3
21PLN-00108 TBD - Withdrawn 91 200 PORTAGE 194,128 2,133 5.75% 123
21PLN-00341 TBD - Under Review 70 660 UNIVERSITY 39,876 570 4.42% 25
22PLN-00201 TBD - Under Review 12 739 SUTTER AVE 18,256 1,521 0.76% 12
22PLN-00229 TBD - Entitled 129 3001 EL CAMINO REAL 88,872 689 8.15% 56
23PLN-00010 TBD - Under Review 76 800 SAN ANTONIO RD 89,228 1,174 4.80% 56
23PLN-00058 TBD - Entitled 16 420 ACACIA 33,833 2,115 1.01% 21
23PLN-00136 TBD - Under Review 380 3150 EL CAMINO REAL 441,817 1,163 24.01% 279
24PLN-00012 TBD - Under Review 44 3265 EL CAMINO REAL 24,256 551 2.78% 15
12000-02374 12/10/2013 Residential New - MF Finaled 82
PARK PLAZA: NEW THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH ONE LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING.
AREA OF UNDERGROUND GARAGE 104,000 SF. COMMERCIAL WARM SHELL ON THE FIRST FLOOR (47,000
SF) AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR (101,500 SF) 82 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. PERMIT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED FOR FOUNDATION ONLY. REMAINDER OF STRUCTURE UNDER 13REV-00764 AND
WAS OPENED FOR THOSE DEPARTMENTS WHICH STILL HAD COMMENTS AT ISSUANCE OF FOUNDATION ONLY PERMIT.
101,500 1,238 5.18% 64
Total Res Sq. Ft.Ave. Sq. Ft. per Unit Percent of Total Units
Combined
Weighted
Average
Building Permit Data - Multi-Family Residential
Permit No. Date Issued Construction Type Description Status Units Description
14000-01528 2/13/2015 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 70
STANFORD AFFORDABLE HOUSING: NEW FOUR (4) STORY MIXED USE BUILDING (128,682 SF). FIRST
FLOOR INCLUDES PARKING (14,900 SF) AND COMMERCIAL SPACE (33,034 SF). FLOORS 2-4 CONSIST OF 70 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (80,748 SF). STRUCTURE CONSISTS OF TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS CONNECTED
BY A WALKWAY. U&O SUBMITTED FOR APARTMENTS.
80,748 1,154 4.42% 51
14000-01553 7/14/2015 Residential New - MF Finaled 58
MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING 1: NEW FOUR STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING WITH 58 UNITS AND ONE LEVEL OF BASEMENT FOR PARKING. AREA BREAKDOWN - UNITS: 69,510 SF, COMMUNITY ROOM: 1,133 SF,
PARKING: 45,713 SF, COVERED WALKWAYS/STAIRS: 36,165 SF. INCLUDES PLAZA SURROUNDING FITNESS
BUILDING
69,510 1,198 3.66% 44
14000-01554 7/14/2015 Residential New - MF Finaled 54
MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING 2: NEW FOUR STORY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING WITH 54 UNITS. PARKING IS
LOCATED ON THE PARTIALLY SUBMERGED FIRST FLOOR. AREA BREAKDOWN - UNITS: 70,634 SF,
LIBRARY: 1,400 SF, PARKING: 50,783 SF, COVERED WALKWAYS/STAIRS: 27,308 SF.
70,634 1,308 3.41% 45
16000-01781 11/22/2016 Residential New - MF Finaled 11 NEW 11 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 17968 SF (BASEMENT/UNDERGROUND GARAGE
UNDER 15000-03076) **address changed to 430 Forest, Apts A-J & 432 Forest for 3rd floor condo**17,968 1,633 0.69% 11
12000-01204 2/28/2013 Residential New - MF Finaled 8 NEW THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING. WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING, FIRST FLOOR OFFICE SPACE
AND EIGHT TWO-STORY RENTAL APARTMENT UNITS ON THE SECOND & THIRD FLOORS.14,271 1,784 0.51% 9
13000-03361 8/26/2015 Residential New - MF Finaled 6
NEW THREE STORY, SIX (6) UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING. ALL SIX UNITS HAVE THE SAME SQUARE
FOOTAGE: AREA PER UNIT RESIDENTIAL: 1237 SF, GARAGE: 460 SF. ALL UNITS TO HAVE SEPARATE
WATER, GAS, AND ELECTRIC METERS. **Application extended to 9/10/15**
7,425 1,238 0.38% 5
07000-00000-027551/23/2013 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 3 NEW 3-UNIT CONDO BLDG (3795 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGES (1044 SF) no fees per settlement with CPA 3,795 1,265 0.19% 2
07000-00000-027561/23/2013 Residential New - MF Permit Issued 3 NEW 3-UNIT CONDO BLDG (3795 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGES (1044 SF) no fees per settlement with
CPA 3,795 1,265 0.19% 2
11000-03261 6/14/2013 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2 NEW 2-STORY RESIDENCIAL DUPLEX WITH BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE. (DEMO PERMIT UNDER
11-3262) ADDRESS CHANGE SUBMITTED 12.10.14 JC 3,405 1,703 0.13% 2
12000-02841 5/14/2013 Residential New - Mixed Use Permit Issued 2
NEW THREE STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL AND PARKING AT THE GROUND FLOOR
AND TWO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ABOVE. TRASH ENCLOSURE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
(TI FOR FIRST FLOOR TO BE SHALL BE A SEPARATE PERMIT)ADDITIONAL ADDRESS REQUESTED
06.04.2014 JC
3,840 1,920 0.13% 2
13000-02317 2/26/2014 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 2
CORE AND SHELL INCLUDES 4 LEVELS ABOVE GRADE FOR MIXED USE; FIRST 3 LEVELS COMMERCIAL AND
4TH FOR RESIDENTIAL. INCLUDES 3 LEVELS BELOW GRADE PARKING. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS.**VALUATION INCREASED ON MAIN PERMIT FOR 15REV-00134 BY $250K AND
ASSOCIATED FEES COLLECTED.**
4,831 2,416 0.13% 3
13000-02823 9/17/2014 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 2 BUILD (N) (10,299 SF) FOUR-STORY, MIXED USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (APTS) BUILDING W/BELOW
GRADE PARKING. (DEMO ON 13000-02824) PV & EV TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY.5,477 2,739 0.13% 3
13000-03386 7/11/2016 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2 NEW DUPLEX 2-STORY MAIN RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT ~4600SF. (DEMO UNDER 13-3387) (567
STANFORD AVE, ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT ~ 748SF (13-3401 : NEW DETACHED GARAGE ~427
SF)
4,600 2,300 0.13% 3
14000-01488 11/21/2014 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 2 NEW 4-STORY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ~17500SF. (14-1489- DEMO
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE)3,005 1,503 0.13% 2
14000-01582 3/3/2017 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2
LOTS 26 AND 27: PLANS 11 AND 12, ELEVATION: K, STYLE: ENGLISH ARTS AND CRAFTS. THE STRUCTURE
ON LOTS 26 AND 27 ARE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND IS BEING BUILT AND PLAN
CHECKED AS A SINGLE STRUCTURE, AREA OF HABITABLE 4,168 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 976 SF, AND AREA
OF COVERED PORCHES 155 SF. FOR LOT 26 (PLAN 11) AREA OF HABITABLE 1951 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 520 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 93 SF. FOR LOT 27 (PLAN 12) AREA OF HABITABLE 2,217 SF,
AREA OF GARAGE IS 456 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 68 SF. Lot 26 previously plan 5 and plan
checked under 14000-01562
4,168 2,084 0.13% 3
14000-01584 3/3/2017 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2
LOTS 28 AND 29: PLANS 11 AND 12, ELEVATION: L, STYLE: LANE WOODS. THE STRUCTURE ON LOTS 26
AND 27 ARE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND IS BEING BUILT AND PLAN CHECKED AS A
SINGLE STRUCTURE, AREA OF HABITABLE 4,168 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 976 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCHES 155 SF. FOR LOT 28 (PLAN 11) AREA OF HABITABLE 1951 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 520 SF, AND
AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 93 SF. FOR LOT 29 (PLAN 12) AREA OF HABITABLE 2,217 SF, AREA OF
GARAGE IS 456 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 68 SF. Lot 28 was previously Plan 5. Plan check
being done for same model under 14000-01603 (lots 47 and 48)
4,168 2,084 0.13% 3
14000-01588 3/3/2017 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2
LOTS 32 AND 33: PLANS 11 AND 12, ELEVATION: L, STYLE: LANE WOODS. THE STRUCTURE ON LOTS 26
AND 27 ARE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND IS BEING BUILT AND PLAN CHECKED AS A SINGLE STRUCTURE, AREA OF HABITABLE 4,168 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 976 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED
PORCHES 155 SF. FOR LOT 32 (PLAN 11) AREA OF HABITABLE 1951 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 520 SF, AND
AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 93 SF. FOR LOT 33 (PLAN 12) AREA OF HABITABLE 2,217 SF, AREA OF
GARAGE IS 456 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 68 SF. Lot 32 was previously Plan 8. Plan check
being done for same model under 14000-01603 (lots 47 and 48)
4,168 2,084 0.13% 3
14000-01603 3/3/2017 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2
LOTS 47 AND 48: PLANS 11 AND 12, ELEVATION: K, STYLE: ENGLISH ARTS AND CRAFTS. THE STRUCTURE ON LOTS 26 AND 27 ARE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND IS BEING BUILT AND PLAN
CHECKED AS A SINGLE STRUCTURE, AREA OF HABITABLE 4,168 SF, AREA OF GARAGE 976 SF, AND AREA
OF COVERED PORCHES 155 SF. FOR LOT 47 (PLAN 11) AREA OF HABITABLE 1951 SF, AREA OF GARAGE
520 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 93 SF. FOR LOT 48 (PLAN 12) AREA OF HABITABLE 2,217 SF,
AREA OF GARAGE IS 456 SF, AND AREA OF COVERED PORCH IS 68 SF. Lot 47 was previously lot 6X and plan check and plan check fees for this lot number are still in reference to plan 6X. Currently the only
plan 6X is now Lot 53.
