Agenda packet, first session — East Palo Alto City Council, March 4, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Development Impact Fee Comparison Survey
Methodology
As part of the effort to update the City of East Palo Alto’s development impact fee program, including fees to fund infrastructure in the Ravenswood Business District, Willdan collected development impact fee schedules for one-time fees charged to fund facilities and infrastructure for six comparison cities.

The comparison jurisdictions are:
• Menlo Park
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Redwood City
• San Mateo
• Union City
Impact fees are not standardized and are assessed by various units of development by different jurisdictions. The comparison does not include any ongoing fees or taxes that a development project might pay to fund infrastructure.

To create a meaningful comparison of impact fees, Willdan calculated the fees for nine prototype projects. Table 1 presents the project prototype assumptions used in this analysis.

Results
Tables 2 through 10 display the fee companions for each prototype, respectively. The comparisons include the City of East Palo Alto’s current fee schedule, plus the fee schedules included in the Public Review Draft of the City’s Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update, dated January 31, 2025.

Some jurisdictions charge impact fees that vary by project location or other factors. In these cases, the tables show the range of potential impact fees.

ATTACHMENT 4
190
January
31, 2025

Page 2 ends

Table 1: Prototype Assumptions
Example Product Type
Residential
Units Unit Size
Bedrooms
(per unit)
Total
Residential
Sq. Ft.

Residential
Water Meter
Size (per unit)
Commercial
Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Water Meter
Size
Total
Parking
Spaces
Form
Factor
(stories)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Density
(FAR)
Construction
Cost
R1 Ownership Townhomes1 22 1,500 2.5 33,000 3/4” 46 3 1 0.76 $ 6,560,000 R2 Medium Density Residential2 33 1,000 1.5 33,000 3/4” 61 3-5 1 0.76 6,560,000 R3 High Density Residential3 74 875 1.0 64,750 3/4” 126 5-8 1 1.49 12,872,000 M1 Mixed Use (medium density)4 80 1,000 1.5 80,000 3/4” 50,000 1” 348 3-5 3 0.99 27,568,000 M2 Mixed Use (high density)4 165 875 1.0 144,375 3/4” 50,000 1” 481 5-8 3 1.49 41,219,000 OL1 Office/Life Science 5
87,210 1½” 363 2-4 2 1.00 20,202,000
OL2 Office/Life Science 5 130,680 2” 545 3-6 2 1.50 30,272,000 Flex Office/Life Science/R&D 6 60,984 1½” 210 2 2 0.70 14,127,000 I1 Industrial/Warehouse 34,848 1” 17 1 2 0.40 8,073,000 1 Subdivision 2
Subdivision Rental 3
Non-Subdivision Rental 4
Office and Residential
5 75% Office, 25% Life Science 6
50% Office, 25% Life Science, 25% R&D
Residential Commercial
191
January
31, 2025

Page 3 ends

Table 2: Example R1 (Ownership Townhomes)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain
View
(Low) 5,6,7
Mountain
View
(High) 5, 6, 7 Palo Alto7
Redwood City
(Low)7,8
Redwood City
(High)7,8 San Mateo7, 9
Union City
(Low)4,10
Union City
(High)4,10
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 9,119 $ 10,889 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation - - - - - 17,056 17,056 - - - - - -
Bedroom Tax - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Care - - - - - - - - - - 102,900 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 105,491 - - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 15,400 15,400
General Government - - - - - - - 35,200 - - - - -
Infrastructure - - - - - - - - - - - - 269,082
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 62,872 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee11 109,718 109,718 348,810 348,810 - - - - 1,043,108 1,043,108 - - - Parks and Recreation In-Lieu Fee12 - - - - 2,802,800 11,375,000 11,375,000 1,651,692 - - 570,108 1,885,530 1,885,530 Public/Capital Facilities 192,410 192,410 280,170 280,170 - - - - - - - 269,082 269,082 Public Art - - - - - - - 65,601 65,601 65,601 78,064 65,600 65,600 Public Safety - - - - - - - 27,918 - - - - -
Storm Drain 74,331 128,486 114,651 299,552 3,300 - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 62,595 62,595 19,140 70,620 453,065 134,640 182,244 121,088 66,000 106,260 162,953 42,438 42,438 Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 82,500 130,104 115,500 98,311 98,311 244,214 - - Water 216,276 216,276 149,160 89,760 178,640 93,720 141,324 82,500 187,418 187,418 - - - Subtotal $ 655,330 $ 709,485 $ 921,050 $ 1,099,801 $ 3,437,805 $ 11,702,916 $ 11,845,729 $ 2,267,862 $ 1,460,438 $ 1,500,698 $ 1,158,239 $ 2,278,050 $ 2,547,132 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $ 1,142,240 $ 1,142,240 $ 1,142,240 $ 1,142,240 $ 1,074,184 $ - $ - $ 2,022,570 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ - $ 891,000 $ 891,000 Total $ 1,797,570 $ 1,851,725 $ 2,063,290 $ 2,242,041 $ 4,511,989 $ 11,702,916 $ 11,845,729 $ 4,290,432 $ 2,285,438 $ 2,325,698 $ 1,158,239 $ 3,169,050 $ 3,438,132 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per square foot. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View Transportation, Sew er and Water fees vary by location. 6 Mountain View Affordable Housing: All residential projects are required to provide 15% Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 7 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes that parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 8 Redw ood City Transportation Impact fee varies by location. 9 San Mateo Affordable Program: for residential projects of 11 or more units, 15% of the units shall be set aside for Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 10 Union City Infrastructure Fee only charged in DIPSA area 11 Fee based on the standard established by the Mitigation Fee Act (Non-Subdivision Infill) 12 Fee based on the standard established by the Quimby Act (Subdivision) 192
January
31, 2025

Page 4 ends

Table 3: Example R2 (Medium Density Residential Rental) Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain
View
(Low) 5,6,7
Mountain
View
(High) 5, 6, 7 Palo Alto7
Redwood City
(Low)7,8
Redwood City
(High)7,8 San Mateo7, 9
Union City
(Low)4,10
Union City
(High)4,10
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 11,898 $ 13,608 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation - - - - - 17,056 17,056 - - - - - -
Bedroom Tax - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Care - - - - - - - - - - 111,324 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 117,055 - - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 15,400 27,720
General Government - - - - - - - 42,207 - - - - -
Infrastructure - - - - - - - - - - - - 242,583
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 69,741 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee11 113,368 113,368 484,770 484,770 - - - - 1,343,456 1,343,456 - 96,195 96,195 Parks and Recreation In-Lieu Fee12 - - - - 2,587,200 13,640,000 13,640,000 1,707,681 - - 610,830 2,413,620 2,413,620 Public/Capital Facilities 198,822 198,822 389,400 389,400 - - - - - - - 284,592 284,592 Public Art - - - - - - - 65,601 65,601 65,601 78,064 65,600 65,600 Public Safety - - - - - - - 33,495 - - - - -
Storm Drain 76,020 131,406 114,651 299,552 4,950 - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 70,681 70,681 21,120 79,200 660,574 113,124 166,540 104,576 47,190 76,230 123,445 50,919 50,919 Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 96,294 149,710 173,250 123,974 123,974 244,202 - - Water 199,658 199,658 179,850 107,910 267,960 107,514 160,930 123,750 281,127 281,127 - - - Subtotal $ 658,548 $ 713,934 $ 1,201,689 $ 1,374,440 $ 3,520,684 $13,973,988 $14,134,236 $2,437,357 $ 1,861,348 $ 1,890,388 $ 1,167,866 $2,926,326 $3,181,229 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $ 1,566,840 $ 1,566,840 $ 1,566,840 $ 1,566,840 $ 1,074,184 $ - $ - $ 809,160 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ - $ 891,000 $ 891,000 Total $ 2,225,388 $ 2,280,774 $ 2,768,529 $ 2,941,280 $ 4,594,868 $13,973,988 $14,134,236 $3,246,517 $ 2,686,348 $ 2,715,388 $ 1,167,866 $3,817,326 $4,072,229 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per square foot. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View Transportation, Sew er and Water fees vary by location. 6 Mountain View Affordable Housing: All residential projects are required to provide 15% Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 7 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes that parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 8 Redw ood City Transportation Impact fee varies by location. 9 San Mateo Affordable Program: for residential projects of 11 or more units, 15% of the units shall be set aside for Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 10 Union City Infrastructure Fee only charged in DIPSA area 11 Fee based on the standard established by the Mitigation Fee Act (Non-Subdivision Infill) 12 Fee based on the standard established by the Quimby Act (Subdivision) 193
January
31, 2025

Page 5 ends

Table 4: Example R3 (High Density Residential Rental)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain
View
(Low) 5,6,7
Mountain
View
(High) 5, 6, 7 Palo Alto7
Redwood City
(Low)7,8
Redwood City
(High)7,8 San Mateo7, 9
Union City
(Low)4,10
Union City
(High)4,10
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 22,242 $ 23,819 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation - - - - - 33,467 33,467 - - - - - -
Bedroom Tax - - - - - - - - - - - 20,720 20,720
Child Care - - - - - - - - - - 249,636 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 262,488 - - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 54,390 67,988
General Government - - - - - - - 94,646 - - - - -
Infrastructure - - - - - - - - - - - - 543,974
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 156,389 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee11 254,219 254,219 951,178 951,178 - - - 3,395,469 3,012,599 3,012,599 - 215,710 215,710 Public/Capital Facilities 445,843 445,843 764,050 764,050 - - - - - - - 638,176 638,176 Public Art - - - - - - - 128,717 128,717 128,717 153,177 128,720 128,720 Public Safety - - - - - - - 75,110 - - - - -
Storm Drain 76,020 131,406 114,651 299,552 11,100 - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 158,496 158,496 41,440 155,400 545,163 253,672 348,121 234,504 92,593 149,573 276,817 114,182 114,182 Wastewater/Sewer - - - 215,932 310,381 388,500 278,003 278,003 410,682 - - Water 447,717 447,717 352,888 211,733 600,880 241,092 335,541 277,500 630,406 630,406 - - - Subtotal $ 1,382,295 $ 1,437,681 $ 2,246,448 $ 2,405,731 $ 1,157,143 $ 744,163 $ 1,027,509 $5,013,323 $ 4,142,317 $ 4,199,297 $ 1,090,312 $1,171,898 $1,729,470 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $ 3,513,520 $ 3,513,520 $ 3,513,520 $ 3,513,520 $ 2,107,679 $ - $ - $1,587,670 $ 1,618,750 $ 1,618,750 $ - $1,748,250 $1,748,250 Total $ 4,895,815 $ 4,951,201 $ 5,759,968 $ 5,919,251 $ 3,264,822 $ 744,163 $ 1,027,509 $6,600,993 $ 5,761,067 $ 5,818,047 $ 1,090,312 $2,920,148 $3,477,720 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per square foot. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View Transportation, Sew er and Water fees vary by location. 6 Mountain View Affordable Housing: All residential projects are required to provide 15% Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 7 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes that parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 8 Redw ood City Transportation Impact fee varies by location. 9 San Mateo Affordable Program: for residential projects of 11 or more units, 15% of the units shall be set aside for Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 10 Union City Infrastructure Fee only charged in DIPSA area 11 Fee based on the standard established by the Mitigation Fee Act (Non-Subdivision Infill) 194
January
31, 2025

Page 6 ends

Table 5: Example M1 (Mixed Use Medium Density)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain View
(Low) 5, 6, 7
Mountain View
(High) 5, 6, 7 Palo Alto7
Redwood City
(Low)7, 8
Redwood City
(High)7, 8 San Mateo7, 9
Union City
(Low) 4, 10
Union City
(High)4, 10
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 32,361 $ 41,182 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation - - - - - 71,677 71,677
Bedroom Tax - - - - - - - - - - - 29,440 29,440
Child Care - - - - - - - - - - 303,377 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 354,270 - - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 37,333 67,200
General Government - - - - - - - 146,920 - - - - -
Infrastructure - - - - - - - - - - - - 588,080
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 211,070 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 344,831 344,831 1,287,700 1,250,200 - - - 4,580,278 4,186,120 4,186,120 - 233,200 233,200 Public/Capital Facilities 602,992 602,992 1,034,500 1,004,500 - - - - - - - 689,920 689,920 Public Art - - - - - - - 275,678 275,678 275,678 328,059 275,680 275,680 Public Safety - - - - - - - 116,650 - - - - -
Storm Drain 228,060 394,219 343,953 898,655 22,800 - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 613,347 613,347 115,200 692,000 1,764,049 600,740 2,147,240 653,809 443,400 513,800 750,428 123,440 123,440 Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 448,500 630,493 430,500 496,410 496,410 611,821 - - Water 507,965 507,965 454,718 272,842 663,134 274,567 711,567 306,250 468,518 468,518 - - - Subtotal $ 2,297,195 $ 2,463,353 $ 3,268,432 $ 4,159,379 $ 2,449,983 $ 1,395,484 $ 3,560,977 $ 7,075,425 $ 5,870,126 $ 5,940,526 $ 1,993,685 $ 1,389,013 $ 2,006,960 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $ 3,798,400 $ 3,798,400 $ 3,798,400 $ 3,798,400 $ 2,604,083 $ - $ - $ 1,961,600 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ - $ 2,160,000 $ 2,160,000 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee 677,500 677,500 677,500 677,500 1,056,000 1,480,000 1,480,000 2,145,000 1,181,000 1,181,000 1,638,000 - - Total $ 6,773,095 $ 6,939,253 $ 7,744,332 $ 8,635,279 $ 6,110,066 $ 2,875,484 $ 5,040,977 $ 11,182,025 $ 8,651,126 $ 8,721,526 $ 3,631,685 $ 3,549,013 $ 4,166,960 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View Transportation, Sew er and Water fees depend upon location 6 Mountain View Affordable Housing: All residential projects are required to provide 15% Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 7 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes that parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 8 Redw ood City Transportation Impact fee varies by location 9 San Mateo Affordable Program: for residential projects of 11 or more units, 15% of the units shall be set aside for Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 10 Union City Infrastructure Fee only charged in DIPSA area. Fire Equipment Fee dependent upon Form Factor (number of stories) 195
January
31, 2025

Page 7 ends

Table 6: Example M2 (Mixed Use High Density)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain View
(Low) 5, 6, 7
Mountain View
(High) 5, 6, 7 Palo Alto7
Redwood City
(Low)7, 8
Redwood City
(High)7, 8 San Mateo7, 9
Union City
(Low) 4, 10
Union City
(High)4, 10
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 53,334 $ 61,885 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation - - - - - 107,169 107,169 - - - - - -
Bedroom Tax - - - - - - - - - - - 46,200 46,200
Child Care - - - - - - - - - - 590,121 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 655,776 - - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 121,275 151,594
General Government - - - - - - - 255,635 - - - - -
Infrastructure - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,212,915
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 390,706 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 636,839 636,839 2,233,369 2,195,869 - - - 8,480,479 8,216,310 8,216,310 - 480,975 480,975 Public/Capital Facilities 1,115,109 1,115,109 1,794,125 1,764,125 - - - - - - - 1,422,960 1,422,960 Public Art - - - - - - - 412,192 412,192 412,192 490,506 412,190 412,190 Public Safety - - - - - - - 202,925 - - - - -
Storm Drain 228,060 394,219 343,953 898,655 35,550 - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 795,404 795,404 156,400 846,500 2,383,670 892,120 2,438,620 923,172 535,456 662,506 1,068,394 254,595 254,595 Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 767,250 1,030,345 876,750 815,738 815,738 935,527 - - Water 1,022,234 1,022,234 805,562 483,348 1,353,334 551,497 1,017,592 625,000 951,233 951,233 - - - Subtotal $ 3,797,647 $ 3,963,805 $ 5,386,743 $ 6,250,382 $ 3,772,554 $ 2,318,036 $ 4,593,726 $12,822,635 $ 10,930,929 $ 11,057,979 $ 3,084,548 $2,738,195 $3,981,429 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $ 7,834,200 $ 7,834,200 $ 7,990,884 $ 7,990,884 $ 4,699,555 $ 4,539,975 $ 4,539,975 $ 3,540,075 $ 2,887,500 $ 2,887,500 $ 4,539,975 $3,898,125 $3,898,125 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee 677,500 677,500 677,500 677,500 1,056,000 1,480,000 1,480,000 2,145,000 1,181,000 1,181,000 1,638,000 - - Total $ 12,309,347 $ 12,475,505 $ 14,055,127 $ 14,918,766 $ 9,528,109 $ 8,338,011 $ 10,613,701 $18,507,710 $ 14,999,429 $ 15,126,479 $ 9,262,523 $6,636,320 $7,879,554 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View Transportation, Sew er and Water fees depend upon location 6 Mountain View Affordable Housing: All residential projects are required to provide 15% Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 7 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes that parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 8 Redw ood City Transportation Impact fee varies by location 9 San Mateo Affordable Program: for residential projects of 11 or more units, 15% of the units shall be set aside for Affordable/Below Market Rate units on-site. No in-lieu fee available. 10 Union City Infrastructure Fee only charged in DIPSA area. Fire Equipment Fee dependent upon Form Factor (number of stories) 196
January
31, 2025

Page 8 ends

Table 7: Example OL1 (Office/Life Science)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain View
(Low)5, 6
Mountain
View
(High)5, 6 Palo Alto5
Redwood
City5 San Mateo5
Union City
(Low)4, 7
Union City
(High)4, 7
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 6,943 $ 12,901 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation Fee - - - - - 52,525 52,525 - - - - -
Child Care - - - - - - - - - 58,431 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 122,966 - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - - 101,063
General Government - - - - - - - 77,791 - - - -
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 73,256 - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 122,094 122,094 196,223 196,223 - - - 1,586,350 685,471 - - - Public/Capital Facilities 211,048 211,048 157,850 157,850 - - - - - - - - Public Art - - - - - - - 202,022 202,022 240,404 202,020 202,020 Public Safety - - - - - - - 61,832 - - - -
Storm Drain 126,700 219,010 191,085 499,253 15,698 - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 770,936 770,936 111,629 414,248 2,293,061 569,481 3,266,887 698,188 573,842 786,925 - - Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 259,014 401,166 31,668 341,630 39,635 - - Water 47,894 47,894 37,465 22,502 27,069 27,851 790,066 18,850 28,396 - - - Subtotal $ 1,278,673 $ 1,370,983 $ 701,194 $ 1,302,976 $ 2,335,828 $ 908,871 $ 4,510,644 $ 2,872,924 $ 1,831,360 $ 1,125,394 $ 202,020 $ 303,083 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee $ 1,181,696 $ 1,181,696 $ 1,181,696 $ 1,181,696 $ 1,841,875 $ 2,707,930 $ 2,707,930 $ 3,741,309 $ 2,059,900 $ 2,857,000 $ - $ - Total $ 2,460,368 $ 2,552,678 $ 1,882,890 $ 2,484,671 $ 4,177,703 $ 3,616,801 $ 7,218,574 $ 6,614,233 $ 3,891,261 $ 3,982,394 $ 202,020 $ 303,083 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 6 Mountain View Transportation, Water and Sew er fees depend on location 7 Union City Fire Equipment Fee dependent upon Form Factor (number of stories) 197
January
31, 2025

Page 9 ends

Table 8: Example OL2 (Office/Life Science)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain View
(Low)5, 6
Mountain View
(High)5, 6 Palo Alto5 Redwood City5 San Mateo5
Union City
(Low)4, 7
Union City
(High)4, 7
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 9,489 $ 16,865 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation Fee - - - - - 52,525 52,525 - - - - -
Child Care - - - - - - - - - 87,556 - -
Community Center - - - - - - - 184,259 - - - -
Fire Equipment - - - - - - - - - - 67,375 134,750
General Government - - - - - - - 116,567 - - - -
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 109,771 - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 182,952 182,952 294,030 294,030 - - - 2,377,069 1,027,145 - - Public/Capital Facilities 316,246 316,246 236,531 236,531 - - - - - - - - Public Art - - - - - - - 302,720 302,720 360,237 302,720 302,720 Public Safety - - - - - - - 92,652 - - - -
Storm Drain 126,700 219,010 191,085 499,253 23,522 - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 1,155,211 1,155,211 167,270 620,730 3,436,044 853,340 4,895,273 1,046,201 859,874 1,179,169 - - Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 388,120 601,128 52,500 511,916 63,415 - - Water 76,629 76,629 59,938 36,000 43,310 44,562 1,186,705 31,250 45,433 - - - Subtotal $ 1,857,738 $ 1,950,049 $ 958,343 $ 1,703,409 $ 3,502,876 $ 1,338,547 $ 6,735,631 $ 4,312,989 $ 2,747,088 $ 1,690,376 $ 370,095 $ 437,470 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee $ 1,770,714 $ 1,770,714 $ 1,770,714 $ 1,770,714 $ 2,759,962 $ 4,142,440 $ 4,142,440 $ 5,606,172 $ 3,086,662 $ 4,281,077 $ - $ - Total $ 3,628,452 $ 3,720,763 $ 2,729,057 $ 3,474,123 $ 6,262,838 $ 5,480,987 $ 10,878,071 $ 9,919,161 $ 5,833,750 $ 5,971,453 $ 370,095 $ 437,470 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 6 Mountain View Transportation, Water and Sew er fees depend on location 7 Union City Fire Equipment Fee dependent upon Form Factor (number of stories) 198
January
31, 2025

