Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-08 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 08, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting Palo Alto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas Citywide 7:40 PM – 8:40 PM 4.Election of Chair and Vice Chair      8:40 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of December 13, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, May 08, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting Palo Alto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas Citywide 7:40 PM – 8:40 PM 4.Election of Chair and Vice Chair      8:40 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of December 13, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, May 08, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM 3.Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting Palo Alto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas Citywide 7:40 PM – 8:40 PM 4.Election of Chair and Vice Chair      8:40 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of December 13, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, May 08, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to CertifySupplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North VenturaCoordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 (NorthVentura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in thePalo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP.      6:10 PM – 7:40 PM3.Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting PaloAlto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas Citywide7:40 PM – 8:40 PM4.Election of Chair and Vice Chair      8:40 PM – 9:10 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutesof December 13, 2023COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2024 Report #: 2404-2917 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Upcoming PTC Agenda Items Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC ITEMS These are placeholder dates targeted for items listed below; the dates for items may change. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 May 29, 2024 •830 Los Trancos Road Site and Design Review of SFR (PDS) •Zoning Code clarifications/ state law implementation (PDS and OOT) •Supplemental EIR for proposed CIP for Comprehensive Plan Consistency (PDS) June 12, 2024 •660 University Avenue (PDS) - ARB on 4-18-24 forwarded the project (PDS) •4075 El Camino Way; Palo Alto Commons second initiation meeting with parking study (PDS) June 26, 2024 •Dark Skies and Bird Safe Design draft ordinance (PDS) •Municipal Code cleanup regarding bicycle parking facilities (OOT) July 10, 2024/August 14, 2024 •Housing Incentive Program (HIP) to implement HE program 3.4 (PDS) ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 1/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2024 5:00 PM Hybrid Special Joint Meeting w/ HRC 3/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 4/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/15/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Joint Meeting w/ Council 4/24/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Lu 5/29/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/12/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/26/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 8/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/30/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/13/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2024 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Cari Templeton Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Bryna Chang George Lu Doria Summa Allen Akin Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton George Lu Bryna Chang July August September October November December Allen Akin Bart Hechtman Doria Summa George Lu Bart Hechtman Keith Reckdahl Cari Templeton Bryna Chang George Lu Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Cari Templeton Item 1 Attachment A - PTC 2024 Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 14 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2024 Report #: 2402-2621 TITLE Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council: 1. Certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), make all required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt the NVCAP, including staff recommended modifications to the NVCAP detailed in Attachment F. 3. Adopt a Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) to: a. Add a new Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and make other amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) to implement the NVCAP b. Amend Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) to incorporate increased NVCAP requirements c. Amend the Zoning District Map and re-zone parcels within the NVCAP area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 8, 2024, the City released the Revised Public Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) along with Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to solicit public comment on both documents. The 45-day comment period required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ended on April 22, 2024. Staff received three public comment letters and one oral comment. The City will address comments on the Draft SEIR in Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 14 the Final SEIR, which will be considered by the Council before making a decision on the environmental analysis and the NVCAP. The Revised Public Draft NVCAP is a major milestone; a culmination of extensive community outreach reflecting input from decision-makers and stakeholders during multiple public hearings on the plan alternatives, and the refinement of the Council-endorsed preferred alternative plan by consultants and staff. The Revised Public Draft NVCAP streamlines the chapter organization, eliminates redundancies in earlier NVCAP drafts, and incorporates the feedback received from both the PTC and Architectural Review Board (ARB) on the previous versions, wherever feasible and appropriate. The Draft NVCAP includes chapters on Introduction, Visions, Design Standards (divided into four chapters), and Implementation. In addition to the Revised Public Draft NVCAP and Draft SEIR, staff prepared a draft zoning ordinance to implement the plan. A new chapter (18.29) will be added to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to establish new NV zoning districts and standards specific to the NVCAP. The report outlines the methodology used to develop the zoning ordinance and explains its relationship to the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) and 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The draft NVCAP zoning ordinance in Attachment B reflects feedback received from ARB during its study session on April 18, 2024. Following the PTC’s recommendation and publication of a Final SEIR, the project will be reviewed by Council for a final decision in June 2024. The current draft of the NVCAP is available here for review: www.paloalto.org/nvcap. Attachment B includes the proposed ordinance and Attachment C includes a link to the Draft SEIR. BACKGROUND Planning Area The 60-acre NVCAP area lies within the Ventura neighborhood, bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. The plan area is near key community destinations such as the California Avenue Caltrain Station, California Avenue Business District, and Stanford Research Park. The plan area represents a rare opportunity to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood. Coordinated Area Plan The City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2017, called for site specific planning in the North Ventura area. The City secured grant funding in 2017 to initiate the NVCAP project. On March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted seven goals and six objectives (Attachment D). Goals include adding to the City’s supply of multi-family housing, developing a transit accessible neighborhood with retail services, creating a connected street grid, developing community facilities, and encouraging sustainability. Coordinated Area Plan Review Process Development of the coordinated area plan followed the process contained within PAMC 19.10, Coordinated Area Plans. This chapter provides details on the initiation, the process procedures, Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 14 including the creation of goals and objectives; community involvement (the formation of a working group); public hearings, and adoption. The development of the NVCAP has involved many public hearings, including Working Group and community meetings. Table 1 highlights the key milestones in the process to date. Additional information on prior meetings can be found on the NVCAP project website at www.paloalto.org/nvcap. Table 1: Notable Project Milestones Date Milestone November 6, 2017 City Council initiated the coordinated area plan process March 5, 2018 City Council adopted Goals & Objectives for the plan April 30, 2018 City Council appointed members of the working group March 10, 2021 PTC recommendation on preferred plan January 10, 2022 November 14, 2022 City Council endorsed a preferred plan alternative City Council further refined the endorsed plan May 2023 Public Draft NVCAP published May 31, 2023 June 1, 2023 June 8, 2023 Study Session with Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session with Architectural Review Board Study Session with Historic Resource Board March 8, 2024 Revised Public Draft NVCAP and Draft SEIR released April 18, 2024 Study Session with Architectural Review Board on the Draft Zoning Ordinance and public hearing to solicit oral comments on the Draft SEIR April 22, 2024 45-day Public Comment Period ended Required Contents of the Area Plan In accordance with PAMC Chapter 19.10, coordinated area plans shall include the following: The distribution, location, and extent of land uses. The proposed distribution, location, and extent of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other public improvements proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan. A program of measures including development regulations, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan as coordinated with the City’s capital improvement program. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, if needed. Specific architectural and site design objectives and requirements, including the scale of the streets, building orientation, placement and design of public parks or plazas, and sidewalk treatments. Determination of the economic feasibility of the plan. Environmental review with the maximum extent feasible tiering from the comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 14 Endorsed Plan Concept As referenced in Table 1 above, the City Council endorsed a preferred land use plan for NVCAP in January 2022 and further refined the endorsed plan in November 2022. The draft plan that was released in May 2023 included further refinements of the preferred plan by staff and its consultants to reconcile requirements in State law, ensuring that typical community development principles were applied such as land use transitions and consistency with the City’s objective development standards. Attachment C summarizes the endorsed preferred alternative and the refinements by Council. Sobrato Development Agreement In parallel to the NVCAP process, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) proposed the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project, which included demolition of a portion of the cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue to accommodate the townhome development with 91 dwelling units. As an alternative to the initial submittal from Sobrato, in September 2023, the City approved a Development Agreement with Sobrato for the redevelopment of a combined project site encompassing 14.65 acres at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201- 3225 Ash Street, and 278 Lambert Avenue. The development agreement included demolition of a portion of the cannery site to accommodate the townhome development. It also included dedication to the City of approximately 3.25 acres of land adjacent to Matadero Creek for park and affordable housing uses. The development agreement was approved by the City in October 2023 and became effective November 1, 2023. When the 10-year term of the development agreement ends, conformance with the NVCAP will be required for all new projects in the development agreement area. The Sobrato development is generally consistent with the NV-R3 development standards. However, because the project was submitted and entitled prior to adoption of the NVCAP, it is not subject to the new NVCAP standards. ANALYSIS The following discussion describes the draft NVCAP document and staff’s proposed revisions since the release of the public review draft in March 2024. The discussion and analysis also describe the NVCAP zoning ordinance including the methodology for the proposed zoning implementation approach, and a summary of the proposed development standards. The draft NVCAP and zoning implementation discussion also outline Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan consistency. NVCAP Goals and Objectives In the early stages of the NVCAP process, Council adopted the following six goals that were intended to help guide the development of the NVCAP consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Housing and Land Use: Add multifamily housing in a transit-accessible neighborhood with mixed uses. 2. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create well-defined connections to transit and major roads. 3. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid. 4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Integrate development of new services with private development. 5. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community-wide objectives with residents. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 14 6. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human-scale design and guidelines that strengthen neighborhood fabric. Supporting these goals are six objectives: Use a Data Driven Approach Create a Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and Implementation Provide a Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision-Makers Include Meaningful Community Engagement Determine Economic Feasibility Complies with California Environmental Quality Act Throughout the process, staff and their consultants ensured that the development of the plan was substantially consistent with the goals and objectives. Attachment D summarizes the consistency with these goals and objectives. NVCAP Summary The NVCAP represents a rare opportunity to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets forth a vision that honors the storied history and unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood; understands the needs of current residents and puts forward near-term solutions to current challenges; establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that more people can call North Ventura home; and invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable, resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto. In addition to aligning with the goals and policies embedded in the Comprehensive Plan, NVCAP reflects a vision shaped by the Palo Alto community. This plan would not be possible without the guidance of stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and other community members, who volunteered their time as members of the Working Group to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities of the Plan. The following summarizes the content of the NVCAP, released in March 2024: Chapter 1: Introduction provides an overview of the NVCAP physical and regulatory context. The plan is shaped by the project goals and objectives, adopted and in-progress City plans and policies, recently enacted regional and state laws, and the comprehensive community planning process. Chapter 2: Vision provides an overview of the vision for the future of NVCAP built and natural environment. This includes urban design frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of uses; support a multi-modal mobility framework within the neighborhood and how it connects to the rest of the city and the region; foster a regenerative and ecological framework to support the health of humans and wildlife while supporting the implementation of City’s Climate Action Plan; and the neighborhood’s context-specific urban form. Design Standards and Guidelines include requirements that govern the construction and modification of the public realm including streets and open space, as well as new buildings. Standards are quantifiable, whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 14 o Chapter 3: Public Realm includes requirements and guidelines that govern the construction and modifications of the public realm including the sidewalk zone, traffic lanes and intersections, green infrastructure, paving, exterior lighting, wayfinding, and public art. o Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility includes the requirements and guidelines that govern improvements related to multi-modal frameworks described in Chapter 2. This chapter includes standards and guidelines on pedestrian realm, bike network, gateway intersections, street sections for each street in the plan area, transit access, vehicle circulation and parking, as well as transportation demand management. o Chapter 5: Parks includes the requirements and guidelines that govern improvements within park and open space areas such as Matadero Creek and the future public park. o Chapter 6: Buildings provides guidance on desired future built form and sets aspirations for how new buildings will contribute to the character of the NVCAP as it develops incrementally over time. This chapter discusses building heights and massing, retail and active frontage, Portage Avenue frontage, residential frontage and sustainable design. Chapter 7: Implementation outlines the necessary steps to fulfill the vision of the plan, including funding, financing strategies, and capital investments. Revised Public Draft NVCAP The draft NVCAP, which was published initially in May 2023, was presented for study session reviews to the PTC on May 31, 20231 and ARB on June 1, 20232. Please review those reports for more detail. The draft NVCAP has been further revised since the May 2023 release. Comments received from the PTC in May 2023 and ARB in June 2023 were incorporated, wherever appropriate and feasible, into the revised Public Draft NVCAP published on March 8, 2024 along with Draft SEIR. The PTC and ARB’s earlier comments and staff responses are included in the matrix in Attachment E. In addition to incorporating comments received from the PTC and ARB staff made further refinements to the document. The NVCAP text was revised for consistency, chapters were reorganized to remove redundancy, references to PAMC sections and policy documents were added, and minor corrections were made for accuracy. Specific revisions staff would like to highlight include: Content in Chapter 7 (Implementation) was incorporated into other chapters and duplicate information was removed. Chapter 4, previously titled “Streets” was renamed and expanded (now titled Accessibility and Mobility). 1 May 31, 2023 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Planning-and-Transportation-Commission-PTC/Current-PTC-Agendas-Minutes 2 May 31, 2023 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-6.01-nvcap.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 14 o Chapter 4 included street design standards and guidelines along with street section illustrations for all streets within the plan area. o Chapter 4 now incorporates more elaborated mobility considerations, previously outlined as implementable actions in Chapter 7, as new standards and guidelines. While developing the zoning ordinance implementing the NVCAP, staff identified areas where further modifications to the NVCAP document were required for consistency and feasibility. These modifications, which resulted from close collaboration with the Office of Transportation staff, are primarily focused on alterations to the gateway intersections and street sections in Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility). Other modifications include minor text and graphic revisions. The staff recommended modifications are described in Attachment F. Zoning Implementation Staff prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) to implement the NVCAP by rezoning the parcels within the NVCAP area and establishing development standards to guide development. Each zoning district within the plan area is identified with the prefix, North Ventura (NV), to clearly identify the NVCAP zoning designations. The new zoning district standards reflect the varying residential and mixed-use densities anticipated within the plan area. Table 2 below summarizes the relationship between the NVCAP land use designations and the PAMC zoning district regulations. Figure 1 depicts the location of each proposed NVCAP zoning district. Table 2: NVCAP Land Use Designation & Proposed Zoning District Crosswalk NVCAP Land Use Classification Anticipated Density (DU/AC) Maximum Height (FT) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Allowed Zoning Districts High-Density Mixed-Use 61-100 65 3.0:1 NV-MXH Medium-Density Mixed-Use 31-70 55 2.0:1 NV-MXM Low-Density Mixed-Use 3-17 35 0.5:1 NV-MXL High Density Residential 61-100 61-100 65 65 3.0:1 3.0:1 NV-R4 NV-PF Medium Density Residential 16-30 45 1.5:1 NV-R3 Low Density Residential 1 or 2 units/lot 30 0.45:1 NV-R2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 14 NVCAP Land Use Classification Anticipated Density (DU/AC) Maximum Height (FT) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Allowed Zoning Districts NV-R1 Parks NV-PF Figure 1: NVCAP Proposed PAMC Zoning Designation Map Staff notes that Figure 1 reflects the future vision for the entire NVCAP area. However, in accordance with the Sobrato Development Agreement (Ordinance #5595), areas that were rezoned to Planned Community in accordance with the Development Agreement will not be rezoned as part of the adoption of the draft ordinance. The City Council may consider rezoning and redesignating these parcels once the Development Agreement has expired. Zoning Districts and Development Standards To create the development standards for each of the new NVCAP zoning districts in Chapter 18.29, staff reviewed comparable existing zoning districts in the PAMC. Development standards Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 14 and permitted uses within each of the NVCAP zoning districts were selected to align with NVCAP's goals, including the addition of 530 net new dwelling units. These standards primarily focus on density, FAR, height limits, and setback requirements. To eliminate duplicate information in the new chapter, staff incorporated existing regulations by reference to existing PAMC sections. Table 3 compares the proposed NV zoning districts with existing comparable zoning districts. Table 3: Comparable Zoning Districts Proposed NVCAP Zoning District Existing Comparable Zoning District NV-R1 NV-R2 R-1, R-2 NV-R3 RM-30 NV-R4 RM-40 NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH RM-30, RM-40 for residential; Primarily CS and CN for non-residential Density To establish appropriate density for the NVCAP plan, staff used a one-acre lot as the base to calculate realistic density for each land use designation. Several factors were considered in the density calculation, including building height directed by City Council, NVCAP land use designations, and an average unit size of 1,250 square feet to promote diversity in unit sizes within the plan area. Staff employed different FAR levels and the average unit size to arrive at a density and building size appropriate for each new NVCAP zoning district. The goal was to utilize typical building typologies to achieve the designated densities within each land use. For the NV-MXL zone, which only applies to three properties in the plan area, the focus was on maintaining existing building sizes and ensuring smooth transitions to neighboring properties. Notably, the NVCAP zoning districts (except for NV-R1 and NV-R2) do not prescribe a maximum density, choosing instead to regulate building size through maximum FAR and allowing developers to determine the number of units to propose within that building envelope. Summary of Proposed NVCAP Zoning Chapter The NVCAP zoning ordinance chapter mirrors other zoning designation chapters, with dedicated sections for applicability, zoning districts, definitions, permitted uses, development standards, parking and loading, and special requirements. In addition to typical development standards, the NVCAP ordinance includes special requirements specific to the plan area, including office use restrictions, storefront guidelines, and ground floor commercial use regulations. The NVCAP ordinance originally included an NVCAP-specific housing incentive program for 100% affordable projects. Upon further review, however, staff determined that the program did not offer any meaningful incentive that was not already available under state density bonus law. The Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 14 issue will be revisited when staff bring forward a revamped citywide Housing Incentive Program (HIP). The draft ordinance also references the NVCAP document for several items, including the designated location of required and encouraged ground floor uses, requirements for active ground floor uses, specific site and building design requirements in Chapter 6, and public realm improvements. Both the NVCAP plan document and the NVCAP zoning ordinance are intended to be used together when designing or reviewing development proposals in the plan area. ARB Feedback on Development Standards On April 18, 2024, the ARB conducted a public hearing to allow for comments on the Draft NVCAP and Draft SEIR. The ARB also reviewed and provided feedback on the draft NVCAP zoning ordinance. The ARB discussed development standards (Section 18.29.060) specifically and recommended the following modifications: Lot Coverage. ARB recommended increasing lot coverage for higher density residential areas, including NV-R3 and NV-R4. Street Yard Setback. ARB recommended a minimum street yard of 10 feet to encourage higher density and provide more flexibility in developing projects. Any street yards exceeding 10 feet were reduced to 10 feet, except for Olive Avenue in R-4, which maintains a minimum 20 feet minimum street yard to reflect the existing stormwater treatment area along Olive Avenue. Increased Maximum Height for NV-R4 and NV-MXH districts. Considering the El Camino Real Focus area across from the NVCAP area, which has a maximum height limit of 85 feet, the ARB recommended increasing maximum height limits for NV-R4 and NV-MXH to 65 feet. Setback Measurement and Lot Coverage Calculation. The ARB requested that the required setback and lot coverage not apply to portions of a development located more than three feet below grade in zoning districts that allow higher density residential (NV- R3, NV-R4, NV-MXM, and NV-MXH). The three-foot threshold was recommended to provide sufficient space for tree roots. Structures below three feet from the existing natural grade would be able to encroach into the required setback without impacting the lot coverage requirement, allowing for larger basements in the NVCAP area. Staff considered the ARB’s feedback and, while supporting some recommendations, determined that recommendations related to basement setbacks and height increases (described below) required further discussion or were not consistent with the NVCAP preferred plan endorsed by the City Council. As a result, these ARB recommendations were not incorporated into the zoning ordinance recommended by staff (Attachment A). Increased Maximum Height for NV-R3 and NV-MXM. Considering the El Camino Real Focus area across from the NVCAP area, which has a maximum height limit of 85 feet, the ARB recommended increasing maximum height limits for NV-R3 to 55 feet from 35 feet, and for NV-MXM to 65 feet from 45 feet, in addition to NV-R4 and NV-MXM as described above. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 14 Both NV-R3 and NV-MXM would abut parcels with existing single-family homes and low-density residential zoning districts, which have a maximum height limit of 30 feet. As a result, staff recommend having a 15-foot maximum height difference between higher density districts when abutting low density districts or single-family home parcels to minimize impact to the low-density residential areas. Therefore, staff recommend increased the maximum height for both the NV-R3 and NV-MXM districts to 45 feet and 55 feet, respectively, compared to the 55 feet and 65 feet recommended by the ARB. Table 4 shows comparison of the maximum height limits. Table 1: Maximum Height Comparison Maximum Height Limit (feet) Zoning District Preferred Plan ARB Recommendation Staff Recommendation NV-R1 NV-R2 30 No change No change NV-R3 35 55 45 NV-R4 55 65 Same as ARB NV-MXL 35 No change No change NV-MXM 45 65 55 NV-MXH 55 65 Same as ARB Setback Measurement and Lot Coverage Calculation. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) does not specifically address how to apply setback requirements for basements in multifamily and nonresidential projects. Currently, the minimum setback has been interpreted to apply to above and below-grade levels of structures. The ARB has recently seen projects with high density residential requesting larger basements to accommodate parking and other amenities. In order to provide more clarity, the ARB requested that specific language be codified to the zoning districts that allow higher density residential (NV-R3, NV-R4, NV-MXM, and NV-MXH). However, this policy decision requires further discussion and analysis to determine the best path forward for this request from the ARB. As a result, this ARB recommendation is not reflected in the draft zoning ordinance (Attachment A). In addition to ARB recommended changes, staff made further refinements on the zoning ordinance, including some minor text modifications and adding references to other code sections related to non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities. These staff recommended changes in the zoning ordinance are shown in blue and underlined text to differentiate them from ARB recommended changes supported by staff, shown in red and underlined text. Relationship to the Housing Element The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which assesses the condition of the City's current housing and future needs of its residents Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 14 through citywide housing goals, objectives, and policies. The City is required to update the Housing Element every eight years. The City adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element in May 2023. A revised Housing Element was considered by Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council at a joint meeting on April 15, 2024 and adopted by the City Council. The Housing Element includes the housing needs assessment, resources and inventory of potential housing sites, housing constraints, and housing element programs or implementation actions. The Housing Element identifies a total of 300 potential housing opportunity sites. Of the total, 17 housing opportunity sites are located within the NVCAP. The Housing Element estimated that the development capacity for these 17 sites would yield over 300 dwelling units. In January 2024, an ordinance implementing Housing Element Program 1.1A and 1.1B became effective, rezoning housing opportunity sites for consistency with the Housing Element. The zoning changes apply to multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning to accommodate greater housing production, including within the NVCAP. This includes modification of development standards to increase density and height. For housing opportunity sites, the proposed NVCAP development standards generally have more permissive standards compared to development standards from the January 2024 rezoning. Therefore, applying NVCAP development standards to housing opportunity sites within the plan area would not hinder achieving the densities projected in the Housing Element. In addition, the proposed ordinance updates Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) to include the ensure that housing opportunity sites within the plan area are still able to benefit from the few areas where the January 2024 rezoning was more permissive than the proposed NVCAP regulations. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines The draft plan implements Comprehensive Plan Program L.4.10.1, which directs staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. Program L.4.10.1 outlines that the plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek improvements and an interconnected street grid. Pipeline Projects Since the onset of the NVCAP project, property owners have been allowed to submit development applications consistent with the existing zoning code. Notable projects submitted and entitled since the NVCAP initiation include 3001 El Camino Real3, 3200 Park Boulevard4, and 3241 Park Blvd5. The zoning ordinance proposes to exempt these “pipeline projects” from 3 3001 El Camino Real: a 100% affordable housing project with 129 units. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News- Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/30013017-El-Camino-Real 4 200 Portage: a project including partial demolition of cannery, construction of 74 dwelling units and renovation of cannery into research & development space with associated Development Agreement. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage-Avenue 5 3241 Park Blvd: a new 7,861 square foot office building. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3241-Park-Boulevard Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 14 compliance with the NVCAP due to the submittal of a complete planning entitlement application prior to the adoption of the NVCAP and its associated implementing zoning code amendments. Next Steps Staff will forward the PTC’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration in June 2024. In addition to considering adoption of the NVCAP and the NVCAP zoning ordinance, the City Council will take action on SEIR certification. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The majority of the NVCAP project funding is from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Priority Development Area grant ($638,000). In compliance with the grant requirement, the 15% local funding match ($112,000) was achieved with the donation of private funds from the Sobrato Organization, who also donated an additional $138,000 for the environmental review study of the NVCAP. Additional General Funds ($17,700) were used for the historic evaluation by Page & Turnbull and the Matadero Creek analysis by WRA; and $62,000 of FY 2021 department salary savings was allocated to project management (due to reduced staffing). In 2021, the City was awarded $125,000 from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant to support the NVCAP. Per the grant agreements with both Caltrans and HCD (LEAP Grant), the City must complete this NVCAP project by the grant due dates, or risk forfeiting the grant funds. In that scenario, the City would need to repay any grant funds expended towards the project. Upon adoption of the NVCAP, staff will submit the last invoices for both grants from Caltrans and HCD to receive the remaining amount of the grants and close the contracts with them. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Consistent with PAMC Chapter 19.10 (Coordinated Area Plans), the City Council appointed a 14- member working group. The working group met 17 times over the course of two years and concluded their effort once alternatives were forwarded to the PTC and City Council for consideration. Notifications throughout the process have been sent to the working group, stakeholders, and property owners. The City maintains a project website with archives of working group, workshops, and public hearing materials related to the NVCAP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Palo Alto, acting as the lead agency, released a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the proposed project on March 8, 2024 for a 45-day public comment period that ended on Monday, April 22, 2024. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Palo Alto, acting as the lead agency, released a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the proposed project on March 8, 2024 for a 45-day public comment period that ended on Monday, April 22, 2024. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 14 of 14 During the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting held on April 18, 2024, a community member addressed the Draft NVCAP, specifically urging rooftop gardens and the full naturalization of the creek without barriers. In addition, staff received three comment letters on the Draft SEIR by Monday, April 22, 2024 (Attachment G). Responses to comments on the Draft SEIR will be integrated into the Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) for Council’s consideration prior to taking action on the environmental analysis and the proposed project. The Draft SEIR found that the impacts related to biological resources, archaeological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources could be significant but mitigatable to less than significant. Impacts to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable because the project would involve modifications to an historic resource eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources in a manner that would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. Buildout of the NVCAP, on a plan level, would have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant emissions impact because the increase in population would be exceeded by the increase in VMT and daily trips. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Forward the staff recommendation to City Council with modifications. 2. Take no action on the NVCAP and provide direction on desired changes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance to: (1) Adopt a new Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and make other amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) to implement the NVCAP (2) Amend Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) (3) Amend the Zoning District Map and re-zone parcels within the NVCAP area Attachment B: Links to the Draft NVCAP and Draft SEIR Attachment C: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Refinements Attachment D: Summary of Goals and Objectives Consistency Attachment E: NVCAP Comments from PTC and ARB and Staff Response Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP Attachment G: Public Comment Letters on Draft SEIR and Draft NVCAP AUTHOR/TITLE: Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Page 1 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14 (Housing Incentives), 18.24 (Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards), and 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) to Implement the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.29 NORTH VENTURA (NV) DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18.29.010 Purpose 18.29.020 Applicability of Regulations 18.29.030 Zoning Districts 18.29.040 Definitions 18.29.050 Permitted Uses 18.29.060 Development Standards 18.29.070 Parking and Loading 18.29.080 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards 18.29.090 Housing Incentive Programs for NV District 18.29.010 Purpose The purpose of the North Ventura district is to implement the vision and framework of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) through use regulations and development standards. 18.29.020 Applicability of Regulations (a) The North Ventura districts shall apply to properties within the NVCAP and designated as North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Where designated, the regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by the underlying zoning district regulations. (b) Refer to the NVCAP for design guidelines related to streets and buildings in conjunction with the regulations contained within this chapter. 18.29.030 Zoning Districts The North Ventura districts shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “NV” in front of the zoning district designation. Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 22     Page 2 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 The following zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for residential, commercial and mixed-use sites: (a) Single Family Residential District (NV-R1) The NV-R1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play. Minimum site area requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. Community uses and facilities are allowed to the extent no net loss of housing would result. (b) Two Family Residential District (NV-R2) The NV-R2 two-family residential district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit, under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit, in areas designated for single-family use or NVCAP by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. Community uses and facilities are allowed to the extent no net loss of housing would result. (c) Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R3) The NV-R3 medium density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with better transition to lower density residential districts. Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels that will enable developments to provide their own parking spaces and to meet their open space needs in the form of garden apartments or cluster developments. While there is no maximum density in the NV-R3 residential district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 16 to 30 dwelling units per acre based on the applicable development standards. (d) High Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R4) The NV-R4 high density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest greater density deemed appropriate for Palo AltoNVCAP. The most suitable locations for this district are along major transportation corridors which are close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers. While there is no maximum density in the NV-R4 residential district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 61 to 100 dwelling units per acre based on the applicable development standards. (e) Low Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXL) The purpose of the NV-MXL district is to allow for small-scale commercial and services with limited amount of residential that is compatible with the surrounding development. While there is no maximum density in the NV-MXL district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from three to 17 dwelling units per acre. (f) Medium Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXM) Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 23     Page 3 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 The purpose of the NV-MXM district is to allow for a compatible mix of residential and limited commercial. While there is no maximum density in the NV-MXM district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 31 to 70 dwelling units per acre. (g) High Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXH) The purpose of the NV-MXH district is to allow for a mix of retail, restaurant, entertainment and commercial uses on the ground floor with residential on the upper floors, while maintaining a pedestrian- oriented streetscape. It is intended that the active ground floor retail space required will ensure neighborhood-oriented retail and services are provided within walking distance of high density residential. Ground floor active uses are required along El Camino Real. While no maximum density in the NV-MXH district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 61 to 100 dwelling units per acre. (h) Public Facilities District (NV-PF) The NV-PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Within the North Ventura area, an approximate one-acre portion of the NV-PF district may permit a 100% affordable housing project. 18.29.040 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "100% affordable housing project" means a multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential component consists entirely of affordable units offered at affordable rents or affordable sales prices, as defined in Section 16.65.020, and, for rental projects, where the average household income does not exceed 60% of the area median income level, except for a building manager's unit. (b) “Street yard” means a yard adjoining a street lot line and may also be a front lot line. 18.29.050 Permitted Uses (a) The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each zoning district are identified in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed in the tables are not allowed, except where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections not specifically referenced may apply as well. TABLE 1: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required TUP = Temporary Use Permit Required — = Not Permitted Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 24     Page 4 of 20 LAND USE NV- R1 NV- R2 NV- R3 NV- R4 NV- MXL (1)(5) NV- MXM (5) NV- MXH NV- PF Subject to Regulations In: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal permitted use. P P P P P P P — 18.40 18.10.080 18.12.080 Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses with more than two plumbing fixtures (but with no kitchen), and more than 200 square feet in size, but excluding second dwelling units CUP — — — — — — — 18.12.080 Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses (no limit on number of plumbing fixtures) — P — — — — — — 18.10.080 Accessory Dwelling Unit & Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit when accessory to primary and permitted residential use P P P P P P P — 18.09 Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential use P P P P P P P P 18.42 Horticulture, Gardening, and P P P P P P P — Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 25     Page 5 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 Growing of food products for consumption by occupants of a site EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations, excluding any such facility operated as a business for profit — — — CUP CUP — — — Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP P P — Religious Institutions CUP CUP CUP CUP P P P — OFFICE USES(2) Administrative Office Services — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a) Medical Offices — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a) Professional and General Business Offices — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a) PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES Community Centers CUP CUP CUP CUP — — — — Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP — RECREATION USES Neighborhood Recreational Centers — — CUP CUP — — — CUP (3) Commercial Recreation — — — — CUP CUP CUP CUP (3) Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP CUP CUP — CUP CUP CUP (3) Youth Clubs — — — — — — — CUP (3) RESIDENTIAL USES Single-Family P P — — — — — — Two-Family P P — — — — — — 18.42.180 Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 26     Page 6 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 Multiple-Family — — P P P P P P(4) Residential Care Homes P P P P P P P — RETAIL USES Eating and Drinking Services, except drive-in and take- out services — — P P P P P CUP (3) 18.40.160, 18.29.050(c) Personal Services and Retail Services of a neighborhood- serving nature — — P P P P P CUP (3) 18.40.160, 18.29. 050(c) Liquor stores — — — — — P P — 18.40.160, 18.29. 050(c) SERVICE USES Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels — — — — P P P — 18.29. 050(c) Convalescent Facilities — — — CUP P P P — Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP P P P P — 18.40.160 Large Family Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3) Small Family Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3) Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP CUP P P P P P P(3) Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3) Financial Services — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a) 18.29.060(b) General Business Services — — — — P P P — 18.29. 050(a) 18.29.060(b) Hotels — — — — — P P — 18.40.160, 18.16.060(d) Personal Services — — — — P P P — 18.40.160, 18.29. 050(c) 18.29.060(b) AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE USES Park uses and uses incidental to park operation — — — — — — — P All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of — — — — — — — P Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 27     Page 7 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 (a) Office Use Restrictions (1) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such offices: (A) Have been continuously in existence in that space since DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I); Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency, or leased by any such agency to another party Community Centers — — — — — — — CUP (3) Utility Facilities — — — — — — — CUP TEMPORARY USES Temporary Uses — — TUP TUP — — — — 18.42.050 Farmer’s Markets — — — — — CUP CUP — Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years — — — — — CUP CUP CUP (3) Notes: (1) For NV-MXL zoning district, the total floor area of non-residential uses permitted and conditionally permitted on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. (2) For office uses, total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. (3) Provided such use is conducted on property owned by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency, and leased for said uses. (4) Only a 100% Affordable Housing Project is permitted. Development shall follow NV-R4 standards. (5) Ground floor uses shall comply with the ground floor edge framework set forth in NVCAP section 2.3. Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 28     Page 8 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 (B) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP or thereafter; (C) Occupy a space that was vacant on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP; or (D) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, and personal services does not decrease. (E) Along El Camino Real, the office use has a consistent flow of in-person customers visiting the business, such as a dentist or medical office. (2) Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the NV District (A) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. (b) Late Night Use and Activities Late Night Use and Activities requirements established in Section 18.42.040 shall apply to NV zoning districts. (1) Retail (including restaurants) or service commercial businesses abutting or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, that are open or with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours. (2) Where planning or building permits are required or for a change in use that results in any such commercial business in the NV-MXM and NV-MXH zoning districts, operating or with activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a conditional use permit shall be obtained and conditions of approval shall be applied as deemed necessary to ensure the operation is compatible with the abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. Said use permit shall be limited to operations or activities occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (3) Truck deliveries shall not occur before 6:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., except pursuant to the provisions of a conditional use permit. (c) Active Ground Floor Commercial Uses The NVCAP requires active ground floor uses along the El Camino Real corridor and encourages active ground floor uses on other designated streets. Active uses are activities and functions that promote social engagement, vitality, and interaction within a community. Refer to NVCAP, Section 2.3 for detailed requirements. (1) Active ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, neighborhood business service, and eating and drinking establishments. These may also include other active uses such as daycare, building lobbies, spaces accessory to residential uses such as fitness rooms, workspaces, leasing offices, bicycle facilities (Class I) with direct access to the sidewalk. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations, are consistent with 18.29.080(a) and have a regular flow of in-person customers. Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 29     Page 9 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 (2) Ground floor commercial uses are required for properties with frontage along El Camino Real, as shown in the NVCAP Section 2.3 (Ground Floor Edges) (3) Ground floor commercial uses shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 14 feet. (4) Retail or retail-like at the ground floor is required at the intersections of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue, and El Camino Real and Portage Avenue. (5) 100% affordable housing projects are exempt from providing ground floor commercial uses. 18.29.060 Development Standards (a) The following tables specify the development standards that shall apply to NV district properties. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the development standard; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well. TABLE 1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R1 NV-R2 Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may also apply 18.10.050 Street yard (ft) Pepper Ave: 12.510’ to create a 12’ effective sidewalk width (1) Olive Ave: 12.510’ 18.29.020(b) Parking None None 18.29.070 Other development standards See regulations in Chapter 18.12 See regulations in Chapter 18.10 Notes: (1) The effective sidewalk width includes the pedestrian clear zone and landscape/furniture zone as described in PAMC 18.24.020. TABLE 2: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & MUTLI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) 8,500 70 Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 30     Page 10 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Site Depth (ft) 100 Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft) Park Blvd.: 20’10’ Ash St: 5’ Acacia Ave: 5’ Portage Ave: 5’ Park Blvd.: 20’10’ Olive Ave.: 20’ Ash St.: 5’ Page Mill Rd: sufficient to create a 12’ effective sidewalk width(2)(3) 18.29.020(b) Interior Side Yards (ft) 5’ 5’ Interior Rear Yards (ft) 10’ 10’ Build-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback(1) 33% of side street built to setback(1) Maximum Height (ft) Standard 35’45’ 55’65’ 18.29.100 Portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district (measured from property lines) 35’ Daylight Plane For lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or lots bigger than 10,000 ft2 Refer to Section 18.24.050(b) 18.24.050(b) For lots smaller than 10,000 ft2 None None Maximum Lot Coverage (%) Base 4060 4580 Additional area permitted to be covered by covered patios or overhangs otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws 5 5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Residential FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1 Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.050(c) Total Mixed-Use FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1 Residential Density (net units per acre) Maximum units per acre None None Minimum units per acre 16 61 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) 30(4) None10 Minimum Usable Open Space (ft2 per unit) 150(4) 150 Minimum Common Open Space (ft2 per unit) 75 75 Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 31     Page 11 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Private Open Space (ft2 per unit) 50 50 Landscape Requirements 18.40.130 Parking None Required 18.29.070 Notes: (1) 25-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage. (2) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (3) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) Landscape coverage may be provided above the ground-floor. TABLE 3: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) None Required Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft) Ash St.: 5’ Olive Ave.: 12.510’ Portage Ave: 0’ Pepper Ave: 12.510’ El Camino Real: 5’ Oregon/Page Mill Rd: 5‘ Pepper: 12.510’ Olive Ave (North side): 12.510’ Olive Ave (South side): 10’ Ash St: 5’ Park Blvd: 20’ Lambert Ave: 5’ Portage Ave: 5’ Acacia Ave: 5’ Park Blvd: 5’ El Camino Real: sufficient to create a 12’ effective sidewalk width(1)(2) Oregon Expy/Page Mill Rd: sufficient to create a 12’ effective sidewalk(1)(2) Lambert Ave: 5’ Acacia Ave: 5’ Portage Ave: 5’ 18.29.020(b) Build-to-Lines None For properties abutting El Camino Real: Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 32     Page 12 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations In: 50% of frontage built to setback(1) 33% of side street built to setback(1) Rear Yard (ft) 10’ 10’ for residential portion/ none for commercial portion 10’ for residential portion/ none for commercial portion Rear Yard abutting residential zone district (ft) 10’ 10’ 10’ Interior Side Yard (ft) 10’ 5’ 5’ Build-to-lines None Required Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6 ft into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to four (4) ft into the front and rear setbacks and up to three (3) ft into interior side setbacksRefer to Section 18.40.070 Maximum Setback (ft) Not applicable El Camino Real: 10’ El Camino Real: 10’ Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 50 100 100 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) 20 510 None10 Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) (ft2) 150 per unit 18.16.090 Maximum Height (ft) 18.29.100 Standard 35’ 45’55’ 55’65’ Ground Floor Height 14’Refer to Section 18.24.060(c)(5)(A) 18.29.050(c) Portions of a site within 150 ft of an abutting residential zoning district (measured from property line)(3) Not applicable 45’ Not applicable Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Refer to 18.24.050(b) 18.24.050(b) Residential Density (net units per acre) Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 33     Page 13 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations In: Maximum units per acre None Required Minimum units per acre 3 31 61 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Residential FAR 0.5:1 2.0:1 3.0:1 Maximum Non- residential FAR(4) 0.25:1 0.25:1 0.25:1 18.29.050(c) 18.29.060(c) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.050(c) Total Mixed-Use FAR 0.5:1(4) 2.0:1 3.0:1 Parking None Required 18.29.070 Notes: (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (3) The 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (4) As provided in 18.29.060(c), maximum FAR for hotels shall be 2.0:1. Hotel projects in the NV-MXL zone may reach a Total Mixed-Use FAR of 2.0:1. TABLE 4: PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(1) DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft) Portage Ave: 0’ Park Blvd: 20’ Lambert Ave: 5’ 18.29.020(b) Rear Yard (ft) 10’ 18.40.140 Side Yard (ft) 5’ Maximum Site Coverage (%) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 100 20 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 0 Not applicable Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) (ft2) Multiple-Family Residential Use 150 per unit Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 34     Page 14 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to Regulations In: Maximum Height (ft) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 55’ 18.29.100 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 3.0:1 1.0:1 Parking 18.29.070 Notes: (1) Residential standards in this table shall only be applicable to 100% Affordable Housing Projects. For standards not listed in Table 4 for 100% Affordable Housing Projects in NV-PF, refer to applicable NV- R4 development standards in PAMC 18.29.060, Table 2. (b) Storefront Guidelines Where active use and retail frontages are required or located within the NV district on the ground floor, the following design standards shall apply: (1) Exterior windows on the ground floor shall use transparent glazing to the extent feasible. Low-e glass or minimal tinting to achieve sun control is permitted, so long as the glazing appears transparent when viewed from the ground level. (2) Window coverings are not permitted on the ground floor during typical business hours. Where operations preclude transparency (e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires window coverings, sidewalk- facing frontage shall include items of visual interest including displays of merchandise or artwork; visual access shall be provided to a minimum depth of three (3) feet. (3) The building facade shall not dedicate No more than 10% of its the total building façade frontage, and no more than or a maximum of 25 feet in width, whichever is greater, shall be dedicated to mechanical equipment rooms, parking garage entrances, exit stairs, and other facilities necessary for building operation. (c) Hotel Regulations (1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels more than floor area limitations for other commercial uses, to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and economic benefits to the city. (2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays more than thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. (3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 35     Page 15 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 (A) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; and (B) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and (D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not exceed thirty (30) days. (4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays more than thirty days not permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay more than thirty days shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16. 