4,168 2,084 0.13% 3
15000-01683 9/25/2015 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2
125 AND 127 HAWTHORNE: NEW TWO STORY DUPLEX (3234 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (458 SF) AND
TRELLIS (185 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES NEW TANKLESS WATER HEATERS. EACH UNIT HAS 1617 SF CONDITIONED AND 229 SF GARAGE.
3,234 1,617 0.13% 2
16000-02134 11/22/2016 Residential New - Duplex Finaled 2 NEW 2 UNIT DETACHED CONDO BUILDING (4495 SF) WITH ATTACHED GARAGE 778 SF **address
changed to 434 & 436 Forest for 2 attached townhouse units**4,495 2,248 0.13% 3
16000-02768 8/7/2017 Residential New - MF Finaled 2 NEW 3 STORY (2) UNIT CONDO 5608 SF W/ ATTACHED GARAGE 920SF 5,608 2,804 0.13%4
14000-01000 9/11/2015 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 1
NEW 9571 SQ FT (3) STORY MIXED USE BUILDING TO INCLUDE A GROUND FLOOR FINANCIAL SERVICE,
SECOND FLOOR OFFICE SPACE AND THIRD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT; SHELL AND CORE WITH M.E.P., LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. DEMO EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESTAURANT ON
14000-01001
3,336 3,336 0.06% 2
13000-03096 7/17/2014 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 1
COLD SHELL FOR NEW THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING (7705 SF). FIRST STORY IS GARAGE AND
LOBBY (2438 SF), SECOND FLOOR IS COMMERCIAL (2165 SF), AND THE THIRD FLOOR IS RESIDENTIAL (2152 SF). SEPARATE PERMIT WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR BUILD OUT OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
FLOORS. ELECTRIC SERVICE TO BE 500 AMPS. DEMO PERMITS UNDER 13-3097/3098/3099. LOT LINE MUST BE ADJUSTED AND UTILITY EASEMENT CREATED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.
2,152 2,152 0.06% 1
16000-00632 4/12/2017 Residential New - Mixed Use Finaled 16
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH ONE LEVEL OF UNDERGROUND PARKING (71,075 SF). SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES 16 APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS,
OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR. RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO HAVE
SEPARATE ELECTRICAL METERS AND SHARED GAS METERS
19,086 1,193 1.01% 12
Weighted Average Sq. Ft. 1,124
Summary of Previous Work Performed for the City
A Development Impact Fee Justification Study
On January 15, 2021, DTA issued a Development Impact Fee (“DIF” or “Fee”) Justification
Study (the “Study”) to the City of Palo Alto (the “City”), reflecting the updated fee
recommendations outlined in Table 1 below. The Study was reviewed by the City’s
Finance Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, and City Council on December
12, 2020, February 23, 2021, and April 12, 2021, respectively. The fees recommended in
the Study were approved by the City Council and implemented as of August 23, 2021,
with the understanding that DTA would evaluate the impact of various City Council
recommendations on the fee calculations and provide an update to the Study
accordingly.
Table 1: 2021 Development Impact Fee Summary Adopted by the City Council1,2
Land Use Type3 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
*Notes:
1. Some figures may not sum due to rounding.
2. Fees increase annually by adopted escalator to account for inflation in acquisition and
construction costs.
3. Only residential fees are shown, as the focus of this analysis is on the impact of AB 602 on
residential development.
B First Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study
In January 2022, the City requested that DTA prepare the follow-up analysis outlined in
the Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Supplement”)
that was brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Finance Committee, and
City Council on February 22, 2022, May 3, 2022, and June 13, 2022, respectively. This
Supplement addressed the items below:
Task A – Update land acquisition costs;
Task B – Differentiate the fee structure for retail space versus office space;
Task C – Update office density from 250 sq. ft. per employee to 190 sq. ft. 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; and
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.
***NOT YET APPROVED***
1
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2025
Municipal Fee Schedule to Transition Certain Development Impact Fees from
Per-Unit to Per-Square Foot Fees
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On September 28, 2021, the Governor of the State of California signed Assembly Bill 602,
effective January 1, 2022, amending the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code
Section 66000 et seq.). AB 602 set forth a number of standards and practices for a local
government conducting a nexus study to support a development impact fee.
B. One of the requirements of AB 602 is that a study adopted after July 1, 2022 must either
calculate the proposed fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units
or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric.
C. The City of Palo Alto currently imposes Park, Community Center, and Library development
impact fees on a per-dwelling unit basis.
D. Program 3.1 (Fees Waivers and Adjustments) of the City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing
Element calls for development impact fees for residential development to be converted
from a per-dwelling unit to a per-square foot standard.
E. The City Council has determined that square footage is an appropriate metric for
calculating Park, Community Center, and Library development impact fees imposed on
residential development and desires to amend the Fiscal Year 2025 Municipal Fee
Schedule accordingly.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto amends the Fiscal Year 2023 Municipal
Fee Schedule by adopting the new fee for on-demand transit as set forth in Exhibit “A” and
incorporated here by reference.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA
because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
change in the environment.
//
//
//
***NOT YET APPROVED***
2
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption as an amendment to the
City’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Assistant City Attorney
___________________________
Mayor
APPROVED:
___________________________
City Manager
___________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
***NOT YET APPROVED***
3
0160153_kb2_20240829_ay
Attachment A
Planning and Development Services
Impact and In-Lieu Fees
Development Impact Fees - Residential
Single Family Multi-Family
Community Center Impact Fee
Note: ADUs under 750 sf exempt.
$1.45 per sq. ft. $3.44 per sq. ft.
Library Impact Fee
Note: ADUs under 750 sf exempt. $0.87 per sq. ft. $2.05 per sq. ft.
Park Impact Fee
Note: ADUs under 750 sf exempt. $18.78 per sq. ft. $44.50 per sq. ft.
TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council)
RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #3 (Consent Calendar item #2)
“Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Modify the
Calculation for Park, Community Center and Library Development Impact
Fees From per Unit to per Square Feet for Residential Development.
[etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2408-3404 (Staff Report)
DATE: Sept. 22, 2024
FROM: John Kelley
RECOMMENDATION
Because the Staff Report and its attachments fail to provide essential
information, present a restricted set of policy options, and contain apparent
inconsistencies, the City Council should (a) defer consideration of this matter, (b)
solicit additional data and other input, and (c) direct City Staff to present a
revised report before reconsidering this matter in early November.
DISCUSSION
While a half-step forward in the right direction, the
proposed ordinance does not take Palo Alto far enough to end
its inequitable, irrational, and possibly improper impact fee regime.
Especially when evaluating public policies, it is vital to distinguish between a bearing
and a vector. The Staff Report moves in the right direction, but not far enough.
It would be uncharitable not to recognize City Staff’s attempts to reform the Municipal
Fee Schedule regarding impact fees. The City has admitted in its recently approved
Housing Element that Palo Alto’s current, per-unit impact fees have “led to some
inequitable results….” 1 City Staff have headed in the right direction in recommending
that the City Council “modify the calculation of Park, Community Center, and Library
Development Impact Fees for residential development from a per dwelling unit basis to
a per square foot basis.” Staff Report, p. 2. But knowing that one must move in a
certain direction is different from recognizing how far one must travel to reach one’s
appropriate destination.
The newly proposed impact fees in the Staff Report remain remarkably and intolerably
high. Should one building a 1400-sf apartment or condominium be required to spend
almost $70,000 for supposed impacts to Palo Alto’s parks, community center facilities,
and libraries? Is it fair to demand such fees from contractors and others building
multi-family projects, which are generally more environmentally friendly, when those
building single-family homes more than twice as large — 4000 sf — would only be
1 “ 2023-2031 Housing Element, City of Palo Alto (~July 2024, "Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-6") (Housing Element
V6),” Staff Report, p. 5, Housing Element V6, p. 4-65.
1
charged about 20% more, $84,000? Proposed impact fees ranging from approximately
$42,000 to $84,000 for sample projects – based upon a combined, per-square-foot rate
of $21.10, or higher (Staff Report, p. 4, “Table 3: Framework 1 – Distinct Rates and
Sample Impact Fees”) – are economically onerous and will depress housing production.
They perpetuate implicit and explicit fiscal discrimination against smaller homes,
including apartments, condominiums, etc., and act as an anti-multi-family housing tax.
Palo Alto can and should do better, and the City Council should be presented with a
more robust set of policy options.
A revised report should make clear whether the proposed Municipal
Fee Schedule actually embodies a per-square-foot impact analysis .