Page 10 ends

Table 9: Example Flex (Office/Life Science/R&D)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain
View
(Low)5, 6
Mountain
View
(High)5, 6 Palo Alto5
Redwood
City5
San Mateo
(Low)5 Union City
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 5,542 $ 10,590 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation Fee - - - - - 52,525 52,525 - - - -
Child Care - - - - - - - - - 40,859 -
Community Center - - - - - - - 85,987 - - -
General Government - - - - - - - 54,398 - - -
Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 51,227 - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 85,378 85,378 137,214 137,214 - - - 1,109,299 479,334 - Public/Capital Facilities 147,581 147,581 110,381 110,381 - - - - - - - Public Art - - - - - - - 141,269 141,269 168,111 141,270 Public Safety - - - - - - - 43,238 - - -
Storm Drain 126,700 219,010 191,085 499,253 10,977 - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 539,099 539,099 78,060 289,674 1,034,507 398,226 2,284,461 488,227 401,275 550,279 - Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 181,122 280,526 31,668 238,894 39,635 - Water 47,894 47,894 37,465 22,502 27,069 27,851 560,851 18,850 28,396 - - Subtotal $ 946,652 $ 1,038,962 $ 559,747 $ 1,069,614 $ 1,072,553 $ 659,724 $3,178,363 $2,024,163 $ 1,289,168 $ 798,884 $ 141,270 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee $ 826,333 $ 826,333 $ 826,333 $ 826,333 $ 1,287,982 $1,842,472 $1,842,472 $2,616,214 $ 1,440,442 $1,997,836 $ - Total $ 1,772,985 $ 1,865,295 $ 1,386,080 $ 1,895,947 $ 2,360,535 $2,502,196 $5,020,835 $4,640,376 $ 2,729,610 $2,796,720 $ 141,270 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 5 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 6 Mountain View Transportation, Water and Sew er fees vary by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4
Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply.
199
January
31, 2025

Page 11 ends

Table 10: Example I1 (Industrial/Warehouse)
Fee Category

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,2

CURRENT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,2
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(Non RBD)1,3
DRAFT
East Palo Alto
(RBD)1,3 Menlo Park4
Mountain
View
(Low)5, 6
Mountain
View
(High)5, 6
Palo Alto
(Low)5
Palo Alto
(High)5
Redwood
City
(Low)5
Redwood
City
(High)5
San Mateo
(Low)5
San Mateo
(High)5 Union City
DIF Administration $ - $ - $ 3,069 $ 7,034 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Documentation Fee - - - - - 52,525 52,525 - - - - - - - Child Care - - - - - - - - - - - 7,667 7,667 -
Community Center - - - - - - - 49,136 49,136 - - - - -
General Government - - - - - - - 10,454 10,454 - - - - - Landscape-in-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Libraries - - - - - - - 29,272 29,272 - - - - -
Parking In-Lieu Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Parks and Recreation 19,166 19,166 31,363 31,363 - - - 633,885 633,885 88,514 88,514 - - Public/Capital Facilities 34,500 34,500 25,091 25,091 - - - - - - - - - - Public Art - - - - - - - 80,725 80,725 80,725 80,725 96,069 96,069 80,730 Public Safety - - - - - - - 8,259 8,259 - - - - -
Storm Drain 135,147 233,611 203,824 532,536 6,691 - - - - - - - - - Transportation/Traffic/Street 200,724 200,724 27,878 103,150 172,973 227,557 1,305,406 154,993 154,993 103,150 103,150 172,491 172,491 - Wastewater/Sewer - - - - - 103,499 160,301 10,500 10,500 136,511 136,511 19,817 19,817 - Water 23,946 23,946 18,718 11,242 13,534 13,927 318,499 6,250 6,250 14,198 14,198 - - - Subtotal $ 413,484 $ 511,948 $ 309,943 $ 710,416 $ 193,198 $ 397,508 $1,836,731 $ 983,474 $ 983,474 $423,098 $ 423,098 $ 296,043 $ 296,043 $ 80,730 Affordable Housing Commercial Fee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 399,358 $ 979,984 $ 979,984 $ 870,155 $ 870,155 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 413,484 $ 511,948 $ 309,943 $ 710,416 $ 592,556 $1,377,492 $2,816,715 $1,853,629 $1,853,629 $423,098 $ 423,098 $ 296,043 $ 296,043 $ 80,730 1 RBD = Ravensw ood Business District
2 Current East Palo Alto Storm Drain Fee varies by location. 3 Draft East Palo Alto Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs. including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 4 Menlo Park has a Tree Replacement in-lieu fee ranging from $100 - $7,000 per tree. Assumes no tree replacement in this fee comparison. Union City has an in-lieu landscaping fee of $9.70 per SqFt. Assumes appropriate landscaping is included on site and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 5 Mountain View , Palo Alto, Redw ood City and San Mateo Parking in-lieu fees are only applicable to dow ntow n/central locations. Assumes parking w ill be provided onsite and in-lieu fee w ill not apply. 6 Mountain View Transportation, Water and Sew er fees depend on location 200
Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing Recommended Existing SF/Townhouae
(assume 1,600 sf) $4,987 $16,912 $8,746 $13,584 $2,845 $896 $9,831 $7,232 $3,379 Multi-family
(assume 750 sf) $3,435 $11,018 $6,025 $8,850 $2,142 $480 $6,050 $4,088 Retail $0.92 $1.50 $1.61 $1.21 $8.84 $1.28
Office/R&D $1.40 $2.25 $2.42 $1.81 $8.84 $1.28
Industrial $0.55 $0.90 $0.99 $0.72 $5.76 $0.80
SF/Townhouae
(assume 1,600 sf) $4,987 $16,912 $8,746 $13,584 $2,845 $4,320 $9,831 $4,896 $5,840 Multi-family
(assume 750 sf) $3,435 $11,018 $6,025 $8,850 $2,142 $2,280 $6,050 $2,453 Retail $0.92 $1.50 $1.61 $1.21 $8.84 $6.03
Office/R&D $1.40 $2.25 $2.42 $1.81 $8.84 $6.03
Industrial $0.55 $0.90 $0.99 $0.72 $5.76 $3.76
Fee Increase
Fee Decrease
Within RBD
Residential fees shown per dwelling unit (recommended fees vary by square feet of unit) Non-Residential fees shown per square foot (sf) unless otherwise noted $84,467
per impervious
acre
$146,007
per impervious
acre
ATTACHMENT 5
Comparison of Existing and Recommended Development Impact Fees by meter size
based on
$37.80 gpd
by meter size
based on
$29.57 gpd
by meter size
based on
$37.80 gpd
by meter size
based on
$17.76 gpd
Parks and Trails Public Facilities Transportation Water Capacity Storm Drai City of East Palo Alto
Outside RBD
201
Recommende d
$4,679
$12,225
$127.390
per impervious
acre
$332,835
per impervious
acre
m Drainage
202
ATTACHMENT 6

COMMENTS LETTERS

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFTS
Nexus Study Update
Financial Feasibility Analysis
Fee Comparison Survey
June 2024
November 2024
203
July 31, 2024
Mr. Hanson Hom
Deputy Manager, Special Projects
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: City of East Palo Alto
Nexus Study / Financial Feasibility Study
Dear Hanson,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on the recently released Draft Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Study for the City of East Palo Alto.

We understand that the intent of the Nexus Study is to provide an analysis of the development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of East Palo Alto through 2045, and that developers pay the cost (or ‘fair share’) of public facilities and infrastructure improvements necessitated by their development in the form of a development impact fee.

As you are aware, we recently contracted with BAE Urban Economics (BAE) to provide its professional analysis and opinion on both the Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Study. In general, while BAE does appreciate Willdan’s work product prepared on behalf of the City of East Palo Alto, it did have some important questions and concerns regarding the aspects of the Nexus Study.

Please see the attached Memos prepared by BAE, providing comments on both the Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Study. Additionally, we previously provided additional comments and questions on the draft Financial Feasibility Study, many of which were also included in BAE’s Memo. We are including these comments as an additional Attachment to this letter as well.

As BAE states, there are several key issues which should be addressed before the Study is finalized and updated fees adopted by the City. We believe it would be in the best interest of the City and its development partners, to have a working session with City staff to discuss our collective comments, questions and concerns prior to the Nexus Study being finalized.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our comments.

Sincerely,
Kim Diamond
Harvest Properties
Attachment
204
Attachment 1
Prior Comments submitted to the City
(via email to Hanson Hom, on June 28, 2024)

1. Please clarify how City can propose increasing Impact fees at this time, given that the last time the City updated its Impact Fees in 2019 was a far stronger time, and at this time, none of the projects are feasible or have little to negative land value? Is there legal precedence for this?

2. Feasibility Study
a. Any Mixed-Use site with the density assumed will have structured parking and likely little to no surface parking.
b. Any site with a density of 1.0 will be almost entirely structured parking. Currently, there is an assumption of 30% surface parking, which is much too high. c. Measure L & HH ($2.50psf/year) needs to be capped since it is not a one-time fee and goes into perpetuity. This is shown as a one-time cost in the Impact Fee comparison, which severely understates EPA’s fees in comparison to other cities.
d. Note that Commercial Rents are too high:
i. Office = $4.00 (current) / $5.50 (peak)
ii. Life Science = $5.50 (current) / $7.00 (peak)
iii. Flex = $3.00 (current) / $3.50 (peak)
e. Residential Rents are too high and should be offset by concessions. We suggest doing a comparative study of newer MF rental product in East Palo Alto; note that brand new construction in Oakland is only receiving rental income of $3.00/sf and topped out ~$4.00/sf. f. Cap Rates used are incredibly low and not consistent with the market:
i. Office = 5% (it has never been this low on average)
ii. Residential = 4% (minimum of 5.25% today but higher on fully stabilized without concessions)
g. Developer profit needs to be 18%+; this has always has been the threshold. h. Cost of debt is far too low (5% of construction costs). i. Commercial vacancy should be a minimum of 10% given the extensive amount of existing commercial vacancy as well as the change in institutional underwriting standards going forward. j. Commercial Operating Expenses: there are still non-reimbursable, ownership operating expenses that should be included.
k. Residential Operating Expenses: This percentage is much higher (35%+) now due to inflation, as well as the significant increase in insurance which is not reimbursable. l. We recommend inflating costs (or at least note) if using forward-looking assumptions for rents / cap rates.
m. The below fees/costs need to be included in the Feasibility Analysis i. Excluded

1. TDM/TMA

2. School Fees

3. RBD Specific Plan Fees

4. Community Benefit Requirements

5. Additional infrastructure improvements requirements
a. Sanitary District

6. Maintenance of public infrastructure

7. Public right of way improvements

8. Public right of way acquisitions (Bay Rd expansion)

9. Construction Costs
a. Necessity to raise sites
b. Environmental contamination/remediation

10. Carry Costs
205

3. Nexus Study

1. Confirm that the infrastructure cost estimates in the Nexus Study are consistent with the City’s recent infrastructure studies.

2. Clarify and explain how development of a currently paved site (such as Harvest’s sites) causes additional impacts to the storm drain system.
206
Attachment 2
Prepared by BAE Urban Economics:
• Memo re: Review of Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto
• Memo re: Review of Financial Feasibility Analysis Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for Update of East Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Program
207
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410 | Palo Alto, California 94306 2041 Euclid Avenue | East Palo Alto, California 94303
nodisplacement.com | universityandbay.com
July 31, 2024
Hanson Hom
Deputy Manager, Special Projects
City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Ave.

East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Via Electronic Mail
RE: Draft Nexus Study and Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis Dear Hanson:

We write today with additional comments and to provide the peer review of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Updates and the Financial Feasibility Analysis. We ask that you consider the peer review and revise both the Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Analysis accordingly. More accurate studies and analyses will provide more accurate information to inform the City Council’s land use decisions. Our comments below are informed by a peer-review of the Draft Nexus Study and Draft Feasibility analysis provided by BAE Urban Economics, included below.

We previously requested that the nexus study and feasibility analysis be corrected so that they more accurately reflect the existing data. We anticipate that corrected reports will show even less feasibility than the draft reports indicate.

1. Reconsider capital infrastructure projects. The capital infrastructure costs have gone up significantly in this nexus study, relative to the City’s prior nexus study. The new additions include significant new expenditures for parks and trails, purchase of a City Hall, a new Police Department Building, and new community facilities in the RBD. These all represent areas in which there are significant existing deficiencies in service within the City. The Mitigation Fee Act prohibits a local agency from charging new residents the costs attributable to existing deficiencies. Cal. Gov’t Code § 66001(g). The City’s need for updates to its parks, a new City Hall, a new Police Station, and other community facilities exist whether or not there is any new development in the RBD. It is therefore inappropriate to include these existing deficiencies in the impact fee calculations.

The Mitigation Fee Act also requires there to be a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the development project. Id.at 66001(a)(4). There is no relationship between new development in the RBD and the City’s desire for a City Hall and a new Police Station. These goals exist whether or not there is any new development in the RBD and whether or not the new Specific Plan is adopted. It is also worth noting that the City functions without these capital improvement projects, and it is not clear that there is a need for such expensive new improvements.
208
2 We request that the list of parks and trails expenditures and public facilities expenditures be revised to remove the projects that reflect existing deficiencies and those that are unrelated to the new development, including new City Hall, new Police Station, and updates to existing parks.

2. Recalculate new development’s share of capital projects. The nexus study also overestimates the share of the capital improvement costs attributable to new development. Because many of the capital projects reflect existing deficiencies, they should be overwhelmingly funded by nonimpact fee revenues. In other words, new development should not be asked to shoulder such a large share of the cost of those projects. We request that the proportion of those projects attributable to new development be significantly reduced to eliminate the need for new development to pay to remedy existing deficiencies.

3. Update the feasibility study with accurate data. The feasibility study uses current data for some assumptions, but “historic” data for other assumptions. This overstates feasibility. The study should use actual current data for all assumptions, including current land values, rents, interest rates, and cap rates. The study should capitalize the business license tax expenses, which are very high.

4. Correct the inclusionary housing costs. The feasibility analysis assumes an inclusionary housing obligation of 20% when in lieu fees are charged. This is incorrect. The City’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires 25% when in lieu fees are paid, so the analysis should use the 25% threshold.

5. Update the feasibility study with all relevant expenses. The feasibility study overstates feasibility by omitting many significant expenses. The study should include the cost of TDM/TMA, sanitary sewer connection fees, and school fees. And, to align with the overall development envelope studied in the nexus studies, the costs of exemplary community benefits should also be included as they are required by the draft Specific Plan in order to reach that development envelope.

6. Update Attachment 5: Comparison of Total Development Impact Fees Charged by Surrounding Cities. After the feasibility study data have been corrected and augmented, the updated numbers should be reflected in the comparison table. By omitting certain expenses for East Palo Alto, but including comprehensive expenses for other cities, the table misleads the audience to conclude the East Palo Alto’s fees are lower than they actually are.

7. Feasibility and Nexus Studies Must Inform the Specific Plan. The studies show that projects at the “base” level of development are not feasible. This means that adding additional expense through the “standard” and “exemplary” levels of community benefits would be even less feasible. The Specific Plan standards should be adjusted to ensure that development is feasible and the community’s vision for the RBD can be realized. The higher the impact fees are, the longer into the next business cycle it will be before anything in East Palo Alto can be built, and the City may again “miss” the cycle and generate no new housing and no new employment. 209
3 8. Prioritize the Creation of Housing. You have adopted a Housing Element committing to significant production of new housing of all types during this cycle. High impact fees are a governmental constraint on the production of housing. Increasing impact fees will jeopardize your ability to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment as most housing types are infeasible even at the current fee burden.

Thank you for reviewing these technical documents. We appreciate your work to ensure that you have accurate, complete information when you make your decisions about impact fees and the Specific Plan.

Sincerely,
Michael Kramer
Encl.
- BAE Urban Economics Review of Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto
- BAE Urban Economics Review of Financial Feasibility Analysis Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for Update of East Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Program 210
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC Atlanta New York City www.bae1.com
DRAFT Memorandum

To: Mia Bernardino, Emerson Collective
Kim Diamond, Harvest Properties
Michael Kramer, Sandhill Properties
From: Paul Peninger, Principal
Date: July 31, 2024
Re: Review of Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto
Summary Findings
This memo summarizes BAE’s review of the Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto. This Study, released on June 14, 2024, is an update of a previous study prepared by AECOM in 2019. BAE has reviewed the current Draft Study considering best practices in the preparation of such studies for California jurisdictions. In general, the Willdan Study is structured to conform with accepted professional practices in the preparation of California nexus studies, but there are several key issues which should be addressed before the Study is finalized and updated fees adopted by the City, as follows:
• Significantly Higher Capital Costs are Driving Higher Maximum Supportable Impact Fees. Capital infrastructure costs included in the updated Draft Study are $122M higher than the costs included in the 2019 Nexus Study, driven primarily by much larger planned expenditures in Parks and Trails and Public Facilities. Additional documentation and analysis of new and/or much more costly public facilities in these and other categories would make the Nexus Study clearer and more defensible. • The Service Population Weighting Factor Does Not Take Info Account Shorter and/or Modified Workweeks. New capital expenditures for planned facilities included in the Draft Study are used to derive maximum supportable square foot fees by land use based on a “service population” consisting of both new residents and new workers.

Although the Nexus Study uses a lower weighting factor of .31 compared to the .5 factor used in the 2019 Study, this updated factor is based on a traditional 40-hour work week, which may no longer be justified by current flexible work schedules which allow for hybrid and remote work schedules.
211
2 • Capital Costs for Planned Public Facilities Included in the Draft Study are Inconsistent with the City’s Capital Improvement Program and other City Plans and Policy Guidance.

Each infrastructure category includes a list of public facilities and related costs for both Citywide and Ravenswood Business District (RBD)-specific items. In many cases, however, the costs listed are either inconsistent with the City’s most recently adopted CIP and/or insufficiently described to allow for a complete understanding of the relationship between the proposed public facility and new development.

• Capital cost allocations for Storm Drainage and Water are inadequately defined. For both storm water and water facilities and services items, the Nexus Studies states that “staff prepared an allocation of each project...” No additional documentation or analysis is provided regarding methods for these Staff allocation or variations in percentage allocations between 2019 and 2024.
• Transportation costs are poorly defined and uncertain. The proposed $25M loop road makes up a substantial percentage of planned transportation facilities costs in the RBD. However, the Nexus Study states that “the City Council will have to decide whether it will want to pursue the Loop Road project.’ The status of this project should be clarified in the final study.

Introduction
BAE Urban Economics (BAE) was retained by a group of Ravenswood property owners to prepare a peer review of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Analysis recently prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto1. These infrastructure impact fees were originally established in 2019 through a study process conducted by AECOM and are now being updated to reflect current infrastructure needs and real estate market conditions.2.

Willdan has prepared two versions of the Draft Nexus Study based on the development scenarios being considered for the update of the Ravenswood Business District/4 Corner Specific Plan: Scenario 1 for up to 2.82 million square feet of office/research and development space, and Scenario 2 for up to 3.35 million square feet of office/research and development space. In addition, a Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis has also been prepared to evaluate the effect of impact fees on project feasibility.

The purpose of this memo is to provide BAE’s evaluation of the Draft Nexus Study for conformance with industry best practices in terms of approach, methodologies, and data sources. Though not a legal analysis or opinion, this review includes an assessment of the 1 This property owners group includes the Emmerson Collective, Harvest Properties and Sand Hill Properties.
2 The Draft Development Impact Fees Studies and Financial Feasibility Analysis are available here. 212
3 Draft Nexus Study’s analysis of California Mitigation Fees Act requirements (see below), as well as an in-depth analysis of the current Draft Nexus Study in comparison to the 2019 study.

Both Scenarios 1 and 2 are compared to the 2019 study overall and by major infrastructure category, as feasible. In completing this analysis, BAE has leveraged our staff knowledge and expertise completing similar studies for California jurisdictions.

Following this introduction, the memo provides an analysis of the overall proposed capital infrastructure costs to be supported by the updated fee program, and then provides an individual assessment of each of the five major infrastructure categories: Parks and Trails; Public Facilities; Storm Drainage; Transportation, and; Water.

California Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) Requirements
The California Mitigation Fee Act requires local agencies to make nexus and proportionality findings when imposing fees on development projects to fund public facilities. Fees must be reasonably related to the purpose of the fee and the type of development project and be "roughly proportional" to the development's impact to the burden that new development places on public facilities.

Specifically, Government Code Section 66001(a) of the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66000- 66025) requires that any local public agency (city of county) that establishes, imposes, or increases a fee as a condition of development approval do all of the following: (1) identify the purpose of the fee, (2) identify the use to which the fee is to be put, (3) determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and (4) determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed3. Government Code Section 66001(b) further requires the locality to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the specific amount the fee imposed and the costs of building, expanding, or upgrading public facilities.

Each of the infrastructure categories and proposed fees included in the update Nexus Study are subject to this analysis, however, as noted below, in some cases additional data and supporting documentation would be required to properly establish both nexus and proportionality for specific items.

Capital Infrastructure Costs
The City’s development impact fees are being updated in large part to address increased capital costs contemplated in the City’s Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP), last updated in 3 www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/fees-andexactions#:~:text=Government%20Code%20Section%2066001(a,which%20the%20fee%20is%20impo sed.
213
4 May, 2024 for the Fiscal Years 2024–2025-time frame.4 In general, the infrastructure items included in the Draft Nexus Study appear to be based on this document, though there are some discrepancies and exceptions as further noted below by major category. Per the Capital Improvement Program:

Currently, the City’s greatest capital improvement needs are related to public safety, specifically water infrastructure, mobility, and flood protection. To accomplish the City’s obligation to its residents, this ten-year Capital Improvement Program will focus on these priorities.

The infrastructure costs included in the Draft Nexus Study, however, do not necessarily reflect this statement of priorities. As shown in Table 1 below the largest capital expenditures in the Nexus Study are Public Facilities at $127M and Parks and Trails at $89M. Overall, the infrastructure costs included in the Draft Study have increased by 38% from $316M in 2019 to $438M in 2024. This increase is driven primarily by large increases in Parks and Trails (139%) and Public Facilities (95%) rather than primarily by increases for water infrastructure, flood protection or mobility. As will be explored further below by major category, the increase in maximum supportable impact fees provided in Draft Study are driven by these dramatically larger infrastructure costs in key categories.

Service Population
New capital expenditures for planned facilities included in the Draft Study are used to derive maximum supportable square foot fees by land use based on a “service population” consisting of both new residents and new workers. For some categories, there is both a citywide service population and an RBD service population. Whereas the 2019 AECOM study estimated that each new worker represented .5 of a new resident, the Draft Nexus Study 4www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/3451/cip_for_website_final .pdf
Table 1: East Palo Alto
Capital Expenditures by Infrastructure Category, 2019 and 2024 2019 (1) 2024 $ Change % Change
Parks and Trails $37,190,000 $88,799,000 $51,609,000 139% Public Facilities $65,218,000 $127,120,000 $61,902,000 95% Storm Drainage $54,130,000 $79,857,000 $25,727,000 48%
Transportation (3) $98,641,000 $73,324,477 -$25,316,523 -26% Water Facilities + Supply $61,078,000 $68,854,000 $7,776,000 13% Total $316,257,000 $437,956,501 $121,699,501 38%
Notes:
(1) Gross project costs in $2018.
(2) Net project costs in $2024.
(3) Includes both Citywide and RBD items, including the proposed loop road.