18.29.070 Parking and Loading In accordance with Assembly Bill 2097 (2022), no minimum automobile parking is required for properties within the NV Districts except for projects including transient lodging. There are no maximum parking standards. Standards for transient lodging and other parking standards, such as bicycle parking, and parking design standards are contained within PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54. 18.29.080 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards In addition to the development standards prescribed in 18.29.050, all Housing Development Projects shall comply with the objective standards outlined in Chapter 18.24, as defined herein. All other developments, and Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective design standards in Chapter 18.24, shall meet the Context Based Design Criteria, as determined by the Director pursuant to the Architectural Review process. In the event of any conflict between the development standards established in this Chapter and those established in Chapter 18.24, the NVCAP standards shall prevail. (a) Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria Refer to Section 18.13.060 for the Context Based Design Criteria. (b) Mixed-Use and Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria Refer to Section 18.16.090 for the Context Based Design Criteria. 18.29.090 Housing Incentive Programs for NV District (a) Housing development projects in the NV Districts may utilize any Housing Incentive Program or Affordable Housing Incentive Program set forth in Sections 18.14.030 and 18.14.040., subject to the following restrictions: (1) Maximum Height. The maximum height for a 100% affordable housing project shall not exceed 68 feet in the NV-MXL and NV-R3 districts, 78 feet in the NV-MXM district, and 88 feet in the NV-R4 and NV-MXH districts. 18.29.100 Non-conforming Uses and Non-Complying Facilities Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 36     Page 16 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 Any uses or facilities rendered non-conforming or non-complying by this Chapter shall be subject to Chapter 18.70, including the schedules for required termination of non-conforming uses under Section 18.70.070. SECTION 2. Table 1 of Section 18.14.020 (Housing Element Opportunity Sites) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined): Table 1 Housing Element Opportunity Site Development Standards (Residential and Commercial Mixed Use Districts) Base Zoning District Maximum Far(1) Minimum Landscape Coverage Residential Density (du/ac)(4) Other Development Standards Residential Total Minimum Maximum CC(2) 1.5 2.0 (3) 20 See base district regulation s: 18.16.0 60 See base district regulations: 18.16.060 CC 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 CS (El Camino Real) 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 CS (Other) 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 See HE Appendix D CN (El Camino Real) 1.25 1.25 30%(3) 20 See base district regulation s: 18.16.0 60 CN (Other) 1.25 1.25 30%(3) 20 See HE Appendix D CD-C 2.0 2.0 (2) (3) 20 See base district regulation s: 18.18.0 60 See base district regulations: 18.18.060 Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 37     Page 17 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 CD-N 1.5 1.5 (3) 20 See HE Appendix D RP 1.25 1.25 (3) 25 None; 40 du/ac anticipate d See base district regulations: 18.20.040 RM-40 1.5 1.5 (3) 31 See HE Appendix D See base district regulations: 18.13.040 RM-30 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 RM-20 1.25 1.25 See 18.13.0 40 20 NV-MXM See base district regulations: 18.29.060, except that maximum height shall be 50’ NV-R3 See base district regulations: 18.29.060, except that maximum height shall be 50’, maximum lot coverage shall be 70%, and minimum density shall be 25 du/ac. Notes: (1) Nothing in this table increases the non-residential floor area permitted in any district. (2) FAR may be increased with transfer of development rights; see Chapter 18.18 for details. (3) Landscape coverage may be provided above the ground-floor. If standard is not specified, refer to base district regulations. (4) Where no maximum density is provided in terms of du/ac, maximum density shall be determined by estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based on the objective development standards applicable to the project. Where noted, refer to Housing Element Appendix D: Sites Inventory for specified densities. SECTION 3. Section 18.24.010 (Purpose and Applicability) of Chapter 18.24 (Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, and unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses): 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability (a) Purpose [. . .] (b) Applicability of Regulations These regulations apply to Housing Development Projects (as defined in Gov. Code 65589.5), both new construction and renovations, within the following zones and combining districts: (1) Chapter 18.12: R-1, for multiple-family use projects only Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 38     Page 18 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 (2) Chapter 18.13: RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 (23) Chapter 18.16: CN, CC, CC(2), CS (34) Chapter 18.18: CD-C, CD-S, CD-N (45) Chapter 18.20: MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), GM (56) Chapter 18.28: PF (7) Chapter 18.29: NVCAP (68) Chapter 18.34: PTOD combining district Housing Development Projects include multifamily housing with three or more units ("multiple-family use" as defined in Section 18.04.030), supportive and transitional housing, and residential mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential square footage shall meet the objective design standards. (c) Process and Alternative Compliance [. . .] SECTION 4. Section 16.65.030 (Basic affordable housing requirement - residential ownership projects) of Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) is amended to read as follows ((additions underlined, and unchanged text omitted by bracketed ellipses): 16.65.030 Basic affordable housing requirement - residential ownership projects. The provisions of this section shall apply to all residential ownership projects, including the residential ownership portion of any mixed use project containing three or more units, except for any residential ownership project exempt under Section 16.65.025. (a) Unless an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, residential ownership projects shall provide the following: (1) For projects on sites of less than five acres, fifteen percent of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households; (2) For projects on sites of five acres or more and all townhome projects in the NV districts, twenty percent of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households; and (3) For projects that convert existing rental housing to condominiums, other residential ownership or nonresidential space or that remove existing rental housing, twenty-five percent of Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 39     Page 19 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households. (4) Calculations of the number of affordable units required by this section shall be based on the number of dwelling units in the residential project, excluding any density bonus units. Projects shall not receive a credit for any existing dwelling units demolished as part of the project. (b) The affordable units shall be made available at the following affordable sales prices: [. . .] SECTION 5. Section 16.65.040 (Basic requirement - mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects) of Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck- through): 16.65.040 Basic requirement - mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects. (a) Unless the mixed use, nonresidential or residential rental project is exempt under Section 16.65.025 or an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, all mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects shall pay housing impact fees as specified in Section 16.65.060 to mitigate the projects' impacts on the need for affordable housing; except: (1) that theThe residential ownership portion of a mixed use project containing three or more units shall comply with Section 16.65.030. (2) In the NV districts, residential rental projects, including mixed use projects containing residential rental units, shall provide fifteen percent of the dwelling units in the project at rates affordable to lower income households. SECTION 6. Pipeline Projects. This Ordinance and the NVCAP shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project completed pursuant to such application shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70. SECTION 7. On XXXX, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. XXXX, certifying the NVCAP Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and making required findings, including a statement of overriding considerations. Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 40     Page 20 of 20 0160143_20240501_ay16 SECTION 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment A: Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24 and 16.65     Packet Pg. 41     Attachment C: Link to the Draft SEIR for North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/draft-seir-nvcap-march-2024.pdf Link to the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap_publicdraft_2024_03_web2.pdf Item 2 Attachment B: Link to Draft SEIR and Draft NVCAP     Packet Pg. 42     Attachment D: Summary of Preferred Plan City Council endorsed 01/10/2022 & refined 11/14/2022 (or strikethrough) Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan Housing •530 housing units •Emphasizes townhomes near existing residential; mid-rise residential/mixed-use on corridors and elsewhere in plan area. •Taller mid-rise residential/mixed- use along Park Boulevard adjacent to train tracks. •530 housing units •Emphasizes townhomes on cannery property. Mid-rise residential/mixed- use on corridors and elsewhere in the plan. Affordable housing site adjacent to public park site. Taller mid-rise residential/mixed-use along Park Boulevard adjacent to train tracks. See also “Height/Density and Transitions” Affordable Housing •Include 100% affordable housing height limits based on the minimum height necessary for a five-story retail affordable housing project (e.g., 55’) or a six story non-retail affordable housing project (e.g., 65’). •Require 20% BMR for for-sale townhomes, 15% for for-sale condos, and for rental 15% BMR or use in-lieu fee. (66% of units affordable to households of 80- 100% area median income (AMI) and up to 33% affordable to households 100-120% AMI.) •100% affordable housing height limits determined by state density bonus housing law (33’ above base zoning height limit) •Requires 20% BMR for for-sale townhomes, 15% for for-sale condos, and for rental 15% BMR or use in-lieu fee. (66% of units affordable to households of 80-100% area median income (AMI) and up to 33% affordable to households 100-120% AMI.) See also “Height/Density and Transitions” Height/Density and Transitions •Place higher heights and greater densities on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, where multifamily and residential mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail would be permitted. Transition between higher density/height areas and existing single-family homes through height transitions. •Expand Housing Incentive Program or similar into other areas other than El Camino Real corridor. •Rezones proposed in the plan area to transition from commercial, general manufacturing and residential to residential and residential mixed-use (low, medium, and high density). •Greater heights and densities are located along corridors (El Camino Real, Page Mill and Park Boulevard). Height is limited for cannery building adaptive reuse projects. Height transitions will follow objective standard requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Item 2 Attachment C: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Refinements     Packet Pg. 43     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan •Allow 45 feet transition on El Camino •Raise the height limit along Park Blvd to 55 feet, for residential or residential mixed-use without increasing commercial FAR •Request Staff to evaluate zoning changes that would increase FAR for housing on commercial sites along Park Blvd. and Page Mill Rd. •Height limits range from 30 to 65 feet. •Increase FAR for residential for 395 Page Mill and Park Boulevard. •Limits commercial FAR throughout the plan area. •Housing Incentive Program would follow the Citywide Housing Incentive Program (Chapter 18.14) Open Space Parks, pedestrian and/or bike connection, landscape setbacks and buffers. Creek option #3, full naturalization. Look for preferred park locations (larger public spaces desired). Park development based on no less than 1.6 acres/1,000 residents to 1.7 acres/1,000 residents. •Includes creek option #3 for full naturalization •Identifies 2.25-acre public park location adjacent to creek Office •Allows existing large-format office floor area to continue. Once demolished, the office space may not be rebuilt. •Would allow new, ground-floor, small, professional office (such as dentist, etc.). (5,000 sf or less) •Define a low-density R&D zone limiting employment density. (not clear on what this means) •Define strict TDM •Plan sites are rezoned and allow limited office space (up to 5,000 sf) per parcel. •Existing office space to continue until demolished, then parcel must conform with underlying zoning requirements. See also “Commercial Parking Ratio.” Retail Would allow ground floor retail. Encourages active-ground floor uses, which can be retail or retail-like. Required on ECR, consider on Park. Deed restricted retail required to get 15’ first floor height incentive. •Allows ground floor retail and encourages ground floor active uses along Park Boulevard. Requires ground floor active uses along El Camino Real. Requires ground floor retail along El Camino Real at Portage and Acacia. •Requires minimum ground floor ceiling height to be consistent with Item 2 Attachment C: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Refinements     Packet Pg. 44     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan objective design standards (Chapter 18.24) 340 Portage (Cannery) Maintains the cannery building and Ash Office Building and allows for 2 possible uses of the buildings: (1) continued use as retail and office space (2) adaptive re-use into housing (transition to housing is a long-term vision). Also permits the construction of housing on remaining portions of the parcel, specifically the two remaining surface parking lots on the property. Ash Building – Creative Arts space (see concept plan, page 180) Expanded setback needed due to creek naturalization – easements and/or acquisition needed. 65 feet for 100% affordable site at 340 Portage without retail, (to include 5 stories of residential, with one level for parking) Staff will review and return with recommendation about designation of 340 Portage Rd as a historical resource •Maintains the cannery building and Ash Office Building and allows for 2 possible uses of the buildings: (1) continued use as retail and office space (2) adaptive re-use into housing (transition to housing is a long-term vision). •Also permits the construction of housing on remaining portions of the parcel, specifically the two remaining surface parking lots on the property. •2.25-acre public park site identified •100% Affordable housing site identified adjacent to the public park site to comply with development standards for R-4, including the height limit of 65’. •Implementation measure to explore within the first-year historic designation of the cannery building and the Ash building. 395 Page Mill Rd (Cloudera) Retain office, parking garage, swale, etc. Allows multifamily housing at moderate density on remaining surface parking lot; allow internal height of 55’. Site is rezoned to high density residential. Allow height up to 65 feet. Residential Parking Ratio •1 space per bedroom, capped at 2 spaces per unit (existing requirement). •(Return to PTC to make recommendations for analysis of appropriate parking based on Fehr and Peers study and other studies, and encourage mechanisms to discourage street parking) •No parking minimums or maximums. •Implementation measure to explore TDM programs and evaluate parking management within the area. Item 2 Attachment C: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Refinements     Packet Pg. 45     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan •No parking minimums & maximums •Define strict TDM and evaluate a city initiated RPP district to protect residential parking Commercial Parking Ratio •Blended standard rate same as Downtown Palo Alto: 1 space per 250 sf. •Exempt first 1,500 sf of ground floor commercial floor area from parking requirement. •No parking minimums & maximums •Define strict TDM •No parking minimums or maximums. •Implementation measure to explore TDM programs and evaluate parking management within the area. Transportation Improvements •Follow concept plan, see attachment A (page 34) from 6/2021 council report •Evaluate removing the woonerf to decrease congestion as an option in the EIR •Plan to follow preferred plan. •EIR to evaluate woonerf impacts. Item 2 Attachment C: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Refinements     Packet Pg. 46     ATTACHMENT E – CONSISTENCY WITH NVCAP GOALS & OBJECTIVES Consistency documents can be found at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/nvcap Table 1: NVCAP Goals Goals Consistency Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. Chapter 2.2 (Land Use) Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Chapter 2.5 (Ecology and Sustainability) Chapter 3.1 (Sidewalk Zone) Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. Chapter 2.2 (Land Use) Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and Chapter 2.6 (Urban Form) Design standards and guidelines in: Chapter 3 (Public Realm), Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility), Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space), Item 2 Attachment D: Summary of Goals and Objectives Consistency     Packet Pg. 47     Goals Consistency support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Chapter 6 (Site and Building Design), Chapter 7 (Implementation) NVCAP zoning ordinance Table 2: NVCAP Objectives Objectives Consistency Data Driven Approach: Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform plan policies. •Existing Conditions Report •Matadero Creek Renaturalization Report •Strategic Economic Reports •340 Portage Ave Historic Resource Evaluation •NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and Implementation: Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area. The overall document includes graphics, color, tables organized for optimal readability. Chapter 2 (Vision), Chapter 3 (Public Realm), Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility), Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space), Chapter 6 (Site and Building Design), Chapter 7 (Implementation) Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers: Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. Chapter 2 (Vision), Chapter 7 (Implementation) Meaningful Community Engagement: Chapter 1.7 (The Community Process) Item 2 Attachment D: Summary of Goals and Objectives Consistency     Packet Pg. 48     Objectives Consistency Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the CAP document) that reflects the community’s priorities. Economic Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. Strategic Economic Reports Environmental: A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.5 (Ecology and Sustainability) Chapter 3.3 (Green Infrastructure) Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) Chapter 6.5 (Sustainable Design) Item 2 Attachment D: Summary of Goals and Objectives Consistency     Packet Pg. 49     PTC and ARB Comments on the Public Draft NVCAP ID Comment Response PTC Comments from May 31, 2023 PTC 1 Categorize office uses as neighborhood serving Included in the NVCAP Section 2.3 PTC 2 Encourage a mix of residential unit sizes Staff recommended modifications to include information encouraging a mix of residential unit sizes (Section 2.2, Page 34. See Attachment G for more details) PTC 3 Active uses: should be required, be clearer Included in the NVCAP Section 2.3 including the revised figure 32 PTC 4 Describe height transitions between high density residential/mixed use and low density residential NVCAP Section 6.1 includes building height and massing; NVCAP Zoning Ordinance has reference to Objective Standards related to daylight plane PTC 5 Clarify mobility plan for vehicles and pedestrians Included in the expanded Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility) PTC 6 Economic analysis to show shortfall No additional economic analysis was done due to budget constraints PTC 7 Describe consistency with Housing Element Staff report describes consistency between NVCAP and Housing Element ARB Comments from June 1, 2023 ARB 1 Place table captions above the table Table captions were moved above the table throughout the document. ARB 2 Encourage or require more green roofs (maybe incentivize with additional FAR) No incentive programs were considered but green roofs are encouraged in the plan area per Section 6.6.5. ARB 3 Only include essential information in the plan and refer to other documents when necessary. Example: trees. After reorganization of the document, appropriate references were added. ARB 4 2.1: Make exhibit more realistic Language added that no new or recent development constructed during preparation of NVCAP reflected in any exhibits. ARB 5 Ground floor height is 15’ too tall? Ground floor height changed to 14’ to be consistent with Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards ARB 6 Sustainable design (subcommittee of the ARB): 6.5.4 through 6.5.7. No substantial recommendations were provided to be implemented; new ordinance is underway for bird safe design. Item 2 Attachment E: NVCAP Comments from PTC and ARB and Staff Response     Packet Pg. 50     ID Comment Response ARB 7 4.6.2 :Provide examples of permeable pavement. Updated the Figure 69 in Chapter 4. ARB 8 2.5: Show more green roofs, solar panels. Tell more of a story that includes green roof and solar panels, connection with the open spaces and creek. Vertical green spaces Conceptual figures for the plan added more green roofs and solar panels but no additional changes were made to the draft zoning ordinance as the NVCAP ordinance follows existing Title 18 requirements on green roofs and open space requirements. ARB 9 Figure 42: Provide more setback from building near creek (see document for where). Noted but no changes were made to graphics. ARB 10 Figure 46 & 78: This seems inconsistent with the preferred plan and other illustrative exhibits because the creek improvement would occupy portions of these building envelopes. Shrink the building envelops to be consistent with the diagram for the creek. Figure 82 adjusted ARB 11 3.3: Consider separating out topics The comment addressed by reorganization of the document. ARB 12 3.3: These are already in the code, should refer to the code or master plan The comment addressed by reorganization of the document. ARB 13 Figure 77: Replace this exhibit with one from the Municipal Code 18.24. Replaced. ARB 14 2.4, figure 36: The legend mentions priority, secondary and tertiary streets. Is this supposed to be “primary,” etc.? Describe more what these mean. Removed legend items for priority secondary and tertiary and replaced with bike facility information. ARB 15 6.4.1: Entries must be raised above sidewalk grade. Is there any consideration for ADA compliance when we require this? Is this already in the zoning code. No changes made; ADA compliance required per building code. ARB 16 Can we encourage exploration and reuse of existing structures? For example for the audi building and ash office? Noted. No changes made. ARB 17 consider adding a FAR bonus as well to make projects more viable No incentive program added; the draft NVCAP ordinance has its own housing incentive program but only for affordable housing with extra height allowed. The Item 2 Attachment E: NVCAP Comments from PTC and ARB and Staff Response     Packet Pg. 51     ID Comment Response NVCAP already increased density and height for the plan area. ARB 18 ground floor uses packet page 85, office edges are going to want to go near retail so having office edge near residential edge may not make so much sense. No changes are needed. Limited office allowed. Office edge removed (See the updated Figure 32 in Chapter 2) ARB 19 consider having a focused retail corridor. The retail seems broken up and unconcentrated now making it less likely to be viable. Figure 32 on Ground Floor Edges in Chapter is updated to show required retail edges along El Camino Real and encouraged active edge along Park Boulevard ARB 20 bird safe building design—UV coated glass is not a preferred option No changes made. The Citywide dark sky and bird safe ordinance will supersede once adopted. ARB 21 Better way to refer to “egg-crate” design on page 159 No changes made. ARB 22 need clarifications on ground floor entries (page 110), 4 active doorways every 200 linear feet The requirement is specific to woonerf. Revised the language to specify the requirement is applicable “between park and ash” on Portage Avenue. ARB 23 Paseo between buildings—possibility to connect greenbelt to the rest of the neighborhood through paseos—would like to see birdseye view of that Figure was updated to remove paseos. Item 2 Attachment E: NVCAP Comments from PTC and ARB and Staff Response     Packet Pg. 52     Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP Updated: April 2024 Page 1 of 5 Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change Ack. Chapter 1 Text Add: “City Council” in the first paragraph Add: Former staff information into the Core Team Add: A new Senior Transportation Planner to the Core Team Corrections vii Chapter 1, Figures Text Change the title to Figure 10: “Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340 Portage Avenue Development” Correction 6 Chapter 1, Section 1.1 Text Text modification: “This planning effort was initiated by Palo Alto Initiated by the City Council to implement” Correction/refinement 10 Chapter 1, Section 1.2 Text Text modification: “… the Cloudera Galactic Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road and the newly constructed building at 3045 Park Boulevard.” Correction 15 Chapter 1, Spotlight: Palo Alto Cannery Text Text modification: “The former cannery site was initially developed in April 1918, by Thomas Foon Chew, the owner of Bayside Canning Company or affectionately known in the press at the time as "tThe aAsparagus kKing”. Correction – capitalization 34 Chapter 2, Section 2.2 Text The NVCAP land use framework is principally focused on supporting a variety of housing options, a diverse range of unit sizes and bedroom configurations, and price points to support Palo Alto residents at different stages of life. Addressing PTC comment received from a Study Session on May 31, 2023. (PTC Comment #2 in Attachment F) 36 Chapter 2, Section 2.2 Text Text modifications to the Maximum Height columns and removal of the additional notes regarding 100% affordable housing Reflecting feedback from ARB and staff on height limits. Corrections reflecting the changes to the HIP program for the NVCAP (now references to 18.14) 47 Chapter 2, Section 2.4, Table 5 Text For Park Boulevard, Bike Facility is corrected to “Buffered Separated Bike Lanes” Correction of the bike facility type for Park Boulevard 48 Chapter 2, Section 2.4 Text Text modification: “Vehicles Circulation and Parking” Correction Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 53     Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP Updated: April 2024 Page 2 of 5 Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change 74 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 Figure Corrections on the Figures 56 and 57: For both Gateway Intersections 2 and 3, the arrows illustrating the direction of bicycle travel should be flipped. Showing the correct directions of bicycle travel 75 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 Figure For Gateway Intersection 4: Lambert Avenue and Ash Street, Figure 58 should be modified as follows: - Ash Street south of Lambert (near the existing Boulware Park) is removed and become green space for the park - Add sidewalk along southside of Lambert Avenue (abutting Boulward Park) - Remove the sidewalk crossing and along the Matadero Creek along existing Ash Street Making the Gateway Intersection concept consistent with the Boulware Park and Birch Street Property Renovation Project. 