The inequitable treatment of smaller homes, whether on multi-family or single-family
parcels, results not only from the comparatively enormous housing taxes placed on
apartments, condominiums, and larger ADUs, but also from Palo Alto’s current policies
of only imposing impact fees on “new” single-family homes. Additions, and even
complete “scrapes,” receive free passes. As explained previously, 2
Under Palo Alto’s current per-unit impact fee regime as applied to parcels with
existing single-family homes, a property owner substantially adding to or
completely scraping a 2,000 sf primary dwelling and replacing it with a 5,000 sf or
larger primary dwelling will pay no impact fees at all, whereas the builder of ten
500 sf studios — having a total of 5,000 sf — might pay over $500,000 in
FY2025 for Park Impact Fees alone.
The Staff Report fails to make clear, among other things, (a) how ADUs will be treated
under the proposed, new Municipal Fee Schedule, (b) whether additions to single-family
homes or complete scrapes will be assessed impact fees, and (c) whether basements
will be included in the calculation of square footage. From the current Staff Report, one
might suppose that City Staff recommend assessing ADUs that are greater than 750 sf
in size at a flat rate of $21.10 per square foot (or $16,880 for an 800-sf ADU), thus
ignoring other policy alternatives (discussed below), and failing to consider the
prodigious economic effects of such a housing tax on relatively smaller homes. But
Staff Report’s actual treatment of single-family homes remains obscure. A single
emphasized word in a footnote to Table 5, among other things, suggests that adoption
of the proposed new Municipal Fee Schedule would not alter Palo Alto’s current practice
of giving additions and scrapes free passes: “20 new single-family residential units in FY
2023-24.” Staff Report, p. 6, fn. 2 (emphasis in the original). What does the emphasis
signify? Although actual data are not presented in the Staff Report, it is difficult to
imagine that the totalnumber of single-family homes in Palo Alto constructed during FY
2023-2024 that were either (a) “ new ,” (b) “newly expanded,” or (c) scraped was only 20.
Unless otherwise indicated in an updated report, one must assume that the
recommendations in the Staff Report continue to privilege single-family homes in crucial
ways, thus failing to embody a truly comprehensive per-square-foot impact analysis.
2 Letter to City Council dated June 17, 2024 (June 12, 2024 Letter), Attachment A, at p. 2.
2
A revised report should provide vital
data upon which reasonable decisions will ultimately depend .
City Staff should be commended for at least acknowledging that the City Council could
decide to further change and reduce the proposed impact fees, both to end inequities
and to cease privileging single-family homes. The Staff Report notes, for example:
DTA was able to evaluate and present both frameworks due to the large sample
of building permit data available from Palo Alto. Because these are proposed
maximum fee levels, City Council has the discretion to determine which
framework and fee level to adopt, including imposing a lower fee. Staff Report,
p. 5.
That said, it is disappointing that the Staff Report does not provide the types and the
requisite detail of data to evaluate vital policy alternatives. A revised report should
provide:
● A revised Attachment 1, covering at least the same time periods as the current
version for both single-family and multi-family homes, but also
○ including (a) new construction, (b) additions, (c) demolition permits
(showing the size of existing structures being demolished), and (d) ADUs,
○ for each type of project,
■ showing impact fees actually assessed, and
■ how, if at all, they were partially assessed between new
construction, scrapes, and additions, and
○ for each payment of impact fees, showing the date, fiscal year, and basis
upon which the impact fees were imposed.
● A detailed explanation of how money from impact fees has been spent since the
tremendous increases first went into effect in FY 2022 ( compare Staff Report, p.
3).
● Data showing changes in Palo Alto’s estimated population by year from 2020
through 2031.
○ At a fundamental level, residential impact fee analyses rest upon an
assumption that demand for civic services grows with increased housing.
But there is at least anecdotal evidence that Palo Alto’s population, in
addition to rapidly aging, has stabilized, if not declined, despite the
residential construction detailed in the Staff Report.
● At least a brief update on the implications of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado,
California , Syllabus (601 U. S. ____ (2024)), and its progeny, because that case,
and likely future appellate decisions, may substantially alter the entire framework
within which impact fees may be assessed. 3
3 Attachment A, at p. 2.
3
A revised report should examine, and,
as necessary resolve, apparent inconsistencies in the Staff Report .
Certain statements in the Staff Report appear to be either internally or externally
inconsistent.
● The Executive Summary states in part, at p. 2 of the Staff Report:
○ This amendment aligns with the City’s newly certified Housing Element
and addresses Program 3.1: Fee Waivers and Adjustments, aimed at
balancing the need for public facility funding with the promotion of housing
affordability.
○ At the same time, the Staff Report
■ provides little information about the specifics of the asserted “need
for public facility funding,” and
■ suggests that impact fees for larger multi-family units could
increase from $56,206 to $69,986.00 or more. Compare Tables 2
and 3 at p. 2 of the Staff Report.
○ If City Staff believe that Program 3.1 will be advanced by imposing ever
greater housing taxes on two- and three-bedroom apartments and
condominiums — precisely the types of multi-family housing in which
younger generations might desire to start families and into which older
generations might seek to downsize, thus freeing up existing single-family
homes — additional discussion and analysis would be warranted.
● In comparing the Distinct Rate and Consolidated Rate frameworks, the Staff
Report states, at p. 5, “Conversion of this fee will complete one of the objectives
under Program 3.1: Fee Waivers and Adjustments in the Housing Element.”
Respectfully, this remains to be seen, depending, to a large extent on how other
issues raised by the Staff Report are resolved.
○ “PROGRAM 3.1: FEE WAIVERS AND ADJUSTMENTS,” objective C,
states in part, “By September 2024, complete and implement studies to
convert existing park, community center, and library development impact
fees that are applied on a per unit basis to a per square foot basis.”
○ As discussed above at p. 2, unless otherwise indicated in an updated
report, the Staff Report appears to continue to privilege single-family
homes in crucial ways, thus failing to embody a truly comprehensive
per-square-foot impact analysis.
○ Thus, in the absence of additional information and clarification, adopting
the proposed ordinance will be insufficient to satisfy the explicit
requirements of Program 3.1, objective C.
● Attachment A to the Staff Report, the August 20,2024 DTA memorandum,
“Second Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification – Assembly
Bill (“AB”) 602 Compliance” (August 20,2024 DTA Memo), appears (a) not to
consider ADUs as a distinct land use type, and (b) imply that the City will produce
considerably fewer housing units in the 2021-2040 period than the RHNA targets
in Housing Element V6. Housing Element V6, p. 2-75.
4
○ Compare August 20,2024 DTA Memo, p.4, Table 3, and especially “Land
Use Type” column and fn. 2, with “TABLE 2-34 ABAG’S NEW
CONSTRUCTION NEED BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL IN PALO
ALTO, 2023-2031,” Housing Element V6, p. 2-75.
○ Given the distinct characteristics of ADUs, their relative importance in
Housing Element V6 to Palo Alto’s meeting its RHNA goals, and the
specificity of those goals in the Housing Element V6, such apparent
inconsistencies should be resolved.
A revised report should provide the City Council with a broader range
of policy alternatives and a bolder vision for advancing impact fee reform
to meet Palo Alto’s commitments in the approved Housing Element V6 .
Again, City Staff should be applauded for at least noting the City Council’s power to
reduce the proposed impact fees, but the Staff Report would be improved greatly were it
to make additional, specific recommendations to achieve such ends, including the
following:
● It could exclude 750 sf from the calculation of all impact fees, treating that size
threshold as a minimum home size — whether single-family, condominium,
apartment, or ADU — that should be free of all housing taxes, particularly in an
era of possibly declining and likely aging population change, and reduced public
school enrollment. Over the life of Housing Element V6, the real problem that
Palo Alto may face is not overutilization, but rather underutilization of parks,
community center facilities, and libraries. Without utilization, public support for
such civic assets may wither. In these respects, a revised report ought to make
clear the difference between use of impact fees for capital expenditures, as
opposed to operating expenses.
● Public confidence in the overall level of impact fees requires that a revised report
demonstrate (a) the actual purposes to which revenues from the greatly
heightened impact fees over the last few years have been put, and (b) the
specific projects that might be funded in the future after further changes are
made in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Although not detailed in the Staff Report,
recent annual reports on development impact fees make it difficult to assess (a)
the percentage of such fees assessed on single-family homes, on the one hand,
versus apartments, condominiums, and ADUs, on the other hand, and (b) the
precise ways in which such funds have been used.
○ The Staff Report shows no estimated park, community center, or library
impact fee revenues from multi-family homes in FY 2023-24 (Staff Report,
p.6, Table 5, fn. 3).
○ The “Building Permit Data - Single-Family Residential” data in the Staff
Report, August 20,2024 DTA Memo, Attachment 1, p. 6, show
approximately 22 FY 2023 single-family projects, which at approximately
$66,000 per project, would yield approximately $1,450,000 in impact fee
revenue, but the “ City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Report for
Period Ending June 30, 2023 ” (FY 2023 Development Impact Fee Report)
5
pp. 3-4, shows only about $495,000 in parks ($439,967), community
center (“$34,559), and library ($20,398) impact fees collected.