Sources: Willdan, 2024; BAE, 2024.
214
5 assumes a .31-weighting factor based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and “reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for parks and trail facilities.” This updated weighting factor results in a lower overall service population than if the .5 factor had been carried over from 2019 but does not explicitly account for changes to the 40 hour “on site” work week related to flexible and remote working schedules; these would result in lower service demands from new commercial space.

Parks and Trails
Summarized in Table 2 below, the Parks and Trails category would include $89M in proposed expenditures, representing a 139% increase from 2019. The specific capital projects listed in Table 3.5 of the Draft Study are sourced both to the CIP and the City’s Final Draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan from March 2023. However, the capital costs listed in the Master Plan are not entirely consistent with the costs listed in the CIP (for example in the case of Bell Street Park – Table 4.7 in the Master Plan). There are also additional items included in the current study that are not listed at all in the Parks Master Plan and described in only a cursory fashion in the CIP (for example, the “New Parks in Ravenswood/4 Corners Area” are listed at $22M but described in the CIP only as” approximately 4.5 miles of trails and improved pedestrian sidewalks, including along the Bay.”) In the absence of full descriptions and complete and consistent documentation it is difficult to assess the extent to which all cost items have a clear relationship with new development, or to analyze the proportionality of maximum fees to the impact of new development.

Public Facilities
Summarized in Table 3 below, the Public Facilities category would include $127M in proposed expenditures, representing a 95% increase from 2019. The specific capital projects listed in Table 3.5 of the Draft Study are sourced to the CIP and include major new public facilities such Table 2: Parks and Trails Maximum Supportable Fees, 2019 vs. 2024 2019 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Total Infrastructure Costs $37,200,000 $88,799,000 $88,799,000 Service Population (Citywide) 12,631 12,279 13,376
Single-Family Homes (per DU & psf) (1) $4,133 $10.32 $10.06 Multi-Family (per DU and psf) (1) $2,847 $14.35 $13.98
Office & R&D (psf) $1.15 $3.59 $3.50
Industrial (psf) $0.46 $1.44 $1.40
Retail (psf) $0.77 $2.40 $2.33
Notes:
(1) The 2019 fees area assessed on a per
unit basis for residential development;
proposed 2024 fees are calculated on per
square foot basis.

Sources: AECOM, 2019; Willdan, 2024; BAE, 2024.
215
6 as the purchase of City Hall ($60M), a new Police Department Building ($25M) and new community facilities in the RBD ($10M). As with Parks and Trails, however, there are discrepancies between some of the figures listed in the Nexus Study compared to the CIP. For example, the CIP lists the costs of the City Hall purchase at $50M rather than the $60M listed in the Nexus Study. In other cases the descriptions of infrastructure items included in the CIP lack sufficient detail to properly establish a relationship between proposed new development and the impact fees. For example, the $10M in proposed community facilities costs for the RBD is described only as “three major community facility improvements: recreation center, a community center at 4 Corners, and a library expansion….this project will be modified to remove the library as it is a standalone project that is being managed by the City.” In the absence of complete and consistent documentation for all public facilities cost items, it is difficult to assess the extent to which these have a clear relationship with new development, or to analyze the proportionality of maximum fees to the impact of new development.

Storm Drainage
As displayed above in Table 1, the Draft Nexus Study shows storm drainage capital costs increasing by approximately 48 percent from $54M in 2019 to $80M in 2024. The fees are calculated based on the concept that “development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation.” Sites citywide and within the RBD have variable levels of pervious vs. impervious surfaces affecting the assessment of this fee. Table 8.2 in the Draft Study shows the planned facilities in this infrastructure category along with new development’s share of the responsibility to fund the specific item, both citywide and within the RBD. These allocations range from 20 to 100 percent citywide and 0 to 100 percent within the RBD. The rationale provided for the allocations is simply that “City staff prepared an allocation of each project first to new development generally, and then allocated new development’s share of responsibility to development either in RBD or non-RBD areas.” No additional detail is provided Table 3: Public Facilities, Maximum Supportable Fees, 2019 vs. 2024 2019 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Total Infrastructure Costs $65,218,000 $127,120,000 $127,120,000 Service Population (Citywide) 12,631 12,279 13,376
Single-Family Homes (per DU & psf) (1) $7,248 $8.69 $8.47 Multi-Family (per DU and psf) (2) $4,993 $12.08 $11.78
Office & R&D (psf) $2.01 $3.03 $2.95
Industrial (psf) $0.81 $1.21 $1.18
Retail (psf) $1.34 $2.02 $1.97
Notes:
(1) The 2019 fees area assessed on a
per unit basis for residential
development; proposed 2024 fees are
calculated on per square foot basis.

Sources: AECOM, 2019; Willdan, 2024; BAE, 2024.
216
7 on the methods used for the various cost allocations or the variation in cost allocations for the same items included in the 2019 study.

Transportation
Combined citywide and RBD capital projects for transportation are lower in the Draft Nexus Study compared to the 2019 study. Table 6.3 in the Draft Nexus Study lists planned transportation facilities serving the RBD totaling $58.3M, of which $40.6M is “allocated to new development.” By far the largest single item in the updated Nexus Study is the proposed $25M loop road, which is not fully described and uncertain as the Study states that “the City Council will have to decide whether it will want to pursue the Loop Road project.” For the loop road and all citywide and RBD transportation projects, cost allocations range from 0 to 100% and are determined “proportionally to new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon identified.”
Water Facilities and Services
Also displayed above in Table 1, the Draft Nexus Study shows water facilities and service infrastructure costs increasing by 13 percent from $61M in 2019 to approximately $69M in 2024. As with storm drainage, city staff “prepared an allocation of each project first to new development generally, and then allocated new development’s share of responsibility to development either in RBD or non-RBD areas.” No additional documentation or analysis is provided regarding this allocation methodology or variations between the 2019 and 2024 studies.

Conclusion
Although the Nexus Studies have been prepared consistent with the approach and methodologies typically utilized for nexus studies in California, as described in this memo there are a variety of poorly documented assumptions and methodological issues in the Studies that should be addressed before they are finalized . Critically, the City and consultants should review the planed facilities included in the Nexus Studies against other city documents such as the CIP to ensure consistency both in terms of the total amount of the capital costs assigned to each item (for example, in the case of City Hall) and also to ensure that the description of the infrastructure item is consistent with what is being shown in the Nexus Studies. A fully documented and detailed description of the planned facilities to be funded through increased fees on new development would provide more compelling evidence of a clear relationship between new development and the updated fees in each major category, 217
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC Atlanta New York City www.bae1.com
Memorandum

To: Mia Bernardino, Emerson Collective
Kim Diamond, Harvest Properties
Michael Kramer, Sandhill Properties
From: Paul Peninger, Principal
David Shiver, Principal
Date: July 31, 2024
Re: Review of Financial Feasibility Analysis Prepared by Willdan Financial Services for Update of East Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Program

SUMMARY
• BAE was retained to provide a peer review of the Financial Feasibility Analysis and Nexus Study prepared by Willdan Financial Services in support of updating the City of East Palo Alto’s Development Impact Fees.
• Willdan prepared a series of real estate pro formas testing the financial feasibility of applying the proposed fees on nine distinct residential and commercial development prototypes. To accomplish this, Willdan combined select existing fees1 with the maximum supportable fees separately calculated in the Draft Nexus Study for the “Scenario 2” build out of 3.35 million square feet of office/research and development space in the Ravenswood Business District. These fees are in some cases lower than the maximum supportable fees calculated for the “Scenario 1” build out (for example, in the case of Parks and Trails), and thus do not reflect the maximum potential fee burden in every development scenario.
• The draft pro formas contain a number of undocumented and/or incorrect development cost, market and financing assumptions which should be addressed in an updated analysis to accurately reflect the true potential impact of the proposed fees on new development. These assumptions include, but are not limited to land costs, market rents, capitalization rates, operating costs and parking ratios. 1 These include the Quimby Act fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, and Housing Impact Fee, but not other fees and exactions currently imposed by the City on new development. 218
2 • The Draft Feasibility Analysis tends to underestimate the financial impact of the fees as a constraint on new development across all product types. • The maximum supportable fees included in the analysis would function as an additional constraint generally on all new residential development and (in the absence of a fee waiver) on dedicated 100 percent affordable housing developments.

INTRODUCTION
BAE Urban Economics (BAE) was retained by a group of Ravenswood property owners to prepare a peer review of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Financial Feasibility Analysis recently prepared by Willdan Financial Services for the City of East Palo Alto2. These infrastructure impact fees were originally established in 2019 through a study process conducted by AECOM and are now being updated to reflect current infrastructure needs and real estate market conditions.

The purpose of this memo is to provide BAE’s assessment of the Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis as well as related affordable housing feasibility considerations not included in the Feasibility Analysis but relevant to the potential adoption of new impact fees on the financial feasibility of new affordable housing to serve lower-income households. BAE has also completed process a full review of the Nexus Study for conformance with industry best practices in terms of approach, methodologies, and data sources. This review is described in a separate memo.

Review of Financial Feasibility Analysis
BAE has reviewed the Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis and identified the following key issues that should be addressed in an updated analysis and accounted for when considering the impact of new fees on the feasibility of new development:
• Undocumented Land Value Threshold. The Feasibility Analysis indicates that a residual land value “below $50 per square foot (psf), or $2.2 million per acre, indicates a low feasibility and low probability of completion for the prototype 2 These property owners include the Emmerson Collective, Harvest Properties and Sand Hill Properties. 219
3 development in question.” The report states that this threshold value is based on “historic land sales data,” however it does not provide land sales data or analysis to support and document their assumption. This lack of documentation means that the public cannot determine the reasonableness of this key assumption. • Land Value Threshold the Same for All Prototypes. The Feasibility Analysis applies the same land value threshold of $50 per square foot, or $2.2 million per acre regardless of the density of the prototype. This is an unreasonable assumption. Basic appraisal theory holds that land value is a function of the income generation of the prototypical development; the higher the income generated, the higher the land value that can be supported. In addition to value per land square foot or acres, appraisers typically determine the value per unit or per FAR foot3 to evaluate land sales comparables, ensuring that value determinations reflect the normalized income generation potential of unlike parcels. The feasibility study incorrectly assumes a fixed land value threshold to make its determinations of feasibility. The effect of this error is to underestimate the degree of infeasibility of higher density or intensity prototype developments. • Unrealistic Parking Assumptions. For several prototypical developments, the Feasibility Analysis assumes unrealistic levels of surface parking. Generally, developments with a FAR over .75 will require structured parking and typically cannot accommodate surface parking in addition to other requirements such as open space.

Prototypical projects R2, M1, OL1, and OL2 should not include surface parking. • Inconsistent Pro Forma Assumptions. The feasibility study mixes current and historic values for certain key assumptions resulting in erroneous measurements of feasibility.

Anything other than current values for assumptions would result in a highly speculative analysis and findings. Rents, capitalization rates, and interest rates should all be set to current market values with documentation of assumptions to provide transparency.

Rental rate assumptions should be tied to actual rents for comparable Class A properties in the submarket area with free rent or concessions incorporated as appropriate.
• Office and Life Science Operating Expenses. The pro forma for the office and life science prototypical developments show no operating expenses. This is inconsistent with the vacancy assumptions; the developer will incur some operating expenses for vacant portions of the building or for periods when the building is unleased. • Capitalization Rates Not Reflective of Market. In any financial feasibility analysis, the results are highly impacted by the assumed cap rate. The feasibility study assumes 3 E.g., the anticipated or entitled building square feet that comprise the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
220
4 cap rates that are “historic” but not reflective of current investor valuations. The term “historic” itself is undefined and undocumented. The latest cap rate survey published by CBRE for the second half of 2023, shows cap rates as follows: Multifamily Suburban

5.00 to 5.50 in San Jose and 4.5 to 5.5 in San Francico; Office Suburban San Francisco 7.75 to 8.75. By using cap rates prevalent in the market two or three years ago, the feasibility study underestimates the magnitude of infeasibility of the prototypical developments.
• Inaccurate Developer Profit. The feasibility study’s approach to project feasibility is to calculate developer profit as a percent of development costs but it does not include land costs since it is a residual calculation. When land cost is accounted for the profit would be less than the assumed 12 percent. The 12 percent profit threshold assumption itself is also low and not reflective of current investor requirements. For the for-sale townhome prototypical development R, for example, the developer profit would more appropriately be in the range of 15 to 20 percent of total development costs.

Affordable Housing Feasibility Considerations
Although the Willdan Feasibility analysis does not include a 100 percent affordable housing prototype, updated infrastructure impact fees would also have a potential negative effect on the feasibility of affordable housing in both affordable and mixed-income projects. The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element has identified impact fees as a potential constraint to all types of residential development, and the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AFFH) explicitly identifies impact fees as a constraint for affordable housing4. The Housing Element includes the following language with respect to the fee update process currently underway:

The City will be reevaluating its development impact fees for residential and nonresidential development in 2024 and adjusting these fees to reflect updated capital improvement projects and cost estimates. A nexus study will be conducted as well as a financial feasibility analysis. The nexus study will determine the fair share allocation for developers to fund capital improvement projects. The financial feasibility analysis will assess the impact of development impact fees and other City obligations, including inclusionary housing requirements and housing linkage fees, on the financial feasibility of future projects. (see Chapter 6, Program 9.6).

Program 9.6 further includes evaluating the impact of development impact fees and exactions, including inclusionary housing requirements, on project feasibility with possible revisions based on the outcome of the financial feasibility analysis. Given that the City’s current development impact fees are already identified as a constraint on residential 4 https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/23793/adopted_2023- 2031_east_palo_alto_housing_element_.pdf
221
5 development in East Palo Alto, increasing fee levels should also be further examined specifically as an added constraints on affordable housing choice, and/or additional policies and programs explored to ameliorate the negative feasibility impacts of increased fees on new housing availability.
222
017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1

MEMORANDUM
TO: Emerson Collective
FROM: Miles Imwalle
DATE: July 31, 2024
RE: Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update You asked that I conduct a review of the City of East Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update, Public Review Draft, dated June 14, 2024 (“Nexus Study”) to assess its compliance with applicable legal standards. The following presents a summary of my findings.

I. Brief Review of Legal Standard
At a high level, the concept of development impact fees is that new development causes a need for new or expanded facilities, so the City can charge fees to address this “impact” so existing residents are not burdened with bearing the cost of new development. While ensuring that new development “pay its way” is understandable, it is as important that impact fees not be used as a tool to fix existing problems. That is, just as new development should not be a burden on existing residents, new development should not pay more than its fair share.

Development impact fees are governed by two complimentary legal standards found under the Mitigation Fee Act and the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Mitigation Fee Act was drafted with the intent to mirror constitutional legal standards and requires that the City make a number of findings when adopting impact fees. These findings are reflected in the Nexus Study at the end of each category of fee and the topics include: the purpose of the fee, the specific use to which the fees will be put (e.g., facilities), the relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development on which the fees are imposed, the relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development, and the relationship between the fee amount and the cost of the facilities attributable to new development. The point of these findings is to establish that the fee amounts correlate to the need for new facilities caused by new development.

The Takings Clause legal standard has a long history, but one with a recent development. Up until very recently, California courts had held that “legislatively adopted” exactions, such as impact fees, were held to a “reasonable relationship” test, meaning that there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the fee and the impact of the development. This was in contrast to “ad hoc,” or individually assessed, exactions, which were required to have both an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the exaction and the development. In practical terms, this has meant that legislatively adopted fees faced a relatively low constitutional bar. However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of whether legislatively adopted exactions are exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough 223
Memo to Emerson Collective
July 31, 2024

Page 2 ends

017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1
proportionality” tests and can be held to the lower “rough proportionality” standard. Sheetz v.

County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024). The Court held that there is no such exemption. In short, this means that nexus studies today are held to a higher legal standard than they had been in the past, particularly in demonstrating that the fee and the impact caused by new development are “roughly proportional.”
One concept that is particularly important to understand for this Nexus Study is that new development cannot be relied on to correct existing deficiencies or to increase the level of service. Many of the facilities the Nexus Study proposes to pay for are either entirely missing or deficient. That is not to say that fees cannot be used to pay for existing problems, but the amount covered by new development is limited to the increased demand caused by development. This is codified in the Mitigation Fee Act, which provides that “[a] fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” Gov.

Code § 66001(g).

This concept is also confirmed by case law:

While it is "only fair" that the public at large should not be obliged to pay for the increased burden on public facilities caused by new development, the converse is equally reasonable: the developer must not be required to shoulder the entire burden of financing public facilities for all future users. "[T]o impose the burden on one property owner to an extent beyond his [or her] own use shifts the government's burden unfairly to a private party...." (Citation omitted.) It follows that facilities fees are justified only to the extent that they are limited to the cost of increased services made necessary by virtue of the development.

Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board, 1 Cal. App. 4th 218, 234-235 (1991).

II. Analysis of Legal Issues
The following provides a summary of issues that should be addressed in a revised Nexus Study.

A. General Issues
• The Nexus Study Appears to Require that New Development Address More than its Fair Share of Existing Deficiencies.
o The Nexus Study acknowledges that impact fees cannot be used to address existing deficiencies. Nonetheless, a significant portion of the fees would be used to address several existing deficiencies. For example, the City has long sought a new City Hall. The same goes for the Library. Both of these facilities are City needs whether or not new development occurs, so the establishment of an “essential nexus” at all is questionable. Even if new development could be argued increases the need for such facilities, new development can only be required to pay for the increased demand it causes, i.e., it must be “roughly proportional” to the impact.
224
Memo to Emerson Collective
July 31, 2024

Page 3 ends

017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1
o The lack of rough proportionality is apparent by a quick look at the numbers.

According to the Nexus Study, the future “service population” will be 43,257 people, which will be made up of 13,376 people from new development. That is, approximately 31% of the future service population will be from new development. However, the Nexus Study has new development paying for 39% of the cost of new public facilities, the most significant of which the City currently lacks (City Hall and Library). New development has only a minor, incremental impact on the existing need for these facilities, and it is only this increased need for these facilities that new development should be paying for. This increased need for a new City Hall or Library is much less than 39% of the cost. o This result appears to arise from the definition of “existing deficiency.” The existing deficiency is the entirety of the City Hall or the Library. Those are both current needs of the City and building them will result in an increased level of service. New development is not causing a need for an increased level of service. However, the Nexus Study identifies the “existing deficiency” as the shortfall between what could be collected by impact fees and the cost of the facilities. The result is that new development would be paying much more than its fair share to increase the level of service to a higher level than exists today.

This result is not allowed under the Mitigation Fee Act or the Takings Clause. o It is also noteworthy that the Nexus Study has $122 million higher capital infrastructure costs compared to the 2019 Nexus Study. The costs associated with Parks and Trails and Public Facilities saw the most dramatic increases, more than doubling in a 5 year period. This change does not appear to be a result of inflation, but rather the inclusion of additional improvements, the need for which existed in 2019 as much as it does in 2024. It is not the case that the impact of new development on the need for parks/trails and public facilities more than doubled in the last 5 years.
• Credit Must be Given for Public Facilities that are Constructed by New Development. o Many of the facilities that the Nexus Study identifies as being funded by impact fees are also facilities that the draft Specific Plan Update anticipates will be built by new development. For example, Table 3.5 identifies over $37 million in new trails, sidewalks and parks in the RBD, but the draft Specific Plan suggests that these same facilities will be built by new development. To the extent that new development constructs facilities that were assumed in the Nexus Study, credit must be given. This issue arises in other sections as well, but it can be fixed with a general acknowledgement that credit will be given whenever new development constructs facilities assumed in the Nexus Study.
• Assigning Workers a Weighting Factor of 0.31 for all Facilities is Not Supported. o To come up with a “weighted” “service population,” the Nexus Study assigns a

0.31 “weighting factor” to workers, which is based on the assumption that workers are present 40 hours per week, which is approximately 31% of the total hours in a week (128). This approach likely greatly overestimates the impact of workers on the need for many of the new facilities.
225
Memo to Emerson Collective
July 31, 2024

Page 4 ends

017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1
o The impact on the need for a new library is a good example. Libraries are primarily resident serving facilities. In fact, only residents of San Mateo County may obtain a library card, so any worker who is not a resident of San Mateo County would not be able to use the library’s full services. In any event, it is the rare worker that decides to use the library in his or her city of employment. The same goes for parks, which also primarily serve residents. For this reason, many cities only charge library impact fees and park impact fees on residential development.1
o Even if hours worked in the City is a proper weighting factor, assuming that every worker will physically work 40 hours per week in the new development is unrealistic. The pandemic has had a lasting impact on where people work with many employees working from the office only 2 or 3 days a week. The Bay Area Council took a quarterly “Return to Office” survey from April 2021 through May 2024 and as recently as March 2024, employers estimated that only 15% of employees were working from the office 5 days per week, with 3 days per week being the most common at 32% and 2 days the second most common at 20%.2 Therefore, even if hours per week were a legitimate proxy for impact, the hours should come in line with today’s reality.
o In summary, to the extent impact fees can be levied on non-residential uses to pay for primarily residential serving facilities, the Nexus Study should have additional evidence documenting the impact workers have on the need for such facilities. The number of hours in a week that a worker spends in the City is not evidence that the workers actually increase demand on the facilities; there should also be evidence that workers actually use the facility funded by the fee. • Transportation Analysis Should be More Refined.
o The Nexus Study proposes only five categories of transportation related fees, even though some similar, but distinct, uses have much different trip generation rates. For example, office typically has a higher trip generation rate compared to R&D, but the Nexus Study proposes a single fee for both. Because these uses have distinct impacts, separate fees should be established for the different uses.

Some nearby jurisdictions recognize this distinction and have adopted fees that differentiate between these types of different uses. How close the match is between the impact of a specific type of development project and the fee imposed is what the U.S. Supreme Court was addressing in the Sheetz decision.