75 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 Figure For Gateway Intersection 5, Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue, Figure 59 should be modified as follows: - Show separated bike lanes, not buffered. - Remove bike box Making the bike facility consistent with Chapter 2 of the NVCAP. Internal discussion identified the bike box would not be appropriate for this particular location. 76 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 Text For Gateway Intersection 5 (Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue): remove the following text: “A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf.” Internal discussion identified that the bike box would not be appropriate for this particular location. 80 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Park Boulevard) Text Add the following text: “4-4.5 Feet” to Table 7 Landscape/Furniture Zone row Internal discussion identified that the bike facilities need to be corrected to buffered bike lanes, and would need a little more than 2’ buffer shown in the section. Accommodating additional distance that may be needed for the separated bike lane. Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 54     Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP Updated: April 2024 Page 3 of 5 Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change 80 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Park Boulevard) Figure Modify Figure 60 to show separated bike lane with bollards or plants Making the bike facility consistent with Chapter 2 of the NVCAP 82 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Olive Avenue) Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row for Olive Ave Street Design between Park Boulevard and Ash Street: “Southern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet from Property Line” Text modification for Frontage/Setback row for Olive Ave Street Design between Ash Street and El Camino Real: “Northern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet from Property Line Southern Edge: 10 Feet from Property Line” Reflection changes to the zoning ordinance per ARB comments (no more than 10 feet for any street yard setback) 82 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Olive Avenue) Figure Modify Figures 61 and 62 to show setback distance from 12.5’ to 10’ Reflection changes to the zoning ordinance per ARB comments (no more than 10 feet for any street yard setback) 82 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Ash Street) Figure Flip the Figure 63 to have the shared path on the eastern edge The direction of travel for bicycles and the proposed changes to the street sections requires a change in the location of the shared path 89 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Pepper Avenue) Figure Modify Figure 66 to: - Change the distance of tree bed to 4.5’ for both side of the street - Change the distance for clear walkway to 5 feet (from a total of 9’ – 4.5’ + 3.5’) for both side of the street Minimizing interruption to the private street and making the sidewalk (clear walkway) at its minimum at 5 feet (ADA requirement). The distance for tree beds have been changed to 4.5 feet to accommodate the change. 88 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Pepper Avenue) Text Modify Table 11 to: - Change the frontage/setback to 10’ - Change the pedestrian clear zone to 5’ - Change the landscape/furniture zone to 4.5 feet for both northern/southern edge 94 Chapter 4, Text Modify Landscape/Furniture Zone row of Table 13 to 9.5 feet from 7.5 feet Correcting the landscape/furniture zone distance to ensure the total street width is 27.5 feet Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 55     Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP Updated: April 2024 Page 4 of 5 Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change Section 4.4 (Lambert Avenue) 94 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Lambert Avenue) Figure Modify Figure 70 to show the clear walkway distance to 8 feet (from 10 feet) and the tree bed distance to 9.5 feet (from 7.5 feet) Correcting distances to ensure the total street width is 27.5 feet 95 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (El Camino Real) Figure Modify Figure 71 to replace tree bed with tree grate without grass, similar to South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, Page 24 Making El Camino Real consistent with other sections 95 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (El Camino Real) Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row: Minimum 5 Feet Maximum 10 Feet 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective sidewalk width Making consistent with the current El Camino Real street yard setback and making it consistent with the proposed NVCAP zoning ordinance information 96 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Page Mill Road) Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row: Minimum 5 Feet Maximum 10 Feet 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective sidewalk width Making it consistent with the proposed NVCAP zoning ordinance information 96 Chapter 4, Section 4.4 (Page Mill Road) Figure Flip Figure 72 to have the building on the right side The street section illustration is showing the flipped image of the actual conditions (building on the right side) 102 Chapter 4, Section 4.6 Text Add the following text to 4.6.3: “No more than 10 percent of new surface parking shall be allowed within the plan area. Where new buildings are not proposed, existing surface parking spaces can remain to support remaining commercial offices.” While discouraging surface parking within the plan area, providing some flexibility 117 Chapter 6, Section 6.1 Figure The 55 feet height area on the Portage Avenue side of the block between Ash Street, Lambert Avenue, and Park Boulevard to be removed The height area with 55’ height limit is a NV-PF zone. It is reflecting the maximum height limit for 100% affordable housing projects in NV-PF zone. Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 56     Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP Updated: April 2024 Page 5 of 5 Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change 117 Chapter 6, Section 6.1 Figure Reflect the height increase: - NV-R3 to 45’ - NV-MXM to 55’ - NV-R4 and NV-MXH to 65’ Modified to accommodate the ARB feedback (which had higher height for NV-R3 and NV- MXM) but reduced to the staff recommended changes to minimize impact to the abutting low density residential areas. Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 57     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Plan: March 2024 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 58     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Acknowledgments City staff along Working Group members and consultants started working on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) in 2018. Thanks to all the Working Group members, City Council, boards and commission members, and members of the public who contributed their expertise, guidance, ideas, and feedback towards this Plan. Staff looks forward to working together on the implementation of this Plan. NVCAP WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Angela Dellaporta (Co Chair) Gail Price (Co Chair) Kirsten Flynn Terry Holzemer Heather Rosen Lund Smith Yunan Song Tim Steele Siyi Zhang Alexander Lew Keith Reckdahl Doria Summa Waldemar Kaczmarski Lakiba Pittman CORE TEAM Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services Clare Campbell Manager of Long-Range Planning, Planning and Development Services Kelly Cha Senior Planner, Project Manager, Planning and Development Services Claire Raybould Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services Chitra Moitra Planner, Planning and Development Services Sylvia Star-Lack Transportation Planning Manager, Office of Transportation Shrupath Pate Transportation Planner, Office of Transportation Charlie Coles Senior Transportation Planner, Office of Transportation Jessica Setiawan Senior Business Analyst, Planning and Development Services Rachael Tanner Assitant Director, Planning and Development Services (former) Elena Lee Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former) Sheldon S. Ah Sing Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former) SPECIAL THANKS TO SPECIAL THANKS TO The City’s North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan was made possible with funding provided by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant and private funds from Sobrato Organization. CONSULTANT AND CONTRIBUTORS Perkins & Will, Primary Consultant Arup, Mobility Strategic Economics, Economic Study BKF, Infrastructure Plan to Place, Engagement WRA, Environmental Consultants, Matadero Creek Study Page & Turnbull, Historic Preservation Consultants David J Powers and Associates, Environmental Consultants and Planners Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 59     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Figures Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa hold- ing a model of a proposed building at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, circa 1984, xii. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 3. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP Plan Area circa 1957, 4. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the Bay Area, 7. Figure 5 Matadero Creek Existing Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 6 Former Cannery Building Existing Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP Plan Area, 9. Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP, 11. Figure 9 Photographs of recent development, 12. Credit: Premier Properties, Level 10 Construction. Figure 10 Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340 Portage Avenue Development Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Credit: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull, 14. Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Credit: Page & Turnbull, 14. Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former office building. Credit: Page & Turnbull, 15. Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Credit: Our Town of Palo Alto, 15. Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association, 15. Figure 16 An illustrative example of low-cost buffered bike lanes and intersection improvements, 17. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 17 Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an example of mixed-income multi-family apartments next to a public park, 17. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 18 A breakout discussion during the NVCAP working group meeting, 19. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 19 Documenting feedback during a working group design charrette, 19. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working group meeting, 24. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 21 A sketching session and report back during the NVCAP working group meeting, 26. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 22 A presentation during a community workshop, 27. Credit: Perkins&Will CHAPTER 2: THE VISION Figure 23 The NVCAP Preferred Plan, 30. Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework, 32. Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use Development in Palo Alto, 34 Credit: Steinberg Architects Figure 26 Example of Medium Density Mixed Use Development in Palo Alto, 34. Credit: BDE Architecture Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use Development, 35 Credit: WHA Figure 28 Example of High-Density Residential Development in Palo Alto, 35 Credit: Redfin Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential Development in Palo Alto, 35. Credit: Compass Figure 30 Example of Low-Density Resident Development, 35 Credit: Google Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is located at 395 Page Mill Road, 36. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor Edges Framework, 38. Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory spaces to residential uses are considered active uses, 40. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major boulevards like El Camino Real, 41. Credit: Bruce Damonte Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and elevated to provide privacy for residents, 41. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework, 42. Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network, 44. Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle, Washington, 45. Credit: Puget Sound Business Journal Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation, 46. Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework, 47. Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle and Parking Framework, 49. Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework, 50. Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future Public park, 52. Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis Obispo, CA, 53. Credit: Food and Wine Safari Figure 45 An example of green infrastructure integrated with street furnishings, 53. Credit: AJ Landskap Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework , 54. Figure 47 Internal streets have height allowances that are conducive with missing middle housing like townhomes, 56. Credit: Perkins&Will CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM Figure 48 The Sidewalk Zone, 58. Figure 49 Bioretention, 61. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 50 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures helps mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans and wildlife, 62. Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare. Figure 51 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures helps mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans and wildlife, 63. Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare. Figure 52 Neighborhood map and directional signage are effective wayfinding tools for visitors to the NVCAP, 64. Figure 53 An example of a recent public art installa- tion, 65. Credit: Passages by Susan Zocco- la. vii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan viii Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 60     1.1 Context The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for the North Ventura neighborhood into a regulatory document that will guide the future development of the 60-acre plan area, including land use, development standards, and design guidelines. This planning effort was initiated by Palo Alto Initiated by the City Council to implement Comprehensive Plan Program L-4.10, which states the following, Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. The Plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi- family housing, ground-floor retail, a public park, creek improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed- use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. The NVCAP aligns with the Comprehensive Plan policy, however, the Plan Area focuses solely on the North Ventura neighborhood. On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 9717, authorizing the filing of an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Priority Development Area Grant for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Council expressed local support and commitment of necessary matching funds and assurance of the completion of the project. City Policies The Region The Bay Area is expected to be home to an additional 1.4 million households by 2050. It is essential that housing, transportation, and other types of land uses work together – as part of a regional growth framework – create an equitable, prosperous future for all Bay Area communities and make the best use of available resources. Priority Development Areas (PDA) are a key piece of the Bay Area’s regional growth framework. Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located within the California Avenue PDA, which was selected as a PDA based on excellent access to transit, the proximity of the existing California Avenue Business District, and the availability of underutilized parcels of land. Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the Bay Area Palo Alto Growth Projections According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the total population is projected to grow to 82,835 people by 2030 and 86,510 people by 2040. Historically, the number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of new homes in Palo Alto increased 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Santa Clara County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. At the same time, Palo Alto’s population increased 6 percent. Table 1 Historical Population and Growth in Palo Alto, 1980 - 2040 Sources: U.S. Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, California Department of Finance 2021 and ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections * Projections Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7: Use coordinated area plan to guide development Comprehensive Plan (Program L-4.10.1): Prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted a Resolution expressing local support and commitment for the preparation of the NVCAP. Year Population Numerical Change Percent Change 1980 55,225 741 1% 1990 55,900 675 1% 2000 58,598 2,698 5% 2010 64,403 5,805 10% 2020 68,145 3,254 6% 2030*82,835*15,178*22%* 2040*86,510*3,675*4%* California Avenue PDA IN T R O D U C T I O N 6 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 7 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 61     Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP ROLM GM GM GM CS CS CS CS R-1 R-1 RM-30 RM-30 RM-30 PC Land Use and Zoning The North Ventura neighborhood is already made up of a mix of multi-family and single- family residential, office, service, and retail uses. Service commercial uses are concentrated along El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the southern segment of Portage Avenue. Additionally, office uses are located primarily along Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, the most notable anchors being the Cloudera Galactic Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road and the newly constructed building at 3045 Park Boulevard. About 70% of residential units in North Ventura are single-family detached homes, most built before 1950. Single-family homes occupy about 10 percent of the Plan Area and are generally found along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. The Park Plaza Apartments is the most notable multi-family residential development within the Plan Area, situated at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. 1.2 Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Map Designation District Name R-1 Single-family residence district RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district CS Service commercial district ROLM Research, office and limited manufacturing district GM General manufacturing district CN Neighborhood commercial district PC Planned community district IN T R O D U C T I O N 10 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 11 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 62     Spotlight: Palo Alto Cannery Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 38 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1972 Bemiss & Jason Corp, shipping, receiving, paper products manufacturing 300 Portage Avenue 1962 Tubes & Cores Inc, paper products 1976 Ceilcote Company Inc, distribution office 303 Portage Avenue 1961-1965 Advance Transformer Co 1961-1976 James R W Packaging, packing, crating, and shipping 340 Portage Avenue 1985 Basket Galleria, Inc. ca. 1990-Present Fry’s Electronics 370 Portage Avenue 2002-2004 Lyncean Technologies 380 Portage Avenue 2006 Danger, Inc. 2016 – Present: Playground Global, technology Select Owner and Occupant Biographies The following biographies have been researched for longer-term owners and occupants. Thomas Foon Chew (1887-1931) and the Bayside Canning Company (1918-1936) Thomas Foon Chew was born in China around 1887, likely in the Loong Kai District of Guangdong Province, and became one of the richest and most influential Chinese- Americans in California. His father, Sai Yen Chew, emigrated to San Francisco when Thomas was a child, where he founded a small canning operation, Precinta Canning, around 1890. According to family members, Chew brought his son, Thomas, from China to San Francisco sometime around 1897, where he gained his first introduction to the canning business. Precinta Canning was located near Broadway and Sansome in San Francisco’s old Chinatown. The small cannery was equipped with a single 40- Figure 76: Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto. https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/histor y-of-mayfields-chinatown/ Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. The southeast corner of the parcel contains a one-story wood frame building. The building, located on Ash Street next the former cannery building, is used as an office. The building appears to have been initially built as a dormitory for the cannery employees sometime between 1918 and 1925 and was moved to its current location in 1940. The building features a front-gabled roof, wraparound porch with a shed roof, and wood lap siding. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 23. The loading platform or cooling porch converted into a patio with replacement aluminum frame garage door window. View northeast. Figure 24. Rooftop parapet and small gabled roof in middle section of northwest façade. View northeast. Figure 25. Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Figure 26. Close-up of the gabled and flat- roofed additions. View northeast. Figure 27. A portion of the concrete loading platform or cooling porch with its shed awning and wood post-and-beam supports in the middle section of the northwest façade. View northeast. Figure 28. Outlines of shallow gabled roofs are visible along the concrete platform. View southeast. Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Source: Page & Turnbull Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 57. A portion of the southwest façade of the former office building. View northeast. Figure 58. The rear portion of the southwest façade of the former office building. View northwest. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The subject property is located in the Ventura neighborhood, which is surrounded by the Evergreen Park, St. Claire Gardens, Charleston Meadow, Barron Park, Neal, and College Terrace neighborhoods in Palo Alto. The immediate surroundings of the subject property consist of office and commercial buildings, several of which appear to have been influenced by the industrial architecture of the property at 340 Portage Avenue, and parking lots associated with these properties (Figure 59 to Figure 62). Single-family residential buildings along Olive Avenue border the subject property to the west (Figure 63). Figure 59. A neighboring property on Park Boulevard to the east of Matadero Creek. View southeast. Figure 60. An office building at 3101 Park Boulevard. View northeast. The former cannery site was initially developed in April 1918, by Thomas Foon Chew, the owner of Bayside Canning Company or affectionately known in the press at the time as “The Asparagus King”. This was intended to be Mr. Chew’s second cannery; the first cannery was built nearby in Alviso, California. The Palo Alto cannery was strategically located alongside a railroad spur of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Los Gatos branch, which facilitated shipments, and Matadero Creek for a ready water supply. The cannery was expanded over the next several decades. The site operated as the Bay Side Cannery and then as the Sutter Packing Company in 1929. The cannery continued to grow through World War II and was closed in 1949. Although the building has undergone some exterior alterations throughout the expansion, aerial photos show that from 1965, the building continues to have the same shape and general form as now. Following the closure of the cannery, the site has been occupied by an anchor retailer Maximart and other retail and office uses. The next significant and largest tenant, Fry’s Electronics, continued to occupy the site until the end of 2019. Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former office building. Source: Page & Turnbull Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto. Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association 1.2 IN T R O D U C T I O N Some of the most distinctive features include the monitor roofs, capped with composition shingles and clad with corrugated metal, wood clerestory ribbon windows and wire glass skylights. At the heart of the NVCAP is the 12.5- acre 340 Portage Avenue property. What appears to be one large building on the parcel is composed of approximately ten buildings that were constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949. The building is surrounded by a narrow parking lot to the north and a larger parking lot to the south bounded by Matadero Creek. The rectangular former cannery building features walls that are concrete, corrugated metal or wood siding, with a variety of roof shapes. 