○ Palo Alto’s “PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2023,”
believed to be only an interim document, showed a proposed total of
$2,300,000 to be transferred from community center, library, and parks
development impact fee funds to a “Roth Building Rehabilitation Phase 1”
project in FY 2023. It is unclear whether any substantial portion of such
amounts were actually spent on that project or, if so, when such
expenditures were made. In particular, the FY 2023 Development Impact
Fee Report, p. 9, shows actual FY 2023 expenditures of about $725,000
from parks impact fees for projects at Boulware Park and Rinconada Park,
and for Park Restroom Installation, without any expenditures from
community center or library impact fees in FY 2023. But that report does
not show the types of housing that were taxed, nor the extent of such
housing taxes by type of housing, corresponding to such expenditures.
● What is needed every fiscal year is a clear and concise summary of fiscal inputs
and fiscal outputs with respect to the parks, community center, and library impact
fees. One should be able to know, by fiscal year, (a) what types of housing are
being subjected to impact fees, (b) what amounts of impact fees, by type of
housing and by type of impact fee, are being paid for each fiscal year, and (c)
how those fees are ultimately being spent, whether in a current or future fiscal
year. Transfers of money between different, specified funds to specific projects,
capital spending plan adjustments during the course of a year, and withdrawals
from and additions to reserve accounts all make it difficult for the public to
understand how, and to what extent, revenues from residential housing impact
fees are being raised, and how those revenues are ultimately being spent.
● Particularly because of the City’s express admission to the HCD that Palo Alto’s
current, per-unit impact fees have “led to some inequitable results…,” Housing
Element V6, p. 4-65, and particularly because the City has continued to charge
impact fees for larger ADUs since that admission was first made — now several
quarters ago — the City Council should provide refunds from the date that the
City first acknowledged the problems with its current residential impact fee
regime to those homeowners and others who have paid improperly large ADU
impact fees. A revised report should detail the number of such projects, the
amount of all such payments and estimates of the amount of such refunds.
Finally, to allow for reasonable public input in light of the HCD-approved Housing
Element, the City Council should (a) direct the Planning and Transportation Commission
to allow for public comment on these issues at its October 09, 2024 meeting, (b) direct
City Staff to prepare a revised report, and (c) continue this matter to the City Council’s
November 4, 2024 meeting.
Attachment
6
TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council)
RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #28, “PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of
Budget Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2025 [etc.]” and Comments re Staff
Report 2406-3140 (Staff Report)
DATE: June 17, 2024
FROM: John Kelley
RECOMMENDATION
Because the likelihood of the City Council’s modifying the FY2025 budget tonight
is low, and because Palo Alto’s impact fees are inequitable, irrational, and may
fail to take account of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, the City
Council should (a) thoroughly examine and revise the City’s impact fees at its first
or second meeting in August and (b) recalculate the fees charged to all
applicants in recent years, providing refunds as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Palo Alto's inequitable, irrational, and possibly improper impact fee regime
should be suspended or quickly changed, and refunds should be granted.
Palo Alto’s Housing Element acknowledges that the City’s current, per-unit
impact fees have “led to some inequitable results….” 1 It also notes that “Palo Alto’s
development impact fees/capacity fees are amongst the highest in the region for both
single-family and multi-family home construction.” 2 Some members of the City Council
and City Staff appear to recognize that the current per-unit impact fee regime needs to
be changed. 3 Based upon the discussion at the City Council’s April 15, 2024 meeting, it
appears that City Staff anticipated presenting a new proposal to the City Council in May,
2024, but, for unknown reasons — likely because of other work being undertaken by
members of City Staff — it appears that this did not occur. As a result, the proposed FY
2025 budget not only maintains the same, inequitable, per-unit impact fee regime, but it
also increases those fees. 4 This is an extremely unfortunate result.
What should be done about this problem? Given the City Council’s vacation
schedule and the City Staff’s current workflows, it seems quite unlikely that the City
Council will vote tonight to adopt a new, non-per-unit impact fee regime. Even that
4 Staff Report, Attachment A, Ex. 5, at p. 7, and Attachment A , Ex. 6,at pp. 1-2.
3 See , e.g., “ Sp. City Council Meeting, Summary Minutes : 04/15/2024,” at 11.
2 Id . at 4-2
1 “ 2023-2031 Housing Element, City of Palo Alto ,” April 2024, Adopted, at 4-64.
1
action, however, would be sub-optimal, because it ignores other significant problems
with Palo Alto’s current approach to impact fees.
In somewhat the same way that the City Council reacted to a judicial decision
concerning the use of natural gas earlier this year, the City Council could temporarily
suspend impact fees until this matter can be taken up after the City Council’s vacation.
That might be the most respectful approach, especially towards current applicants. But
it, too, would be incomplete.
Whether or not the City Council temporarily suspends impact fees tonight, I
strongly recommend a rapid and fulsome analysis of the multiple problems presented by
the current impact fee regime.
● The current regime adversely affects not only ADUs, but also apartments,
condominiums, and SB9 units (collectively, New Smaller Homes). All of these,
generally smaller, homes are subjected to a “Palo Alto housing tax.” For some
homes, that housing tax is now approaching $80,000. If Palo Alto is committed
to building both more and more affordable housing, such draconian housing
taxes must end.
● As to ADUs, as mentioned above and as discussed in the attached April 14,
2024 letter to the City Council, the current impact fee regime leads to particularly
inequitable results.
● In addition, as to all New Smaller Homes when compared with single-family
homes, inequity becomes irrationality. Under Palo Alto’s current per-unit impact
fee regime as applied to parcels with existing single-family homes, a property
owner substantially adding to or completely scraping a 2,000 sf primary dwelling
and replacing it with a 5,000 sf or larger primary dwelling will pay no impact fees
at all, whereas the builder of ten 500 sf studios — having a total of 5,000 sf —
might pay over $500,000 in FY2025 for Park Impact Fees alone.
● Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held on April 12, 2024 that the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and
administrative land-use permit conditions.” 5 Since the United States Supreme
Court vacated the judgment of the California Court of Appeal and remanded the
case for further proceedings, it is not clear how emerging federal law affecting
impact fees will develop. The City Council can and should, however, take notice
of this decision.
● Finally, the problems with the “Palo Alto housing tax” have been known
essentially since the current impact regime was put into place by a prior council a
few years ago. Once a new, equitable, rational, and forward thinking approach to
5 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California , Syllabus (601 U. S. ____ (2024)) ( Slip Opinion , at p. 1).
2
impact fees has been adopted by the City Council — preferably at the first or
second City Council meeting in August - all of the impact fees that have been
charged since the current regime was established should be re-calculated, and
the difference between the fees previously paid and those that would have been
assessed under newly adopted rules should be refunded to applicants with
interest.
Whether or not the City Council suspends the current impact fee regime before
adopting the FY2025 budget, these issues deserve quick and thorough attention at the
first or the second City Council meeting in August. At that meeting, besides adopting a
new approach to impact fees, the City Council should refund the difference between the
fees that applicants have paid in recent years under the current impact fee regime and
the fees that would have been charged under a proper approach.
Attachment
3
TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) and Planning & Transportation
Commission (PTC)
RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #13, “Joint City Council and Planning
and Transportation Commission Meeting to Adopt a Resolution Amending
the Comprehensive Plan by Adopting a Revised 2023-31 Housing
Element [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2312-2450 (Staff Report)
DATE: April 14, 2024
FROM: John Kelley
RECOMMENDATION
City Staff have improved the prior version of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
(Housing Element) in important ways, but the PTC and the City Council should
direct City Staff to make further changes in the revised Housing Element prior to
adopting it and delivering it to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD).
DISCUSSION
1. ADUs Play a Crucial Role in the City’s Housing Element
The City relies heavily on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in attempting to meet
its RHNA. For example, when comparing the “ADUs” row with the “Total Unit Surplus”
row in Table 3-27, “Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory,” of the revised draft “Palo
Alto Housing Element 2023-2031 (Redlined),” 1 for both (a) the combination of the “Very
Low-Income” and the “Low-Income” columns and (b) the “Moderate Income” column,
one can see that the “ADUs” values exceed the “Total Unit Surplus” values. Thus, if the
City fails to produce very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income ADUs to the
extent predicted, much of the “buffer” may disappear, the City may fail to satisfy its
RHNA. Accordingly, assessing the City’s constraints on ADU production is vital in
analyzing the sufficiency of the Revised Redline Housing Element.
2. The City’s ADU Projections Still Ignore Important Constraints
The City relies on ABAG’s technical guidance for estimating the future distribution
of ADUs by income category based on actual Palo Alto production figures from
2019-2021. 2 Yet the ABAG technical memo articulates its own limits: “ABAG conducted
2 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , RRHE, p.
3-8.
1 “Revised Redline Housing Element” or “RRHE,”
https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-1.pdf , p.
3-72.
1
an analysis of ADU affordability and concluded that in most jurisdictions , the following
assumptions are generally applicable.” 3 “Generally applicable,” however, does not
necessarily mean “applicable in Palo Alto” (especially if one considers the “Palo Alto
premium,” among other things). Thus, in assessing the RRHE, one must scrutinize the
unique constraints that Palo Alto imposes on ADU production. 4
A. Impact Fees
Since an earlier draft of the Housing Element was submitted to the HCD in 2022,
the City Council again raised the impact fees imposed on 750+ sf ADUs. 5 Today the
FY2024 facial — essentially “MSRP,” because proportionality discounts apply to such
ADUs — total of Community Center, general government, library, park, and public safety
facilities fees for “Single Family” in Palo Alto totals $76,385, more than $3,000 greater
than the base, $72,562 figure discussed in the RRHE. 6 Because Palo Alto changed
both the categories used to calculate impact fees and the magnitude of the fees, 7 their
effects were not reflected in 2019-2021 baseline ADU production figures that the City
has relied upon in its RHNA projections. 8 Furthermore, as applied especially to ADUs,
8
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/04/15/palo-alto-hikes-development-impact-fees-for-first-time-in
-20-years Compare the figures on RRHE, p. 3-8.