With this recent precedent, there is a strong argument that levying the same fee on uses with different impacts does not meet the “rough proportionality” test. 1 As examples in nearby jurisdictions, the cities of Mountain View and Cupertino charge park fees only on residential development. The City of Burlingame exempts commercial, office and industrial uses from the library portion of its Public Facilities Impact Fee because the Council explicitly found that such developments do not have an impact on the provision of library services.
2 Survey results are available here: https://www.bayareacouncil.org/employer-survey-results/ 226
Memo to Emerson Collective
July 31, 2024

Page 5 ends

017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1
o Similarly, the transportation fee should be refined to account for the benefits of mixed-use projects, which data shows have lower overall trip generation rates because “internal capture” means that some trips are taken within the project. To solve for this issue, some jurisdictions also include a trip based fee. This approach results in a fee that more closely aligns with the impact. A trip generation approach also has the benefit of encouraging projects to include design features that reduce trips.
• Technical Issues with the Transportation Analysis.
o The Nexus Study appropriately assumes that trip generation for new development is reduced by 40%, presumably based on the City’s TDM requirement. However, it appears that this same 40% reduction was applied to existing development. Table 5.2, at pg. 35. However, existing development has no TDM requirement so this reduction is inappropriate. Eliminating this reduction would appropriately allocate more of the impact to existing development. o The retail ITE rate should be confirmed that it is correct. The Nexus Study appears to have used the rate for shopping centers in excess of 150,000 SF, which is not the type of retail that will occur in the RBD. o The allocation for Loop Road suggests that 12% of the trips will start and end outside of the City and reduces the allocation accordingly. However, this is the only improvement for which this is assumed. The Nexus Study should clarify whether the other transportation improvements have the same issue, and if so, this should be accounted for throughout.
• Technical Issues with Water Capacity Analysis.
o Table 7.1 establishes a single water demand factor of 243 gallons per 1,000 SF for Office and R&D, which was arrived at by using an average of the two.

However, these uses have significantly different water demand factors.

According to the East Palo Alto Water System Master Plan, R&D’s demand is 375 GPD/1,000 SF, but Office’s demand is only 110 GPD/1,000 SF. (EPA Water System Master Plan, Table 4-5.) As with the transportation analysis, in order to meet the “rough proportionality” test, where different uses have different impacts, the uses should be analyzed separately and levied different fees. o Table 7.4 allocates a percentage of the costs for each water improvement to new development and then between the RBD and non-RBD areas, but there is no description of how these allocations were made other than to say that “City staff prepared an allocation.” (Nexus Study, at 51.) This statement is insufficient; the Nexus Study must provide evidence supporting the allocations. • Technical Issues with Storm Drain Facilities Analysis. o Table 8.1 assumes an FAR of 3.0 for Office and R&D uses, but that density is not allowed within the RBD. To the extent the storm drain analysis relies on FAR, this should be corrected to reflect the density that is actually allowed. 227
Memo to Emerson Collective
July 31, 2024

Page 6 ends

017821.0001 4890-2593-6847.1
o The analysis does not sufficiently account for projects that redevelop existing sites that consist primarily of impervious surface. Frequently, redevelopment projects improve the stormwater runoff, particularly where the prior use had significant impervious surface (such as a parking lot), but even where that is not the case, C.3 stormwater regulations have become very stringent resulting in a significant reduction in runoff from new development. To accurately assess the impact of a project, the existing condition should be considered and where appropriate, credit should be given.
o In line with the prior comment, Table 8.2 suggests that the impervious surface in the RBD will increase from 23 acres to 106 acres. These numbers do not seem credible. The existing impervious area is based solely on the formula with limited land use categories, meaning that some land uses are not included. The fact is that a significant portion of the RBD is currently impervious and many areas will redevelop sites that are currently impervious. According to the Specific Plan, the RBD consists of 207 acres. If only 23 acres are currently impervious, that would mean that over 90% of the RBD is pervious, which does not appear to be accurate.
o Table 8.3 contains allocations for new improvements to new development generally and then allocated between the RBD and non-RBD. Similar to the water capacity analysis, this allocation was apparently done by City staff, but there is no evidence explaining how allocations were made. The Nexus Study must include evidence of how the allocations were made, particularly as many improvements appear to be addressing existing issues.
o Several storm drain improvements appear to be from the 2014 Storm Drain Master Plan, but that document states that the improvements it identifies “do not include the cost of new facilities related to new development.” SDMP, at 6-1.

Therefore, SDMP identified improvements are existing deficiencies and should not be the responsibility of new development. As an example, the SDMP identified replacing the O’Connor Pump Station as a high priority capital improvement in 2014, which, per the document, was unrelated to new development. However, in the Nexus Study, City Staff allocated 50% of the cost of this project to new development, and then 50% of that to RDB development.

This is not sufficient evidence documenting the allocation. 228
July 3, 2024 - RSBD Update Page 1

RAVENSWOOD SHORES BUSINESS DISTRICT, LLC (RSBD)
PO Box 51862, Palo Alto CA 94303
Jeff Poetsch, President -
650-207-4994 - [email protected]
To: Hanson Hom / City of East Palo Alto
From : Jeff Poetsch, President, Ravenswood Shores Business District Date: July 8, 2024
CC: Members of the Ravenswood Shores Business District
RE: June 14 Draft - Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Hi Hanson - Outline below are my comments on behalf of the Ravenswood Shores Business District regarding the June 14, 2024, Draft of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update. I’ve addressed my comments to the “Scenario 2” report. I will send you a separate comment note regarding the Feasibility Analysis.

General Comments - Big Issues - there are a number of pretty significant issues / concerns.

1. Missing Items - As has been noted, as currently structured, this study neglects prospective Sanitary Sewer impact fees, and fails to note other City imposed charges such as the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee, Quimby Act costs and Housing impact In-Lieu Fee. I’m assuming this report will be amended to include a sewer connection fee.

2. Allocation of costs to new development - Allocations to new development and to projects in the Ravenswood Business District appear arbitrary and, in some cases, questionable. As we are all aware, the current infrastructure is deficient in many ways with or without new development. For example, each of the Emergency Water Connects reflect existing system deficiencies and should have been completed years ago. The allocation of 50% of the emergency water tanks to new development, when the existing serviced base (residents and employees) is 61% of forecast service base citywide in 2045 is inappropriate. I hope these numbers will be “revisited” and I’m happy to sit with Humza or Willdan to go over the various infrastructure master plans to better allocate costs to existing and new development.

3. Infrastructure Costs used in the Walldan Nexus Study are unreasonable escalated. Parks and Trails gross project costs were $37MM in the 2019 AECOM Nexus Study and only 31% was reasonably allocated to new development. The Willdan Study identifies $89MM of gross project costs related to Parks and Trails and in this case allocates 68% of these costs to new development.

The same imbalance is reflected in the other fee categories. Are these all costs that come from City approved Capital Improvement Plans?

4. Comparison to other communities seems incomplete. - The chart that was provided in the presentation to the Developer Group and then later at the City Council meeting comparing the proposed maximum impact fees was admittedly incomplete. I’m hoping this can be improved upon as this will go along way to demonstrate the reasonableness of these fees on way or the other.

5. Loop Road needs to be eliminated from the analysis. There are many reasons why the loop road is not feasible even if it were desirable. This road is proposed along and adjacent to a significant wetland. Obtaining ACOE and USFWL approvals will be next to impossible. The right-of-way for this road includes San Mateo County Transportation Agency and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission both of whom have opposed access agreements with Bay Trail proponents. Finally, the “carried” estimated cost of $25MM is probably off by a factor of 10. Given that gross impact fees are already excessive, eliminating this infeasible project is appropriate. Hopefully, this adjustment can be made.
229
July 3, 2024 - RSBD Update Page 2

6. Consistency between the 2019 AECOM Nexus Study and 2024 Willdan Nexus Study - I’m disappointed that there wasn’t more consistency and continuity between the AECOM 2019 Nexus Study and the Willdan 2024 Study. It is critical that Willdan identifies the differences between the 2019 and 2024 report and explains the justification and validity of these changes. As noted above, the Willdan Study proposes that “new develop” pay a share of existing parks, trails, and public faculties. The 2019 report does not include these existing community facilities.

7. Comparison of the Maximum Impact fees proposed in the 2019 AECOM report and the 2024 Willdan report is essential to understanding this report and the context of impact fees on potential future development.

Specific Draft Report Comments

Page 4 ends

The introductory paragraph states “… the City’s intent that developers pay the full cost of public and infrastructure improvements necessitated by their development”. I do not believe this is not an accurate statement. To the best of my knowledge the City’s intent is that developers pay the “fair share” cost. Secondly, as noted in other areas of the report, the Nexus Study identifies the “maximum” impact fees that can be charged. The City may elect not to charge the maximum fees in order to encourage economic development. You need to make this crystal clear.

As noted above, given the current status of the reorganization of the EPASD as a subsidiary district of the City of East Palo Alto, this topic should be included as a “fee category”. I would suggest as well that for the Ravenswood Business District, it is appropriate to identify as an impact fee the proposed allocated costs of the Updated Four Corners / Ravenswood Specific Plan costs.

Page 7 ends

The “units” (per sq. ft. / per Dwelling Unit) is incorrect for the RBD elements.

The referenced footnotes need to be tied to a specific impact fee - Only footnote 4 is tied.

Page 8 ends

Page 9 ends

Page 10 ends

KSF

Page 20 ends

non-work hours in the week. Is this an “industry standard”? Not sure why it shouldn’t be 40 hours / 168 hours since the workers are only benefiting from the parks and trails while in East Palo Alto.

Page 23 ends

Facilities as well as Planned Facilities - In the 2019 Nexus Study, it was only Planned Facilities that were allocated to as costs that needed to be considered in the impact fee calculation.

Page 28 ends

public facilities inventory. Certainly, for existing public facilities inventory this should be considered at “depreciated” asset value rather than replacement costs.

Page 34 ends

related only to the RBD but includes many costs of traffic planned facilities outside of the RBD and I would think would be subject to some allocation of cost between the new development Citywide.

Page 52 ends

RBD. Also, I question the need for a 2nd Groundwater Well (Item W-04). This was initially contemplated prior to the SFPUC water allocations from Mountain View and Palo Alto.

Page 58 ends

it is so much lower for the RBD.
230
July 3, 2024 - RSBD Update Page 3

Page 62 ends

development” at all - These would include SD11 – the Illinois Purdue pipe which services only the University Garden neighborhood. This is then double counted with the Purdue and Illinois item at the bottom of the page. Not sure how the Bay Road Pump Station and the Runnymede Pump Station are 100% allocated to new development given the existing areas these projects serve.
231
December 20, 2024 - 11/17/24 Draft Nexus Study Page 1

RAVENSWOOD SHORES BUSINESS DISTRICT, LLC (RSBD)
PO Box 51862, Palo Alto CA 94303
Jeff Poetsch, President -
650-207-4994 - [email protected]
To: Hanson Hom / City of East Palo Alto
From : Jeff Poetsch, President, Ravenswood Shores Business District Date: December 20, 2024
CC: Members of the Ravenswood Shores Business District
RE: Public Review Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update: November 18, 2024 Hi Hanson - Outline below are my comments and recommendations on behalf of the Ravenswood Shores Business District regarding the November 18, 2024, Draft of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update. Some of this is a recap of my July 5, 2024, comments regarding that draft as my concerns remain outstanding.

Summary of Recommendations.

1. RBD Transportation Facilities - Those improvements allocated 100% to new development should be reallocated to 77.9% attributable to new development.

2. Water Capacity - WS-03A and WS-05 which have 20% allocation to Non-RBD Development and 80% to RBS, should be reallocated to 34% attributed to Non-RBD Development

3. Storm Drainage - Bell Street, Euclid to Bell, Sage to Larkspur and Weeks to Pulgas storm drainage costs should be reduced from 82% allocated to new development to 19%. Additionally, the Non-RBD allocation should be adjusted from 0% to 100%.

4. Duplication of Storm Water Improvement Costs - Need to confirm there is not duplication of costs for either the storm drainage improvement costs proposed on Weeks or the storm drainage improvement costs proposed on Illinois.

5. Appropriate Allocation of Storm Drainage Cost in University Village - A reallocation should be undertaken that provides for only a 19% allocation to New Development for SD-11 IllinoisPurdue Pipe, SD-13 Purdue Bay Pipe, Purdue and Illinois and proportional reallocation of the Runnymede Pump Station costs based on storm water flow all of which serve the existing deficiencies in University Village
General Comments -

1. Missing Items - As noted earlier, as currently structured, this study neglects prospective Sanitary Sewer impact fees, and fails to note other City imposed charges such as the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee, Quimby Act costs and Housing impact In-Lieu Fee. I’m not exactly sure how the report is planned to be amended to include a sewer connection fee, but this consideration is pretty important.

2. Allocation of costs to new development - Generally, the allocations to new development and to projects in the Ravenswood Business District seem better explained but there still appear to be a few instances where the allocations the methodology of the allocations are not explained. For example:
a. RBD Transportation Facilities – Table 6.3 notes allocation factors of 0.00% 6.25%,

8.22%, 63.31% and 100.00%. It’s not clear how these allocations were determined. It seems unreasonable that 100.0% of planned improvement costs for items like University Avenue & Donohoe Steet (Project 11) would be allocated to RBD new development. It 232
December 20, 2024 - 11/17/24 Draft Nexus Study Page 2
would seem that all of these 100.0% costs should be allocated at a maximum at the 77.9% allocation as identified in Table 6.2.
b. Water Capacity - Table 7.4 notes allocation of costs in items WS-031 and WS-05 to have 20% allocation to Non-RBD Development and 80% to RBS. It is not clear how this allocation was determined, and it would seem a 34% allocation is more supported by the Study. .
c. Storm Drainage Facilities - Table 8.3 notes allocation of cost for several items including Bell Street, Euclid to Bell, Sage to Larkspur and Weeks to Pulgas at an 82% factor.

Further complicating the allocation of costs here is that 100% of the cost allocated to new development is identified as a RBD cost, although none of these streets are within the RBD. It would seem appropriate that these costs be reallocate to these line items to 19% of new development and 100% to Non-RBD allocation.

3. Duplication of Cost Items - I’m concerned that there is double counting of several items in the details of Storm Drainage Costs
a. Weeks Street - Table 8.3 identifies 4 separate Weeks Street items. These include SD-07 - Weeks Street Storm Drain ($285,000), Harvest Weeks Pipe ($1,400,000) Weeks End ($377,000) and Weeks to Pulgas (585,000). Are these all separate pipe sections? b. Illinois, Purdue, Bay - Table 8.3 identifies 3 separate University Village sections from Illinois to Bay. These include SD-11 - Illinois- Purdue Pipe ($2,100,000), SD-13 Purdue – Bay Pipe ($3,100,000) and Purdue and Illinois ($3,224,000). Are these all separate pipe sections?

4. Allocation of University Village Storm Drainage Deficiencies - The University Village storm drainage system outflows into the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve lines exiting on Purdue, Stephens and Illinois. This system is deficient in numerus ways and the updated Storm Drainage Master Plan as provided in the updated Specific Plan provides for a “collection” of the storm water into piping running along Illinois to Bay. This has been allocated as a cost to be offset by Impact Fees to new development, when in fact, this should be a cost of existing conditions. A reallocation should be undertaken that provides for only a 19% allocation for SD-11 IllinoisPurdue Pipe, SD-13 Purdue Bay Pipe, Purdue and Illinois and proportional reallocation of the Runnymede Pump Station costs based on storm water flow.

5. Loop Road needs to be eliminated from the analysis. The report still includes several refences to the loop road, and the need for a City Council decision on this item. Given the City Council has opined to eliminate the loop road from the Specific Plan Update, the report should eliminate refences to this item. Specifically, there are refences on Page 46 of the report as well as in Table

6.3 - Project Item #7.

Specific Report Comments

Page 6 ends

The introductory paragraph states “… the City’s intent that developers pay the full cost of public and infrastructure improvements necessitated by their development”. I do not believe it is clear that in fact; the Nexus Study identifies the “maximum” impact fees that can be charged. The City may elect not to charge the maximum fees in order to encourage economic development. I believe the report would be stronger, particularly in the context of the new City Council members, if this were made crystal clear.

The EPASD has been reorganize as a subsidiary district of the City of East Palo Alto, and I suggest this topic is at least noted in the Nexus Study.

Page 7 ends

The referenced footnotes need to be tied to a specific impact fee - Only footnote 4 is tied.

Page 9 ends

Page 34 ends

related only to the RBD but includes many costs of traffic planned facilities outside of the RBD 233
December 20, 2024 - 11/17/24 Draft Nexus Study Page 3
and I would think would be subject to some allocation of cost between the new development Citywide.

Page 58 ends

234
017821.0001 4933-9949-0056.2

MEMORANDUM
TO: Emerson Collective
FROM: Miles Imwalle
DATE: December 19, 2024
RE: Review of Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update This memorandum provides a brief analysis of a few issues identified in the updated East Palo Alto Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update, Public Review Draft, dated November 18, 2024 (“Updated Nexus Study”).

As an initial matter, Willdan made a number of changes that were suggested in the prior memo and as a result, the Updated Nexus Study is getting closer to identifying the maximum fees that can be charged. While a number of concerns remain outstanding, particularly the overall burden that new development is being asked to shoulder for existing deficiencies, this memorandum focuses on two issues:
• University Avenue Grand Corridor Project is Not Related to New Development: The $4 million increase in the cost of this project was notable, so I reviewed the project more closely. Upon closer review, this project does not appear to be an appropriate subject for impact fees. The FY 2024-2025 Ten Year Capital Improvement Program Update describes the project as:

The General Plan envisions University Ave. being transformed from a cutthrough corridor into a mixed use boulevard with high-density housing, neighborhood-serving businesses and offices. This includes multimodal and complete streets improvements along University Avenue.

This appears to be referencing the following description in the Transportation Element of the General Plan:

It should also be noted that while University Avenue is currently predominantly used by regional traffic, it is also the main local transportation spine of East Palo Alto. As such, it represents a prime candidate for potential redesign to improve its local function as a community focal point and gathering place. Potential redesigns for the roadway could include buffered and painted bicycle lanes, streetscape improvements such as benches and pedestrian scale lighting, and mid-block crossings.

Transportation Policy 2.2 then addresses this issue by calling for a redesign of University Avenue so that it becomes more of a multi-modal corridor that focuses on the local 235
Memo to Emerson Collective
December 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

017821.0001 4933-9949-0056.2
function of a “community centerpiece.” That is, the intent of the University Avenue Grand Corridor project is to change the function of the street from a cut-through corridor to a local gathering place. While these may be laudable goals and an important vision for the future of the City, they are not improvements meant to address impacts of new development, so should not be paid for by an impact fee. • Runnymede Pump Station: The nearly doubling in cost of the Runnymede Pump Station from $10 million to $19.5 million was also notable, particularly as the cost of this single facility is the same as all other facilities combined and 100% of it is allocated to the RBD.

While this significant increase is supported by the latest CIP, I did not find an explanation for the change in cost. A closer review of this improvement revealed two issues: (1) the Runnymede Pump Station benefits the City beyond the RBD, so this cost should not be borne 100% by the RBD, and (2) the Utility Impact Study that is the basis for identifying the need for various improvements finds that if the Runnymede Pump Station is built, other CIPs will not be needed (or unlikely will be needed), yet the Updated Nexus Study assumes all such CIPs will be built.
o Runnymede has Citywide benefits: Figure A-24 to the Utility Impact Study shows changes in flooding throughout the City as a result of near-term development, which shows impacts beyond the RBD. Figures A-36 and A-37 show the flooding resulting from near-term development after Runnymede is built and it shows significant improvements throughout the City, including beyond the RBD boundaries. However, the Updated Nexus Study allocates 100% of the cost to the RBD. Given that most of the City will benefit from Runnymede, including existing development, new development in the RBD should not carry 100% of the cost.
o Not All CIPs Are Needed with Runnymede: The Utility Impact Study is clear that if the Runnymede Pump Station is completed, then other CIPs will not be needed. See Utility Impact Study, at 6-4 to 6-5. For that reason, the Utility Impact Study assumed that several of the CIPs would not be required and came up with a much lower total cost ($22.8 million in the Utility Impact Study vs. $39 million in the Updated Nexus Study). The Updated Nexus Study appears to assume that all CIPs will be built, including ones that would not be needed if Runnymede is built. According to the Utility Impact Study, this scenario is unlikely to occur. Several of the CIPs should be removed, as appropriate, which would bring down the total cost.
236
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 410 | Palo Alto, California 94306 2041 Euclid Avenue | East Palo Alto, California 94303
December 20, 2024
Hanson Hom
Deputy Manager, Special Projects
City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Ave.

East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Via Electronic Mail
RE: Draft Nexus Study and Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis Dear Hanson:

We write today with additional comments on the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Updates and the Financial Feasibility Analysis. Thank you for updating the Nexus Study and the Financial Feasibility Analysis since our comments in July. As expected, the updated reports show even less feasibility than the original drafts. The updated reports still omit a number of important—and expensive—costs from the analysis, including school fees and sanitary district fees. If these were included, there would be even greater infeasibility.

We urge the City to reconsider any new impact fees and not increase the fee levels for any development. Indeed, we believe that fee levels should come down. Your own analysis shows that new development is infeasible, and the City should not be increasing the governmental constraints to development, especially to residential development.

We note that the City recently adopted its Housing Element, which was required by state law to analyze governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing. The Housing Element anticipated the completion of the impact fee nexus study and feasibility analysis. It further anticipated that the inclusionary housing ordinance would be amended in response to the feasibility analysis to “reduce the barriers to housing production and achieve the City’s RHNA…” see. Chapter 6 p. 19. Given the clear findings that all residential development is infeasible with existing fee levels, we look forward to amendments to the inclusionary housing ordinance to reduce governmental constraints to housing. We hope you will comply with the Housing Element, which anticipated such amendments “within six months” so as not to slow housing production.

In the meantime, we reiterate the following comments and refer you to our July 31, 2024 letter, which included technical appendices prepared as a peer review of the Wildan work. Not all of those comments or feedback have been incorporated into the updated documents.