14 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 15 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 63     2.2 Residential The NVCAP land use framework is principally focused on supporting a variety of housing options, a diverse range of unit sizes and bedroom configurations, and price points to support Palo Alto residents at different stages of life. Residential density will depend on its location within the Plan Area. For example, mixed use midrise development will be encouraged along commercial corridors whereas townhomes will be encouraged adjacent to existing residential development. The land use designations listed below are calibrated for a wide range of multi-family housing typologies: High-Density Mixed Use The high-density mixed-use designation is located along the southern segment of El Camino Real. The designation is intended to support five- to six-story mid-rise apartment buildings. This designation requires active uses for ground floor frontages with retail requirements at specific nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as a regional commercial corridor. The designation requires that upper stories be residential. Medium-Density Mixed Use The medium-density mixed-use designation is located on the northern segment of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The designation is intended to support four- to five-story mid-rise apartment buildings. This designation requires active uses for ground floor frontages with retail requirements at specific nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as a regional commercial corridor. The designation requires that upper stories be residential. Project Goals Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multi- family housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed-use, transit- accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. Low-Density Mixed Use The low-density mixed-use designation serves as a transition between the high-density mixed- use area and the low-density residential areas located in the interior of the plan area. The designation area is also located along Ash Street and Portage Avenue, to support mid- to-low-rise multi-family development near the proposed public park. Active ground floor uses are encouraged but not required. Residential is required on the upper floors. High-Density Residential The high-density residential designation is located on the large 395 Page Mill Road site and is targed towards development on the surface parking lots. Medium-Density Residential The medium-density residential designation is located at the 340 Portage Avenue site to support the long-term goal of supporting additional housing in the plan area. The designation requires that both the ground floor and upper floors are residential use. The designation is intended to support a mix of townhouses and mid-rise apartments. Allowable heights are calibrated to support sensitive structures such as the Cannery building. Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto Figure 26 Example of Medium-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto Figure 28 Example of High Density Residential in Palo Alto Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential in Palo Alto Low-Density Residential The low-density residential designation is calibrated to both facilitate new housing development while also being sensitive to the existing single-family neighborhood fabric - located along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. This area of existing single-family homes has been designated as an area of stability and will not experience a significant degree of change. Figure 30 Example of Low Density Residential in Palo Alto TH E V I S I O N 34 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 35 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 64     Street From To Bike Facility El Camino Real Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Separated and/or Buffered Bike Lane along segment Ash Street Page Mill Road Olive Avenue Shared Use Path Acacia Avenue Lambert Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Park Boulevard Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Buffered Separated Bike Lanes Page Mill Road El Camino Real Park Boulevard Separated or Buffered Bike Lanes Olive Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard with Wide Sidewalks Portage Avenue El Camino Real Ash Street Shared Use Path or Bicycle Boulevard Ash Street Park Boulevard Woonerf or Shared Use Path Bike Network The NVCAP will feature a high-quality, “low- stress” bikeway network that will be comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to use. The proposed network will be integrated into the citywide network to ensure safe, convenient connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. This will be achieved by selecting bicycle facilities that prioritize safety and comfort based on vehicle speeds and volumes, and with intersections that have appropriate bike-specific crossing treatments and traffic control. Wayfinding signage and ample bicycle parking are also integral elements of the network. The bicycle network will support a range of users, including the future integration of scooters, e-bikes, and other micromobility devices. The low-stress bike network will include separated bicycle lanes on busier streets, bicycle boulevards on calmer neighborhood streets, and well-designed intersections throughout the project Plan. Shared-Use Paths are off-street, two-way bikeways physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by people bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized users. Separated Bike Lanes are dedicated bikeways that combine the user experience of a multi- use path but are located on a street. They are physically distinct from the sidewalk and separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical objects such as parked vehicles, a curb, green stormwater infrastructure, or posts. 2.4 Buffered Bike Lanes provide dedicated on-street space for bicyclists delineated with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. Bicycle Boulevards are streets with low vehicle volumes and speeds, designated and designed to prioritize bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage vehicle cut-through trips and include safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterials. The 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan includes a potential future grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Caltrain/ Alma Street, either near Matadero Creek/ Park Boulevard or between Margarita and Loma Verde Avenues. This project is outside of the NVCAP boundary but will close the gap between existing crossings and greatly improve east-west connectivity in conjunction with other improvements. Gateway Intersections The intersections surrounding the Plan Area will be enhanced to improve access, safety, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This is particularly important for pedestrian and bicycle safety, as the current intersections’ designs largely prioritize vehicular speed and access. New design guidance and signal technology advancements offer options for improved intersection interactions between people walking, biking, and driving. In particular, intersections on the bicycle network with a high potential for conflicts between bicycles and vehicles must be designed thoughtfully. Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework Table 5 Bicycle Facility Classifications TH E V I S I O N Separated Bike Lane Publicly Accessible Shared Paths on Private Property Woonerf Bike Boulevard External Bike Connections Project Boundary Legend Shared Paths 46 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 47 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 65     2.4 Transit The success of transit is strongly dependent upon the level of convenience that is offered to the patron. Currently, the North Ventura neighborhood contains two transit stops: a mid- block stop located at El Camino Real and Portage Avenue and a far-side stop located at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The mobility framework focuses on designing intuitive, accessible, and safe routes to transit through priority pedestrian and bike streets, wayfinding signage to navigate to Caltrain, enhanced bus stop amenities for passengers, and a mobility hub along Portage Avenue. Vehicles Circulation and Parking The mobility framework serves the needs of existing and future development with vehicle and parking strategies aimed to prioritize local circulation and access, encourage low speeds, and determine right-sized parking capacity. To support local access and mitigate cut-through traffic, the Plan proposes to convert Ash Street from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue into a one- way southbound street. Olive Avenue from Ash Street to El Camino Real will remain a two-way street. Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage Avenue is permitted but should be discouraged. Vehicle circulation in this area will be primarily for access to buildings located on the woonerf. Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard will be a private aisle for accessing residential frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and unloading. In compliance with AB-2097, no parking minimums are to be set as the neighborhood is near a Caltrain Station. However, there will also be no parking maximums, allowing the neighborhood to follow a market-based regulatory approach. No new surface parking is proposed, and new parking supply should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of new buildings. Where new buildings are not proposed, existing surface parking spaces are to remain to support remaining commercial offices. Street parking is to remain in front of single-family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive Spotlight: Mobility Hub Mobility hubs are places in a community that bring together public transit, bike share, car share and other sustainable transportation modes. The MTC Mobility Hub Program has identified the North Ventura neighborhood as a candidate for a mobility hub. This neighborhood’s proximity to the proposed public park, the California Avenue Caltrain Station, and bus stops on El Camino Real provides important connections to regional transit and micromobility pathways. The neighborhood mobility hub is proposed at the intersection of Portage Avenue and El Camino Real. This location is ideal given its proximity to varying active frontage uses as well as the proposed woonerf. Proposed amenities could include: • Transit shelters and waiting areas. • Bicycle parking facilities. • Shared mobility (bike share, scooter share, etc.) access points. • Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. • Designated parking for car share services. • Real-time travel information signage and interactive displays. • Area maps and bulletins promoting local amenities and events. • Monitoring systems to measure ridership, mobility, security, and public life metrics. • Digital and physical wayfinding tools. Avenue, with no new street parking proposed along new developments. Street parking near intersections should be restricted to ensure large vehicles and emergency vehicles are able to safely make turns. To support the new ground-floor retail and active use frontage in new buildings, short-term parking should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of the new developments. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). An effective TDM Plan ensures that alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms of shared mobility, are made available to site occupants and nearby community members. TDM enhancements have additional benefits beyond reducing SOV trips, including: •Improving the environment by reducing traffic congestion and air quality impacts produced by new development. •Improving transportation circulation and safety conditions for community members. •Quality of life enhancements that improve the public realm. Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle Movement and Parking Framework Major Intersection Improvements Minor Intersection Improvements Traffic Signals Project Boundary Vehicular Movement Vehicular Street on Private Property Surface Parking Vehicular Street Legend TH E V I S I O N 48 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 49 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 66     ST R E E T S Gateway Intersection 4: Lambert Avenue and Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines would be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. The segment of Ash Street adjacent to Boulware Park is being removed and will become a part of the park. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 9 4. Lambert Avenue/Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines will be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. 5. Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection will be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. Figure 58 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Matadero Creek Legend Gateway Intersection 5: Park Boul vard and Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection would be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 9 4. Lambert Avenue/Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines will be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. 5. Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection will be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. Figure 59 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend 76 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 77 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 67     Street Sections Park Boulevard Park Boulevard is a priority north-south bicycle and pedestrian street that connects the NVCAP Plan Area to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and terminates at the California Avenue Business District. The street emphasizes multi- modal transportation with wide pedestrian sidewalks, bi-directional buffered bike lanes, and a two-way flow of vehicles is maintained. Park Boulevard is designated as a citywide pollinator pathway, the design of the street prioritizes a connected canopy of trees and a lush, landscaped streetscape to support the health and comfort of both people and wildlife. Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 10’2’59’10’5’8’20’4.5’2’5’4.5’8’5’ Clear Walkway Bike Lane Drive Lane Bike LaneDrive Lane Clear Walkway Tree Bed Tree BedBu f f e r Bu f f e r Setback ST R E E T S Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Park Boulevard. Frontage / Setback Western Edge: 20 Feet from Property Line Eastern Edge: 5 Feet from Property Line Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 4-4.5 Feet Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered Bike Lanes 5 Feet Bike Lane 2-3 Feet Buffer Parking / Loading No On-Street Parking Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet One Lane in Each Direction 4.4.1 Street Design Guidelines: 4.4.2 Widen the Pedestrian Throughway Streetscape elements should include: •Street trees that can create a connective canopy at full maturity •Lighting and wayfinding that provides a neighborhood branding/identity opportunity •Seating/rest areas for residents and commuters •Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the setbacks, landscape/furniture zone, and if space allows, the separated buffered bike lane. Standards: Figure 60 Typical Park Boulevard Section Table 7 Park Boulevard Street Design western edge eastern edge 4.4 The following street sections, which include street design standards and guidelines, are intended to illustrate the long term vision of the NVCAP mobility network. The design of the new streets will be built out over time. 80 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 81 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 68     Olive Avenue Olive Avenue is a priority east-west pedestrian and bicycle street that creates a direct link between the commercial activity on El Camino Real with the multi-modal mobility on Park Boulevard. Olive Avenue has two distinct street designs: Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, the street is configured to accommodate comfortable sidewalks and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Due to the low traffic volumes and speeds on Olive Avenue, the street is designated as a bicycle boulevard which allows cyclists to ride with traffic. The setback on the northern edge of the street is 20 feet to protect the existing green stormwater infrastructure along the 395 Page Mill Road property. Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 59’ 20’8’8’12.5’ On-Street ParkingDrive Lane 10’ Clear Walkway Olive Avenue (Between Park and Ash, Looking towards East) Drive Lane 10’ Existing Bio Retention SetbackTree Bed 4’8’8’ Tree Bed 3’ On-Street Parking Clear Walkway Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 8’12.5’8’10’ Clear Walkway Olive Avenue (Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East) 8’ SetbackSetback 59’ 8’ On-Street ParkingDrive Lane 10’ Drive Lane 10’ Tree Bed 4’ Tree Bed 3’ On-Street Parking Clear Walkway 1 2 ST R E E T S Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or Ash Street. Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: 20 Feet (Existing Bioswale) Southern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet from Property Line Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 3 Feet Southern Edge: 4 Feet Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that are abutting El Camino Real or Ash Street. Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet from Property Line Southern Edge: 10 Feet from Property Line Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 3 Feet Southern Edge: 4 Feet Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction 4.4.3 Street Design Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Between Ash Street and El Camino Real12 Standards: Figure 61 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Figure 62 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real 1 2 Table 8 Olive Avenue Street Design northern edge southern edge Between Ash Street and El Camino Real, the street remains a two-way street. Due to the low traffic volumes and speeds on Olive Avenue, the street is designated as a bicycle boulevard which allows cyclists to ride with traffic. The on-street parking on both sides of the street is maintained. northern edge southern edge 82 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 83 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 69     Pepper Avenue Pepper Avenue is a slow residential street, extending from El Camino Real to Ash Street. The street design supports existing residents with wide, tree-lined sidewalks and two-way traffic lanes. On-street parking is maintained on either side. Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 55’ 10’4.5’8’ Clear Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed 12.5’ Setback On-Street Parking Pepper Ave(Looking towards East) 5’3.5’10’4.5’8’ Clear Walkway Drive Lane Tree Bed 12.5’ SetbackOn-Street Parking 5’3.5’ ST R E E T S Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Pepper Avenue except for properties that are abutting Ash Street. Frontage / Setback Minimum 3.5 Feet Maximum 12.5 Feet from Property Line Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 5 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 4.5 Feet Southern Edge: 4.5 Feet Bicycle Facility n/a Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction 4.4.6 Street Design Standards: Between Ash Street and El Camino Real Figure 66 Typical Pepper Avenue Section Table 11 Pepper Avenue Street Design northern edge southern edge 88 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 89 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 70     Lambert Avenue Lambert Avenue is the southern edge of the plan area. Lambert Avenue is improved on the northern half of the existing street to enhance the pedestrian experience along the edge of the NVCAP site boundary. The existing vehicular travel lane is narrowed, and on-street parking is eliminated to make space for a wider pedestrian thoroughfare and generous furnishing zone for enhanced bio-retention area and dense canopy trees. El Camino Real El Camino Real is a regional arterial street as well as the western edge of the plan area. El Camino Real is improved on the eastern half of the existing street. New development is required to setback by 5 feet in order to provide a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian experience. The configuration of the roadway will be determined in coordination with Caltrans independently of the NVCAP. Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Rig h t o f W a y C e n t e r l i n e Setback 10’7.5’10’ Clear Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed Lambert St. (Looking towards East) 27.5 3’20’ Shared Path Planter Bed 26’ 3’ Planter Bed Publically Accessible Private Streets Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 10’16’ Shared Path Green Setback 5’ 22’ Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed El Camino Real (Looking towards South) 12’8’ Clear Walkway 5’ Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed Page Mill Rd (Looking towards West 12’8’ Clear Walkway 5’ ST R E E T S Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Lambert Avenue except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or El Camino Real. Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 79.5 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes Westbound Lane 10 Feet 4.4.9 Street Design Standards: Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1 Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on El Camino Real. Frontage / Setback Minimum 5 Feet Maximum 10 Feet 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective sidewalk width Pedestrian Clear Zone Eastern Edge: 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Eastern Edge: 4 Feet 4.4.10 Street Design Standards: Between Page Mill Road and Lambert Avenue1 Figure 70 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Section Figure 71 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Section Table 13 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design Table 14 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design 94 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 95 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 71     Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed El Camino Real (Looking towards South) 12’8’ Clear Walkway 5’ Exis t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed Page Mill Rd (Looking towards West 12’8’ Clear Walkway 5’ East West No r t h So u t h Park Boul e v a r d Ash Stree t Ash Street Oliv e A v e n u e Aca c i a A v e n u e Por t a g e A v e n u e Pep p e r A v e n u e El Camin o R e a l Pag e M i l l R o a d Page Mill Road Page Mill Road is one of arterial streets in the City as well as the northern edge of the plan area. Page Mill Road is improved on the southern half of the existing street to enhance the pedestrian experience along the edge of the NVCAP Plan Area boundary. New development will provide a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian experience. In order to provide a consistent width, the setback for new development will vary based on existing site conditions. The configuration of the roadway will be determined in coordination with Santa Clara County. Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Page Mill road except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or El Camino Real. Frontage / Setback Southern Edge: Minimum 5 Feet 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective sidewalk width Pedestrian Clear Zone Southern Edge: 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Southern Edge: 4 Feet 4.4.11 Street Design Standards: Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1 Figure 72 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Section Table 15 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design ST R E E T S This page is intentionally left blank 96 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 97 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 72     TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). An effective TDM plan ensures that alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms of shared mobility, are made available to site occupants and nearby community members. While reducing SOV trips is a key goal, TDM enhancements offer additional benefits like environmental improvements, safer streets, and a more enjoyable public realm. Beyond local planning alignment, regulations like BAAQMD Rule 1 and SB 743 mandate TDM plans for specific developments. NVCAP’s TDM plan should comply with the City’s VMT regulations and program recommendations, and utilize standard metrics like those from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for evaluation and VMT calculations. Standards: 4.7.1 VMT Reduction All employers and major residential developments within the plan area shall achieve a 30 percent minimum reduction below ITE rates in peak hour motor vehicle trips, using the Example TDM Strategies Menu in Table 21. 4.72 Palo Alto Transportation Management Association All employers and major residential developments within the plan area shall be members of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). MO B I L I T Y Transportation Demand Management 4.7 Vehicular Circulation and Parking The North Ventura Mobility Framework aims to create a vibrant and sustainable neighborhood by prioritizing local traffic circulation, discouraging cut-through traffic, and providing diverse and efficient parking solutions. This framework balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through a combination of street design strategies, parking regulations, and innovative solutions like woonerfs and private access aisles. Standards: 4.6.1 One-Way Street Ash Street from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue shall be one-way southbound to help prevent northbound traffic on El Camino Real from using the neighborhood as a cut-through to travel eastbound on Page Mill Road. 4.6.2 Minimum Parking No minimum parking requirements shall be established for the plan area in accordance with California Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097). 4.6.3 Surface Parking No more than 10 percent of new surface parking shall be allowed within the plan area. Where new buildings are not proposed, existing surface parking spaces can remain to support remaining commercial offices. 4.6.4 Street Parking No new street parking shall be constructed along new developments. In addition, street parking shall be restricted near intersections to ensure safe turning movements for large vehicles and emergency vehicles. Street parking shall be maintained in front of single-family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. Guidelines: 4.6.5 Traffic Calming As a traffic calming measures, the following strategies are recomended: •Olive and Lambert Avenues: speed humps and raised crosswalks to maintain low vehicle speeds •Pepper Avenue: A chicane, which is an offset curve to the road •Portage Avenue woonerf: Vehicle entrances should be only wide enough to accommodate one vehicle at a time. Trees or landscaping is recommended to create this bottleneck to restrict the flow of vehicles. 4.6.6 Vehicles on Woonerf Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage Avenue should be permitted but discouraged. Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard will be a private aisle for accessing residential frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and unloading. 4.6.7 Short-Term Parking Short-term parking to support new ground-floor retail and active uses in new developments should be located on the ground or basement levels of these developments. 4.6.8 Parking Management Strategies In addition, the following parking management strategies could be implemented to mitigate parking impacts: •Parking time limits •Unbundled Parking •Shared parking locations •Carshare memberships and designated parking spots 4.6.9 Driveways Driveways should be located along side-streets and/or consolidated wherever possible and as redevelopment occurs to minimize conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians 4.6 102 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 103 Item 2 Attachment F: Staff recommended modifications to NVCAP     Packet Pg. 73     Commenter: Cedric (via Zoom) Hello, good early afternoon. Thanks to the staff for working on this plan and thanks to the ARB for your prior comments. I was happy to see that in your comments there was a lot of support and encouragement for rooftop gardens, as well as good access to the to the creek, the renaturalized creek. I'm really looking forward to that creek being renaturalized to a hundred-foot channel that would allow the maximum winding of the creek. I hope that the zoning areas and stuff will be preventing or dissuading any development through the area that the creek would expand into, so that we don't block the ability to widen the creek. I saw that in the comments that there were desires to incentivize more rooftop gardens and I saw that they're kind of supported by the green building standards, but not necessarily incentivized. I wonder if there’s additional ways to incentivize them. And I guess this will come later when we actually go to design the naturalization of the creek. My understanding is, from the past, from the prior, feasibility study that, there is a plume of ground pollution and so there would be, underneath the naturalized creek, some sort of impermeable barrier to prevent those pollutants from spreading into the creek. And I wonder if there's some way to actually fix up that ground pollution so that the creek can have full contact with the Earth. There's a lot of information out now or you know, I don't know how new this information is, but basically underneath every creek and river there's a underground parallel river that helps to support the life of the creek in the soil, and I forget the exactly the details, but I think it was like 1 h of water moving through the ground-based creek would remove like 90% of pollutants from about 78% of the types of pollutants. So it's really valuable for cleaning our waters and promoting a healthy ecosystem. So hopefully we'll find a way to clean up that pollution and get the creek fully in contact with the earth. Thank you. Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 74     “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov April 22, 2024 SCH #: 2023020691 GTS #: 04-SCL-2023-01266 GTS ID: 29299 Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/82/24.037 Kelly Cha, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan ─ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Kelly Cha: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the March 2024 DEIR. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purpose only. Project Understanding The proposed project will adopt land use policies and programs that would allow for additional 530 residential units and would incorporate two acres of new public open space within the North Ventura Coordinated Area. Residential densities would range from low to high. The plan would additionally result in a net reduction of up to 278,000 square feet of office space and up to 7,500 square feet of retail space. The project site is located at the intersection State Route (SR)-82 and Page Mill Rd in Palo Alto and is approximately 60 acres with three proposed intersection improvement sites located within Caltrans’ Right of Way (ROW). Travel Demand Analysis With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 75     Kelly Cha, Senior Planner April 22, 2024 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link). The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City of Palo Alto VMT policy. Per DEIR, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact. However, since the additional trips generated from this project would impact several intersections along El Camino Real within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, we request an in-depth traffic safety impact analysis including Intersection Safety Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP). Fair Share Contributions As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. The DEIR has identified that the additional trips generated from this project could have an adverse effect on the operation of three Caltrans intersections under horizon plus project conditions. Please consider the following Projects for fair share contributions to mitigate the impact of this project to the State Transportation Network: • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Plan Bay Area 2050: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modernization with SamTrans on El Camino Real (RTP ID 21-T10-078). This program includes funding to implement BRT improvements to existing bus service along El Camino Real from Daly City Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Palo Alto Caltrain Station. Improvements include frequency upgrades (15- minute peak headways), dedicated lanes (45% of route), transit priority infrastructure and transit signal priority. • Active transportation projects in support of building a multimodal transportation system to accommodate users of all ages and abilities: o Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan: Class IV separated buffered bike lanes on El Camino Real from Sand Hill Rd to San Antonio Rd. Hydrology There would be significant impact from storm runoff due to proposed development. Please ensure that any increase in storm water runoff from the development do not encroach on Caltrans’ ROW but be efficiently intercepted by drainage inlets. The existing storm drain system in Caltrans’ ROW might need to be upgraded in size to allow increased runoff. A detailed Drainage report will be required to be submitted to our office for review and approval. Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 76     Kelly Cha, Senior Planner April 22, 2024 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Freight SR-82 is identified as a Terminal Access Route by the Freight Network Designation. Lane widths and turning movements should be considered during development. Construction-Related Impacts Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the STN. Encroachment Permit This project would result in a significant increase in usage for El Camino Real. Please identify whether any projects will be required on SR-82 in the immediate vicinity as a result of this area plan to accommodate the residential and mixed use. In the event of such projects, please provide information if there would be dedications for additional ROW required as a condition of future development. Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. The checklist TR-0416 (link) is used to determine the appropriate Caltrans review process for encroachment projects. The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit application package. To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). Your application package may be emailed to D4Permits@dot.ca.gov. Equity We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel. Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 77     Kelly Cha, Senior Planner April 22, 2024 Page 4 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities. If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users. Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Transportation Planner, via LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, YUNSHENG LUO Branch Chief, Local Development Review Office of Regional and Community Planning c: State Clearinghouse Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     April 22, 2024 City of Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Kelly Cha, Senior Planner By Email: nvcap@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Kelly, VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) and its Draft Supplemental EIR. VTA has reviewed the documents and has the following comments. Countywide Plans The Draft NVCAP and its Draft Supplemental EIR should include relevant countywide plans with the listed local, regional, and state plans. VTA recommends including VTA’s Visionary Network and Bike Superhighway Implementation Plan and specifically recommends highlighting El Camino Real’s improvements identified in the two plans. Caltrain Crossing VTA recommends exploring adding a bicycle and pedestrian crossing across the Caltrain tracks within the plan’s area. Currently, there is no crossing along the plan’s frontage. With the plan’s increased density, the lack of crossing may cause more users to trespass onto the tracks and thereby increase the risk of incidents. Transportation Mitigation Measures VTA would like more information on the TRANS-1b Mitigation Measures: “Fees collected would be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic congestion” (page vii). If Transit Signal Priority (TSP) improvements are applicable to this mitigation measure area, VTA recommends including a fair share contribution to upgrade the traffic signal controller cabinets on El Camino Real to comply with VTA’s Enhance Traffic Signal Controller guidance document (see attached). The existing equipment in the traffic signal controller cabinets is reaching its end of useful life and the traffic signal controllers do not have the capabilities to work with more modern forms of TSP. Future Coordination VTA appreciates the multimodal transportation improvement and connections to Caltrain and VTA identified in the plan. VTA would like to review future development applications. Please send applications to plan.review@vta.org. Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     City of Palo Alto April 22, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Thank you again for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-321-5804 or larissa.sanderfer@vta.org. Sincerely, Larissa Sanderfer Transportation Planner II PA2401 Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     From:Cha, Kelly To:Natalie Noyes Cc:Raybould, Claire Subject:Fw: VW File 33840 - NVCAP SEIR Review at Matadero Creek Date:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 8:07:24 AM Attachments:image001.pngOutlook-xppccy5s.png Forwarding 3 of 3 KELLY CHA Senior PlannerPlanning and Development Department(650) 329-2155 | kelly.cha@cityofpaloalto.orghttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/0a79fb1c/8pMnObfe90eBGV0as8meoA? u=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ From: Gennifer Wehrmeyer <GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 4:59 PM To: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan <NVCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shree Dharasker <sdharasker@valleywater.org>; Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; CPRU-Dropbox <CPRU@valleywater.org> Subject: VW File 33840 - NVCAP SEIR Review at Matadero Creek CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Kelly Cha, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) to plan for a walkable, mixed- use neighborhood on approximately 60 acres roughly bounded by Page Mill Rd, El Camino Real, Lambert Ave, and the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto, received on March 8, 2024. Based on our review Valley Water has the following comments on the SEIR and NVCAP plans: SEIR COMMENTS 1. The NVCAP will impact Valley Water facilities. Valley Water currently has easement,exclusive easement, and fee title property within the project area along Matadero Creek,as seen in the deeds linked here:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/96c3194b/K2t1q2gA0kKhEdFAJKBNZA? u=https://fta.valleywater.org/fl/aFJnDlpWvc. Please submit plans showing the proposedwork in greater detail on or adjacent to Valley Water right of way. In accordance withValley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance (WRPO), any construction activity within or adjacent to Valley Water property will need an encroachment permit. A copy of the encroachment permit application can be found here:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/54803bf0/zhYcv18m4UeWZzeSg9W1KA?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the- district/permits-working-district-land-or-easement/encroachment-permits. Valley Water encroachment permits are discretionary actions, and therefore, Valley Water is a Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     responsible agency under CEQA. 2. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) should not be referred to as “District”throughout the SEIR. While the official name of the agency remains Santa Clara Valley Water District, Valley Water has been used as a moniker since 2019. Please replace “District” with “Valley Water” on pages 142 and 143. 3. SEIR Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-6, pages 33 through 36, and NVCAP plan Figures 36 and42, pages 43 and 51, depict the removal of Matadero channel improvements, including the removal of Valley Water’s maintenance path and concrete channel lining, and replacement with a widened channel section with a riparian corridor, pedestrian paths,and a pedestrian bridge over Valley Water fee title property and easement. At a minimum, proposals to naturalize the Matadero Creek flood protection facilitymust not: increase our costs to maintain the facility; reduce maintenance access;reduce the level of flood protection currently provided by the channel; and createchannel instability. Additionally, proposals must: include a net benefit to Valley Water (including thereservation of lands in Valley Water fee title for the Valley Water’s use in fulfilling futuremitigation planting requirements for its stream maintenance program); providesufficient additional right of way to Valley Water to operate and maintain the modifiedfacility (including all areas required to contain the same level of flood protectioncurrently afforded); include regulatory permitting; provide appropriate mitigation (thatdo not include use of Valley Water right of way for mitigation planting); and be ageomorphic, stable channel that will not increase erosion or sediment deposition orincrease the potential for damage to or failure of the adjacent concrete channel lining,up or downstream of the proposed naturalization. Once a proposal is provided to Valley Water for review, we will be able to providecomments. Valley Water expects adjacent landowners to provide right of way toaccommodate any desired recreational facilities and amenities that are not conduciveto sharing space with a maintenance road. 4. SEIR page 149, “Hydrology and Water Quality”, and page 204, “Storm Drain System”,states that the creation of Matadero Park and naturalization of Matadero Creek throughthe establishment of a 100-foot riparian buffer will result in a net reduction of impervious surfaces, and that this net decrease in impervious surfaces will result in a corresponding decrease in stormwater runoff. It is not clear if the determination of “lessthan significant impact” regarding impacts related to drainage relies on the proposednaturalization of Matadero Creek. Since this work is not proposed as a part of the NVCAP, naturalization of Matadero Creek should not be considered in the impact analysis for drainage and this discussion should be revised for accuracy and clarity. 5. SEIR page 24, Section 2.3.9, “Naturalization of Matadero Creek”, discusses the removalof Lambert Avenue Bridge and replacement with a new 100-foot clear-span bridge. Since the section of Matadero Creek at Lambert Avenue is not proposed for naturalization, the need for the bridge replacement as a part of the naturalization work is Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     unclear. Any plans for replacement of Lambert Ave Bridge should be submitted to ValleyWater once available for review and comment. 6. Valley Water has an exclusive easement reserved for flood control purposes on APN 132-38-011, which would restrict the ability of the City of Palo Alto (City) to obtain a trail easement over this portion of the Matadero Creek maintenance road without ValleyWater relinquishing the exclusivity of its easement. Further discussions will be neededbetween Valley Water and the City if the City wishes to pursue access through this easement. 7. Please modify the “Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance”section on SEIR page 156 to include the following statement in its entirety: Valley Water operates as a flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. ValleyWater also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplierthroughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. Inaccordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any workwithin Valley Water’s fee title right of way or easement or work that impacts ValleyWater’s facilities requires the issuance of a Valley Water permit. Under Valley Water’sWell Ordinance 90-1, permits are required for any boring, drilling, deepening,refurbishing, or destroying of a water well, cathodic protection well, observation well,monitoring well, exploratory boring (45 feet or deeper), or other deep excavation thatintersects with the groundwater aquifers of Santa Clara County. 8. Please submit plans for any proposed underground structures or dewatering plans to Valley Water for review once available. Valley Water cannot determine that dewatering activities will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interferewith groundwater recharge until such plans are made available. 9. SEIR page 140, Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality”, 3.8.1.1, “Regulatory Framework, Federal and State”, should include a brief summary of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) under the State regulatoryframework because Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (mentioned onpage 142) is a DWR approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainable Plan (Alternative) under SGMA. 10. SEIR page 142, “2021 Groundwater Management Plan” should include the followingdetail near the beginning of the paragraph: “The 2021 GWMP is the first periodic updateto the approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan under SGMA.” 11. SEIR pages 145 and 148, “Groundwater”, should be modified to read “Typical groundwater depths in Palo Alto range from less than 10 to 30 feet below ground surface(bgs).” because groundwater depths can be shallower than 10 feet in many areas ofPalo Alto. For example, City well 06S03W12R010, located directly adjacent to the project site, regularly has water levels about 5 feet bgs (most recent data for March 2024 is 5.5 feet bgs). Groundwater level data in Palo Alto can be viewed on Valley Water’shistorical groundwater elevation data website:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/52ad5893/UoPDYbO-AUicIroC7bXiEw? u=https://gis.valleywater.org/GroundwaterElevations/map.php. 12. On SEIR page 148, the project site is located entirely overlying the confined zone of the Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     Santa Clara Subbasin and not within the recharge zone. Therefore, any rainfall orirrigation that infiltrates the Project site would recharge the shallow aquifer above theconfining layer. The deeper, confined aquifer is the primary groundwater supply of the Santa Clara Subbasin, not the shallow aquifer. This is why Valley Water has no recharge ponds or facilities near the Project site. 13. On SEIR page 148, “Standard Permit Conditions”, given the first bullet (Prohibitdewatering during the rainy season.), we recommend that the Project construction activities consider that groundwater levels are typically the highest (closest to land surface) during the rainy season. 14. On SEIR page 148, given that the Project overlies the confined aquifer, potentialdewatering activities are unlikely to negatively impact the groundwater supply because the primary supply is from the confined aquifer. However, the Project site is located within the seawater intrusion outcome measure area, as defined in the 2021Groundwater Management Plan (see Chapter 5 and Appendix H). We recommend thatany future dewatering permit applications evaluate and mitigate if the dewatering activities, particularly any long-term or ongoing dewatering, will negatively affect the spatial pattern of seawater intrusion in the shallow aquifer. 15. On SEIR pages 148, 149, and 150, there is conflicting text about impacts to groundwaterthat should be resolved. This includes text on page 148 stating “Temporary or permanent dewatering could affect groundwater supplies.” and page 149 stating “… NVCAP in compliance with the above standard permit conditions and existingregulations (including the NPDES General Construction Permit and MRP) would notsubstantially deplete groundwater supplies…”. Page 150 also states “…NVCAP would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies…” 16. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood InsuranceRate Map (FIRM) 06085C0017H, effective May 18, 2009, the majority of the project site iswithin FEMA Flood Zone X, an area with a 0.2% annual chance flood hazard, and the areas of Matadero Creek are located within Flood Zone A, a special flood hazard area with 1.0% annual chance flood discharge contained in the structure with no base floodelevations determined. 17. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) records indicate that 40 active wells are located on the subject property. Valley Water’s Well Information App can be used to help locate wells on the Project site: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/aaa90e47/RLSVX5-BN0enFpbUy2GAaQ?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/wells-well-owners/well-information-app. While this app indicates there are many destroyed wells and active water supply and monitoring wells on the project site, there could be additional unknown abandoned wells. If any existing wellsare to be destroyed by the Project and if any abandoned wells are identified during theProject, they need to be properly destroyed in coordination with Valley Water staff at the Well Permitting and Inspections Hotline: 408-630-2660 (https://link.edgepilot.com/s/35f51adc/myTamLqd5E6RYVllMlQvEw?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/wells-well-owners . 18. The State GeoTracker webpage (https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5aca8e9f/JJuzdFwpNUOX6LmjG7LaJw?u=https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) lists at least 8 open cleanup sites within theProject footprint. Any proposed groundwater dewatering near these sites should be Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     approved by the relevant regulatory oversight agency. NVCAP PLANS COMMENTS 19. Figure 36, page 43, Figure 42, page 51, and Figure 75, page 107, of the NVCAP plansshow multiple crossings of Matadero Creek, while Figure 43, page 52, only shows one creek crossing. The number of creek crossings is to be minimized. Valley Water onlysupports one creek crossing. Please reference Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Manual, Design Guide 4, “Riparian Revegetation or Mitigation Projects”, and Design Guide 16, “Guidance for Trail Design”, when designing creek crossings. 20. Page 60, “Green Infrastructure”, discusses the use of green stormwater infrastructureas a part of the NVCAP plans. Re-development of the site provides opportunities tominimize water and associated energy use by incorporating on-site reuse for both storm and graywater and requiring water conservation measures to exceed State standards. To reduce or avoid impacts to water supply, the City and applicant should considerimplementing measures from the Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance,which include: A. Hot water recirculation systems. B. Alternate water sources collection (like cisterns) and recycled waterconnections as feasible. C. Pool and spa covers. D. Encourage non-potable reuse of water like recycled water, graywater and rainwater/stormwater in new development and remodels through installationof dual plumbing for irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling towers, and other non-potable water uses. E. Require dedicated landscape meters where applicable. F. Require installation of separate submeters to each unit in multi-familydevelopments and individual spaces within commercial buildings toencourage efficient water use. G. Weather- or soil-based irrigation controllers. 21. Lighting described on Page 63 must be directed away from the creek. Please explainwhether wildlife can trigger motion sensors, as this would counteract efforts to protecthabitat from nighttime lighting. Please reference Guidelines and Standards Design Guide 16.I.H for lighting requirements near creeks. The Guidelines and Standards were adopted by the City of Palo Alto under Ordinance 4932. 22. Page 108, Section 5.1.7, mentions the use of pollinator-friendly native plants. Pleasereference Guidelines and Standards Design Guide 2 for the placement of native plants along the creek. 23. Page 110, Section 5.2 should reference Guidelines and Standards Design Guides 4 and16 and Section VII.B. 24. Page 112, Section 5.2.7, “Floodwalls”, discusses the use of vegetation within concrete retaining walls. Floodwalls and retaining walls are not the same and it is not clear what is proposed. Vegetation may impact the ability to inspect flood walls and may not beallowed. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 33840 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a51a4422/h07-tTtJdkqYUPbacYKTWg?u=http://www.valleywater.org/ Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection Item 2 Attachment G: Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 6 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2024 Report #: 2404-2885 TITLE Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting Palo Alto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas Citywide RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and provide comments on the final draft report for the retail study, to be forwarded to the City Council. As noted in the Executive Summary of the report, the recommendations will take time to implement, but the coordinated framework in the report should assist identification and implementation of individual and coordinated sets of zoning code revisions in phases. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The final draft retail report (Revised Full Draft Report) and Appendices A-D are provided as attachments to this report for PTC review. This is the culmination of a two-year, two-phased effort to bring forward a comprehensive retail report, including recent support from a PTC Ad Hoc committee (Ad Hoc). Having made significant headway on its review of retail preservation policies, regulatory standards, and best practices of comparable jurisdictions, the PTC is requested to review and make comments on the report. The full report is not intended to preclude the PTC from making its comments and policy recommendations. The report contains 20 recommendations organized around seven primary strategies. The PTC is also requested to review the recently prepared assessment of the parking conditions and the implications of State Assembly Bill AB 2097 (Attachment C/Appendix C). The PTC Ad Hoc reviewed and discussed Appendix C at its most recent meeting. PTC Study Sessions The retail study efforts included presentations and deliberations on policies and strategies in a Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 87     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6 workshop format in multiple study sessions (see staff reports, videos1 and minutes2 links): •October 25, 20233 Session: Introduction/check in including reviewing the scope of work •January 31, 20244 Session: Peer cities comparison and stakeholder interviews results •February 28, 20245 Session: The PTC met to create a PTC Ad Hoc •March 13, 20246 Session: Presentation regarding strategies and policy recommendations •March 27, 20247 Session: Recommendations for strategies •April 24, 20248 Session: Continued discussion on retail strategies; the staff report includes excerpt verbatim minutes from the March 27th PTC session Ad Hoc Committee The committee of three PTC members met with staff and the City’s consultant on four occasions in between PTC meetings this Spring (on March 5, March 26, April 16, and April 30). The Ad Hoc committee’s proposals were described in three main groups of proposals (Simplify Rules, Reduce Uncertainty, Relax Restrictions) plus one other group (Beyond Zoning). These were discussed by the full PTC on April 24, 2024. Though meeting minutes of the April 24 meeting are not yet available, the video is available to view.9 1 Videos (where minutes are not yet available): March 27: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation- commission-2-3272024/ March 13: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2- 3132024/, February 28: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2-2282024/ January 31: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2-1312024/ 2 Minutes from October 25, 2023 PTC intro session: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2023/ptc-10.25.2023-summary-minutes-2.pdf 3 Link to October 25, 2024 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-10.25-retail-study.pdf 4 Link to January 31, 2024 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-1.31-peer-cities.pdf 5 Link to February 28, 2024 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-2.28-retail-study-ad-hoc.pdf 6 Link to March 13, 2024 PTC staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-3.13-retail-strategies- policy.pdf 7 Link to March 27, 2024 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-3.27-retail-study.pdf 8 Link to April 24, 2024 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-4.24-retail-study.pdf 9 Link to video of April 24, 2024 meeting: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-and-transportation-commission-2- 4242024/ Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 88     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6 April 30, 2024 Ad Hoc Meeting On April 27, staff shared Attachment C/Appendix C with the Ad Hoc committee, and this became the focus of the April 30th Ad Hoc meeting. The Ad Hoc members provided comments to staff and the consultant regarding typographical and other potential errors in the draft Appendix C, and posed questions regarding the data, which the consultant and staff answered to some extent during the meeting. One question answered was regarding the parking spaces shown in the table – the consultant confirmed the table reflects parking spaces removed from the count due to closed streets. One comment was that the parking along El Camino Real is likely to be removed by Caltrans’ restriping plans, and that ratios should be calculated with El Camino Real parking spaces removed, using parking numbers shown in the March 13, 2024 PTC/HRC report1011. Another comment was that older comments in the stakeholder outreach section may no longer apply due to the advent of AB 2097 and perhaps also due the El Camino Real, Caltrans proposal, and suggested the consultant add a note to qualify the changes should be included. Another comment was that signage and better wayfinding are needed in California Avenue area and Downtown. The Ad Hoc members noted a few significant errors, such as: •The omission of the 350 Sherman garage in the California Avenue area that contains 627 parking spaces that replaced the surface lots with lower numbers of spaces •A note that 85% occupancy was ideal, which was unclear – the consultant clarified that it referred to occupancy of tenant spaces and not parking spaces The Appendix C (Attachment C) has been modified since the Ad Hoc meeting to include clarifications and address the errors identified. The Ad Hoc’s discussion also included a robust dialog with Office of Transportation (OOT) staff regarding: •Two ‘hot spot’ lots near Caltrain with spaces that fill up, as also on University Avenue •A plan for a project to help drivers find garages and mobile payment options to enable parking beyond the two- to three-hour limits •An occupancy study that was done of Midtown area •Clarification that in 2018-19, pre Covid era, the parking permits would get sold out; then adjustments were made to the program that: o reduced the number of employee permits issued 10 Link to PTC staff report March 13, 2024: 11 Link to Caltrans’ response to Commissioner Lu: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/responses-to-george-lu-palo- alto-ptc-ecr-bike-lane-questions-3.11.24.