7 Staff report for 4/20/2021 meeting , p. 8
6 FY2024 Fee Schedule, p. 65, and RRHE p. 4-64. Please note: in the RRHE, a range of values is
provided, “$72,562 - $302,362.” See pgs. 4-63 – 4-64 for a discussion of how the $302,362 figure is
calculated. The City acknowledges that such “larger projects involving detached single-family
homes…..are rare….” RRHE p. 4-64. (Perhaps ADU impact fees could even exceed the “MSRP.”).
5 “ADOPTED MUNICIPAL FEE FISCAL YEAR SCHEDULE 2024,” “Impact & In-Lieu Fees,” “Development
Impact Fees - Residential,” (FY2024 Fee Schedule)
( https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy-2024-city-bud
get/adopted/fy24-muni-fee-book-final.pdf , p. 65.
4 Until recently, Palo Alto’s Tree Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 8.10, “TREE AND LANDSCAPE
PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT,”
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-65934#JD_Chapter8.10 , was
among the most important, Palo-Alto-specific constraints on ADU production. At the City Council meeting
on April 1, 2024, the City Council considered a Staff Report incorporating an important finding from the
City Attorney:
During passage of the tree ordinance updates in January, staff confirmed during the Council
Questions that based on CAO analysis of PAMC Chapter 18.09, the updated Title 8 and
applicable state law, the tree ordinance would not apply to stand alone Table 1 ADU’s .
Staff Report 2403-2809,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=4688&meetingTemplateType=2&
compiledMeetingDocumentId=9485 , p. 1 (emphasis added). (Since this statement was attributed to the
City Attorney’s Office, it is assumed that the City will follow that guidance and no longer apply the Tree
Ordinance to what are, in effect, statewide exemption ADUs.) Attachment A, the ordinance proposed by
City Staff, was amended at the April 1, 2024 meeting. See the video of the April 1, 2024 meeting,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2PxdunJHco , beginning at approximately 6:06:59.
3 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , p. 1
(emphasis added).
2
the City’s impact fee structure is (a) inequitable, for multiple reasons, only one of which
is discussed in the RRHE, and (b) a significant impediment to production of ADUs, a
point not addressed in the City’s RRHE financial feasibility analysis. Pgs. 4-64 - 4-65.
The City itself acknowledges that the basic, per-unit fee architecture is
inequitable, but it promises to make amends:
In accordance with state law, fees for ADUs are only charged on ADUs larger
than 750 square feet, and are charged in proportion to the fee that are or would
be assessed on the primary unit. Because Palo Alto has historically charged
per-unit fees for residential development, this has led to some inequitable results,
as the fees for an ADU will depend not only on the size of the ADU, but also on
the size of the primary unit, with higher fees required under state law when the
primary unit is smaller. To avoid this scenario, the City will implement Programs
3.1 and 3.5 to convert fees to a per square foot calculation. 9
That is a step in the right direction but remains insufficient to correct past and continuing
harms. This promise lacks a specific deadline, but Program 3.1 refers to December
2024. RRHE, p. 5-15. Still, that program omits some of the impact fees identified
above, is not offered as a specific condition for present acceptance of the RRHE, and
offers nothing to those previously saddled with inequitable housing impact fees to obtain
permits for ADUs in Palo Alto. The City should:
● not submit a further revised Housing Element to the HCD until the current
per-unit system is replaced;
● immediately place a moratorium on charging new impact fees for ADUs until
such a new system is adopted; and, after its adoption,
● recalculate the impact fees for any ADU built after the revised fee schedule was
first adopted in April, 2021, refunding the difference between the previously
charged fees and those that would have been due under the new system to
homeowners.
Even with such changes, however, the City would only be addressing one half of the
inequities built into its current impact fee structure as applied to ADUs.
In the FY2024 Fee Schedule at p. 65, the phrases “Single Family” and “per unit”
tell only a partial story. The City asserts that “the burden of housing costs is being more
equitably distributed across project types,” pg. 4-65, but the discussion in the
“DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND IN-LIEU FEES'' section, RRHE pgs. 4-63 – 4-65,
9 RRHE p. 4-64.
3
fails to make clear that, as currently implemented, “Single Family” and “per unit”
essentially mean “brand new single-family on a vacant parcel.” This implicit meaning of
the fee schedule language is noteworthy given the City’s observation that there is a
“lack of vacant land in Palo Alto.” RRHE pgs. 4-64. It is inequitable to impose impact
fees on ADUs that vary with the size of the primary dwelling on a parcel — such that a
person with an 800 sf house might have to pay $76,385 to build an 800 sf ADU,
whereas a neighbor with a 3,200 sf house would only pay a quarter of such fees to build
an identical 800 sf ADU. But a far more fundamental inequity becomes evident when
one compares single-family homes and ADUs.
● Instead of building an 800 sf ADU, the hypothetical homeowner with an
800 sf house could instead add 2,400 sf to the house, but since there was
a pre-existing home on the lot, Palo Alto would not currently charge
$76,385 in impact fees, nor indeed any of the park or other impact fees
detailed above, on that home addition, even though it would be three
times the size of the 800 sf ADU alternative.
● If the hypothetical neighbor, with a 3,200 sf house, had the capital and the
desire, the neighbor might “scrape” the entire existing house, rebuild at or
above grade 3,200 sf more luxuriously, and then add a basement, perhaps
2,400 sf in size, and, again, not pay any impact fees.
The City may “implement Program 3.1 Fee Waivers & Adjustments ” before New Year’s
Eve 2024, RRHE pgs. 4-65, but this does not appear to include a commitment to alter
the fundamental discrimination in Palo Alto’s impact fee architecture as implemented:
the City privileges substantial additions to and even complete “scrapes” of single-family
homes, while seeking to shift the vast majority of all housing impact fees to new ADUs,
apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. Palo Alto’s impact fees are, in essence,
housing taxes on smaller, non-R-1 dwellings. Such taxes constrain ADU production.
As HCD has recognized, 10 one of the merits of ADUs as a housing production
strategy is their low costs. This “lower denominator” means that the impact fees charged
by Palo Alto constitute an outsized percentage of costs for ADUs. As a corollary, the
financial feasibility analysis offered by the City, RRHE pgs. 4-64 - 4-65, is not applicable
to ADUs. Rather than building four dozen townhomes, a Palo Alto homeowner may
only be seeking to build a single 800 sf ADU. Adding even tens of thousands of dollars
to an ADU project may make it significantly less attractive to an individual homeowner,
who generally would have lower access to capital than the developer of 48 townhomes.
Even without reaching the full $76,385 amount, many homeowners with smaller homes
10 “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HANDBOOK UPDATED JULY 2022” (“HCD 2022 ADU
Handbook”)( https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf
), p. 4.
4
will end up being charged $25,000, $30,000 or even more in “Planning Impact Fees''
before they can receive a building permit for an ADU from the City. Not everyone in
Palo Alto can put $25,000 on a credit card or send an e-check for $30,000 to the City.
Thus the architecture of City’s housing impact fees — already heavily disadvantaging
ADUs — further privileges more economically advantaged homeowners. The City’s
financial feasibility tests will be cold comfort for many homeowners building ADUs.
The burden of the City’s impact fees on ADUs — whether $25,000 or $75,000 —
will also affect the City’s ability to meet its RHNA, particularly for more affordable
housing. This is especially true given the current interest rate environment. If one were
able to obtain — which could be quite difficult — a 30-year fixed mortgage at 7% to
build an ADU, $30,000 in marginal fees paid to Palo Alto would translate into an
approximately $200 greater monthly payment. 11 $200 per month translates into a sizable
percentage of the 1- and even 2-person rents described in “TABLE 2-18 MAXIMUM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 2021” for the “Extremely
Low Income,” “Very Low Income,” “Low Income,” and even “Median Income rental limits.
RRHE pg. 2-39. Thus the the City’s reliance on ADUs to meet its affordable housing
goals is incoherent if not completely inconsistent:
● while relying on ADUs to provide a significant percentage of its more affordable
units, and while knowing that any such tax will constitute a relatively larger
proportion of project costs in comparison with, for example, R-1 developments,
the City nonetheless taxes ADU production; and
● Program 3.1 does not appear to commit the City to correcting the taxation
disparity between new smaller housing units — ADUs, apartments, etc. — and
new additions to or “scrapes” of single-family homes.
Both the magnitude and the architecture of Palo Alto’s impact fees significantly
constrain ADU production, particularly production of more affordable ADUs.
B. Utilities Policies
City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) policies further constrain ADU production.
While the UAC may take up this issue at some point in the future, at present the City
follows what is, in essence, a “one-parcel, one service” policy in R-1 neighborhoods.
This means that, for example, electrical, water, and sewer services for a primary
11
https://www.google.com/search?q=mortgage+calculator&oq=mortga&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDQgAEAA
YgwEYsQMYgAQyDQgAEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyDQgBEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyBggCEEUYPDIGCAMQR
Rg8MgYIBBBFGD0yBggFEEUYPDIGCAYQRRhBMgYIBxBFGEGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF
-8
5
dwelling and an ADU (or JADU) on the same lot will be provided and billed under one
CPAU account. If a homeowner is seeking to build and rent an ADU (or JADU), this can
cause several types of problems.