1. Reconsider capital infrastructure projects. The capital infrastructure costs have gone up significantly in this nexus study, relative to the City’s prior nexus study. The new additions include significant new expenditures for parks and trails, purchase of a City Hall, a new Police 237
2 Department Building, and new community facilities in the RBD. These all represent areas in which there are significant existing deficiencies in service within the City. The Mitigation Fee Act prohibits a local agency from charging new residents the costs attributable to existing deficiencies. Cal. Gov’t Code § 66001(g). The City’s need for updates to its parks, a new City Hall, a new Police Station, and other community facilities exist whether or not there is any new development in the RBD. It is therefore inappropriate to include these existing deficiencies in the impact fee calculations.

We request that the list of parks and trails expenditures and public facilities expenditures be revised to remove the projects that reflect existing deficiencies and those that are unrelated to the new development, including new City Hall, new Police Station, and updates to existing parks.

3. Update the feasibility study with all relevant expenses. The feasibility study overstates feasibility by omitting many significant expenses. The study should include the cost of TDM/TMA, sanitary sewer connection fees, and school fees. And, to align with the overall development envelope studied in the nexus studies, the costs of exemplary community benefits should also be included as they are required by the draft Specific Plan in order to reach that development envelope.

Thank you for reviewing these technical documents. We appreciate your work to ensure that you have accurate, complete information when you make your decisions about impact fees.

Sincerely,
Michael Kramer
238
ATTACHMENT 7
University Avenue / Bay Road
1/2-mile Radius Ma
239
POLICY AND ACTION 9.1

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Batool Zaro, Senior Engineer
Humza Javed, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: East Palo Alto Library Project Update
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Approving the updated concept design and space programming for the new East Palo Alto Library;

2. Approving the 1 parking space per 400 square-feet floor area ratio; and

3. Finding that the proposed City Council action:
a. is consistent with an existing Specific Plan (Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan);
b. constitutes a subsequent action related to the Library Site which is adequately covered in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), certified by the City Council on March 21, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-26);
c. is not a separate “project” for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes but is a subsequent approval related to a previously approved project (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c));
d. does not require further environmental review for the reasons set forth in CEQA Guideline Sections 15162; and
e. Requires no further analysis or environmental documentation; and f. Constitutes merely a step in furtherance of the original project for which environmental review was performed and no supplemental or subsequent CEQA has been triggered, and no further environmental review is required.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
240
POLICY AND ACTION 9.1
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Enhance Community Services and Parks for Residents
Background
The East Palo Alto Library has served the community for over 100 years, providing an essential educational and cultural space. It is a vital learning center and safe-haven open to all seven days a week.

The City of East Palo Alto participates in the San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which was established in 1999. The JPA manages library operations, while member agencies maintain library buildings and fund capital improvements. Most member agencies own the library buildings in their jurisdiction.

The current 7,680-square-foot library at 2415 University Avenue struggles to meet the community’s needs due to heavy use, and outdated interior spaces.

In FY 2017-18, the City, County of San Mateo County, and Library JPA conducted a Library Needs Assessment, which identified major service barriers, including insufficient space for collections, seating, and designated study and youth areas. The assessment recommended expanding the facility to 22,000 to 27,000 square feet. The City, County, JPA and other stakeholders accepted the findings and began exploring the possibility of relocating the library to a site next to the EPACenter Arts Building on Pulgas Avenue.

In 2018, the JPA worked with wHY Architects to assess site feasibility, develop a conceptual design, and estimate costs for a new library at the Pulgas location. The project goals included building a new library facility designed to connect innovative collections, technology, staff, services, and programs to the East Palo Alto community.

Engaging the community and stakeholders, wHY Architects created a two-level, 23,878 square foot library plan that prioritizes modern collections, technology, and community programming.

Analysis
To complete the new EPA Library design, City staff prepared and advertised a design services request for proposals (RFP). At the March 5th, 2024, meeting, the City Council awarded Noll & Tam Architects a design services contract to advance the project.

Public Outreach
The City, JPA, and Noll & Tam launched the East Palo Alto Library design project in May 2024 and began outreach in the summer. As part of effort, the outreach team conducted seven interviews with community leaders were conducted, held two focus groups (one in English and one in Spanish), and hosted an open community meeting. Following the community meeting, the team launched an online survey to collect additional feedback to help refine the design. See Attachment 2 for the full Community Engagement Report.
241
POLICY AND ACTION 9.1
Conceptual Design Refinement
Based on community input, the design team developed an updated conceptual design, expanding on the original wHY Architects concept plan to better meet community needs. The conceptual design refinement phase included:
 City Council Ad-Hoc Committee Meetings - two City Council members comprised the Committee and were advised by City and JPA staff and the project architect team.

Collectively, they discussed key issues such as site parking, floor plans and community priorities
 Library & City Staff Engagement Workshops - Staff workshops provided input on library operations and space layout.

Conceptual Design Layout
The new East Palo Alto Library will feature open, contemporary spaces with natural light, flexible seating options, and indoor-outdoor connections. Highlights include:
 A welcoming, open floor plan lobby with a double height atrium  Meeting rooms of various sizes
 Special program rooms
 A large assembly space.
 Design elements that promote creativity, learning, and community engagement The updated concept design will allow the library to go beyond a traditional reading space, offering areas for hands-on activities, classes, technology exploration, and nature appreciation.

Design details will also address diverse user needs and create memorable spaces for all ages.

The landscape design will create an inviting, nature-focused, outdoor space with droughttolerant plants, comfortable seating, and interactive elements. This environmentally sustainable public space will strengthen community bonds position the library as a vibrant public hub.

See Attachment 3 for the refined conceptual schematic design. Based on the refined conceptual schematic design, the estimated construction cost is $32.5 million with an additional $11.3 million in soft costs, totaling $43.8 million. As will be explained further in the live presentation, this increase from $33.1 million quoted in 2019 is primarily due to two factors: significant construction inflation and a concept design prepared by another architect in 2019.

Parking Ratios
Under the City’s Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan (RBDSP), the library site was rezoned as 'Public and Institutional' (PI), allowing the Planning Director to determine an appropriate parking ratio.

To inform the parking lot design, Noll & Tam conducted a parking analysis (Attachment 4), reviewing library visitor data and the building capacity for visitors. Using the same 1 parking space per 400 square feet of floor area ratio applied to the neighboring EPACENTER project, 37 parking spaces would be required.
242
POLICY AND ACTION 9.1
Rather than applying the ratio to the entire building, the calculation used for EPACENTER excludes "Ancillary Spaces" (staff areas, storage, restrooms) and only applies to "Occupied Spaces" that building visitors use. The gross building area of the EPACENTER is approximately 24,000 square feet; however, only 12,000 square feet are subject to the parking requirement.

Their required parking spaces, using a 1 to 400 square foot parking ratio per the RBDSP, is 30 parking spaces. As with the EPACENTER’s approval process in 2017, where staff collaborated to meet parking requirements, a similar approach will be used for the library.

City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the 1 parking space per 400 square feet of floor area ratio of "Occupied Spaces" to be consistent with EPACENTER and prevent significant design changes. This would result in a requirement for 37 parking spaces.

Next Steps
 Preparation of 30% design package
 Presentation of the 30% design package to City Council  Finalization of the design package
The project webpage, with additional information on the project timeline, can be found here:
https://www.epalibrary.org/
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The proposed City Council action, including without limitation, adoption of a resolution to approve conceptual design for space programming and parking consistent with the Specific Plan (Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan). The City’s acquisition of and subsequent actions related to the Library Site are adequately covered in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) , certified by the City Council on March 21, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-26). The proposed City Council action is not a separate “project” for CEQA purposes but is a subsequent approval related to a previously approved project (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c)). Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162, and based on the review of the entire record, including without limitation, the MND, the City Council finds that the proposed action does not require further environmental review as: 1) no substantial changes are proposed to the project and no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the MND due to the 243
POLICY AND ACTION 9.1
involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) no new information of substantial importance has come to light that (a) shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, (b) identifies significant impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the MND, (c) shows that mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible that were identified as infeasible and those mitigation measures or alternatives would reduce significant impacts, and (d) no changes to mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified or are required.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), the City Council finds and recommends that no further analysis or environmental documentation is necessary. Accordingly, the proposed City Council action is merely a step-in furtherance of the original project for which environmental review was performed and no supplemental or subsequent CEQA has been triggered, and no further environmental review is required.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Community Engagement Report

3. Conceptual Design exhibit

4. Parking Analysis
244
Resolution No. XX-2025 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

APPROVING THE UPDATED CONCEPT DESIGN AND SPACE PROGRAMMING FOR THE NEW EAST PALO ALTO LIBRARY; AND APPROVING THE 1 PARKING SAPCE PER 400 SQUAREFEET PARKING RATIO WHEREAS, the current library operates out of the County-owned facility located at 2415 University Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the existing facility is heavily used, and the existing space needs significant interior improvements; and
WHEREAS, The City of East Palo Alto, County of San Mateo County, and San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority (Library JPA) conducted a Library Needs Assessment in FY 2017-18, and the findings suggested that the existing facility presented significant barriers to the effective delivery of library services; and
WHEREAS, wHY Architects, an architectural design firm, was retained in 2018 by the Library JPA to explore the feasibility of the site and to develop a conceptual design and budget estimate; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2024, City Council authorized the execution of a design and bid support contract with Noll & Tam Architects for the completion of the new East Palo Alto Library Project; and WHEREAS, the project’s community outreach began Summer 2024, and a Community Engagement Report was developed; and
WHEREAS, as part of the concept design refinement phase, a City Council ad-hoc committee was formed and multiple committee meetings took place; and WHEREAS, concurrently, a parking analysis was performed to inform the parking lot design and a 1 to 400 square foot parking ratio is recommended; and WHEREAS, staff is seeking approval of the updated concept design and space programming, along with a 1 parking space per 400 square feet ratio.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action;

2. Approving the updated concept design and space programming for the new East Palo Alto Library, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
245
Resolution No. XX-2025 2 of 2

3. Approving the 1 to 400 square-foot parking ratio, based on the Parking Study, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and

4. The proposed City Council action, including without limitation, is a resolution to approve conceptual design for space programming and a parking ratio which is consistent with an existing Specific Plan (Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan). The City’s acquisition of and subsequent actions related to the Library Site which is adequately covered in an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), certified by the City Council on March 21, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-26). The proposed City Council action is not a separate “project” for CEQA purposes but is a subsequent approval related to a previously approved project (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c)). Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162, and based on the review of the entire record, including without limitation, the MND, the City Council finds that the proposed action does not require further environmental review as: 1) no substantial changes are proposed to the project and no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) no new information of substantial importance has come to light that (a) shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, (b) identifies significant impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the MND, (c) shows that mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible that were identified as infeasible and those mitigation measures or alternatives would reduce significant impacts, and (d) no changes to mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified or are required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), the City Council finds and recommends that no further analysis or environmental documentation is necessary. Accordingly, the proposed City Council action is merely a step-in furtherance of the original project for which environmental review was performed and no supplemental or subsequent CEQA has been triggered, and no further environmental review is required.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan, Mayor
246
Resolution No. XX-2025 3 of 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
247
248
729 Heinz Avenue #7 | Berkeley CA 94710 | 510.542.2200 | www.nollandtam.com February 19, 2025
RE: New EPA Library – Visitor Attendance and Parking Estimates Background
The current East Palo Alto Library offers a variety of programs, workshops and events for children, teens and adults on a regular basis. The Library services occur 7 days a week over many hours of the day suggesting people come and go over the course of the day rather than peak at a hard start and stop time. Regular hours are 10:00am – 8:00pm during weekdays and 10:00am – 5:00pm on the weekends. Based on recent visitor count data from 2023-2024, the busiest days and times are Tuesdays – Fridays from 3:00pm – 5:00pm. This coincides with the “Free Meals at the Library” times which are often followed by other library events such as “Game Time” and “Creative Corner” which end by 4:30pm.

Daily Visitor Count (FY 2023-24)
Library Sq. Ft. Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday East Palo Alto 7,680 94 246 250 286 278 199 116
Open Hours 10am – 5pm 10am – 8pm 10am – 8pm 10am – 8pm 10am – 8pm 10am – 8pm 10am – 5pm Busiest Days
and Times
3pm – 5pm 11am – 5pm 3pm – 6pm 3pm – 5pm
Considerations to reduce parking demand:

Important information for considering the impact of these events and daily uses from a transportation and parking perspective is the following:
• A select number of short-term parking spaces can be used to increase turnover, allowing more cars to park over the course of the day. The design team shall consult with the City on an appropriate number of timelimited parking, ranging from five (5) minutes to thirty (30) minutes. In our experience, many libraries have designated at least one (1) space as a 20-minute parking spot for quick book returns and picking up holds • There are two nearby SamTrans bus stops by the new Library site - Bay Rd. & Pulgas Ave. is approximately 350 feet away and Pulgas Ave. & Weeks St. is about 530 feet away. Both stops are served by Sam Trans routes 296, 280, and the “School Oriented Route” 81. Route 296 has buses running every 15 minutes along major East Palo roads that connect schools, Caltrain Transit Stations and the SamTrans EPX (express) bus. Route 280 operates at 60-minute intervals, connecting to Palo Alto Transit Center along University Ave. Route 81 is a school-oriented route that intentionally ties to Menlo-Atherton Highschool’s bell schedule so students may consider riding it to get to and from school. Currently, SamTrans offers discounted fares for passengers 18 and younger or seniors 65 and over. Youth can get Clipper cards free with an application. In partnership with the San Mateo County Office of Education, SamTrans provides free bus fares for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students. We also hope the City’s 2030 CAP goal to expand the free public transit Clipper Card pilot program will encourage more people to take the bus.
• Per CalGreen requirements, the new Library will provide permanently anchored bicycle racks by the main entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for at least 5% percent of motorized vehicle parking capacity. Based on 249
Noll & Tam Architects | February 19, 2025 | Project Name Page 2 of 3 current parking count estimate, the project is required to have three (3) bike parking spaces – the design anticipates exceeding this amount. This aligns with the City’s 2030 CAP goal to build a comprehensive and well-used bicycle network that comfortably accommodates bicyclists of all ages and skill levels. • The East Palo Alto Senior Center provides weekly shuttle services which helps reduce the parking demand for multiple adults who might otherwise arrive individually. This existing program aligns with the City’s 2030 CAP plan which aspires to work with partners to apply for grant funding from C/CAG and work with the County Transportation Authority to fund local shuttles while expanding the City’s transit network coverage.

Project Approach
The project site is located within the “4 Corners Gateway” in the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) Specific Plan which required a minimum parking of 1 parking space per 400 square feet of floor area (1:400) for “all other non-residential uses”. To allow for future library development, the General Plan and Zoning Amendments of the site were changed from its current designation and zoning to Public Institutional (PI). Based on the RBD Specific Plan Update, the zoning designation of the new Library site “PI” does not have off-street parking standards for library use. RBD Specific Plan Table 8-3, which states for “All Other Uses” allows off-street parking “as determined by the Director” would give the City the discretion to set a rate for the new Library.

The City of San Mateo and Foster City apply the 1:400 parking ratio specifically for libraries, art galleries and museums.

The neighboring site of EPACenter at 1950 Bay Road within the Bay Road Central zone uses the 1:400 parking ratio.

We’ve provided a parking tabulation (Exhibit A) and floor area calculation plan (Exhibit B) using the 1:400 parking ratio.

Like EPACenter and IKEA in East Palo Alto, both parking approval processes identified areas that would not be counted toward the square footage of the buildings (“Ancillary Spaces”), i.e. storage spaces, equipment rooms, restrooms, etc.

Instead, the parking ratio is applied to the public areas (“Occupied Spaces”) that Library visitors and Staff would actually occupy. The square footage of “Occupied Spaces” that is subject to the parking calculation is approximately 14,820 SF.

Using the 1:400 parking ratio, the total parking spaces required would amount to 37 spaces.

Based on the daily visitor count at the current East Palo Alto Library, the average number of people per day is +200 people during the open hours of 10:00am to 8:00pm on weekdays. Unlike regular Library service hours where people visit over the course of the day, many planned events have a hard start time with most of the attendees arriving around the same time. Peak visitor counts are usually due to Library programs such as the “Free Meals at the Library” followed by family-friendly activities.

Our project aims to be a demonstration of sustainability for patrons of all ages. The new EPA Library will encourage sustainable modes of transportation such as carpooling, bike riding, bus riding, etc. The nature of Library services is varied with regular programming structured throughout the day, seven days of the week. Even with a larger planned event, we believe that the Community Room capacity will not only limit attendance of a certain size but also be manageable so as to not create a burden on the neighboring properties or streets. 250
Noll & Tam Architects | February 19, 2025 | Project Name Page 3 of 3 Based on the need for subsequent technical studies established in the Library Property Acquisition IS/MND, a TDM compliance check will be completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Per the East Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, non-residential developments of 10,000 square feet or greater that generate more than 110 average daily trips are required to achieve a 40 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips.

Sincerely,
Elaine Kross
Project Manager
251

EAST PALO ALTO LIBRARY
Space Program
Size Qty ASF Occupied Ancillary
PROGRAM AREA 16,657 14,820 1,838

1. WELCOME/ENTRY 2,800 2,800 0

1.1 Entry/ Lobby 4,000 1 2,800 2,800

1.10 Restrooms 442 1 0

2. MEETING & ACTIVITY ROOMS 2,875 2,625 250

2.1 Community Meeting Room (80 occ) 1,541 1
1,079 1,079

2.2 Catering Kitchen 128 1 90 90

2.3 Community Room Storage 229 1 160 160

2.4 Large Meeting Room (8-12 occ) 323 1 226 226

2.5 Literacy/Multipurpose Meeting Room 680 1 476 476

2.6 Maker Room 824 1 577 577

2.8 Small Study (1-2 occ) 78 2 109 109

2.9 Med Study (4 occ) 113 2 158 158

3. TEEN 474 474 0

3.1 Teen Room 677 1 474 474

4. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 2,732 2,377 356

4.1 Children's Library 3,395 1 2,377 2,377

4.2 Children's Stacks 360 1 252 252

4.3 Storage 148 1 104 104

4.4 Family Restroom 164 1 0

5. ADULT COLLECTION 6,045 5,709 336

5.1 Collections 7,651 1 5,356 5,356

5.2 Adult Stacks 480 1 336 336

5.10 Quiet Reading Room 505 1 354 354

5.8 Restrooms (single occ) 77 2 0

6. STAFF AREA 1,194 835 358

6.1 Collection Processing Room 286 1 200 200

6.3 Staff Open Office +& Work Area 810 1 567 567

6.4 Manager's Office 97 1 68 68

6.5 Staff Break Area 215 1 151 151

6.6 Storage 129 1 90 90

6.7 Staff Wellness Room/Mothers Room 79 1 55 55

6.8 Staff Restroom w/Shower 89 1 62 62

7. SUPPORT SPACES 538 0 538

7.1 IT Room 191 1 134 134

7.2 Custodial 0 1 0

7.3 Mechanical/Electrical 295 1 207 207

7.4 Elevator 282 1 197 197

BUILDING TOTALS
Total ASF 16,657
Grossing Factor/Building Efficiency Factor 0.70
TOTAL GSF 23,796

PARKING CAPACITY
Total ASF 16,657 14,820 1,838
Area Subject to Parking Calculation 14,820
Parking Ratio 1 to 400
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 37

Page 1 of 1 ends

DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201

APPROVALS
SEAL

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

PROJECT TITLE

REVISIONS

N&T JOB NUMBER

ISSUE DATE
1/30/2025 11:56:59 AM Autodesk Docs://East Palo Alto Library/East Palo Alto Library_ARCH.rvt East Palo Alto
Library
PARKING - 1ST FLOOR
City of East Palo Alto
A2.25
Project Status
#####
1/9/2025
Enter address here
# DATE DESCRIPTION
A2.25 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 01 - FLOOR PLAN - 1ST LEVEL - PARKING A2.25 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 02 - FLOOR PLAN - 2ND LEVEL - PARKING

CHILDREN'S LIBRARY
2377 SF

OCCUPIED

COMMUNITY ROOM
1079 SF

OCCUPIED
LOBBY
2800 SF

OCCUPIED

TEEN'S AREA
474 SF

OCCUPIED

MAKER SPACE
577 SF

OCCUPIED

COLLECTIONS

PROCESSING ROOM
200 SF

OCCUPIED

STAFF OFFICE &

WORK AREA
567 SF

OCCUPIED

MANAGER'S OFFICE
68 SF

OCCUPIED

ELEVATOR
60 SF

ANCILLARY

CHILDREN'S RESTROOM
115 SF

ANCILLARY

STORAGE
104 SF

ANCILLARY

ELEVATOR SERVICE
39 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF STORAGE
90 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF BREAK ROOM
151 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF RESTROOM
62 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF WELLNESS
55 SF

ANCILLARY

MEN'S RESTROOM
144 SF

ANCILLARY

WOMEN'S RESTROOM
165 SF

ANCILLARY

COMMUNITY ROOM

STORAGE
160 SF

ANCILLARY

ELECTRICAL
207 SF

ANCILLARY

CATERING KITCHEN
90 SF

ANCILLARY

QUIET READING
354 SF

OCCUPIED

MEDIUM STUDY
ROOM
71 SF

OCCUPIED

MEDIUM STUDY
ROOM
87 SF

OCCUPIED

LARGE STUDY
ROOM
226 SF

OCCUPIED

ELEVATOR
60 SF

ANCILLARY

ELEVATOR SERVICE
39 SF

ANCILLARY

SMALL MEETING
ROOM
55 SF

OCCUPIED

SMALL MEETING
ROOM
54 SF

OCCUPIED

RESTROOM
55 SF

ANCILLARY

RESTROOM
53 SF

ANCILLARY

LITERACY
476 SF

OCCUPIED

COLLECTIONS
5356 SF

OCCUPIED

IT ROOM
134 SF

ANCILLARY
253
Contigo Communications | 2176 Palou Ave., San Francisco, CA 94124 | 415.810.8717 October 2024
East Palo Alto Library
Community Engagement Report

SUBMITTED BY
Helping to Navigate the Waters of Community Engagement
254
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 2 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ………………………………………………… 3
Executive Summary ………………………………………………… 4
Methodology
Design ……………………………………………………………. 5
Partners …………………………………………………………. 5
Listening Campaign ……………………………………..… 6
Metrics ………………………………………………………..… 7
Demographics …………………………….…………………. 8
Findings
Summary ..…………………..………………………………... 10
Discussion Categories ...…………….…………………... 11
Library Use & Features .……………………... 12
Community & Access …………………………... 14
Design ..…..…………………………………………... 16
Programming ..…..………………………………... 18
Appendix – Full Data Tables ..………………………………….. 20
255
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 3 Acknowledgements

This community engagement campaign was truly a team effort. We would like to give special thanks to:

Batool Zaro, Senior Engineer, City of East Palo Alto
Rachel McDonnell, Projects and Facilities Manager, San Mateo County Libraries Ramses Escobedo, Branch Manager, East Palo Alto Library Kenny Gabe, Community Program Specialist, East Palo Alto Library Elaine Kross, Senior Associate & Project Manager, Noll & Tam Architects Christopher Noll, Principal, Noll & Tam Architects
Jane Catalano, Interiors Principal, Noll & Tam Architects Katie Stuart, Project Architect, Noll & Tam Architects
Joshua Gregory, Job Captain, Noll & Tam Architects
Jesus Guerrero, Community Technology Officer, StreetCode Academy Dr. Omowale Satterwhite, Member, Nairobi Advocates
Ofelia Bello, Executive Director, Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) Gina Sudaria, Superintendent, Ravenswood School District Joy Shen, Assistant Director of Strategy & Engagement, Ravenswood School District Tiffany Uhila-Hautau, Executive Director, Anamatangi Polynesian Voices Paris Hill, Chair, East Palo Alto Senior Advisory Committee (EPASAC) Miriam Yupanqui, Executive Director, Nuestra Casa

256
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 4 Executive Summary
In the summer of 2024, Contigo Communications, working closely with Noll & Tam Architects, the City of East Palo and San Mateo County Libraries, created an online Project Interest Form Survey, conducted seven interviews with community leaders, held two Focus Groups, and supported one Community Meeting as part of community engagement efforts to inform the design of the future East Palo Alto Library project.