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 89     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6 o increased the cost to exceed the garages’ permit cost o provided low-income parking permits within the garages, rather than in neighborhoods, resulting in a significant reduction in permit sales in neighborhoods •Clarification regarding use of permits in garages and lots for 8 am – 5 pm Monday through Friday, but the spaces become publicly available after 5 pm and on weekends, with daily permits publicly available to park in these spaces. •Permits are specific to lots and garages, some permits are reserved for bondholders and not available to the general public, that purchasers must be a business to buy quarterly, or annual for employees, or people can pay daily permits, and the City’s Revenue Collections staff track this and can provide data. •OOT is looking to make more employee permits available and reduce the daily permit price – or incentives for drivers to park in garages instead of on streets and surface lots – and taking steps to manage parking spaces better. •The need is for level playing field and predictability; if the City considers the idea of parking maximums, Transportation Demand Management programs need to be in place. •The perception issue of a parking problem is related to landlords that want street parking as close to their business as possible; however, many patrons drive to park, then walk around. •In the four major Downtown garages. we have automated parking guidance system (APGS) and there are programmatic set asides. •The City is also hoping for license plate recognition; currently the Police Department uses chalk marking. •The City is seeking capability in technological signs noting parking availability on each floor. ANALYSIS The final Draft Report incorporates staff comments on the Phase 1 scope report the consultant delivered in Fall 2022, as well as the results of the additional Phase 2 scope tasks including: •Addition of an Executive Summary •Additional in-depth reviews and analysis of the Palo Alto Zoning Code •Additional stakeholder interviews, including business and property owners, property managers, and peer city staff •Reviews and comparisons with peer city zoning regulations •Reviews and summaries of best retail revitalization practices •Updated reviews and summaries of national and local retail and office market trends and projections, including new CoStar data •Market and demographic profile of Palo Alto •Review of past City planning efforts and correspondence •Review and analysis of the Streetsense Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy study •Review and analysis of the Car-Free California Avenue Engagement Reports •Multiple meetings and workshops with the PTC and PTC Ad Hoc Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 90     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6 •Multiple meetings and reviews with Palo Alto Planning and Economic Development department staff •An assessment of the parking conditions and the implications of AB 2097 and recommendations The report recommendations are generally inclusive of those from the PTC; however, the consultant recommendations are not exactly the same and are presented with more context and supporting narrative. The March 2024 consultant report about zoning strategies showed four groups of strategies. In the attached report, as noted in the Executive Summary, there are seven main groups of strategies set forth in the Zoning Analysis and Recommendations section of the report, pages 18-22. 1. Conduct a Comprehensive Zoning Cleanup of a Mature, Complex Code 2. Create Streamlined and Predictable Approval Processes 3. Limit the Retail Preservation Ordinance 4. Allow Non-Retail uses on Ground Floor with Limitations 5. Repeal Office Conversion and Construction Limitations 6. Relax formula retail 7. Ease the parking regulations STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT As noted in earlier reports, the consultants engaged with interviews of Peer Cities and various stakeholders, including developers and business owners, the Chamber of Commerce, and property managers. Summaries of the key findings from these interviews were presented. The findings (and any other anecdotal information which may be obtained prior to the City Council meeting) will be shared with the City Council. Staff will seek Council’s direction to proceed with zoning ordinance changes, parking strategies, and more. NEXT STEPS The June 10 City Council meeting is targeted to present the full report to Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The study does not represent a project under CEQA. No zoning ordinance changes have been prepared to date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB2097 on Parking Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison Attachment E: Revised Full Draft Report Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 91     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6 AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 92     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix A, Page 1 Stakeholder Interview Summary Stakeholder interviews were conducted with developers and the Chamber of Commerce to understand how the City can support the retail revitalization efforts in the study area. The stakeholders discussed issues and recommended changes related to the zoning ordinance, parking, and administrative processes. Below is the list of stakeholders that were interviewed. • Premier Property Management – Jon Goldman, Brad Ehikia • Ellis Partners – Jim Ellis • Thoits Bros., Inc. – John Shenk • Chamber of Commerce – Charlie Weidanz • Performance Gaines – Chris Gaines • Italico – Franco Campilongo • Taste Buds Kitchen – Scott Andersen Discussion Summary These interviews revealed several issues that the stakeholders viewed as restrictions or hindrances to development and provided recommendations to mitigate them. There was a strong consensus on many issues among all of the stakeholders. These discussions are categorized and summarized below based on common themes. General 1. Important to create an ecosystem of uses that generate trips and keep people downtown. a. Services will drive people downtown. b. There are fewer workers downtown due to transition to remote work. c. There has been a loss of office space, which is hurting retail. 2. Need to actively attract and support growth and investment, renewal and maintenance, and improvement of existing buildings. 3. There are significant assets downtown, the loss of retail is not a physical design issue. 4. There needs to be more flexibility in the reuse of ground floor space. Allowed uses should be flexible to accommodate the changes in the market in order to reduce vacancies. 5. Perception of retail in Palo Alto: a. Retail zones and corridors are not 100 percent retail but rely on a mix of complementary uses (office, restaurants, personal services, professional services, residential and retail use). These uses provide the clientele for retail uses and allow people to spend time in the commercial areas, in turn supporting retail. b. Need to repair and reverse the City's reputation with the industry (e.g., business/property owners, agents, etc.). Businesses need predictability, and currently, they don't have that. 6. Many retailers in Palo Alto are amazing but often time people are not aware of events/businesses. a. Businesses need a large online presence to attract customers. 7. Street closure on California Ave has improved business (up 40 percent). However, several retailers left the area due to street closure. 8. Important to understand customer behavior and how it has changed over the last four years (2019-2023). 9. Window shopping is down, everything is destination based. a. Need to provide incentives for customers to visit. 10. The City has been very helpful since business operations have begun, partnering with the City is the most important thing that a local business can do. 11. Times of business activity more inconsistent now, people are not coming in for lunch anymore from nearby offices. 12. Disconnect between the businesses that exist and what businesses are desired (e.g., medical retail/office) Retail Preservation Ordinance 1. Rescind ground floor Retail Protection Ordinance (2009, 2017 amendment). It has created the very problems that it was intended to prevent. 2. Leave it to the market to thrive, don’t force retail. Focus on the existing retail district. 3. Ground floor retail restrictions on side streets and blocks away from the main commercial corridor are not practical as retail will not locate in these areas. 4. Code is too rigid, very narrowly defined, and complex. The older system worked better and allowed for more flexibility. 5. ‘’The definition of “retail” is too restrictive on use. Expand it to be more inclusive and nuanced to include uses like personal services, medical professional/office, spas, fitness, insurance, restaurants, commercial recreation and other uses that create pedestrian activity. 6. Rescind "Formula Retail" Ordinance on California Avenue. 7. Increase height limits on El Camino Real and in other areas. 8. Restaurant owner could not reduce the square footage from 8,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. City Permit Process 1. Businesses are avoiding locating to Palo Alto as the permitting process is lengthy and unpredictable. 2. Difficult to get a permit even for simple changes such as restriping, signage, and small additions (e.g., 3-6 months to receive a sign permit – AT&T). a. Delay in signage permits can hurt the business even before it starts. 3. The determinations of code and process are inconsistent and, at times, conflicting among the staff. 4. There is a lack of staff continuity or institutional knowledge. 5. Fees are excessive (e.g., conditional use permit $15,000; sign permit $4,000). 6. All permits go through the City Council which takes away power and undermines staff recommendations/determinations. 7. Permitting process is not clearly described. 8. There is a stigma against national chains (e.g., Pete’s Coffee), yet the zoning and process do not make it easy for smaller local businesses to locate in the City. 9. Difficult to navigate the process as a single business/property owner. 10. Sentiment that City staff are disconnected from or understand the community they are working in (e.g., live outside Palo Alto) 11. The process makes it difficult to do any business in/startup a business in Palo Alto. 12. Long permitting processing times (e.g., up to 18 months to get through the planning process for an event space). 13. Needed a conditional use permit for beer and wine license ($11,000). 14. Signage permit took longer than demolition and construction permit for event venue business. Item 3 Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary     Packet Pg. 93     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix A, Page 2 Parking 1. In-lieu parking fee is a hard cap on any new development or intensification. 2. Reinstate the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. a. The City should allow transfer between uses. b. Can't change uses currently and can't add parking for change in uses. This is making it difficult to fill the vacancies in the changing market conditions. c. The City requires additional parking to comply with parking requirements. Many/most buildings cover the entire site and have no space for on-site parking. d. Buildings already paid for the parking garages, which were to support the district. Since it was paid off in 2017 and no longer charges payment fees, the City has reverted back to requiring on-site parking to comply. Fees were based on deficiency of parking. But the developers are not getting credit when changing uses or adding space. e. The City created a parking fee if they cannot provide parking = $150,000 per space. This is excessive and not affordable. f. The City moved staff parking from on-street to the garages. Now customers have to park in the neighborhoods instead of the garages. 3. A new, more flexible parking policy is needed as most customers (office workers, shoppers) are already in the district. 4. Hard for employees to get permits for the parking garages in California Ave. a. Make it easier for employees who need to park – especially 2+ hours but not all day. b. Pricing does not make sense for employees to invest in permits. 5. No parking issues in California Ave, there is enough parking to support all businesses and events at a variety of times (for lunch or dinner, weekends, and during the farmer’s market). 1 City Council Makes Pandemic-Era Zoning Changes Permanent to Support Business Success in Santa Monica. https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2022/10/12/city-council-makes- City Interviews: Palo Alto and Neighboring Communities To gain a broader understanding of Palo Alto's regulatory provisions and procedures and to also inform the recommendations, three communities were interviewed to identify gaps and differences in approaches to retail development. The jurisdictions were identified during the Planning and Transportation Committee and stakeholder interviews as flexible and efficient with permit processing. These include the Cities of Santa Monica, Los Altos, and Redwood City. Santa Monica Making COVID-Related Changes Permanent The City discussed an extensive list of emergency orders during the pandemic. These include both planning and building/safety emergency orders, including time extension on open permits of up to four years. In October 2022, the City permanently adopted two zoning ordinance amendments with the intent of reducing regulatory barriers for small businesses, as described below. The economic recovery ordinance was extended for five years in September of 2023. In summary, the following proposed zoning changes focus on the Third Street Promenade area. 1. allowing greater flexibility for restaurants that provide entertainment within the Third Street Promenade Area District, 2. expanding Alcohol Exemption (AE) permits to additional uses to further streamline the review of alcohol permits while also correcting and refining existing AE permit conditions, 3. allowing the Director of Community Development or designee to consider commercial uses that are not clearly defined in the Zoning Code, 4. allowing a longer term for Temporary Use Permits, and 5. allowing outdoor rooftop commercial uses on public parking structures owned by the City. Relaxing Restrictions on Uses Changes in zoning included allowing a wider variety of uses by right in areas that were historically more restrictive, including in the downtown and Third Street Promenade areas. Efforts highlighted by City Staff included allowing new uses such as pop-ups and creative commercial uses that do not fit pandemic-era-zoning-changes-permanent-to-support-business-success-in- santa-monica exactly into the existing use categories, including new alcohol services and pickleball. The City eliminated the restrictions on the number of restaurants per block on Main Street and expanded opportunities for outdoor dining. The City has traditionally been very restrictive in requiring retail uses on the ground floor; however, due to the changing market and feedback from the community, the City has been re-evaluating what mix of uses will work in its retail areas. This is also in response to an increased focus on housing and the City’s larger efforts in its Housing Element. The City noted that being open to a wider mix of uses is important in serving the needs of residents. Streamlined Permitting The City eliminated the need for conditional use permits, minor use permits, and other discretionary approvals for several uses including childcare, cinemas and theaters, general retail sales (medium size), hotels and motels, medical and dental offices, food halls, and general personal services, among others. The City removed the public hearing requirements for a change of use from a restaurant to a different use. This streamlined permitting expedites and simplifies the permitting process. This provides certainty and predictability to existing businesses and prospective businesses considering locating in Santa Monica. As of July 2023, there are 38 new development projects in downtown Santa Monica comprised mostly mixed-use and housing, including affordable housing. Communication and Outreach with Business Owners The interviewees discussed the importance of educating the public through comprehensive, consistent communication and outreach efforts. They stressed the importance of City staff being a known, visible, and trusted figure in the community. The City of Santa Monica highlighted a number of outreach efforts including working with community groups, business improvement districts, City staff, and City council. Efforts included an “open for business flyer,” blog, e-mail blasts, broker’s round table event, and a 3- 1-1 system where anyone can e-mail or call with questions. The City offers online planning services, and virtual counter reviews, and hosts an online appointment system to increase the number of permitting activities that can be done online. The City has extensively documented and advertised these zoning and regulatory changes on its City website1 and provides comprehensive data regarding vacancies and employment on the Downtown Santa Monica website2. 2 Downtown Santa Monica, Third Street Promenade. https://downtownsm.com/downtown-data#section-8666 Item 3 Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary     Packet Pg. 94     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix A, Page 3 Interview Questions and Responses 1. Have you evaluated the impact of COVID and/or online shopping on retail in Santa Monica? ▪ The City started to see the impact of e-commerce prior to COVID- 19. ▪ The City created a “Buy Local” campaign in 2010 and increased messaging during COVID-19 to educate the public on the importance of supporting local businesses. o Through the campaign the City identified and informed people which retailers had gift cards and how businesses were operating during the Holidays. ▪ During COVID the City supported businesses through a variety of strategies which included: o Established pick-up and delivery zones, o Connected business owners with the Los Angeles Small Business Development Center for education and technical support, o Waived fees (e.g. loading and pick-up zones), o Encouraged shopping locally through informing customers which businesses support gift cards during Holiday shopping, ▪ The City can track online versus in-store sales reports through a sales tax report and can track by geographic area and by sector. o Art gallery pivoted to online, had high sales, and started artists' talks and other events/features they didn’t have before. o The city has anecdotal data that shows an increase in sales activity but is hard to isolate. 2. What, if any, efforts did you undertake to preserve retail as a response to COVID-19? ▪ The City passed several emergency orders during the pandemic related to both planning and building and safety. o The City provided time extensions on open permits – up to 4 years in some cases. o The City allowed more uses to be permitted by right in the Downtown and Third Street Promenade areas. ▪ Allowed flexibility for creative and temporary uses that don’t fit the prescribed use categories in the Downtown and Third Street Promenade. ▪ Positive feedback from stakeholders resulted in the interim ordinances becoming permanent – codified in August 2023. o One block in the Third Street Promenade had high vacancy rates, so the City has loosened the use restrictions – they are focusing on making it a food, art, and entertainment district/hub. o The City is seeing alcohol licenses being paired with innovative and creative uses. (e.g. Pickleball). ▪ The City is focusing on food establishments and assisting applicants through the permitting process. ­ Where and how to allow business to expand into the right-of-way to not access and circulation issues. ­ Restaurant owners voiced the need for expanded permanent outdoor space to sustain business. 3. How did the City work with the business owners during the zoning changes? ▪ The City along with Downtown Santa Monica Inc. (Property Based Assessment District) asked property owners and businesses what kind of new uses they were interested in and what challenges they were facing with the permitting process, the City then identified opportunities on how the emergency orders and interim zoning can start to address the issues. ▪ Held collective meetings with Business Improvement District (BID) leaders (Main Street, Montana Ave, and Pico Boulevard) to talk through zoning changes. ▪ The City created an “Open for Business” flyer. ▪ Implemented a 3-1-1 system for businesses to ask questions to City staff regarding zoning. 4. What types of metrics does the City utilize to track changes in business? ▪ The City tracks occupancy rates and pedestrian counts in association with Downtown Santa Monica Inc. (see Downtown Santa Monica data below) ▪ The City also monitors sales tax data and business license permits. 5. Does the City allow residential Downtown or in other commercial districts? ▪ Downtown is a true mixed-use district – residential is permitted everywhere but particularly seen from 2nd Street to 7th Street. ▪ Several current Downtown housing projects (thousands of units) are in development to create a “24/7 community.” o Downtown previously saw affordable housing and now a trend to mixed-income housing. o Change in demand in the Downtown to more local serving uses like restaurants – previously tourism drove development trends (~8 million visitors/year prior to COVID, now 4.5-5 million visitors/year) ▪ Residential is integrated and embedded in all commercial districts. 6. Are there any restrictions on the usage of ground floor space in the commercial areas? ▪ The City has historically been very restrictive on the ground floor with a focus on retail and restaurant. ▪ The City has been rethinking strategy to allow more uses in certain configurations while still promoting retail and restaurant – the office is still restricted. ▪ The City is trying to be flexible as property owners figure out the right mix of uses – having the choice is positive for all parties. ▪ The City has utilized interim ordinances as an experimentation to see how effective/successful an ordinance can be (up to five (5) years). The economic recovery ordinance was extended for five years in September of 2023. 7. Have developers used the provisions of AB 2097 in developments for parking? How is the City ensuring there will be parking for visitors and residents in the wake of AB 2097? ▪ State law has changed the City’s parking practices since a majority of the City exists within ½ mile of a major transit stop. ▪ Before state law the City eliminated minimum parking requirements for a majority of active uses Downtown in 2017. ▪ The City has major parking investment in the form of ten (10) City- owned public parking structures in the Downtown District – “well- served to over-served.” o Parking structures were funded through bond financing in the 70’s – all but one (1) are paid off. o Parking structures were funded by revenue generated by parking and transportation impact fees (in-leu fee for businesses) – the City has since eliminated this impact fee. o Parking structures have active ground floor retail space which the Economic Development Department manages (3 tenants) – provide revenue to the City. o The city is working to bring in a rooftop cinema company to lease the top floor of one of the parking garages (made possible by the interim temporary use ordinances). ▪ The City has no parking requirements for businesses going into existing footprints. o The City prefers that there is no more parking built in the Downtown, they would like the business to invest in other ways. Item 3 Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary     Packet Pg. 95     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix A, Page 4 o In terms of new mixed-use housing development, the City is seeing both zero (0) parking and proposed projects with parking – Projects tend to be dependent on lender and financing strategy to make the project marketable. o The City has a cap on parking in the Downtown that can’t be exceeded. o The City has worked with developers to look at shared parking, shared mobility programs, bike parking, EV charging, carshare, automated driving companies (Waymo), and the integrations of the bike infrastructure as an alternative to parking. 8. Do you have recommendations for jurisdictions looking to preserve/encourage retail uses? ▪ Review the zoning ordinance, permitting procedures, and how those factors affect the cost of doing business. ▪ Determine how your jurisdiction can support businesses operating outdoors. o The City reviewed and contacted several jurisdictions for best practices regarding parklets and expanded outdoor dining. o Where possible, make operating outdoors permanent. ▪ Provide certainty to businesses so they know what they can and can’t do. ▪ Due to the small size of Santa Monica, City staff has seen the importance of relationship building, being visible, known, and a trusted figure in the community so people know who to contact for questions or issues. Important for jurisdictions to work together regionally and throughout the State to become competitive as whole (i.e. align programs and fees) – don’t try and steal from business. Los Altos Interview Questions and Responses 1. Have you evaluated the impact of COVID and/or online shopping on retail in Los Altos? ▪ Yes, because of the physical limitations in the early/middle portion of COVID. ▪ Main commercial area in Los Altos is similar to California Ave in Palo Alto. o No major commercial retail or national retailers – mom-and- pop and small businesses o “Downtown Triangle” is restaurant heavy with passive businesses. 2. What, if any, efforts did you undertake to preserve retail as a response to COVID-19? ▪ Small non-residential footprint, emphasis was focused on restaurants. ▪ Los Altos has an active Chamber of Commerce that supports and works with businesses. ▪ Los Altos Village Association (LAVA) worked with downtown businesses to facilitate resiliency during COVID. 3. Have you made any changes to the zoning code during post-Covid? Are these changes permanent? Can you describe how some of these changes have helped maintain and encourage retail? ▪ The City is undergoing rezoning downtown to allow all mixed-use and to allow additional height; driven in part by the Housing Element. o Nothing in the rezoning that is explicit for commercial but it will provide opportunity for new and existing commercial. o Much of the downtown is currently old commercial in old buildings. We haven’t had new development in many years, just renovations. We expect new mixed-use developments in near future. ▪ The City made alcohol an ancillary use allowed by right and made it permanent post covid. A business just needs an ABC license from state. 4. Were there any other zoning changes that were considered but not made and why? ▪ Office/administration uses on Main Street and State Street are not allowed on the ground floor. o The City wants this area to be the retail and restaurant core, there are some existing non-conforming uses like banks. ▪ The City is exploring an option of requiring use like hair and nail salons to get a CUP. o There is a proliferation of these uses in downtown competing with one another. o The City does not need as many as they currently have – in some instances there are two next to each other. ▪ The City is looking to address vacancy in terms of empty display windows and pop-up shops through a zone text amendment. ▪ Vacancies downtown last for 6-9 months outside of three (3) properties where businesses have closed due to ADA lawsuits. o Businesses open quite easily in Los Altos but the length of occupancy is varied. 