● Tiering problems. If a utility’s prices are tiered based on consumption (for
example, higher per unit rates above one or more thresholds), then two
households on a single account will be billed at a marginally higher rate than they
would be billed on two separate accounts.
● Overhead and collections problems. Even with sub-metering equipment, a
homeowner renting an ADU will be left with the tasks of calculating charges,
billing, and receiving payment.
● Fundamental capital cost problems, especially with electrical services. Many
existing single-family homes in Palo Alto have existing 100A or 200A electrical
services. Adding even an 800 sf ADU may, based on the normal electrical load
calculation methods followed by CPAU at present, and especially if a homeowner
is seeking to build an all-electric ADU, result in approximately 100A (or more) of
additional electrical load. While other techniques may be used, if one simply
seeks to increase one’s electrical service capacity, present CPAU forms and
policies can result in the need for an application to increase the existing electrical
service to 400A, even though some of this capacity is not necessarily needed for
the ADU. Such an electrical upgrade, including both the fees charged by CPAU
and those charged by a contractor, can sometimes cost $10,000 or more.
● “Loser lottery.” That first $10,000 cost may not be the biggest cost. CPAU may,
in addition, determine that there is not sufficient capacity in its local distribution
system for a new 400A service, in which case an ADU applicant may have “won”
a “loser lottery”: CPAU may determine that, because the ADU would exhaust
local distribution capacity, the ADU applicant should bear the cost of, for
example, upgrading a transformer, or, sometimes, even having also to place a
large pedestal for new CPAU-owned electrical equipment in the applicant’s front
yard. 12 The “winners” of such a “loser lottery” might have to pay tens of
thousands of additional dollars to CPAU.
Returning to the prior mortgage cost analysis, all of these costs might add another $70,
$140, $210, or more in monthly costs to an ADU project, further undermining its
potential to help the City meet its housing affordability goals.
Other policies could and should be adopted by the City.
12 Requiring such payments and siting equipment on a homeowner’s land as conditions for obtaining a
building permit may be quite improper, e.g., as requiring a “public benefit” from a building permit applicant.
6
● CPAU could and should give homeowners building ADUs the option — as
determined solely by the homeowner, and at the homeowner’s expense — to
build a new ADU (or JADU) with its own utilities, particularly electrical and water
utilities. The homeowner should decide if such capital investments make sense.
● CPAU could and should bear the costs of maintaining its own distribution capacity,
a n issue that will probably return to the City Council in other contexts (e.g., future
deliberations regarding S/CAP and electrical infrastructure).
● CPAU could and should move more quickly in accepting, working with, and even
supporting alternative means of calculating electrical loads under the NEC.
With such changes, the City would begin to eliminate some of the most important
constraints on ADU, and especially affordable ADU, housing production resulting from
current CPAU policies.
C. Permitting Policies
Government Code sub-section 66314(a) allows a local agency to designate
areas in which ADUs may be permitted based on “on the adequacy of water and sewer
services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.” 13
Government Code sub-section 66317(c) provides: “No local ordinance, policy, or
regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article
shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this
section.” 14
Despite these and other limits on which types of considerations a local agency
may consider in reviewing an ADU permit application ministerially, the City routinely
routes ADU permit applications to multiple departments whose reviews are not
specifically authorized under the California statute, including, Urban Forestry, Electrical
Utilities, and the gas portion of WGW Utilities. Individualized reviews of ADU permit
applications by such departments, particularly involving non-objective standards,
frustrate the ministerial ADU permit application process. The City’s routinely subjecting
14
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part
=&chapter=13.&article=2 . (formerly Government Code sub-section 65852.2(a)(7), see
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-65852-2/https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/governmen
t-code/gov-sect-65852-2/ ).
13
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part
=&chapter=13.&article=2 .
(formerly Government Code sub-section 65852.2(a)(1)(A), see
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-65852-2/https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/governmen
t-code/gov-sect-65852-2/ ).
7
ADU applications to such reviews is another way in which it constrains ADU production,
delays ADU permit issuance, and increases costs to those seeking to build ADUs.
D. Disavowing HCD’s AFFH Tools
The HCD has provided tools for determining whether certain types of ADUs are
allowed in particular areas. The “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and
Mapping Resources” is an example of one such tool. 15 Using it, one can identify, for
example, “High Quality Transit Stop Areas” within Palo Alto: 16
16
https://affh-data-and-mapping-resources-v-2-0-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/636e3f917b3445929f4aa0
647afc4085_2/explore?location=37.436345%2C-122.134573%2C12.94
15 https://affh-data-and-mapping-resources-v-2-0-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com/
8
Such a map should allow one, before filing an ADU building permit application, to
determine with precision whether one can build, for example, an 18’ detached ADU on
one’s property. See PAMC 18.09.030, Table 1, fn. 5. 17 Despite the availability of such
tools, Palo Alto appears not to recognize their accuracy, and appears to base its
determination of such areas based on its own compilation of data, which may well be
inadequate and incomplete.
Failing to acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of such HCD-provided AFFH
tools is another significant constraint on ADU production, because it makes it more
difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming to determine whether one can build
the type of ADU that one might seek to build in Palo Alto; even more unfortunately, it
can result in an incorrect determination of whether a particular design is permissible.
3. Compounding Effects and Cumulative Financial Metrics
Extremely high and inequitable impact fees, costly utilities policies, onerous
permitting practices, and disavowal of recognized AFFH tools are all, when considered
individually, significant constraints on ADU production and especially on production of
more affordable ADUs in Palo Alto. Considering them collectively compounds and
multiplies deleterious effects, further reducing the likelihood of the RRHE being
sufficient to meet Palo Alto’s RHNA mandates.
● Regulatory uncertainty, such as that caused by the City’s failure to acknowledge
HCD-provided AFFH tools may keep an ADU project from ever commencing.
Knowing that friends or neighbors in other parts of Palo Alto can build 18’
detached ADUs (e.g., over an existing detached garage) may set an expectation
for prospective ADU applicants that cannot be verified at the outset of a project.
● Prospective ADU applicants that live in smaller homes and that may also be less
capital advantaged may be dissuaded from building larger ADUs when they can
spend the money in better ways simply by adding onto their existing houses
without incurring enormous impact fees. Why let the City charge $50,000 or
$75,000 for an 800 sf ADU when the same overall budget might support an extra
bedrooms or even more in a 900 sf or larger addition?
● How much will it actually cost, over the lifetime of an ADU, to pay higher marginal
electrical and water service rates with single accounts for both primary dwellings
and ADUs? Who will bear that financial risk?
● Would one decide not to build an all-electric ADU or even drop a project if CPAU
failed to pay the costs for upgrading a transformer in its distribution plant?
17 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-76751
9
● Who, indeed, would ever want to be the grand-prize “winner” in a “loser lottery,”
having to pay $10,000, $20,000, or even more to install a 400A electrical service,
with the special bonus of housing a CPAU transformer in one’s front yard?
● Why should there be any review by Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities or gas
utilities of 800 sf or smaller ADUs? Why are such reviewing departments in Palo
Alto also sometimes the very last to approve an ADU application, delaying what
is supposed to be a maximum 60-day, completely objective, and
ascertainable-in-advance, ministerial review process?
● Obtaining an ADU building permit from any local agency in California should be
quick, easy, and inexpensive. Those are not the adjectives that many
homeowners who have built, or who would like to build, ADUs in Palo Alto would
use to describe the City’s permitting processes. Instead, as a result of other City
policies and practices, those seeking to build ADUs and other residential
dwellings often come face-to-face with the “Palo Alto Premium,” the implicit
surcharge that contractors and others may impose for working in Palo Alto.
All of these effects, especially when considered in combination, take their
cumulative toll, particularly on production of more affordable ADUs in Palo Alto. Yet the
RRHE assumes, based on ABAG’s conclusions about circumstances in “most
jurisdictions,” 18 that over 300 ADUs will be built in Palo Alto over the next several years,
apparently for rental at the “Extremely Low Income,” “Very Low Income,” and “Low
Income” prices described in Table 2-18. RRHE, pg. 2-39.
In the “AFFORDABILITY” section of the RRHE, the City seems almost to
concede that this is fanciful.
When comparing the home prices and rents shown earlier in Figure 2-17, Figure
2-18, and Table 2-16 with the maximum affordable housing costs presented in
Table 2-18 below, it is evident that extremely low-, very low- and low-income
households in Palo Alto have almost no affordable housing options without
substantial subsidies.
RRHE, pg. 2-39. How is the City intending to provide such subsidies for ADUs?
While Section 2.6 of the RRHE, “HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS,”
discusses, among other things, means of addressing expiring Section 8 project-based
subsidies, RRHE, pgs. 2-83 - 2-88, it is unclear whether, and if so how, these or other
discussions of potential subsidies would or could apply to the 300+ ADUs the RRHE
assumes would be available at extremely low-, very low- and low-income rental prices.
18 https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections-Memo-final.pdf , p. 1.
10
What is known is that the combination of extremely high and inequitable impact fees,
costly utilities policies, onerous permitting practices, and disavowal of recognized AFFH
tools operates as an anti-subsidy, as a housing tax, especially on ADUs.
The City does not appear to have offered an ADU-specific financial analysis of
such constraints. What metrics might one use to assess the City’s policies and
practices on ADU housing production? At least two come to mind.
