News

City Council poised to hike housing fees for office projects

New nexus study paves way for Palo Alto to raise developer fees to support affordable housing

The Palo Alto City Council will consider major increases to impact fees that commercial developers have to pay to support affordable housing at its Oct. 18, 2021 meeting. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

The Palo Alto City Council will try to strike a delicate balance later this month, when it considers how much the city charges commercial developers in "impact fees" to support affordable housing.

The council majority believes that the current fees are far too low and that raising them would allow the city to build more developments like the recent Wilton Court project on El Camino Real and the proposed Mitchell Park project, both of which require public subsidies. Raising them too much, however, could deter new development and leave the city's affordable housing fund dry.

On Oct. 18, the council is set to continue a debate that has been polarizing the council for years. In December 2016, council members voted to significantly raise impact fees for affordable housing only to see the action overturned and the increases dramatically reduced by newly elected council members in March 2017 on what is typically a routine "second reading" vote. Instead of raising the fees from $20.37 per square foot to $60 per square foot for new office developments and from $20.37 to $30 per square foot for hotels, as initially approved, the council voted 5-4 to adopt far more modest increases, bringing the office fees to $35 per square foot and leaving the hotel rate as is. Since then, the rate has gone up to the current level of $39.70.

Mayor Tom DuBois and council members Eric Filseth and Lydia Kou — who supported the steeper increase in 2016 — have publicly maintained since then that the rate remains far too low and have called for revisiting the issue and reaffirming the council's initial direction. And unlike in 2017, the majority of the council now appears to share that view. Vice Mayor Pat Burt and council member Greer Stone both suggested in recent public hearings that the fees should be raised.

The impetus for the renewed effort was a memo that Filseth and Kou drafted in June, arguing for the fees to be increased. The memo noted that the city is facing a state mandate to produce more than 3,000 units of affordable housing and that it does not currently have the means to do so. Since 2015, the memo states, the city had dedicated millions of dollars in affordable housing funds to help Santa Clara County purchase and preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and to support the Wilton Court project, which provides 58 apartments for low-income residents, and the teacher housing project that the county is preparing to develop on Grant Avenue, near the Palo Alto Courthouse.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

The fund, the memo notes, "is now nearly depleted and needs replenishing."

"Since demand for housing, including housing affordable to low- and moderate-income residents, is driven primarily by job growth, it makes sense to fund Affordable Housing subsidies from that job growth, through commercial development impact fees which reflect that impact," the memo states.

During the council's June 21 discussion of the memo, Filseth cited "nexus studies" in other jurisdictions indicating that new commercial development demand for affordable housing was somewhere in the range of $100 to $200 per square foot of office space. That, he said, is far more than the city is able to reinvest in such housing.

"If we're serious about affordable housing as a permanent structural part of our society, then we're going to need policies that rework that," Filseth said.

Stone similarly argued that the city will not be able to achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets unless it is able to increase its affordable housing fund.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"We are not going to get anywhere close to our RHNA targets or the kind of increases in affordable housing that all of us want in this city based on inclusionary zoning alone or relying on other sources," Stone said. "This still isn't going to get us there but it's another tool that we have to add to our tool chest."

In raising the fees, the council will be able to rely on a new study from its economic consultant, Strategic Economics, which surveyed the cost of land and construction in Palo Alto and which established the maximum fees that the city can legally charge. That study was completed and released last week, paving the way for the council to adopt the new fees at its Oct. 18 meeting.

The study concluded that for office and research-and development projects, the maximum fee can be set as high at $264 per square foot; for hotels, the maximum nexus fee is $177 per square foot.

At the same time, the study found that setting a fee that high would make many types of commercial development — particularly, low-density office projects, research-and-development facilities and hotels — infeasible.

A professional office project with floor area ratio of 1.0 could support a fee of about $50 per square foot, the study concluded. At higher levels, the development project becomes less likely to get built because the costs become too high. Meanwhile, denser — and, hence, more profitable — office projects with a floor area ratio of 2.0 could support a linkage fee of between $70 and $150 per square foot still remain profitable, the study found.

The council will consider the study's findings and set the new impact fees for commercial development on Oct. 18, as part of a broader discussion of municipal fees. In a report accompanying the Strategic Economics studies, staff from the Department Planning and Development Services warn that setting the fees at the highest level — while legally justifiable — can adversely affect the city's bottom line.

"A fee that makes development less likely to be built is permissible, but it may negatively impact the amount of fees collected not only for the affordable housing fund but other City services supported by commercial development," the report from the Department of Planning and Development Services states. "This may include both direct impact fees and economic benefits such as visitors or business generating revenues such as sales taxes or hotel."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local city government news. Become a member today.

City Council poised to hike housing fees for office projects

New nexus study paves way for Palo Alto to raise developer fees to support affordable housing

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Oct 4, 2021, 3:08 pm

The Palo Alto City Council will try to strike a delicate balance later this month, when it considers how much the city charges commercial developers in "impact fees" to support affordable housing.

The council majority believes that the current fees are far too low and that raising them would allow the city to build more developments like the recent Wilton Court project on El Camino Real and the proposed Mitchell Park project, both of which require public subsidies. Raising them too much, however, could deter new development and leave the city's affordable housing fund dry.