These outreach efforts were designed to connect with a range of residents and service providers and ensure that input acquired was equitable and reflected a range of opinions from the diverse population of East Palo Alto. Through our various outreach efforts, we interacted with 114 East Palo Alto residents (57 online and 57 in-person), generating a wealth of data that we used to garner insight about how community members want to use their library.

Top Findings
• East Palo Alto residents use their library to access community services and as a space to come together. Library services such as classes and workshops are often conceptualized in terms of their impact on community functioning
• Digital access and technology education is a crucial need in a town significantly lagging behind its neighbors. This includes basic provisions such as printing and Wi-Fi, as well as educational efforts
• Reading and books are still a core use of the library, but East Palo Altans also want to use their library to access varied programming, classes, workshops and resources • Design expectations are high, especially for those exposed to newer libraries around San Mateo County who see those spaces so well utilized
• Programming and services need to address the multiple cultures and languages in the community
• Spaces and programming designed for children and teens are a priority and a crucial service for many families. In addition, whole families often use the library at once, so multigenerational programming and design must be considered.

257
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 5 Methodology
In service of the East Palo Alto Library project, Contigo Communications conducted a multi-step community engagement campaign, including neighborhood partner outreach, interviews, online survey, targeted community focus groups, and a community meeting.

Design
We began by partnering with staff from the City of East Palo Alto and San Mateo County Libraries to understand their outreach goals and integrate their communication experience with our efforts. We then performed a scan of key community organizations, which could act as project partners and supporters to further our goal of reaching diverse audiences in the population.

Based on the needs of the project and the community, we adopted a multiprong approach using an online survey, focus groups, public meetings, and meetings with key community leaders to gather data and create meaningful input. This allowed us to meet the goals of targeting traditionally underrepresented groups, while at the same time engaging a wide base of the varied East Palo Alto community.

Partners
Our ability to conduct effective, equity-based community outreach depends on our capacity to collaborate with community-based organizations who can convey to us the interests of local residents, and who can help extend our outreach to their network. We connected with 28 varied community service providers – a range of Community Based Organizations, Schools, and Faith-Based Organizations who were an integral part of outreaching to East Palo Alto residents:

COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDERS
Community -
Based
Organizations
Anamatangi Polynesian Voices Free At Last
Boys & Girls Club - Peninsula Girls to Women
EPACENTER Lewis and Joan Platt East Palo Alto Family YMCA EPA Community Archive Live in Peace
East Palo Alto Senior Center Inc. Nairobi EPA Advocates EPA Community Alliance and
Neighborhood Development Org Nuestra Casa
East Palo Alto Community Calendar Renaissance Center
Ecumenical Hunger Program StreetCode Academy
Family Resource Center of San
Mateo County (Ability Path) Youth Community Services
Foundation for a College Education Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) (continued on next page)
258
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 6 COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDERS (cont’d)
Schools
College Track East Palo Alto Ravenswood City School District Eastside College Preparatory School The Little Blue House KIPP Esperanza High School The Primary School
Faith-Based
Organizations Hope Horizon East Palo Alto St. Francis of Assisi Church Listening Campaign
We began our listening and data-collection efforts interviewing key community leaders, drawn from the leadership of the community service providers listed above. We conducted a total of seven interviews with the following organizations.

The qualitative data we acquired from these interviews gave us insight into the critical areas of concern for distinct groups in East Palo Alto. This insight in turn informed how we designed and populated the focus groups and helped us determine what questions to ask in those discussions. We also coded that data and included it in the thematic analysis given later in this document.

We created an online survey that functioned both as a screening tool for focus group participants, and as a way to gather structured feedback about library use and community goals. We publicized the focus groups using print and electronic flyers, distributed in partnership with the City of East Palo Alto and San Mateo Libraries, as well as by our community project partners and supporters. We also used in-person outreach at the current EPA Library and at Ravenswood Middle School to recruit interested participants.

Interested parties filled out an Interest Form Survey that explained the project, asked about their views on the library, and asked demographic questions. The survey included two limited-choice questions that generated quantitative data about how the residents use the library now and what they would like to see in a new library. After sorting for demographic fit and availability, applicants were contacted to confirm availability and accessibility for in-person focus group meetings.

ORGANIZATION DATE
StreetCode July 2, 2024
Nairobi Advocates July 2, 2024
Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) July 2, 2024
Ravenswood School District July 8, 2024
Anamatangi Polynesian Voices July 8, 2024
East Palo Alto Senior Advisory Committee (EPASAC) July 9, 2024 Nuestra Casa August 6, 2024
259
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 7 We used best practices and experience to design focus groups for maximize openness and interaction:
two small groups of 10 participants, held in-person, one in English and one in Spanish. We provided a $25 gift card to discussants as an honorarium to recognize their contribution and incentivize participation.

All focus groups were run from a standard set of questions (English & Spanish) to ensure each group responded to the same questions and data gathered was comparable between groups. We also used slides prepared by Noll & Tam Architects showing examples of different library designs to prompt participant responses. After the focus groups were completed, we prepared transcripts and notes from each discussion, then collated and analyzed these results to produce a set of common themes that appeared across groups. We also pulled out key highlights and quotes.

We held a large Community Meeting with Noll & Tam to engage members of the community who were not interested in, not available for, or not selected to take part in our focus groups. This meeting was held on Tuesday, August 27 at the current East Palo Alto Library at 2415 University Avenue. It featured a catered dinner, childcare activities, and live translation for Spanish-speaking attendees. Data was primarily collected via interactive presentation boards that invited members of the public to write on post-its in response to specific prompts. These were put up at the August 27 Community Meeting and were left up in the Library until September 30, 2024 so that people who weren’t present at the meeting could leave feedback. The presentation board comments were then collated against the categories developed to analyze results of focus groups to produce a qualitative analysis of these interactions.

Metrics
The table below gives a numerical overview of our listening campaign. It lists how many community members were reached through which outreach method, and how many data points were generated through these respective interactions. A data point in this context means an iota of knowledge useful in determining insightful conclusions. For the limited-choice questions on the online Interest Form Survey, each check of the multiple-choice response was a data point. For the Survey Write-Ins, Interviews, Focus Groups, and Community Meeting, data points were generated by coding a comment as a distinct theme that appeared across multiple discussions. All data points were used in our analysis phase to generate holistic understanding and reach our findings.

OUTREACH METHOD # PARTICIPANTS # DATA POINTS
Online Interest Form Survey 57 901
Multiple-choice questions 57 841
Write-in comments 20 60
Interviews (7) 7 141
Focus Groups (2) 20 401
English-language Focus Group 10 193
Spanish-language Focus Group 10 208
Community Meeting (1) 30 111
TOTAL: 114 1,554
260
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 8 Demographics
The goal of our community outreach is to help represent the diversity of the community and capture a range of voices, not just those closest to the microphone. To evaluate our success, we captured demographic data about the respondents to our online Interest Form Survey (from which all the Focus Group participants were selected).

Below is a breakdown of the demographics for the respondents to the Online Interest Form Survey (n=58), with the subset of Focus Group participants as a comparison (n=20).

DEMOGRAPHICS INTEREST FORM

SURVEY FOCUS GROUPS
# % # %
AGE
Under 18 2 3% 2 10%
18-24 2 3% 0 -
25-34 14 24% 3 15%
35-44 21 36% 8 40%
45-54 11 19% 3 15%
55-64 3 5% 1 5%
65 and older 5 9% 3 15%

EMPLOYMENT
STATUS
Full-time 30 52% 9 45%
Part-time 10 17% 2 10%
Unemployed 9 16% 3 15%
Retired 4 7% 4 20%
Student 3 5% 1 5%
Other 3 5% 1 5%
GENDER
Female 45 78% 15 75%
Male 12 21% 4 20%
Non-Binary 1 2% 1 5%

ARE YOU A
PARENT?
Yes 35 60% 14 70%
No 23 40% 6 30%

ETHNICITY
Hispanic 28 48% 11 55%
White 16 28% 5 25%
Black 6 10% 1 5%
Asian 4 7% 2 10%
Multiracial 2 3% 1 5%
Pacific Islander 2 3% 0 -
(continued on next page)
261
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 9

DEMOGRAPHICS

INTEREST FORM
SURVEY

FOCUS GROUPS
# % # %

LANGUAGE AT
HOME
English 42 72% 13 65%
Spanish 19 33% 9 45%
Other (French, Portuguese,
German, Tongan) 5 9% 0 -

DO YOU HAVE
A DISABILITY?
No 53 93% 17 85%
Yes 4 7% 2 10%
The demographic data indicate that our community outreach achieved our goal of reaching diverse audiences and engaging multiple audiences that reflect the makeup of East Palo Alto.

The age range of our participants is an approximate normal distribution, with a slight weight toward seniors. This reflects the predominance of families that use the library, as well as our active engagement with the senior community in the area. We also had a representative distribution in employment status.

Our audience was significantly weighted toward females; we believe this reflects the active representation of female caregivers who make up such an important part of the library’s user base. We purposely recruited a preponderance of parents into our focus groups to better understand the needs of their families and children.

The ethnic makeup of our participants was diverse, with a strong representation of the Hispanic community that plays an important role in East Palo Alto. Around half of the participants in both our online Interest Form Survey and our Focus Groups were Hispanic. Interestingly, 40% of the participants in our Spanish-language Focus Group spoke English at home. This is one indication of the multicultural nature of the East Palo Alto community, as well as the persistent pressures of assimilation that Hispanic families face.
262
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 10 Findings
Following the completion of our Outreach and Listening Campaign, we gathered notes and transcripts from the Interviews, Focus Groups, and the Community Meeting to identify persistent themes that appeared across discussions; we also included write-in comments from the online Interest Form Survey.

We counted the number of times a particular idea was mentioned by participants, then sorted and categorized this data to group these ideas into coherent themes.

Our findings are based on an analysis of this qualitative data along with the quantitative data from the limited-choice questions on the online Interest Form Survey. Those questions provided solid information, but the predetermined nature of the options meant richer insight was gleaned from in-person discussions in Focus Groups, Interviews, and the Community Meeting. The free nature of these conversations allowed participants to raise their own thoughts, lending nuance to the qualitative data that illuminates the desires of the East Palo Alto community.

A summary of the findings is below, with a more detailed exploration of data and themes on the following pages (complete data tables are provided in the Appendix). We cite “number of comments” as a metric, which denotes the number of times an issue was raised by participants, not the number of participants who raised it. This metric is for directional use only and should not be construed as statistically representative. We also include quote summaries to help illustrate the discussion – these are edited quotes from focus group participants and do not fully represent the nuance of the complete discussion.

Summary
Focus on the Community - Although traditional uses are still important, East Palo Alto residents use their library for much more than accessing books and media – it is a vital community resource for many and a crucial site of social interaction. The new library must address residents’ needs for social services, community gathering spaces, classes and workshops, and activity resources like makerspaces. 21st Century Library for a Community Behind the Pack - Compared to the surrounding communities, East Palo Alto residents identify technology as the area where they are most behind. The new Library can help address this in significant ways: providing access to digital resources like computers, Wi-Fi, and printing; providing education about technology and its day-to-day application; and integrating technology into resources like makerspaces and classes.

An Active Library with Rich Experience - The vision of the library that participants articulated went beyond a place to read. It is a place to make things, to take classes, to appreciate nature, to discover technology, and to learn about new ways to experience the world. It is an ambitious conception from a town that believes the right library can help transform their community.

Sophisticated, Experience-Centered Design – Participants offered a variety of views on design elements, but the common thread was the idea that the new library’s design should offer visitors an enriched experience. From varied seating options to an engaging outdoor space, design details should be leveraged to address diverse user needs and create memorable spaces. 263
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 11 Discussion Categories
We grouped themes from our analysis into four categories:

1. Library Use & Features – The largest category by comment volume, this includes descriptions of how the Library is and should be used, and what features residents want to see including kinds of spaces and services

2. Community & Access – How the Library interacts with and services the community, and how it can live up to the ideals the community has for it

3. Design – This included specific design features as well as more general ideas of look and feel

4. Programming – Specific ideas about the types of programs desired at the new library The following table gives metrics for the leading themes across categories (22 themes accounted for 41% of 713 comments we coded). The following pages go into further detail and give example quotes from discussion groups.

TOP THEMES # COMMENTS
Digital Resources: computers, Wi-Fi, printer, copier,
shredding, charging, 3D printer etc. 48
Children’s space, programing, resources, and activities 40 Outdoor space/trees/plaza/water feature 31
Seating: ergonomic/couches/bean bags/bleachers 28
Lighting: windows/Bay view/ natural light 27
Flexible meeting rooms and classrooms 23
Information/Community Hub 23
Makerspaces 22
Programs (ESL) and services for non-English speakers 22 Teen space/programming 22
Classes and workshops 20
Open design 20
Coffee and snacks 19
Partnerships with CBOs & Schools 18
Book and DVD collection 17
Technology education and support 17
Community gathering space; social space 16
Inviting/cozy/relaxing design 15
Learn about/access Social Services 14
Community Events (e.g., film & lecture) 12
Culinary education/studio 12
Quality design/finishes& art 12
**N.B:, these counts are for directional use only and should not be construed as statistically representative. The number of mentions does not indicate how many participants engaged the issue. 264
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 12 I. Library Use & Features
Summary
• Access to digital resources are a critical community need • Children’s programming and spaces are a priority for residents • Desire for expanded features such as a garden, more physical libraries, makerspace and space for small business or nonprofit pop-ups
• Traditional uses such as reading and studying remain important Our Outreach participants expressed a variety of ways they use and would like to use the library. The most common disucssion point (1 out of every 15 comments) was about using the library to access fundamentals of a digital world: computers to use, wifi access, device charging, printing, copying, and shredding. This is a vital resource for many residents who can’t afford these on their own. “I am interested in using online resources at the library (our world is increasingly online so we need digital copies of stuff and access to databases).” — Spanish Focus Group “I didn’t have internet access before the pandemic, so I would go use the computer station. I use the printer as well.” — English Focus Group
“We are in the center of Silicon Valley and people in this discussion group are saying they need a computer and a shredder. Equity is not equitable anymore, when you are in the negative.” — English Focus Group
Children’s programming and spaces also provide a critical resource to East Palo Alto families, with many wanting to see expansion of services.
“I don’t know that we will get a multimillion dollar library, but the kids need services and the teens [do too]. If you want to continue with a literacy program you have to invest in the children. The kids services need to be improved, like the training for the Storytime helpers.” — Spanish Focus Group “I would like to see toddler and kid's play space with special bookshelves and seats.” — Survey Write-In Many participants expressed interest in features that go beyond traditional library services, such as a makerspace, café, garden, or Library of Things (where they can borrow things like tools, sewing or cooking equipment, etc.).
“I like the idea of a garden space since they have a seed library. The tool library can also be coupled with outdoor education.” — English Focus Group
“I have seen that there are lending libraries in some places and we need that too here in East Palo Alto.

Right not they only have sewing machines.” — Spanish Focus Group Participants were clear that they still value traditional uses of a library, like reading and checking out books, researching, and studying.
“I checkout books and CDs, and I like to go and spread out my things and work on things and study.” — English Focus Group
“We checkout books, eBooks, Super Smash Brothers tournament, we have used the space to meet there with community members and have attended workshops – hand sewing.” — English Focus Group 265
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 13 I. Library Use & Features - Data
In our qualitative analysis, ten themes in the Library Use & Features category accounted for 75% of the comments in that category:

TOP LIBRARY USE & FEATURES THEMES # COMMENTS
Digital Resources: computers, Wi-Fi, printer, copier,
shredding, charging, 3d printer etc.
48 Children’s space, programing, resources, and
activities 40
Flexible meeting rooms and classrooms 23
Makerspaces 22
Teen space/programming 22
Coffee and snacks 19
Book and DVD collection 17
Garden 11
Library of things: tools, seeds, kitchen supplies, toys, bike repair, sewing machine etc.
11 Study & co-working 11
In our online Interest Form Survey, one question asked respondents, “How do you use the library now?”:

SURVEY QUESTION: How do you use the library now?
ANSWER # %
Check out books, CDs or DVDs 27 47%
Classes, events, and other programs 22 39%
Children’s programing, resources, or activities 20 35%
Study, work, or research 20 35%
Use computers or Wi-Fi, print, make copies, etc. 19 33% Read or have quiet time 16 28%
Learn about social services or government programs 15 26% Meet friends or socialize 10 18%
I don't use the library 1 2%
266
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 14 II. Community & Access
Summary
• Library as information hub for information and resources, especially social services • The library should provide direct services or connect users with those services • The library plays a social function as a gathering place and center of community in East Palo Alto • Addressing needs of language-based communities (like Spanish-speakers) is a key way to provide service and access to all in the community
Our participants continually reiterated that, for East Palo Alto residents, the library is much more than a stop in their day – it is a center of community and a vital resource for those in need. Many expressed the importance of the library in accessing information and learning about social services in particular. “I use the library for research, resource and obtain information. All that is, and can be, offered. It is my first stop for any community communication and assistance. ” — Survey Write-In “The library entrance needs a large board for education on local resources, especially for at-risk populations” — Community Meeting
Community services are important to the East Palo Alto community, and many participants felt the library should be part of that mission, be it acting as a cooling center, providing free meals and homeless services, or just orienting itself towards those in the most need, in addition to hosting community empowerment discussions.
“A library is a community support. The homeless go there to use the bathroom and get out of the sun.” — Spanish Focus Group
“We live in Silicon Valley and there are a lot of haves and have notes – the library is comforting because it is welcoming to all so I want the services to reflect that.” — English Focus Group “In East Palo Alto we need more community services. People need a community service center.” — Spanish Focus Group
Our respondents persistently discussed the library as one of the places where they feel a sense of connection and community, underlining its social function for residents. Theses comments were often coupled with statements reflecting on the lack of community gathering spaces and parks in East Palo Alto. “I think the library is important part of community and an important place to gather. I like being with people of different backgrounds and ages. It is easy to feel siloed.” — English Focus Group “I really would love to have our local library be more of a hang out.” — Survey Write-In One of the key ways the library can support diverse families in East Palo Alto is by enhancing its programming (like ESL) and in-language support for non-English speakers (especially Spanish speakers). “ I have gone to the Redwood City Library and they asked what language I preferred. They have a program… Programa Especialist Communidad – they provide immigration support and it is a County program. We need programs like that.” — Spanish Focus Group “Mas profesores para clases de ingles (More teachers for english class).” — Community Meeting 267
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 15 II. Community & Access - Data
In our qualitative analysis, eight themes in the Community & Access category accounted for 80% of the comments in that category:

TOP COMMUNITY & ACCESS THEMES # COMMENTS
Information/Community Hub 23
Programs (ESL) and services for non-English speakers 22 Partnerships with CBOs & Schools 18
Community gathering space; social space 16
Learn about/access Social Services 14
Parking, transit and pedestrian concerns 11
ADA/access concerns 9
Diverse families & cultures 9
The limited-choice questions asked in the online Interest Form Survey did not address ideas of community, diversity, or access. This underlines the importance of gathering qualitative data in community outreach, as it allows us to discover central concerns that were previously unknown.