One standard has a proven track record of success at the state level. During
those parts of a fiscal year when its funding has not been fully allocated, and for eligible
recipients, the maximum $40,000 grants offered by CalHFA appear to have been
successful in stimulating ADU production.
CalHFA’s ADU Grant Program has already created more housing units in
California by providing grants up to $40,000 to reimburse pre-development and
non-recurring closing costs associated with the construction of an ADU.
Pre-development costs include site prep, architectural designs, permits, soil
tests, impact fees, property surveys, and energy reports. 19
Under the 2023-24 state budget, which provided $25 million for the project, there
appears to have been “high demand” 20 for such grants. As a first approximation, and
certainly one that would appear to be more relevant to ADU construction than a survey
of four dozen townhomes, a $40,000 marginal cost might be more than sufficient to
have negative implications for ADU production.
A second method of calculation might be based upon the Santa Clara County
ADU “Accessory Dwelling Unit Calculator.” 21 Assuming that one were seeking to build a
“0 Bed / 1 Bath / 0 / 400 sqft” studio in Palo Alto, the calculator projected $184-224K in
development costs, an estimated monthly rent of $1,600 - $2,000, monthly expenses of
$1,500 - $1,900, based upon a capital structure of a $60,000 cash investment and a
$144,000 loan with a 20 year term and an 8% interest rate, yielding an estimated
monthly mortgage payment of $1,194. Since the estimated monthly rent was quite
comparable to the estimated monthly expenditures with this capital structure, it appears
that most of the economic benefit was projected to be realized as an increase in
property value. “It is estimated that your ADU will increase your home value by
$214,000.” 22 But using $60,000 in cash, and leveraging it with a $144,000 mortgage —
even if one could obtain such a mortgage — to produce an increase in value of
22 https://santaclaracounty.aducalculator.org/
21 https://citiesassociation.org/documents/santa-clara-county-adu-calculator/
20 https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/homeownership/bulletins/2023/2023-12.pdf
19 https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/adu/index.htm
11
$214,000 in a relatively illiquid asset with relatively high sales transaction costs would
appear, on its face, to be only modestly attractive as an investment opportunity when
10-year Treasury bonds are yielding, at least at this time, over 4.5%. 23 As a result, one
might expect an economically motivated ADU applicant to strive to increase rents
higher, potentially to levels above what the City has contemplated in Table 2-18.
There is a substantial chance that Palo Alto’s constraints on ADU production will
cause the City to fail to meet its projected targets for extremely low-, very low- and
low-income ADUs. As a result, the City’s “Buffer above Remaining RHNA After
Credits,” RRHE, pg. 3-72, for those categories of affordable housing units may be lost.
In addition to the policy changes discussed above — eliminating or greatly
reducing impact fees on ADUs; returning previously inequitably levied impact fees to
homeowners; allowing, at a homeowner’s option and expense, for separate electrical
and water utilities services for ADUs; ending Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities, and
WGW gas-related departmental reviews; and accepting the results of HCD’s AFFH tools
— this analysis points towards the types of policy interventions to which the City should
commit itself if it truly intends to rely upon ADUs as an important source of extremely
low-, very low- and low-income housing during the current RHNA cycle. It could and
should:
● replicate the maximum $40,000 grants offered by CalHFA, perhaps in
cooperation with CalHFA itself.
● offer qualifying ADU applicants, perhaps using the same income and other
qualifications established by CalHFA, to provide, e.g., $200,000 - $300,000 loans
at the City’s cost of capital to those applicants willing to offer rentals at federally
approved rates for a period of 10 years with “on-bill payments,” perhaps through
the CPAU’s own billing system; and
● immediately implement AB 1033: “ Accessory dwelling units, also referred to as
ADUs and “granny flats,” have been available in California only as rentals. But a
new law, Assembly Bill 1033 , is giving Californians the opportunity to buy and sell
them as condominiums,” creating an important innovation to foster actual
ownership of smaller homes in Palo Alto.
Palo Alto has the capability, the credit rating, and the spirit of innovation to provide
capital and new forms of ownership for more affordable housing in our community. The
City can augment ADU production, especially of more affordable ADUs, should the City
Council demonstrate leadership and commitment to such goals.
23 https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us
12
From:Megan Watson
To:Council, City
Cc:Ted O"Hanlon; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Sep. 23rd, 2024 - City Council Special Meeting - Agenda Item #3
Date:Monday, September 23, 2024 4:08:29 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To Members of the City Council,
This e-mail is being submitted in response to Agenda Item #3 on the Consent Calendar,
which proposes to amend the Development Impact Fees from a per Unit basis to a per
Square Foot basis for Residential Development. This is a necessary issue to be considered
by City Council and we are grateful for the efforts that have been put forth to evaluate it
tonight. Grubb Properties has been vocal about the City’s need to reduce its impact fees. At
their current level, these impact fees pose a direct barrier to the City’s housing production
goals. The Park Fees specifically have had an outsized effect on this and have rendered
our 102-unit project at 788 San Antonio impossible to build in its current form.
The most troubling aspect of this proposal before you tonight, is that the recommended
Framework 1 – Distinct Rate, imposes an all-in rate of $21.10 per Sq. Ft. on Single Family
projects while Multi-Family would be assessed at $49.99 per Sq. Ft. Under this framework,
an 850 sq. Ft. Rental Unit would pay the exact same fee as a 2,014 sq. ft. Single Family
Home. Not only is this blatantly inequitable, but it also sends a clear message that residents
in Multi-Family dwellings are responsible for subsidizing residents in Single-Family homes.
The entire point of AB 602 is to make impact fees fairer and more proportional. Framework
1 flies in the face of that goal.
Amid an unprecedented housing crisis, the last thing Palo Alto should do is penalize
smaller rental residences, in denser projects, while encouraging sprawl and widening the
equity gap between renters and homeowners. Framework 1 does not go far enough, and
we strongly encourage City Council to move in favor of something more akin to Framework
2 – Consolidated Rate. As Staff reports, this option would encourage an increase in
housing inventory and would be more beneficial to multi-family development, where a
greater impact to more residents can be made.
This is a tremendously important issue and we appreciate Council’s careful consideration
on how the matter will impact Palo Alto’s future housing goals.
Sincerely,
Megan Watson
Senior Director | Grubb Properties
10000 West Washington Blvd
WeWork, 6th Floor
Culver City, CA 90232
Mobile: 405-973-5229mwatson@grubbproperties.com
grubbproperties.com
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #9 Impact Fees
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:05:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing & Council Members,
The residents of Palo Alto need the council to reject lowering impact fees as proposed in item number 9. Our
libraries, parks, and community centers are the long standing, established foundations that contribute to the well
being of residents of all ages. Do not cut funding for Parks, Libraries and Community Centers.
As you well know during the week our population is approximately 125,000 but on weekends 67,000. The town
endures stresses on services and infrastructure. The carbon increase is already showing the impacts of car commutes
to Palo Alto. The residents should not subsidize well-paid SV workers to move here. That is exactly what the
developers are urging you to do. Palo Altans already subsidize services and infrastructure so this change will harm
the city should you allow developers to decrease impact fees.
Do not buckle under pressure from developers to lower impact fees. You need to support the quality of life that
parks, community centers and libraries hold for Palo Altans.
Take a good look at who is pushing you to do otherwise.
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From:Melanie Grondel
To:Council, City
Cc:Melanie Grondel
Subject:Please do not lower Impact Fees and defund Libraries, Parks and Community Centers.
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 9:06:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Stone and City Council Members, In the last budget we are restoring funding for our Libraries.
I am delighted that the Palo Alto Library is able to move to restoring service levels to pre-Pandemic levels. I see other signs of improvement in the funding and planning for Parks and
Community Centers too. I consider these kind of community services an essential support thattruly benefit all of us in Palo Alto and those who will be moving here when the required
increase of dwelling units is being delivered.
I do not want to lose the progress we are making.
Please do not lower the impact fees and undercut funding for Libraries, Parks and CommunityCenters.
Thank youfor your consideration - Melanie Grondel - College Terrace - Palo Alto
From:Annette Ross
To:Council, City
Subject:Impact Fees
Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:51:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I understand that Council may consider reducing impact fees. Why? A past Council struggled to get these fees to
their current level. Costs across the board are increasing, unfunded State mandates are impacting local governments
unfavorably, and myriad pieces of legislation already provide plenty of concessions to developers. Fees are critical
to providing and maintaining infrastructure. And Palo Alto is required to grow. You know all this. Please, let's not
compound our problems.
Annette Ross
Palo Altoona
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:Council, City; citymgr@cirtyofpaloalto.org
Cc:Jo Ann Mandinach
Subject:#9 Impact Fees
Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 12:35:58 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from needtono@well.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Please don't even think of forcing residents to deal with reduced city services to allow developers to profit evenmore.
I was surprised to see candidates for council bragging about how they worked to restore library hours when they'restill way below the pre-lockdown schedules.
For example, Rinconada -- formerly Main -- Library -- only saw restored hours for Monday hours until 6PM whichstill has only only has 2 evening hours all week -- from 6-8PM on Thursdays -- because it pushed up the openingtime by the same 2 hours -- so it opens at noon instead of 10AM.