On Oct. 18, the council is set to continue a debate that has been polarizing the council for years. In December 2016, council members voted to significantly raise impact fees for affordable housing only to see the action overturned and the increases dramatically reduced by newly elected council members in March 2017 on what is typically a routine "second reading" vote. Instead of raising the fees from $20.37 per square foot to $60 per square foot for new office developments and from $20.37 to $30 per square foot for hotels, as initially approved, the council voted 5-4 to adopt far more modest increases, bringing the office fees to $35 per square foot and leaving the hotel rate as is. Since then, the rate has gone up to the current level of $39.70.

Mayor Tom DuBois and council members Eric Filseth and Lydia Kou — who supported the steeper increase in 2016 — have publicly maintained since then that the rate remains far too low and have called for revisiting the issue and reaffirming the council's initial direction. And unlike in 2017, the majority of the council now appears to share that view. Vice Mayor Pat Burt and council member Greer Stone both suggested in recent public hearings that the fees should be raised.

The impetus for the renewed effort was a memo that Filseth and Kou drafted in June, arguing for the fees to be increased. The memo noted that the city is facing a state mandate to produce more than 3,000 units of affordable housing and that it does not currently have the means to do so. Since 2015, the memo states, the city had dedicated millions of dollars in affordable housing funds to help Santa Clara County purchase and preserve the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and to support the Wilton Court project, which provides 58 apartments for low-income residents, and the teacher housing project that the county is preparing to develop on Grant Avenue, near the Palo Alto Courthouse.

The fund, the memo notes, "is now nearly depleted and needs replenishing."

"Since demand for housing, including housing affordable to low- and moderate-income residents, is driven primarily by job growth, it makes sense to fund Affordable Housing subsidies from that job growth, through commercial development impact fees which reflect that impact," the memo states.

During the council's June 21 discussion of the memo, Filseth cited "nexus studies" in other jurisdictions indicating that new commercial development demand for affordable housing was somewhere in the range of $100 to $200 per square foot of office space. That, he said, is far more than the city is able to reinvest in such housing.

"If we're serious about affordable housing as a permanent structural part of our society, then we're going to need policies that rework that," Filseth said.

Stone similarly argued that the city will not be able to achieve its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets unless it is able to increase its affordable housing fund.

"We are not going to get anywhere close to our RHNA targets or the kind of increases in affordable housing that all of us want in this city based on inclusionary zoning alone or relying on other sources," Stone said. "This still isn't going to get us there but it's another tool that we have to add to our tool chest."

In raising the fees, the council will be able to rely on a new study from its economic consultant, Strategic Economics, which surveyed the cost of land and construction in Palo Alto and which established the maximum fees that the city can legally charge. That study was completed and released last week, paving the way for the council to adopt the new fees at its Oct. 18 meeting.

The study concluded that for office and research-and development projects, the maximum fee can be set as high at $264 per square foot; for hotels, the maximum nexus fee is $177 per square foot.

At the same time, the study found that setting a fee that high would make many types of commercial development — particularly, low-density office projects, research-and-development facilities and hotels — infeasible.

A professional office project with floor area ratio of 1.0 could support a fee of about $50 per square foot, the study concluded. At higher levels, the development project becomes less likely to get built because the costs become too high. Meanwhile, denser — and, hence, more profitable — office projects with a floor area ratio of 2.0 could support a linkage fee of between $70 and $150 per square foot still remain profitable, the study found.

The council will consider the study's findings and set the new impact fees for commercial development on Oct. 18, as part of a broader discussion of municipal fees. In a report accompanying the Strategic Economics studies, staff from the Department Planning and Development Services warn that setting the fees at the highest level — while legally justifiable — can adversely affect the city's bottom line.

"A fee that makes development less likely to be built is permissible, but it may negatively impact the amount of fees collected not only for the affordable housing fund but other City services supported by commercial development," the report from the Department of Planning and Development Services states. "This may include both direct impact fees and economic benefits such as visitors or business generating revenues such as sales taxes or hotel."

Comments

Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 5, 2021 at 6:56 am
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2021 at 6:56 am

Finally! Kudos to Filseth and Kou for introducing this.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 5, 2021 at 8:45 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2021 at 8:45 am

Finally indeed! They've been fighting the pro-development forces since 2016! Good for them -- and how about that tax on office buildings since the commuters have been outnumbering us for a long, long time.


tmp
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 5, 2021 at 12:02 pm
tmp, Downtown North
Registered user
on Oct 5, 2021 at 12:02 pm

Yes, raise the fees to the highest amount possible. New developments are not paying for all of the infrastructure costs that they will use. They add people but don't add money to pay for park space for our growing population, upkeep to water and electricity and other city facilities. New developments can pay for they wouldn't be building here.


Anne
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 6, 2021 at 10:28 am
Anne, Midtown
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2021 at 10:28 am

No more office space. The outsized ratio of office space to residents is the source of a lot of our problems.


Keith
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 6, 2021 at 11:05 am
Keith, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Oct 6, 2021 at 11:05 am

Remember that adding offices to get housing is a Ponzi-scheme. New office space will bring new jobs and demand for more housing. All new office space should be "fully-housed," which means the office developer also builds sufficient housing at all price points to accommodate all workers. A 15,000 square foot office (small) will house ~100 employees. So, unless enough housing is built for 100 employees (at their pay levels), the jobs-housing imbalance will simply get worse. For existing offices, an annual per square foot fee is needed. Adding more offices to get housing is not the solution!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.