One of the Presentation Boards used to solicit public comment in the current East Palo Alto Library from August 27 – September 30, 2024
268
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 16 III. Design
Summary
• Outdoor space is a crucial concern of residents, and shade concerns are important • Comfortable, use-appropriate seating is important
• Good lighting is a significant desire, with natural lighting being highly valued • Design should be open but also inviting, with attention to noise security Our Outreach participants emphasized that careful design is important to their vision of a communitycentered Library. The need for outdoor space was the most commonly repeated idea. Whether a play space, garden, reading area, or multi-use plaza, a friendly and accomodating outdoor space was a key design concern. It was noted that existing parks in the area do not offer shade despite of high temperatures in the summer affecting their use, so outdoor space should consider this in its design. “I LOVE outdoor spaces! Please include shade cover.” — Community Meeting “I think there should be a space to sit and work [outdoors]; some people don’t tolerate air conditioning; some Palo Alto libraries offer that.” — English Focus Group “We need an area to teach kids to garden and grow vegetables and an area to be a kids and run around.” — Spanish Focus Group
Proper seating was a persistent design concern as well. Participants felt seating should be ergonomic, tailored for the space (studying vs. socializing vs. kids’ area), and flexible in use. “I think there should be a relaxing area with bean bag chairs for kids and also for grownups.” — English Focus Group
“Don’t use those chairs – they are not inclusive of people’s body sizes.” — English Focus Group Lighting was another common concern. Participants were concerned about adequate lighting for activities and wanted ample sources for natural light, a natural fit for the Bay-side site. “I love how appealing this design is – I like the tall windows and natural light.” — English Focus Group “I like this design example because it has natural light through windows” — Spanish Focus Group Participants had a variety of general design opinions: they wanted an open design that maximized flow, but a cozy and inviting design that made patrons feel at ease, and using high-quality materials. They also had noise concerns about how multiple uses might be disruptive to those seeking a quiet atmosphere. “I want a spacious design where kids can lounge and read in a quiet space. An outdoor park with grass and a garden area outside where kids/adults want to take books and art outdoors.” — Survey Write-In “This design is really inviting, it looks cozy, and has good materials, like on the sofa.” — English Focus Group
“Teens aren't quiet. They would need to be an enclosed space on the first floor.” — Community Meeting
269
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 17 III. Design – Data
In our qualitative analysis, five themes in the Community & Access category accounted for 79% of the comments in that category:

TOP DESIGN THEMES # COMMENTS
Outdoor space/trees/plaza/water feature 31
Seating: ergonomic/couches/bean bags/bleachers 28
Lighting: windows/Bay view/ natural light 27
Open design 20
Inviting/cozy/relaxing design 15
The limited-choice questions asked in the online Interest Form Survey did not ask about design values or specifics. Our ability to gather this data in free-flowing interpersonal conversation was essential to understanding the needs of the community on this matter.

One of the Presentation Boards used to solicit public comment in the current East Palo Alto Library from August 27 – September 30, 2024
270
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 18 IV. Programming
Summary
• Classes and workshops are highly-desired by East Palo Alto library users • Technology education is vital given the community’s need to narrow the digital divide • Classes and workshops are often conceptualized in relationship to community connection, not just personal development
• Community events are also important to library users
Outreach participants consistently expressed a desire for a library with active roster of classes, workshops, and events. Classes and workshops were the most often-mentioned programming with a variety of specific ideas mentioned, such as arts & crafts, nature education, or culinary classes. “I would like to see classes for the community such as sewing, cooking. Arts & crafts is very good use of space” — Community Meeting
“I would like to see nature education for kids who can't go camping or have other direct experiences with nature.” — Community Meeting
“I would love to learn about sewing and using a makerspace. I would like a low-tech maker space, and not have it be only high-tech.” — English Focus Group
Programming was often described in the context of social relations, emphasizing that the active library local residents are conceptualizing shoud be a nexus for community. “I would love classes on how to use garden grown ingredients to make meals. Community members signing up to teach family recipes.” — English Focus Group “I use to go to Tai Chi and yoga and gardening classes at Palo Alto Library, and you meet people at those. I want to feel more like this is a community and library can encourage that.” — English Focus Group
Echoing the importance of digital access discussed earlier, technology education was the single most common specific subject for classes and workshops.
“I am interested in seeing training in technology, professional development and work resources at the library.” — Survey Write-In
“I would like to see programs for adults to learn how to use computers.” — Spanish Focus Group Beyond active learning programs, participants also made clear the importance of community events hosted at the library.
“I like to attend the events that they hold. They have many wonderful events and it has made a big impact on my life.” — English Focus Group
“I would like to see a space for teen film screenings and game nights, like they have in Menlo Park.” — Community Meeting
271
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 19 IV. Programming - Data
In our qualitative analysis, five themes in the Community & Access category accounted for 79% of the comments in that category:

TOP PROGRAMMING THEMES # COMMENTS
Classes and workshops 20
Technology education and support 17
Community Events (e.g., film & lecture) 12
Culinary education/studio 12
Cross-generational design/activities/programming 11
Literacy programs 9
Nature education/animals 6
In our online Interest Form Survey, one question asked respondents, “What Library services, spaces and programs would you like available to you and the East Palo Alto community?”:

What Library services, spaces and programs would you like available to you and the East Palo Alto community?
ANSWER # % ANSWER # %
Study spaces & co-working center 37 65% Digital collections: eBooks, subscription services, online media, etc.
28 49%
Arts and crafts space and classes 36 63% Kids’ play space 28 49% Classes, events, and other programs 36 63% Coffee & snack spot 27 47% Event and storytelling space 33 58% Language services and programs for nonnative English speakers 25 44% Community gathering space 32 56% Storytime program 25 44% Teen space 32 56% Programming and resources for Seniors 23 40% Library of things: tools, seeds,
kitchen supplies, toys, bike repair,
etc.
31 54% Career development and workforce
resources
22 39%
Quiet room 31 54% Family literacy programs 22 39%
Adult-focused programs, including
lectures, fitness, and classes 30 53% Culinary teaching studio 21 37% Flexible meeting rooms and
classrooms 30 53% Digital media recording and editing studio 20 35% Homework help programs 30 53% Game Room: digital consoles, board games and other recreational amenities 20 35%
Room for events, performances, and
meetings 29 51% Genealogy & history hub 14 25%
Technology and IT education &
training 29 51%
272
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 20 Appendix – Full Data Tables
Data from limited-choice questions on the online Interest Form Survey:

How do you use the library now?
ANSWER # %
Check out books, CDs or DVDs 27 47%
Classes, events, and other
programs
22 39%
Children’s programing, resources,
or activities 20 35%
Study, work, or research 20 35%
Use computers or Wi-Fi, print,
make copies, etc.
19 33%
Read or have quiet time 16 28%
Learn about social services or
government programs
15 26%
Meet friends or socialize 10 18%
I don't use the library 1 2%
What Library services, spaces and programs
would you like available to you and the East
Palo Alto community?
ANSWER # %
Study spaces & co-working center 37 65%
Arts and crafts space and classes 36 63%
Classes, events, and other programs 36 63%
Event and storytelling space 33 58%
Community gathering space 32 56%
Teen space 32 56%
Library of things: tools, seeds, kitchen
supplies, toys, bike repair, etc.
31 54%
Quiet room 31 54%
Adult-focused programs, including lectures,
fitness, and classes 30 53%
Flexible meeting rooms and classrooms 30 53%
Homework help programs 30 53%
Room for events, performances, and
meetings 29 51%
Technology and IT education & training 29 51%
Digital collections: eBooks, subscription
services, online media, etc.
28 49%
Kids’ play space 28 49%
Coffee & snack spot 27 47%
Language services and programs for nonnative English speakers 25 44% Storytime program 25 44%
Programming and resources for Seniors 23 40%
Career development and workforce
resources
22 39%
Family literacy programs 22 39%
Culinary teaching studio 21 37%
Digital media recording and editing studio 20 35%
Game Room: digital consoles, board games
and other recreational amenities 20 35%
Genealogy & history hub 14 25%
273
Community Engagement & Needs Assessment Report 21
Appendix (cont’d)
Data coded from write-ins in the online Interest Form Survey and comments from discussions in Interviews, Focus Groups, and the Community Meeting:

CATEGORY THEMES # COMMENTS
Library Use & Features Digital Resources: computers, Wi-Fi, printer, copier, shredding, charging, 3d printer etc.
48 Library Use & Features Children’s space, programing, resources, and activities 40 Library Use & Features Flexible meeting rooms and classrooms 23 Library Use & Features Makerspaces 22
Library Use & Features Teen space/programming 22
Library Use & Features Coffee and snacks 19
Library Use & Features Book and DVD collection 17
Library Use & Features Garden 11
Library Use & Features Library of things: tools, seeds, kitchen supplies, toys, bike repair, sewing machine etc.
11 Library Use & Features Study & co-working 11
Library Use & Features Tutoring and homework 10
Library Use & Features Reading 10
Library Use & Features Career/workforce/business resources 9 Library Use & Features Games (physical & computer) 9
Library Use & Features Private rooms 9
Library Use & Features Digital collections: eBooks, subscription services, online media, etc.
9 Library Use & Features Library communication & staff 8 Library Use & Features Quiet space 7
Library Use & Features Room for events, performances, and meetings 4 Library Use & Features EPA History 1
Community & Access Information/Community Hub 23
Community & Access Programs (ESL) and services for non-English speakers 22 Community & Access Partnerships with CBOs & Schools 18
Community & Access Community gathering space; social space 16 Community & Access Learn about/access Social Services 14 Community & Access Parking, transit and pedestrian concerns 11 Community & Access ADA/access concerns 9
Community & Access Diverse families & cultures 9
Community & Access Meals provided to community 7
Community & Access Safety (physical and online) 7
Community & Access evening/expanded hours 6
Community & Access Homeless population 5
(continued on next page)
274
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 22 CATEGORY THEMES # COMMENTS
Design Outdoor space/trees/plaza/water feature 31
Design Seating: ergonomic/couches/bean bags/bleachers 28 Design Lighting: windows/Bay view/ natural light 27
Design Open design 20
Design Inviting/cozy/relaxing design 15
Design Quality design/finishes& art 12
Design Noise concerns 10
Design Environmental/regulatory concerns 7
Design Bathroom 4
Programming Classes and workshops 20
Programming Technology education and support 17
Programming Community Events (e.g., film & lecture) 12
Programming Culinary education/studio 12
Programming Cross-generational design/activities/programming 11 Programming Literacy programs 9
Programming Nature education/animals 6
Programming After school & summer programs 5
Programming Storytime program 5
Programming Exercise 4
Programming Adult-focused programs, including lectures, fitness, and classes 3
Programming Arts and crafts 3
**N.B:, these counts are for directional use only and should not be construed as statistically representative. The number of mentions does not indicate how many participants engaged the issue.

275
East Palo Alto Library - Community Engagement Report 2024 23

Navigating the Waters
of Community Engagement

276
277
729 Heinz Avenue #7 | Berkeley CA 94710 | 510.542.2200 | www.nollandtam.com February 19, 2025
RE: New EPA Library – Visitor Attendance and Parking Estimates Background
The current East Palo Alto Library offers a variety of programs, workshops and events for children, teens and adults on a regular basis. The Library services occur 7 days a week over many hours of the day suggesting people come and go over the course of the day rather than peak at a hard start and stop time. Regular hours are 10:00am – 8:00pm during weekdays and 10:00am – 5:00pm on the weekends. Based on recent visitor count data from 2023-2024, the busiest days and times are Tuesdays – Fridays from 3:00pm – 5:00pm. This coincides with the “Free Meals at the Library” times which are often followed by other library events such as “Game Time” and “Creative Corner” which end by 4:30pm.

Important information for considering the impact of these events and daily uses from a transportation and parking perspective is the following:
• A select number of short-term parking spaces can be used to increase turnover, allowing more cars to park over the course of the day. The design team shall consult with the City on an appropriate number of timelimited parking, ranging from five (5) minutes to thirty (30) minutes. In our experience, many libraries have designated at least one (1) space as a 20-minute parking spot for quick book returns and picking up holds • There are two nearby SamTrans bus stops by the new Library site - Bay Rd. & Pulgas Ave. is approximately 350 feet away and Pulgas Ave. & Weeks St. is about 530 feet away. Both stops are served by Sam Trans routes 296, 280, and the “School Oriented Route” 81. Route 296 has buses running every 15 minutes along major East Palo roads that connect schools, Caltrain Transit Stations and the SamTrans EPX (express) bus. Route 280 operates at 60-minute intervals, connecting to Palo Alto Transit Center along University Ave. Route 81 is a school-oriented route that intentionally ties to Menlo-Atherton Highschool’s bell schedule so students may consider riding it to get to and from school. Currently, SamTrans offers discounted fares for passengers 18 and younger or seniors 65 and over. Youth can get Clipper cards free with an application. In partnership with the San Mateo County Office of Education, SamTrans provides free bus fares for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students. We also hope the City’s 2030 CAP goal to expand the free public transit Clipper Card pilot program will encourage more people to take the bus.
• Per CalGreen requirements, the new Library will provide permanently anchored bicycle racks by the main entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for at least 5% percent of motorized vehicle parking capacity. Based on 278
Noll & Tam Architects | February 19, 2025 | Project Name Page 2 of 3 current parking count estimate, the project is required to have three (3) bike parking spaces – the design anticipates exceeding this amount. This aligns with the City’s 2030 CAP goal to build a comprehensive and well-used bicycle network that comfortably accommodates bicyclists of all ages and skill levels. • The East Palo Alto Senior Center provides weekly shuttle services which helps reduce the parking demand for multiple adults who might otherwise arrive individually. This existing program aligns with the City’s 2030 CAP plan which aspires to work with partners to apply for grant funding from C/CAG and work with the County Transportation Authority to fund local shuttles while expanding the City’s transit network coverage.

The City of San Mateo and Foster City apply the 1:400 parking ratio specifically for libraries, art galleries and museums.

The neighboring site of EPACenter at 1950 Bay Road within the Bay Road Central zone uses the 1:400 parking ratio.

We’ve provided a parking tabulation (Exhibit A) and floor area calculation plan (Exhibit B) using the 1:400 parking ratio.

Using the 1:400 parking ratio, the total parking spaces required would amount to 37 spaces.

Our project aims to be a demonstration of sustainability for patrons of all ages. The new EPA Library will encourage sustainable modes of transportation such as carpooling, bike riding, bus riding, etc. The nature of Library services is varied with regular programming structured throughout the day, seven days of the week. Even with a larger planned event, we believe that the Community Room capacity will not only limit attendance of a certain size but also be manageable so as to not create a burden on the neighboring properties or streets. 279
Noll & Tam Architects | February 19, 2025 | Project Name Page 3 of 3 Based on the need for subsequent technical studies established in the Library Property Acquisition IS/MND, a TDM compliance check will be completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Per the East Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, non-residential developments of 10,000 square feet or greater that generate more than 110 average daily trips are required to achieve a 40 percent reduction in daily vehicle trips.

Sincerely,
Elaine Kross
Project Manager
280

EAST PALO ALTO LIBRARY
Space Program
Size Qty ASF Occupied Ancillary
PROGRAM AREA 16,657 14,820 1,838

1. WELCOME/ENTRY 2,800 2,800 0

1.1 Entry/ Lobby 4,000 1 2,800 2,800

1.10 Restrooms 442 1 0

2. MEETING & ACTIVITY ROOMS 2,875 2,625 250

2.1 Community Meeting Room (80 occ) 1,541 1
1,079 1,079

2.2 Catering Kitchen 128 1 90 90

2.3 Community Room Storage 229 1 160 160

2.4 Large Meeting Room (8-12 occ) 323 1 226 226

2.5 Literacy/Multipurpose Meeting Room 680 1 476 476

2.6 Maker Room 824 1 577 577

2.8 Small Study (1-2 occ) 78 2 109 109

2.9 Med Study (4 occ) 113 2 158 158

3. TEEN 474 474 0

3.1 Teen Room 677 1 474 474

4. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 2,732 2,377 356

4.1 Children's Library 3,395 1 2,377 2,377

4.2 Children's Stacks 360 1 252 252

4.3 Storage 148 1 104 104

4.4 Family Restroom 164 1 0

5. ADULT COLLECTION 6,045 5,709 336

5.1 Collections 7,651 1 5,356 5,356

5.2 Adult Stacks 480 1 336 336

5.10 Quiet Reading Room 505 1 354 354

5.8 Restrooms (single occ) 77 2 0

6. STAFF AREA 1,194 835 358

6.1 Collection Processing Room 286 1 200 200

6.3 Staff Open Office +& Work Area 810 1 567 567

6.4 Manager's Office 97 1 68 68

6.5 Staff Break Area 215 1 151 151

6.6 Storage 129 1 90 90

6.7 Staff Wellness Room/Mothers Room 79 1 55 55

6.8 Staff Restroom w/Shower 89 1 62 62

7. SUPPORT SPACES 538 0 538

7.1 IT Room 191 1 134 134

7.2 Custodial 0 1 0

7.3 Mechanical/Electrical 295 1 207 207

7.4 Elevator 282 1 197 197

BUILDING TOTALS
Total ASF 16,657
Grossing Factor/Building Efficiency Factor 0.70
TOTAL GSF 23,796

PARKING CAPACITY
Total ASF 16,657 14,820 1,838
Area Subject to Parking Calculation 14,820
Parking Ratio 1 to 400
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 37

Page 1 of 1 ends

DRAFT! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
729 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
tel 510.542.2200
fax 510.542.2201

APPROVALS
SEAL

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

PROJECT TITLE

REVISIONS

N&T JOB NUMBER

CHILDREN'S LIBRARY
2377 SF

OCCUPIED

COMMUNITY ROOM
1079 SF

OCCUPIED
LOBBY
2800 SF

OCCUPIED

TEEN'S AREA
474 SF

OCCUPIED

MAKER SPACE
577 SF

OCCUPIED

COLLECTIONS

PROCESSING ROOM
200 SF

OCCUPIED

STAFF OFFICE &

WORK AREA
567 SF

OCCUPIED

MANAGER'S OFFICE
68 SF

OCCUPIED

ELEVATOR
60 SF

ANCILLARY

CHILDREN'S RESTROOM
115 SF

ANCILLARY

STORAGE
104 SF

ANCILLARY

ELEVATOR SERVICE
39 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF STORAGE
90 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF BREAK ROOM
151 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF RESTROOM
62 SF

ANCILLARY

STAFF WELLNESS
55 SF

ANCILLARY

MEN'S RESTROOM
144 SF

ANCILLARY

WOMEN'S RESTROOM
165 SF

ANCILLARY

COMMUNITY ROOM

STORAGE
160 SF

ANCILLARY

ELECTRICAL
207 SF

ANCILLARY

CATERING KITCHEN
90 SF

ANCILLARY

QUIET READING
354 SF

OCCUPIED

MEDIUM STUDY
ROOM
71 SF

OCCUPIED

MEDIUM STUDY
ROOM
87 SF

OCCUPIED

LARGE STUDY
ROOM
226 SF

OCCUPIED

ELEVATOR
60 SF

ANCILLARY

ELEVATOR SERVICE
39 SF

ANCILLARY

SMALL MEETING
ROOM
55 SF

OCCUPIED

SMALL MEETING
ROOM
54 SF

OCCUPIED

RESTROOM
55 SF

ANCILLARY

RESTROOM
53 SF

ANCILLARY

LITERACY
476 SF

OCCUPIED

COLLECTIONS
5356 SF

OCCUPIED

IT ROOM
134 SF

ANCILLARY
282
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Shiri Klima, Assistant City Manager
Ana M. Torres-Mondragon, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Recruitment and Retention Incentive Plan for Hard-to-Fill Positions Recommendation
Adopt a resolution:

1. Establishing the City of East Palo Alto’s Recruitment and Retention Incentive Plan with sign-on bonuses as presented in the three union Side Letter Agreements, Police Captain, and a10% base salary increase to the Chief Building Official position as shown in the Compensation Schedule Exhibit D;

2. Finding that the proposed actions being considered do not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(4), because these are fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No. 1: Enhance Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Background
The City launched a formal Recruitment and Retention Program through a Side Letter agreement with the Police Officer’s Association (POA) on December 6, 2022, retroactive to July 1, 2022. With this program, which expired on June 30, 2024, the City successfully filled 15 283
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Police Officer vacancies, demonstrating its effectiveness. Additionally, City Council’s approval of HR support funds enabled the City to conduct concurrent recruitments, which further assisted the City to reduce vacancy rates – except for in the hard-to-fill positions outlined in this report.

Despite ongoing recruitment efforts, the Police Department (Patrol Division), Community and Economic Development Department (Building Division), and City Manager’s Office (Community Services Division), continue to struggle with critical staffing shortages. This adversely impacts daily operations and responses to City Council and community requests.

The City has faced significant challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified applicants in the following hard-to-fill positions:
- Police Captain
- Police Officer
- Chief Building Official
- Shuttle Van Driver
Persistent recruitment challenges have led to understaffing, increased workloads, and inefficient service delivery. Traditional recruitment methods have failed to attract a diverse, highly qualified talent pool. Like for the recruitment of Police Officer positions, the implementation of a Recruitment and Retention Program with sign-on bonuses could also be an effective strategy to improve recruitment for other hard to fill positions. Staff propose an expanded Recruitment and Retention Program to provide an additional tool to help recruit and retain employees for hard-to-fill positions.

Analysis
Challenges and Strategies to Address Challenges
 Police Recruitments - a Nationwide Challenge.

Law enforcement agencies across the country face increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining officers due to changing laws, growing responsibilities, and heightened accountability measures. According to “the State of Recruitment: a Crisis for Law Enforcement” by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, across the United States, 78% of police agencies reported having difficulty in recruiting qualified candidates and 65% of agencies reported having too few candidates applying to be law enforcement officers, indicating a nationwide recruitment trend in this field. With a shrinking talent pool, agencies must offer competitive incentives to attract qualified candidates committed to public service.

Due to retirements, injuries, and other reasons, the City has a Captain vacancy, four Police Officer vacancies, three recruits in the Police Academy, and four police officers on leave. In addition to the Captain position, the Police Department is operating without eleven of thirty-three sworn Police Officer positions authorized in the budget. The City must recruit at least four new police officers and a captain. 284
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Additionally, two police officers were promoted from the Police Academy and three police recruits have joined the City and entered the Police Academy since the City/POA Recruitment and Retention Program agreement expired June 30,2024. The two police officers became City employees prior to June 30, 2024, however, did not complete the Academy until after June 30. Thus, they did not receive the recruitment bonus.  Chief Building Official – Intense Regional Competition.

A wave of retirements has created a shortage of qualified Chief Building Officials, leading to fierce competition among local governments. To stay competitive, the City is implementing a two-phase strategy: 1: a salary adjustment model based on benchmark cities, ensuring that our base pay aligns competitively; and 2: a Recruitment and Retention sign-on bonus strategy. This two-phase strategy should help the City attract top talent, particularly with expanded marketing efforts. Previous Chief Building Official recruitments have yielded applicants from outside of the Bay Area who requested relocation benefits. This incentive will be a tool the City can use to secure applicants with such needs.
 Shuttle Van Driver – Persistent Vacancy
The part-time Shuttle Van Driver position has remained unfilled for two years, straining the Community Services Division and disrupting essential senior programs and services. The City is competing against Google and the Ravenswood School District who offer full time work offering higher pay and benefits. The incentive bonus will help attract applicants that are looking for supplemental wages and work. A targeted incentive to recruit candidates for this position could help the City fill this role and ensure continuity in vital senior services.