Obviously working adults and kids with after-school jobs are severely disadvantaged
Further, to save money they've eliminated Author Alerts which alerts you to acquisitions for your favorite authors tosave a lousy $5 a YEAR per user. They justify this because "only" 5 patrons have bothered to complain and theirpolicies are "data-driven" rather than reality-based since a quick glance at the HOLD shelves shows a hugeshrinkage now that no one knows when there's a new work of interest to reserve.
This type of false economy is very irritating, reduces the libraries' value and led me to foot the bill personally for thevery same valuable Author Alert service -- AND wasted my time researching how to restore the service for my ownuse. It also wasted the librarians' time trying to justify the indefensible new policy.
We need to fund the libraries and parks MORE, not less, especially when they'll be serving 6,000+ MORE residentsdue to the new developments.
Please support residents and resident services, not developers by letting them profit even more.
Respectfully,Jo Ann MandinachPalo Alto, CA 94301
From:Gary Johnson
To:Council, City
Cc:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com; tamsen.plume@hklaw.com; Mark Johnson; Justine Johnson-Nurnberg
Subject:Municipal Fees-Item 9-Acclaim Companies
Date:Thursday, November 14, 2024 4:26:00 PM
Attachments:Acclaim Companies-Public Comment-Item 9.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of Palo Alto City Council,
Attached is public comment from Acclaim Companies on Item 9 - Amendments to the Municipal Fee
Schedule – that will be heard on Monday November 18, 2024. We understand that the specific
ordinance being considered at Monday’s hearing is a response to AB 602, which addresses square-
footage-based fees and Housing Element Program 3.1C. The attached letter is Acclaim’s public
comments on those items. We would also like to inform you that Acclaim has approached the
planning staff about other important requests related to municipal fees that are critical to the
financial feasibility of the 3150 ECR Project but those requests are not included in this letter.
Appreciatively,
Gary Johnson
Acclaim Companies
125 Willow Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Direct: 650.622.2107
From:Matt Hengehold
To:Council, City
Subject:Hengehold Trucks’ Public Comment Regarding Amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Date:Thursday, November 14, 2024 4:15:10 PM
Attachments:Hengehold Trucks Comment Letter for City Council 11-14-2024.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached letter.
Thank you,Matt
Hengehold Truck Sales + Rentals Matt Hengehold
Hengehold Truck Sales + Rentals
p: 650.494.2444
w: htrucks.com
a: 762 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Matt Hengehold
Hengehold Trucks 762 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94025
November 14, 2024
Sent via email: City.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Palo Alto City Council Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Hengehold Trucks’ Public Comment on Item 9 Regarding Amendments to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Hengehold Trucks, through an entity called “Globe Investments, LLC” and in partnership with Acclaim Companies, is currently processing application 24PLN-00120 for the construction of 198 multifamily residential apartments including 40 low income units (the “Project”) at 762 San
Antonio Road (the “Property”). The Project is proposed under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the Housing Accountability Act, but we have worked hard to ensure it is as consistent with the City’s objective design standards as possible, while maintaining its proposed density and therefore its feasibility.
Hengehold Trucks was founded in 1948 by my grandfather, Fred Hengehold, originally operating
on El Camino Real in Palo Alto. In 1965, the business moved to its current location at 762 San
Antonio Road, expanding its capabilities while continuing the tradition of excellent service to customers throughout the area. Today, my uncle Dave Hengehold and I own and operate Hengehold Trucks, carrying on our family's legacy.
As members of the community in Palo Alto and part of a developer application team, we are
writing to comment on the pending changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule. As you know, Council is considering amendments to the Park, Community Center, and Library Development Impact Fees as Item 9 during its November 18th meeting. We greatly appreciate Council pulling this important policy item from consent calendar on September 23, and an opportunity to influence the impact fees that will apply to this Project and others.
We ask first and foremost that City Council consider selecting the “consolidated” rate. If Council does decide it has the needed support to select the “distinct” rate, please consider making the costs for a single-family unit and a multifamily unit in the “distinct” rate more equitable by lowering the multifamily rate and raising the single-family rate.
City Council Should Select the Consolidated Rate
In its report to Council for Item 9, staff explains that selection of a distinct rate is appropriate when “there is sufficient building permit data available” and “a jurisdiction can anticipate the number of projected units per residential land use type. When a jurisdiction has sufficient data available, the
2 #512854432_v2
distinct fee structure is preferred because it more proportionately reflects the size and impact of the residential units.”1 Conversely, staff explains that a consolidated rate is more appropriate where “a jurisdiction may not have sufficient building permit data” or “may not be able to project the
type of future development.”2 While staff goes on to suggest selection of the distinct rate structure,
it appears that the presented building permit data is in fact insufficient, that future development was almost entirely ignored in the analysis and therefore the impact of future development unknown, and that the data may have been selectively chosen to skew the Council’s choice in favor of the distinct rate.
The staff report and supporting memorandum from DTA dated August 20, 2024 (the “DTA Report”) imply that many factors, including multiple pieces of information gleaned from the building permit data, and a detailed analysis of anticipated trends in future development, were used to arrive at the distinct rate. However, the discussion on page 3 of the staff reveals a much simpler truth - the distinct rate is merely the result of dividing the current fee by average unit sizes, almost
entirely based on past building permit data and selective pending projects:
The building permit data provided for multifamily developments from 2013 to 2024 bizarrely
includes two projects whose applications were withdrawn (486 Hamilton Avenue and 200
Portage), but excludes this Project all other pending residential development projects proposed under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act.
We have likewise been unable to find any substantive analysis of potential future development, even though staff opines that the ability to predict future development is one of the two factors that
inform whether selection of a distinct rate structure is appropriate. It appears that the only way
future development assumptions informed this analysis, was back in 2021, before the City received its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, before it received many of the applications included in the building permit data list, and certainly before it received any of the in-process Builder’s Remedy applications. This outdated information
(exceedingly low assumptions of 2,517 units for single-family and 2,007 units for multifamily
1 Item 9: Staff Report, page 3. 2 Item 9, Staff Report, page 4.
3 #512854432_v2
between 2021-2041) appears to have been used to arrive at the current fees (see DTA Report tables 3, 5, and 7), which then became the basis for the proposed distinct fee by dividing the current fee by the average square footages indicated in the building permit data. Without updating the assumed
units that will be built from 2021-2041 in any way, the analysis is entirely skewed and inaccurate.
We suggest that City Council simply has not been provided with enough data about and analysis of both past development and future anticipated development, especially the latter category. In such a situation, by staff’s own admission it is more appropriate to adopt the consolidated rate. We note that as staff mentions in its report, Council is at liberty to select either option and will be
considering the City’s entire development impact fee structure in more detail in 2025, with the support of much more robust study. Until then, we urge the Council to conservatively adopt the consolidated rate structure.
If City Council Selects the Distinct Rate, It Should Be Made More Equitable
The vast difference between the square footage rate that staff suggests for a single-family unit
versus a multi-family unit, is inequitable. It essentially functions as an additional “tax” on multifamily development that will be passed on to families who cannot affordable single-family homes, penalizing them for their desire or need to live in a rental unit or smaller unit rather than building a home.
As fellow stakeholder Grubb Properties has pointed out, an 850 square foot multifamily or duplex
unit would pay the same as a much larger, 2,014 square foot single-family home. Put another way, a 1,400 square foot multifamily unit would pay more than a single-family home more than twice its size at 3,000 square feet:
Staff states that it “disagrees” that this is disproportionate and inequitable, opining that “apartments will typically house more residents in the same square footage,” and it is therefore “more equitable to charge distinct fees to multi-family and single-family development.” Staff then goes on to say that the distinct rate was calculated based on “average unit and household sizes.” However, there
is no evidence that any data related to the size of a household was considered – the building permit data listed in the DTA Report is devoid of this information. Even if the data was considered, an even payment per person is not necessarily an equitable payment. Charging families who live in closer quarters more, penalizes their inability to buy or build a new home. It is that simple. It also
4 #512854432_v2
incentivizes developers to propose developments composed of micro-units, further adding to the shortage of family-sized units across all types of housing.
For all of the above reasons, we request that Council consider lowering the per square foot rate for
multifamily units if it selects the distinct option.
Thank you for considering our requests.
Sincerely,
Matt Hengehold President, Hengehold Trucks
November 18, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org
DevelopmentImpact Fees
1
Summary
•Development impact fees address the impacts caused by new development
•Nexus and feasibility studies last prepared in 2020
•fees last updated in 2021, previously set in 2001
•June 2022 Council direction to convert existing park, community center, library fees
from per unit to per square foot
•Work started February 2024
•Task limited to conversion of existing fee only
•Future study/action anticipated in 2025/26
Development Impact Fee Conversion
2
Development Impact Fee Conversion
3
Proposed Action
•Converts existing per unit fees to per square foot using distinct fee structure
Development Impact Fee Conversion
Distinct Fee Structure
•Sufficient building data
•Reflects size and impact based on land use type
•Proportional to size/impact of development
Consolidated Fee Structure
•Fewer building permit records
•Not able to project future development type
•Consolidates all residential types to one fee
4
Public Comments
•Summarized in staff report
•Subsequent letters from Acclaim Companies and Hengehold Trucks
Upcoming Work
•Housing Element Program 3.1B: Prepare economic feasibility study to analyze and
adjust development impact fees as necessary
•Timeline:
•Professional services contract in first quarter 2025
•Complete study by end of 2025
•Amend fee schedule by September 2026
Development Impact Fee Conversion
Jonathan Lait
Director
Jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
650 329-2679