Recruitment and Retention Program Details
Staff proposes the following Recruitment and Retention Program and a base pay increase for the Chief Building Official position:

Department Classification Current Base
Pay
Sign-on
Bonus
Base Pay
Increase
Police Police Captain $221,393.25 $30,000 -
Police Police Officer $138,925.63
(Step G)
$30,000 -
Community &
Economic
Development
Chief Building
Official
$168,594.94 $22,500 10%
City Manager’s
Office/
Community
Services
Shuttle Van
Driver (PT)
$30,731.67 $7,500 -
285
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Bonus Structure:
 Police Officers – $10,000 after successfully completing the Field Training Program, $10,000 after passing probation, and $10,000 after thirty-six months in paid status..  Police Captains – $10,000 upon hiring, $10,000 after probation, and $10,000 at the two-year mark.
 Shuttle Van Drivers – $2,500 upon hiring, $2,500 after probation, and $2,500 after one year.
 Chief Building Official – $7,500 upon hiring, $7,500 after one year, and one-third after two years.

The proposed Recruitment and Retention Program would run through June 30, 2027, offering non-pensionable sign-on bonuses to newly hired or promoted employees in hard-to-fill positions. This initiative aims to attract talent, support employee growth, and maintain essential services.

Additionally, any Police Officers promoted from Police Recruit between July 1, 2024, and the present will receive a one-time retroactive promotion bonus and be eligible for the probation and one year bonuses retention bonuses. By implementing these strategic incentives, the City aims to reduce vacancies, enhance service delivery, and strengthen employee retention in a competitive job market.

Fiscal Impact
No additional appropriation is requested at this time. Salary savings will fund the retroactive bonuses for the two recently promoted police officers. In FY 2024-25, salary savings will be used to provide signon bonuses to any new employees hired to hard-to-fill positions as well as the base pay increase for the Chief Building Official. The proposed FY 2025-26 budget will include funds for the Recruitment and Retention Incentive Plan.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Environmental
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” pursuant to 15378(b)(4) because it is a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: No, as the proposed action does not involve an entitlement. 286
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: Not applicable.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Service Employee International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) Side Letter Agreement for the Recruitment and Retention Program (pending)

3. Exhibit B: Police Officers’ Association (POA) Side Letter Agreement for the Recruitment and Retention Program (pending)

4. Exhibit C: Management Employee’s Association (MEA) Side Letter Agreement for the Recruitment and Retention Program (pending)

5. Exhibit D: Compensation Schedule
287
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Exhibit A:
288
POLICY AND ACTION 9.2
Exhibit D:

Proposed :

Chief Building Official (MEA)
Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Hourly 73.3528 77.0204 80.8715 84.9150 89.1608
Bi-Weekly 5,868.22 6,161.64 6,469.72 6,793.20 7,132.86
Monthly 12,714.49 13,350.21 14,017.72 14,718.61 15,454.54 Annual 152,573.82 160,202.51 168,212.64 176,623.27 185,454.44 289
DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2024 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
APPROVING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO’S

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INCENTIVE PLAN WITH SIGN-ON BONUSES AS

PRESENTED IN THE THREE SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS, FOR POLICE CAPTAIN, AND 10% BASE INCREASE AS SHOWN IN THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE IN EXHIBIT D.

WHEREAS, persistent recruitment challenges have led to understaffing, increased workloads, and inefficient service delivery; and
WHEREAS, traditional recruitment methods have failed to attract a diverse, highly qualified talent pool in particular hard-to-fill positions; and
WHEREAS, according to “the State of Recruitment: a Crisis for Law Enforcement” by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, across the United States, 78% of police agencies reported having difficulty in recruiting qualified candidates and 65% of agencies reported having too few candidates applying to be law enforcement officers, indicating a nationwide recruitment trend in this field; and
WHEREAS, there is also a widespread shortage of building officials, and in our region, there has been a wave of retirements in this field, yielding fierce recruitment competition; and WHEREAS, the City is competing against Google and the Ravenswood School District who offer full time work offering higher pay and benefits. The incentive bonus will help attract applicants that are looking for supplemental wages and work. A targeted incentive to recruit candidates for this position could help the City fill this role and ensure continuity in vital senior services; and WHEREAS, the City launched its formal Recruitment and Retention Program through a Side Letter agreement with the Police Officer’s Association (POA) on December 6, 2022, retroactive to July 1, 2022. This program, which expired on June 30, 2024, successfully filled 15 Police Officer vacancies, demonstrating its effectiveness, but vacancies persist in the Police Department; and WHEREAS, in surveying our base compensation schedule versus those of other comparable cities, the City’s Chief Building Official earned an average of 13% less than such cities, such that there is a compelling argument for raising this position’s base salary by 10%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and incorporates these recitals by this action.

2. Establishes the City of East Palo Alto’s Recruitment and Retention Incentive Plan with sign-on bonuses as presented in the three union Side Letter Agreements in Exhibit A, B, C, all three of which are attached herein and incorporated by this reference, and $30,000 for the Police 290
DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2024 2 of 2
Captain.

3. Increases the base pay of the Chief Building Official by 10% at each step, as shown in the Compensation Schedule in Exhibit D, which is attached herein and incorporated by this reference;

4. Finds that the proposed actions being considered do not constitute “Projects” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378(b)(4), because these are fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan. Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
291
POLICY AND ACTION 9.3

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
BY: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization to Execute Soil Stockpiling Agreement with Sycamore Real Estate Investment LLC and P. Kavanagh Construction Co.

Recommendation
By resolution:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Soil Stockpiling Agreement with Sycamore Real Estate Investment LLC and P. Kavanagh Construction Co.

2. Direct the City Manager to deposit all funds from the agreement into a segregated account dedicated to parks and recreation projects, unless otherwise directed by the City Council to allocate funds toward other uses; and

3. Find the action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(4), in that it is a fiscal activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority: Ensure Our Financial and Organizational Health Priority: Enhance Community Services and Parks for Residents Background
The City's 2023 Parks Master Plan identifies over $10 million in equipment replacements and more than $3 million in capital improvements across several parks, including Cooley Landing, Jack Farrell, Joel Davis Memorial, and Newbridge Street Pocket Park. Major projects such as Martin Luther King Jr. Park and Bell Street Park improvements require an estimated $22 million and $15 million, respectively. The total planned park improvements exceed $50 million. 292
POLICY AND ACTION 9.3
To help fund these improvements, the City explored partnerships with Landify, a soil disposal and land development company. Landify proposed using soil from regional development sites to reshape East Palo Alto parks, with a portion of tipping fees allocated to fund park improvements. However, limited space in existing parks made this approach unfeasible.

Instead, the City proposed an alternative - directing Landify’s soil deliveries to development sites in the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) needing elevation increases. The City would then receive a share of the tipping fees. With Landify’s agreement, the City organized conversations with Landify and RBD landowners. After discussions, Sycamore Real Estate Investment opted to work with P. Kavanagh Construction Co. to manage soil stockpiling and include the City in revenue sharing.

Under the proposed agreement, P. Kavanagh will deposit approximately 150,000 cubic yards of fill at Sycamore’s property at 391 Demeter Street, generating financial benefits for the City through a share of tipping fees.

East Palo Alto City Council Resolution 5196 –019 (Attachment 2) established an administrative policy which requires the City Council to approve the City’s acceptance of any monetary or inkind contribution valued at $5,001 or higher. This report discusses the agreement details and staff’s recommendations to enter the agreement and for the City to accept and restrict resulting funds for parks and recreation uses.

Analysis
Key Agreement Provisions
P. Kavanaugh Construction Co. Responsibilities
 Deposit clean fill at 391 Demeter Street following BKF Engineering’s soil stockpiling plan.  Comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and the site’s Risk Management Plan (RMP).  Secure necessary permits and undergo regular City inspections.  Maintain the stockpile, ensuring dust control, street sweeping, and environmental compliance.

Clean Fill Standards
 Fill must meet the RMP’s specifications, be free of hazardous materials, and undergo predeposition testing.  P. Kavanagh guarantees the fill’s quality and proper stockpiling procedures.  Any defects or non-compliance must be corrected at no cost to the City or Sycamore.

Financial Arrangements
 P. Kavanagh collects tipping fees ranging from $175 to $300 per truckload.  Net Tipping Fees (Total Revenues minus Monthly Tipping Costs) will be allocated as follows:
293
POLICY AND ACTION 9.3

1. Cover P. Kavanagh’s Monthly Tipping Costs.

2. Reimburse Sycamore’s Upfront and Monthly Costs.

3. Distribute 90% of the remaining funds to the City, with P. Kavanagh retaining 10%.  Monthly financial reports will document revenues, expenses, and disbursements.  The City has no financial obligations under this agreement.  At $175 per truckload, the City is estimated to receive $600,000. At $300 per truckload, the estimate increases to $1.03 million.

Operational & Environmental Considerations
 The City will conduct periodic inspections to ensure compliance with stockpiling regulations and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).  The agreement mandates best management practices (BMPs) to minimize environmental impact.
 Sycamore and P. Kavanagh are responsible for addressing any operational disruptions.

Potential Risks and Considerations

1. Revenue Uncertainty: Fluctuating Tipping Fees could impact City revenue under the agreement.

2. Compliance Risk: Ensuring adherence to Clean Fill standards and environmental regulations.

3. Operational Delays: Interruptions in soil deliveries could extend timelines and affect financial projections.

Conclusion & Recommendations

1. The agreement offers a structured financial benefit to the City with minimal risk. Staff recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the agreement.

2. Given that this initiative originated as a strategy to fund park improvements, staff recommends directing all generated funds into a dedicated parks and recreation account, with City Council managing fund allocation. These funds would be general funds, therefore the City Council could reallocate the funds to other uses as they see fit.

Fiscal Impact
The Agreement provides a new revenue stream for the City, dependent on:
 The volume of Clean Fill deposited.
 Market fluctuations in excavation and Tipping Fees.
 Monthly Tipping Costs incurred by the P. Kavanagh.
 Outstanding balances on Sycamore’s upfront and monthly costs. 294
POLICY AND ACTION 9.3
The City is entitled to 90% of net tipping fees after deductions. While revenue depends on the project’s profitability, the agreement ensures no financial liability for the City. Based on tipping fees of $175 per truckload, the City’s share is projected at $600,000, with potential earnings reaching $1.03 million if fees rise to $300 per truckload. Staff recommend restricting the revenues for parks and recreation uses.

Public Notice
The public was provided notice by making the agenda and report available on the City’s website and on a bulletin board located at City Hall: 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.

Government Code § 84308
Applicability of Levine Act: Yes.

Analysis of Levine Act Compliance: The potential signatories for the agreement are Shane M.

Kavanaugh, Vice President of P. Kavanaugh Construction, Inc. and Austin Stewart, Authorized Agent for Sycamore Real Estate Investment, LLC. Staff is unaware of any other parties or participants relevant to the Council’s consideration of this item.

Attachments

1. Resolution.

2. Donation Acceptance Policy
295
DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2025 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX– 2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A SOIL STOCKPILING AGREEMENT WITH SYCAMORE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, LLC AND P. KAVANAGH CONSTRUCTION CO., AND DIRECTING THE DEPOSIT OF FUNDS INTO A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT

FOR PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS
WHEREAS, The City of East Palo Alto's 2023 Parks Master Plan identifies over $50 million in necessary park improvements, including over $10 million in equipment replacements and more than $3 million in capital improvements across Cooley Landing, Jack Farrell, Joel Davis Memorial, and Newbridge Street Pocket Park, with major projects such as Martin Luther King Jr. Park ($22 million) and Bell Street Park ($15 million) requiring substantial funding; and
WHEREAS, in seeking innovative funding solutions, the City explored a partnership with Landify, a soil disposal and land development company, to use soil from regional development sites for reshaping East Palo Alto parks, but space constraints rendered the approach unfeasible; and WHEREAS, instead, the City proposed an alternative strategy to direct Landify’s soil deliveries to development sites in the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) needing elevation increases, thereby securing a share of tipping fees as revenue for park improvements; and WHEREAS, following discussions, Sycamore Real Estate Investment LLC and P. Kavanagh Construction Co. agreed to a Soil Stockpiling Agreement at 391 Demeter Street, generating financial benefits for the City through a revenue-sharing arrangement based on tipping fees; and WHEREAS, under the agreement, P. Kavanagh will deposit approximately 150,000 cubic yards of clean fill at the site, with 90% of net tipping fees directed to the City, potentially generating between $600,000 and $1.03 million for park improvements, depending on market conditions; and WHEREAS, the City will incur no financial obligations under this agreement and will conduct periodic inspections to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, clean fill standards, and best management practices (BMPs); and
WHEREAS, directing the proceeds from this agreement into a dedicated parks and recreation account ensures transparency, accountability, and alignment with the City's long-term investment in public spaces; and
WHEREAS, these proceeds would be general funds, therefore the City Council maintains the ability redirect funds through future resolutions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of East Palo Alto hereby:

1. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference into this action;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Soil Stockpiling Agreement with Sycamore Real Estate Investment LLC and P. Kavanagh Construction Co. for soil stockpiling at 391 Demeter Street under terms that serve the best interests of the City.

3. Directs the City Manager to deposit all funds received from the agreement into a segregated account exclusively dedicated to parks and recreation projects. The City Council shall oversee and 296
DRAFT
Resolution No. XX-2025 2 of 2
allocate these funds as needed to support priority park improvements, unless otherwise directed by the City Council to allocate funds toward other uses.

4. Finds the action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(4), in that it is a fiscal activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Barragan, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

James Colin, City Clerk John D. Lê, City Attorney
297
RESOLUTION NO.
57 N60

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
ADOPTING A CITY DONATION ACCEPTANCE POLICY.

WHEREAS, the City of East Palo Alto occasionally receives offers of donation from private individuals and entities seeking to further the mission and objectives ofthe City; and WHEREAS, the current practice of the City is to have the City Council approve all donations by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed an interest in formalizing the City' s process for accepting donations from private individuals and entities by establishing a written policy.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO HEREBY adopts the City Donation Acceptance Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3`d day of December 2019, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
i3R tA) Roa'IERo / t%Ar,, GE' 3a,VF'S, '
i4u' 1' NIE'7Z.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Rafael E. Al Jr., City Attorney
298

EXHIBIT A
SECTION 1: POLICY
This policy shall be referred to as the " City of East Palo Alto Donation Acceptance Policy." SECTION 2: PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for accepting gifts and donations on behalf of the City in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner that is consistent with the City' s strategic goals.

SECTION 3: APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to the City Council, City departments, and City employees.

SECTION 4: DEFINITIONS
A. Donation: A monetary ( cash) contribution, endowments, personal property, real property, financial securities, equipment, in- kind goods or services, or any other asset that the City has accepted and for which the donor has not received any goods or services in return. For purposes of this Council Policy, the terms donation" and " gift" shall be synonymous.

B. Donor: A person or other legal entity that proposes or provides a donation to the City.

C. In - Kind Contribution: A contribution of equipment, materials or services which would serve a useful purpose in the provision of City services.

D. Restricted Donation: A donation that is designated at donor request for a specific City depart ment, location, or purpose.

E. Unrestricted Donation: A donation to the City without any limitations placed upon its use.

SECTION 5: GENERAL RULES FOR DONATIONS
A. City officials and employees shall only accept donations pursuant to an d as authorized by this policy.

B. Donations shall only be accepted when the donation has a purpose consistent with the City' s goals,

ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY
SUBJECT: DONATION ACCEPTANCE POLICY
EFFECTIVE DATE:

SECTION 1: POLICY
This policy shall be referred to as the " City of East Palo Alto Donation Acceptance Policy." SECTION 2: PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for accepting gifts and donations on behalf of the City in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner that is consistent with the City' s strategic goals.

SECTION 3: APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to the City Council, City departments, and City employees.

B. Donor: A person or other legal entity that proposes or provides a donation to the City.

C. In - Kind Contribution: A contribution of equipment, materials or services which would serve a useful purpose in the provision of City services.

D. Restricted Donation: A donation that is designated at donor request for a specific City depart ment, location, or purpose.

E. Unrestricted Donation: A donation to the City without any limitations placed upon its use.

SECTION 5: GENERAL RULES FOR DONATIONS
A. City officials and employees shall only accept donations pursuant to an d as authorized by this policy.

B. Donations shall only be accepted when the donation has a purpose consistent with the City' s goals, 299
objectives, and are in the best interest ofthe City.

C. Donations shall not become the property ofthe City until accepted by the City consistent with this policy.

D. The City shall use the donation for official City business, and not for political activities or for the personal financial gain of any City elected or appointed official or employee.

E. Prior to acceptance of a donation, the City shall:

1. Evaluate all donations to determine whether the donation is in the City' s best interest and is consistent with applicable City laws, policies, ordinances, and resolutions; and

2. Determine whether an expenditure of City funds, either a direct outlay of City funds or the use of City forces and materials, is associated with or required by acceptance ofthe donation.

F. A donor may restrict a donation to a particular City department, location or purpose, but not designate the City official who may use the donation
G. Ifrequired, the City shall report a donation made to the City to the Fair Political Practices Commission FPPC) in accordance with the timelines and directives described in title 2, section 18944 ofthe California Code ofRegulations.

H. The City does not provide legal, accounting, tax or other such advice to donors. Each donor is responsible for ensuring the donor' s proposed donation meets and furthers the donor' s charitable, financial, and estate planning goals.

SECTION 6: DONATIONS OF CASH, PERSONAL PROPERTY, FINANCIAL

SECURITIES OR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
A. City Council Approval:

1. The Rule: Donations of cash, personal property, financial securities, or an in-kind contribution with an aggregate value of $5, 001 or greater shall be submitted to the City Council for review.

2. Resolution: Upon receipt ofthe offer - PA a+
o
the City Manager shall seek a resolution from the
City Council authorizing the City to accept the donation.

B. City Mana egr Approval:

1. The Rule: Donations of cash, personal property, financial securities, or an in-kind contribution with an aggregate value of $5, 000 or less may be accepted by the City Manager ifthe donation meets the following conditions.
a. The donation is in the City' s best interest and is consistent with applicable City laws, policies, ordinances, and resolution;
b. The donation does not obligate the City to make an expenditure(s) which has not been included in the approved City budget; and
c. Ifthe donation requires the City to make an expenditure(s) which has not been included in the approved City budget, the City Manager shall seek City Council approval as set forth in 3 of 5
300
Section 6A.

2. Discretion: The City Manager may choose to request City Council consideration of any donation within the City Manager' s authority. Furthermore, the City Manager may consult with the Mayor in determining whether a donation within the City Manager' s authority is in the City' s best interest.

C. Donation Agreement: Donations of cash, personal property, financial securities, or an h kind contribution with an aggregate value of $5, 001 or greater shall be accepted through written donation agreement consistent with these guidelines and approved by the City Council. The City Manager may require a donation agreement for donations valued within the City Manager' s authority.

SECTION 7: DONATIONS OF REAL PROPERTY
A. City Council Approval: Donations ofreal property shall be submitted to the City Council for review. The City Council may accept the donation upon completion ofthe process set forth in this section.

B. Staff Report: City staff shall provide the City Council with the following information:

1. The appraised value ofthe donation;

2. Any expenditures or maintenance obligations for the City associated with the donation;

3. Potential liabilities associated with the donation, such as hazardous conditions or environmental concerns;

4. A statement regarding whether the donation has any special restrictions, and if so, whether those restrictions are acceptable to the City, and

5. Any recommendations for conditions of acceptance.

C. Determination: Ifthe City Council determines that that acceptance is in the City' s best interest and is consistent with applicable City laws, policies, ordinances, and resolutions..the Council shall accept the donation by resolution.

D. Donation Agreement: Donations ofreal property shall be accepted through written donation agreement consistent with these guidelines and approved by the City Council.

E. Interests in Real Property: Pursuant to Resolution No. 4498 and California Government Code section 27281, the City Manager or the City Manager' s designee is authorized to:

1. accept on behalf ofthe City all deeds and/or grants conveying to the City for any public purpose any interest in or easement upon real property; and

2. consent to on behalf ofthe City all irrevocable offers of dedications to the City ofreal property for any public purpose, including but not limited to, streets, highways, paths, alleys, access rights and abutters' rights, drainage, open space, public utility or other easements, parks or other public places.

SECTION 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF DONATIONS
A. Donation Acceptance Form: The City Manager or City Manager' s designee shall complete a Donation 4of5
301
Acceptance Form for all donations provided to the City.

B. City Manager Report: The City Manager shall prepare a report of all donations received by the City and present it to the City Council on an annual basis.

C. City Manager Acknowledgment: The City Manager shall acknowledge the donation in writing and transmit the acknowledgement to the donor.

D. Public Record: The Donor Acceptance Form, including the donor names and donation amounts, are public information subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act:

E. Record Retention: Each original Donation Acceptance Form shall be retained by the City Clerk' s Office consistent with the City' s Record Retention Policy.

SECTION 9: DISTRIBUTION OF DONATION
A. Personal Property: The City Manager or City Manager' s designee shall distribute donated personal property to the designated City department(s) for use consistent with this policy.

B. Restricted Cash: Restricted cash donations shall be deposited into the appropriate revenue account for the designated City department.

C. Unrestricted Cash: Donations of cash shall be deposited into the City' s General Fund donation account and appropriated at the discretion ofthe City Council.

D. Financial Securities: Donations ofpublicly-traded equity and debt securities shall be immediately sold upon receipt in the City' s designated brokerage account. The sales proceeds are then transferred from the City' s brokerage account to its depository bank account.

SECTION 10: DECLINED DONATIONS
A. Declining a Donation: The City has no obligation to accept any donation proposed by a donor and may decline a donation with comment or cause.

B. Notification: The City Manager shall notify a donors) in writing ofthe City' s decision to decline the offer of donation.
302

East Palo Alto City CouncilMarch 4, 2025

East Palo Alto City Council
March 4, 2025