5. Is change of use by right or do you require discretionary approval? ▪ It is by right unless it’s a major tenant improvement (i.e. structural). ▪ Only in rare instances are CUPs used, it’s either allowed or prohibited. ▪ The City has an online submittal process and a change of use permit can be processed in a couple of days – everything is pretty streamlined. 6. Who is the approving authority for the following and typical permit time for each of these? ▪ If something had to go to a hearing body it would go to the planning commission which could be a 4 - 5 month process, especially due to incomplete applications. ▪ The City hasn’t had any new commercial development in 10+ years – Housing Element rezonings will allow for a lot of newer commercial square footage allowed in tandem with residential. ▪ Signage has never been beyond an administrative design review – no issues. 7. Have developers used the provisions of AB 2097 in developments for parking? How is the City ensuring there will be parking for visitors and residents in the wake of AB 2097? ▪ Does not apply to downtown but does apply to an extremely small area on El Camino Real – mostly redeveloped with entirely residential. ▪ The City is going to be conducting a comprehensive downtown parking ratio update for residential and commercial uses through a parking study. 8. Do you have a municipal public parking/parking district or any exemptions for parking? ▪ The City has public parking plazas in addition to small parking lots - 6 acres of parking lot to the north and south of Main Street and State Street. ▪ In the 1950s downtown property owners passed a measure that any existing commercial square footage does not have to park their business use. 9. Do you have any other improvement districts such as the Business Improvement District (BID), Community Facilities District (CFD), or Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)? ▪ The City doesn’t have a BID but will be exploring the creation of a Property Business Improvement District in the upcoming year (assessed against property owners not businesses). Item 3 Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary     Packet Pg. 96     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix A, Page 5 o There are three (3) big property owners who want to see major infrastructure improvements to improve the public realm. o Looking to reorient parking to be parallel to recapture half depth of angle parking to expand the sidewalks – property owners would like to see the expansion of the public realm in front of their properties to create more usable space. 10. Does the City have any programs or incentives to attract retail? ▪ Some businesses may actually need to close to allow new uses, they are holding usable space for redevelopment. ▪ The City probably would have lost most of the restaurants if they hadn’t deployed the parklet program. 11. Are there best practices or efficient permitting and flexibility that your City follows and that have helped you retain and attract retail uses? ▪ Downtown Vacancy matrix created by the Chamber of Commerce to identify where the vacancies are located, what is allowed in those spaces, and what is the footprint. ▪ The Chamber of Commerce works to connect property owners with interested businesses, there are a lot of older buildings and old- school property owners and old school in how they lease space. 12. Any recommendations for jurisdictions looking to preserve/encourage retail uses? ▪ Parklet Program – had a sunset date to either make permanent or revisit and revamp. o The City didn’t want the temporary COVID program to be the permanent one. ▪ The City identified what has been working and what hasn’t been working. ▪ The City also didn’t want mismatch parklets. ▪ The permanent program goes into effect in January with a new set of standards. o The City conducted outreach with several business owners and restaurant groups to discuss issues and needs. o Some were very receptive and some pushed back because of the cost to change parklets. Redwood City Interview Questions and Responses 1. Does the City have ground floor use restrictions? ▪ Ground floor active uses are encouraged, not required. Active use definition: Uses that allow the public to walk in and interact with the business owner- personal services and pet stores are active uses. o There is a stretch in the Downtown where office is not allowed on the ground floor. 2. How does the City process change of use permits, by-right or discretionary approval? ▪ Any changes to use in the downtown, including retail, can be done by-right. No approval is needed, only a building permit from the building division is required. 3. Please identify the approving authority and typical permit time for the following: ▪ Depends on complexity. Generally approved by Planning Staff (2 to 4 months) and building division (4 to 6 weeks). ▪ New construction (permitted uses). Planning staff: 3 to 4 month planning approvals; Building division: 4 to 6 weeks. ▪ New construction (CUP uses). Planning Commission if they exceed height limit or CUP outside DT. Within the DT, CUP can be approved by staff. 3 to 4-month planning approvals, building division 4 to 6 weeks. ▪ Major remodeling/tenant improvement. Planning Staff: Depending on the complexity, it can be done over the counter. ▪ Minor Changes. Planning Staff: Depending on the complexity, it can be done over the counter. ▪ New Signage/Signage Change. Over the counter generally. If existing space is part of the Master sign program (3 or more retail/commercial generally have a master sign program), if it is a part of a commercial strip, then they just need a permit from the Building division. If not, they need to apply with planning and then to the Building division (3 to 4 months). 4. Does the City track and report permit approval times for development projects (submittal to approval)? ▪ The City has a tracking system to input dates, but they don't really track processing times. o They try to follow the Permit Streamlining Act. Review within 30 days and 60 days for a decision. 5. Does the City have other programs or incentives to attract retail? ▪ FAR increase if the applicant provides housing/ mixed-use. ▪ The retail task force helps to attract retail. ▪ Retail outreach efforts are conducted via the economic development office. ▪ Community development incentives for open space include an increase in height or FAR. 6. Does the City have any parking programs to help reduce parking requirements? ▪ No formal programs. If a use is converted to retail, they don't need to provide extra parking based on new retail use. ▪ The City is currently exploring reductions to minimum parking. 7. Does the City have a municipal public parking/parking district or any exemptions for parking? ▪ The City has municipal garages and lots. Also, visitors can park in any other retail parking lot. Offices open up their garages to visitors on the weekends. All parking garages are fee based. ▪ New technology installed around downtown to inform where and how many spaces are available. 8. Does the City provide information for developers explaining permitting process/timing expectation? ▪ The City has meetings with the developers and has a submittal checklist for new construction. If it is an existing building, they go directly to the building division. 9. Has the City seen any trends in retail as it relates to permit applications? ▪ None for retail. Lately, the interest has been in daycares, restaurants, and offices. 10. Please add any other information related to best practices or efficient permitting and flexibility your City follows that has helped you retain/attract retail. ▪ There is a lack of retail in the downtown, there are several vacancies including World Market which has been vacant for four years. ▪ There are more retail vacancies but the City is open to attracting other active uses in those spaces. ▪ The downtown retail task force is helping with attracting, educating, and retaining retail uses. Item 3 Attachment A: Appendix A Outreach Summary     Packet Pg. 97     ESRI Report Data California Avenue • Total sales: $301,350,000 • Total employees: 1,562 • Total businesses: 235 • Retail: 6.5% businesses; 6.4% employees • Accommodation and food services: 10.4% businesses; 11.9% employees Demographic Summary 2021 2026 (Projected) Population 141,015 146,566 Households 55,632 57,798 Families 32,242 33,552 Median Age 37.5 37.5 Median Household Income $161,252 $176,564 Top Tapestry Segments Percent Top Tier (1A) 25.5% Urban Chic (2A) 24.2% Laptops and Lattes (3A) 21.1% Trendsetters (3C) 8.1% Enterprising Professionals (2D) 5.8% See reports at the end of this Appendix for detailed profiles of Top Tier, Urban Chic, and Laptops and Lattes. Other profiles can be found at https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/latest/regional-data/tapestry-segmentation.htm. Retail Leakage • More than 40%: Auto parts, motor vehicle dealers, auto accessories, drinking places, direct selling establishments, florists, vending machine operators • 20% to 40%: Lawn and garden equipment, healthcare stores, gasoline stores, used merchandise • 10% to 20%: Grocery stores, specialty food stores, and services Retail Surplus • More than 40%: Shoe stores, book, periodical, and music stores • 20% to 40%: Furniture stores • 10% to 20%: Department stores, home furnishings stores, electronics and appliance stores Downtown/University Avenue • Total sales: $1,871,207,000 • Total employees: 8,322 • Total businesses: 1,063 • Retail: 7.5% businesses; 4.6% employees • Accommodation and food services: 8.4% businesses; 14.0% employees Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 98     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 2 Demographic Summary 2021 2026 (Projected) Population 20,938 21,195 Households 9,370 9,441 Families 4,950 5,015 Median Age 43.0 43.7 Median Household Income $186,084 $200,001 Top Tapestry Segments Percent Laptops and Lattes (3A) 46.4% Top Tier (1A) 34.6% Urban Chic (2A) 10.8% Social Security Set (9F) 8.2% Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0.1% See reports at the end of this Appendix for detailed profiles of Top Tier, Urban Chic, and Laptops and Lattes. Other profiles can be found at https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/latest/regional-data/tapestry-segmentation.htm. Retail Leakage • More than 40%: Auto parts, motor vehicle dealers, auto accessories, building material, lawn & garden equipment, other general merchandise stores, florists, vending machine operators, direct selling establishments, special food services, drinking places • 20% to 40%: Used merchandise stores, office supplies, stationery, and gift stores, gasoline stations, health and personal care stores, specialty food stores, grocery stores Retail Surplus • More than 40%: Furniture stores, shoe stores, books, periodicals, and music stores • 10% to 20%: Department stores, jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores Midtown Shopping • Total sales: $101,684,000 • Total employees: 451 • Total businesses: 116 Demographic Summary 2021 2026 (Projected) Population 30,295 30,639 Households 11,318 11,401 Families 7,917 8,006 Median Age 44.0 44.0 Median Household Income $200,001 $200,001 Top Tapestry Segments Percent Urban Chic (2A) 45.8% Top Tier (1A) 38.9% Laptops and Lattes (3A) 8.8% Enterprising Professionals (2D) 5.5% Trendsetters (3C) 1.0% See reports at the end of this Appendix for detailed profiles of Top Tier, Urban Chic, and Laptops and Lattes. Other profiles can be found at https://doc.arcgis.com/en/esri-demographics/latest/regional-data/tapestry-segmentation.htm. Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 99     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 3 CoStar Retail and Office Summary (February 2024) Retail Table 1: Retail Overview - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2024 Q1) Retail Total/Average Palo Alto Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 1,831,300 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 433,000 461,000 1,300,000 Under Construction Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 Vacant Square Feet 178,600 112,000 28,200 21,400 5,000 8,100 3,900 11,074 47,700 340,000 12 Month Net Absorption Square Feet -44,851 -51,300 12,200 -853 -4,500 -832 434 -282 -12,800 -32,800 12 Month Net Absorption Square Feet (one year change) -1543% -381% 504% -158% -9277% -110% 164% 27% -35% 33% VACANCY RATE 9.8% 15.1% 9.6% 12.2% 9.1% 1.8% 3.8% 2.6% 10.3% 25.9% Vacancy Rate (one year change) 1.9% 6.90% -4.10% 0.50% 8.20% 0.20% -0.40% 0.10% 2.80% 2.50% Market Asking Rent/ Square Feet $61.07 $77.11 $54.47 $76.70 $48.81 $53.65 $55.67 $49.05 $67.56 $79.85 Market Asking Rent/ Square Feet (one year change) -0.52% -0.50% -0.70% -0.40% -0.30% -0.70% -0.50% -0.40% 1.30% -1.80% Market Sale Price/ Square Feet $828 $1,129 $788 $593 $913 $797 $748 $767 $916 $909 Market Sale Price/ Square Feet (one year change) -0.83% -2.00% -0.80% 0.20% -1.60% -1.20% 0.40% -0.70% 2.10% -0.80% Market Cap Rate 4.45% 4.20% 4.50% 5.00% 4.20% 4.50% 4.30% 4.60% 4.60% 4.90% Market Cap Rate (one year change) 0.85% 0.10% 4.50% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 100     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 4 Table 2: Retail Vacancy Rate - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) PERIOD Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 433,000 461,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 15% 10% 12% 9.1% 2% 4% 3% 10% 26% 2023 Q4 14% 9% 12% 9.1% 2% 5% 3% 11% 25% 2023 Q3 14% 9% 12% 0% 1% 5% 2% 10% 26% 2023 Q2 14% 13% 12% 0% 1% 5% 2% 8% 24% 2023 Q1 9% 15% 13% 0.00% 1% 5% 2% 11% 23% 2022 Q4 8% 13% 10% 1.6% 2% 4% 3% 5% 23% 2022 Q3 10% 14% 10% 2% 2% 4% 2% 6% 22% 2022 Q2 9% 15% 11% 2% 3% 4% 3% 8% 24% 2022 Q1 12% 13% 12% 2% 3% 4% 2% 6% 22% 2021 Q4 10% 15% 13% 0% 3% 3% 2% 5% 19% 2021 Q3 8% 13% 14% 0% 3% 3% 4% 8% 22% 2021 Q2 11% 12% 12% 0% 2% 3% 3% 11% 21% 2021 Q1 9% 12% 12% 0% 2% 1% 2% 9% 12% 2020 Q4 6% 11% 14% 4% 3% 1% 3% 11% 12% 2020 Q3 5% 11% 11% 4% 2% 1% 4% 11% 12% 2020 Q2 4% 9% 7% 4% 1% 1% 3% 7% 11% 2020 Q1 4% 9% 6% 4% 1% 1% 3% 5% 12% 2019 Q4 4% 6% 3% 17% 1% 1% 2% 5% 9% 2019 Q3 4% 6% 0% 19% 1% 1% 1% 6% 9% 2019 Q2 5% 6% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 8% 2019 Q1 4% 6% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 4% 10% 2018 Q4 5% 3% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 9% 2018 Q3 3% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% 7% 2018 Q2 3% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 8% 2018 Q1 3% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% 7% 2017 Q4 4% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 4% 2017 Q3 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 4% 2017 Q2 4% 7% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2017 Q1 6% 6% 4% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2016 Q4 2% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2016 Q3 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 3% 5% 2016 Q2 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 2016 Q1 3% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 4% 2015 Q4 1% 4% 1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 5% 2015 Q3 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 5% 2015 Q2 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2015 Q1 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2014 Q4 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% 2014 Q3 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 6% 2014 Q2 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 6% 2014 Q1 1% 1% 0% 16% 2% 3% 1% 4% 4% Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 101     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 5 Figure 1: Retail Vacancy Rate - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 102     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 6 Table 3: Retail Vacancy Square Footage - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) PERIOD Total Square Feet Palo Alto Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street TOTAL SF 1,831,300 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 433,000 461,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 178,597 111,905 28,235 21,425 4,960 8,132 3,940 11,074 47,714 339,654 2023 Q4 173,194 105,375 27,999 21,425 4,960 8,132 5,303 13,710 48,409 326,979 2023 Q3 155,957 100,547 26,293 20,493 - 3,321 5,303 9,107 48,227 337,217 2023 Q2 168,361 101,016 38,228 20,493 - 3,321 5,303 9,753 36,496 312,798 2023 Q1 143,381 67,478 43,128 23,606 - 4,241 4,928 10,178 52,416 305,582 2022 Q4 127,229 56,165 38,353 17,732 875 10,164 3,940 11,274 21,180 307,835 2022 Q3 146,933 73,475 41,897 17,830 875 8,916 3,940 6,696 26,681 293,504 2022 Q2 152,945 69,354 43,158 19,652 875 15,316 4,590 13,825 34,620 310,164 2022 Q1 168,125 86,236 39,326 21,032 875 16,066 4,590 10,651 26,314 291,790 2021 Q4 160,156 73,735 44,743 22,812 - 15,866 3,000 10,248 24,212 261,303 2021 Q3 140,829 58,301 39,325 24,337 - 15,866 3,000 15,648 38,160 298,801 2021 Q2 149,691 82,789 34,225 21,761 - 7,916 3,000 11,339 49,132 283,694 2021 Q1 133,446 69,048 33,721 21,761 - 7,916 1,000 6,789 41,828 158,202 2020 Q4 114,225 44,786 29,321 24,340 2,062 12,716 1,000 13,349 50,688 158,302 2020 Q3 98,700 39,340 29,573 19,554 2,062 7,321 850 15,605 49,298 161,951 2020 Q2 77,103 32,350 25,526 12,541 2,062 3,774 850 12,040 31,726 143,160 2020 Q1 71,609 29,528 23,666 10,967 2,062 4,536 850 14,077 25,024 157,851 2019 Q4 68,273 32,146 17,349 5,226 9,402 3,300 850 9,964 22,153 122,571 2019 Q3 64,283 32,578 17,349 - 10,206 3,300 850 5,667 26,343 126,847 2019 Q2 61,946 35,423 17,149 3,424 - 5,100 850 2,913 11,286 109,811 2019 Q1 56,015 26,552 17,149 4,324 750 5,640 1,600 1,383 19,971 127,702 2018 Q4 53,397 35,982 9,250 5,335 - 2,830 - - 20,559 114,843 2018 Q3 34,381 19,785 9,465 1,911 - 3,220 - 3,100 24,870 94,342 2018 Q2 31,228 20,830 3,017 3,711 - 3,670 - - 23,992 111,338 2018 Q1 36,373 22,483 6,317 4,337 - 3,236 - 250 27,425 92,497 2017 Q4 51,354 29,687 17,651 780 - 3,236 - 1,800 23,648 54,170 2017 Q3 32,545 26,296 2,797 2,152 - 1,300 - 7,344 16,706 47,270 2017 Q2 57,323 33,513 18,832 - - 3,688 1,290 8,344 17,421 46,153 2017 Q1 74,259 43,793 18,332 6,751 - 3,538 1,845 11,280 15,621 37,648 2016 Q4 25,103 15,915 - 2,436 875 4,962 915 9,944 11,311 55,410 2016 Q3 34,582 20,515 5,191 1,264 875 2,738 3,999 4,290 13,268 60,582 2016 Q2 17,374 10,500 2,986 2,100 - 1,788 - 10,500 9,427 42,179 2016 Q1 37,919 23,261 7,358 2,429 - 4,871 - 9,990 9,142 51,035 2015 Q4 24,547 4,350 10,597 2,429 - 7,171 - 10,172 6,166 65,780 2015 Q3 12,725 5,350 1,358 2,429 - 3,588 - 9,515 3,150 67,286 2015 Q2 27,143 8,084 6,158 329 - 9,488 3,084 11,428 3,322 54,211 2015 Q1 34,214 17,459 6,158 - - 7,513 3,084 10,092 5,172 59,104 2014 Q4 18,344 5,226 4,800 1,722 - 3,512 3,084 1,000 - 72,902 2014 Q3 20,198 3,600 4,800 1,722 - 6,992 3,084 2,500 4,260 80,946 2014 Q2 29,786 19,900 310 - - 6,492 3,084 3,200 6,175 83,840 2014 Q1 36,931 10,402 2,200 - 10,432 10,813 3,084 5,124 18,144 57,548 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 103     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 7 Figure 2: Retail Vacancy Square Footage - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Total Square Feet Palo Alto Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 104     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 8 Table 4: Retail Market Asking Rent Per Square Foot - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) PERIOD Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street TOTAL SF 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 433,000 461,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 $77 $54 $77 $49 $54 $56 $49 $68 $80 2023 Q4 $78 $55 $77 $49 $54 $56 $49 $68 $81 2023 Q3 $76.8 $54.3 $75.7 $49.0 $53.3 $55.2 $49.0 $67.3 $80.9 2023 Q2 $77.1 $54.5 $76.4 $48.8 $53.6 $55.6 $49.2 $67.0 $81.2 2023 Q1 $77.7 $54.9 $77.1 $49.1 $54.1 $56.0 $49.3 $66.8 $81.4 2022 Q4 $77 $55 $77 $49 $54 $56 $49 $67 $82 2022 Q3 $77 $54 $77 $49 $54 $56 $49 $66 $81 2022 Q2 $77 $54 $76 $48 $53 $55 $49 $66 $81 2022 Q1 $76 $54 $75 $48 $53 $55 $49 $65 $79 2021 Q4 $76 $54 $75 $48 $53 $55 $48 $65 $79 2021 Q3 $76 $53 $74 $48 $53 $54 $48 $64 $79 2021 Q2 $75 $53 $74 $48 $52 $54 $48 $64 $78 2021 Q1 $74 $53 $73 $47 $52 $53 $47 $64 $78 2020 Q4 $74 $52 $73 $47 $51 $53 $47 $64 $78 2020 Q3 $74 $52 $73 $46 $51 $53 $47 $64 $79 2020 Q2 $74 $52 $73 $46 $51 $53 $47 $64 $79 2020 Q1 $73 $52 $72 $46 $51 $52 $46 $64 $80 2019 Q4 $73 $52 $71 $46 $50 $52 $46 $64 $80 2019 Q3 $72 $51 $71 $46 $50 $52 $46 $64 $81 2019 Q2 $72 $51 $70 $45 $50 $51 $46 $63 $81 2019 Q1 $71 $51 $69 $45 $49 $51 $45 $63 $80 2018 Q4 $71 $50 $69 $45 $49 $51 $45 $63 $80 2018 Q3 $70 $50 $68 $45 $49 $50 $44 $62 $78 2018 Q2 $70 $50 $68 $44 $48 $50 $44 $62 $78 2018 Q1 $69 $49 $67 $44 $48 $49 $44 $62 $78 2017 Q4 $69 $49 $66 $43 $47 $49 $43 $61 $77 2017 Q3 $68 $49 $65 $43 $47 $49 $43 $61 $79 2017 Q2 $68 $48 $65 $43 $47 $48 $43 $60 $80 2017 Q1 $67 $48 $65 $43 $46 $48 $42 $60 $80 2016 Q4 $67 $47 $64 $42 $46 $47 $42 $59 $80 2016 Q3 $66 $47 $63 $42 $45 $47 $42 $59 $79 2016 Q2 $65 $46 $62 $41 $45 $46 $41 $59 $75 2016 Q1 $65 $46 $61 $41 $44 $46 $41 $58 $73 2015 Q4 $64 $45 $60 $40 $44 $45 $40 $57 $72 2015 Q3 $63 $45 $59 $40 $43 $44 $40 $57 $71 2015 Q2 $63 $44 $59 $39 $43 $44 $39 $56 $70 2015 Q1 $62 $44 $58 $39 $42 $43 $39 $55 $69 2014 Q4 $61 $44 $57 $39 $42 $43 $39 $55 $68 2014 Q3 $61 $43 $57 $38 $41 $42 $38 $54 $67 2014 Q2 $60 $43 $56 $38 $41 $42 $38 $54 $66 2014 Q1 $60 $42 $55 $37 $40 $41 $37 $53 $66 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 105     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 9 Figure 3: Retail Market Asking Rent Per Square Foot - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 106     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 10 Table 5: Retail Vacancy by Months - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 - 2024 Q1) PERIOD Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street TOTAL FA 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 433,000 461,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 8.5 40.6 2.3 23.1 2023 Q4 11.5 15.1 39.2 0.9 21.7 2.2 4.8 2023 Q3 13.0 22.3 32.1 18.7 11.1 10.9 12.1 2023 Q2 11.5 27.8 15.6 20.8 4.0 10.0 2023 Q1 29.2 24.8 12.6 6.4 23.1 16.5 2022 Q4 6.3 5.1 23.4 10.9 9.7 15.1 3.8 10.5 2022 Q3 5.8 19.1 7.9 12.4 0.5 5.7 2.1 2022 Q2 5.7 29.6 16.3 4.8 11.5 2.4 14.2 6.1 2022 Q1 4.9 6.8 15.9 1.8 8.5 6.8 11.4 2021 Q4 13.6 15.5 12.8 7.4 12.6 2.6 16.9 2021 Q3 17.4 13.3 4.4 10.2 31.0 2021 Q2 6.0 8.3 12.2 13.3 10.4 7.4 2021 Q1 14.6 9.2 10.3 13.3 5.7 2020 Q4 7.6 6.3 17.2 17.4 17.4 4.2 8.2 2020 Q3 6.0 5.2 14.2 14.4 5.0 2020 Q2 17.8 4.1 11.2 11.4 9.4 2020 Q1 15.1 2.0 8.2 8.4 5.0 2.5 8.1 2019 Q4 7.0 3.8 4.4 5.2 7.4 3.0 6.5 2019 Q3 4.0 1.8 2.2 4.4 3.6 4.0 2019 Q2 4.1 3.2 18.8 3.9 8.0 2019 Q1 3.5 1.7 1.0 3.8 2.7 6.2 2018 Q4 5.1 5.3 0.4 0.9 3.1 6.0 16.4 2018 Q3 6.4 5.5 15.5 2.0 5.2 2018 Q2 16.5 4.1 2.9 4.2 8.8 4.8 2018 Q1 2.3 6.5 9.5 19.2 2.4 10.1 2017 Q4 13.8 0.3 5.5 8.9 12.0 4.3 16.1 2017 Q3 6.3 3.6 9.4 6.5 2.9 5.5 2017 Q2 4.6 5.3 2.1 10.2 6.2 1.6 4.7 10.0 2017 Q1 10.2 7.2 15.4 1.1 0.5 2016 Q4 7.0 7.2 3.3 4.2 6.7 3.4 4.4 2016 Q3 9.3 17.1 3.2 0.3 4.1 3.2 18.1 3.8 2016 Q2 5.0 3.5 6.7 8.6 9.0 1.4 7.0 2016 Q1 5.0 6.0 6.7 6.4 4.5 6.9 2015 Q4 34.6 3.7 6.1 10.1 4.0 11.5 2015 Q3 4.9 6.9 7.4 4.3 5.8 6.9 2015 Q2 5.6 3.9 4.3 17.0 7.0 2015 Q1 1.6 0.9 1.8 3.9 5.1 2014 Q4 2.7 3.3 1.4 7.6 1.8 8.5 2014 Q3 3.9 0.2 5 4.5 2.1 9.8 2014 Q2 2.9 0.9 2.5 9.3 5.1 5.0 2014 Q1 6.1 5.5 3.8 6.0 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 107     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 11 Figure 4: Retail Vacancy by Months - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 - 2024 Q1) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 20 2 4 Q 1 Q T D 20 2 3 Q 3 20 2 3 Q 1 20 2 2 Q 3 20 2 2 Q 1 20 2 1 Q 3 20 2 1 Q 1 20 2 0 Q 3 20 2 0 Q 1 20 1 9 Q 3 20 1 9 Q 1 20 1 8 Q 3 20 1 8 Q 1 20 1 7 Q 3 20 1 7 Q 1 20 1 6 Q 3 20 1 6 Q 1 20 1 5 Q 3 20 1 5 Q 1 20 1 4 Q 3 20 1 4 Q 1 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Linear (Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF)) Linear (Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R)) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – South) Linear (Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF)) Linear (Los Altos CRS Zone) Linear (Santa Monica Main Street) Linear (Santa Monica 3rd Street) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC)) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS)) Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 108     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 12 Office Table 6: Office Overview - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2024 Q1) Office Total/Average Palo Alto Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 3,316,000 2,100,000 712,000 49,800 192,000 219,000 43,200 188,000 247,000 1,300,000 Under Construction Square Feet - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant Square Feet 556,100 339,000 166,000 5,800 15,500 20,900 8,900 24,300 77,400 364,000 12 Month Net Absorption Square Feet (59,913) -77,600 -6,500 -1,100 8,800 16,400 87 -4700 -26,800 -122,000 12 Month Net Absorption Square Feet (one year change) 42% 8.8% 89.5% 69.2% 26.4% -46.5% 102.7% -126.2% -164.0% -89.8% VACANCY RATE 17% 16.0% 23.4% 11.6% 8.1% 9.6% 20.7% 12.9% 31.4% 28.3% Vacancy Rate (one year change) -1% 3.7% 1.0% 2.3% -4.6% -5.6% -0.2% 2.5% 11.0% 9.5% Market Asking Rent/ Square Feet $76.22 $93.77 $72.23 $87.63 $72.45 $66.11 $65.13 $71.82 $59.36 $66.34 Market Asking Rent/ Square Feet (one year change) -1% -0.8% -1.6% -1.0% -1.6% -1.3% -1.8% -0.5% 0.6% 0.4% Market Sale Price/ Square Feet $928 $1,077 $894 $1,149 $969 $749 $727 $679 $840 $734 Market Sale Price/ Square Feet (one year change) -7% -6.4% -7.4% -8.3% -7.9% -7.1% -7.8% -7.0% -5.6% -7.2% Market Cap Rate 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.9% 6.5% 6.1% 5.7% 5.8% Market Cap Rate (one year change) 0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 109     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 13 Table 7: Office Vacancy Rate - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) Period Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 2,100,000 712,000 49,800 192,000 219,000 43,200 188,000 247,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 16.0% 23.4% 11.6% 8.1% 9.6% 20.7% 12.9% 31.4% 28.7% 2023 Q4 17.6% 17.6% 11.6% 4.6% 14.9% 20.7% 13.4% 30.1% 26.6% 2023 Q3 16.8% 18.2% 11.6% 6.0% 14.3% 20.0% 13.7% 26.2% 21.9% 2023 Q2 16.2% 23.4% 11.6% 6.0% 13.9% 19.8% 13.0% 23.0% 21.4% 2023 Q1 14.0% 25.1% 11.6% 8.1% 14.4% 22.0% 10.2% 24.0% 19.2% 2022 Q4 10.8% 20.0% 7.2% 16.9% 16.0% 19.9% 10.6% 17.2% 18.5% 2022 Q3 9.6% 26.4% 0.0% 12.3% 17.5% 19.1% 17.5% 18.6% 21.1% 2022 Q2 8.6% 15.5% 0.0% 12.3% 29.5% 19.6% 17.9% 19.9% 16.4% 2022 Q1 7.8% 16.3% 0.0% 15.3% 29.2% 19.6% 19.5% 15.3% 13.0% 2021 Q4 8.7% 17.7% 3.8% 17.4% 29.9% 7.7% 20.4% 14.4% 14.5% 2021 Q3 9.4% 14.8% 3.8% 16.2% 22.1% 8.8% 24.3% 15.7% 12.6% 2021 Q2 11.7% 14.8% 3.8% 15.8% 18.9% 14.7% 13.3% 22.5% 12.4% 2021 Q1 10.7% 10.0% 3.8% 17.7% 17.4% 26.6% 14.2% 15.8% 10.8% 2020 Q4 11.6% 9.6% 3.8% 14.8% 9.2% 26.6% 13.7% 16.7% 9.2% 2020 Q3 9.3% 8.5% 5.6% 14.8% 13.3% 12.3% 14.1% 15.2% 9.7% 2020 Q2 5.1% 5.2% 7.8% 13.9% 16.5% 7.7% 14.6% 5.2% 7.6% 2020 Q1 4.8% 4.6% 5.9% 3.7% 14.7% 4.6% 11.8% 3.9% 4.7% 2019 Q4 3.5% 6.9% 0.0% 3.7% 6.7% 4.6% 13.3% 5.1% 4.0% 2019 Q3 2.9% 4.0% 0.0% 3.7% 6.6% 13.1% 2.7% 3.8% 6.3% 2019 Q2 2.1% 5.7% 0.0% 2.9% 6.9% 13.1% 2.7% 0.6% 5.2% 2019 Q1 1.9% 8.3% 0.0% 6.9% 5.4% 13.1% 2.0% 0.5% 4.5% 2018 Q4 2.0% 7.5% 0.0% 33.3% 4.8% 14.4% 1.5% 0.5% 2.8% 2018 Q3 2.3% 7.5% 0.0% 3.2% 4.5% 0.0% 0.9% 2.2% 2.9% 2018 Q2 2.1% 3.5% 2.0% 6.3% 10.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.2% 7.6% 2018 Q1 3.2% 11.0% 2.0% 8.3% 3.7% 0.0% 2.7% 5.2% 5.7% 2017 Q4 4.4% 9.6% 2.0% 7.3% 4.1% 0.0% 3.4% 3.2% 7.6% 2017 Q3 3.4% 8.2% 2.0% 7.6% 2.2% 0.0% 4.2% 9.6% 7.2% 2017 Q2 3.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.9% 5.3% 0.0% 4.2% 11.1% 7.3% 2017 Q1 5.1% 5.6% 4.7% 9.8% 4.7% 0.0% 3.3% 4.5% 8.4% 2016 Q4 3.9% 4.5% 4.7% 6.5% 3.6% 0.0% 5.1% 6.4% 8.0% 2016 Q3 3.6% 3.4% 0.0% 7.0% 1.3% 0.0% 5.5% 3.7% 8.1% 2016 Q2 3.2% 1.5% 0.0% 9.2% 2.9% 0.0% 2.7% 6.3% 7.0% 2016 Q1 2.1% 2.4% 0.9% 5.0% 1.3% 0.0% 4.7% 3.1% 6.1% 2015 Q4 1.6% 3.0% 0.9% 3.5% 4.3% 0.0% 4.7% 3.4% 7.7% 2015 Q3 3.0% 5.3% 0.9% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6% 5.9% 1.2% 10.3% 2015 Q2 3.4% 10.6% 0.9% 4.0% 2.1% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 9.4% 2015 Q1 3.4% 6.3% 0.0% 10.1% 1.5% 0.0% 6.5% 2.1% 7.8% 2014 Q4 3.2% 5.8% 0.0% 16.8% 4.0% 0.0% 14.1% 2.6% 7.2% 2014 Q3 3.2% 3.5% 0.0% 5.5% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 7.1% 2014 Q2 3.0% 3.7% 3.2% 3.6% 15.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 9.2% 2014 Q1 2.7% 4.5% 5.7% 1.3% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% 7.5% Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 110     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 14 Figure 5: Office Vacancy Rate - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 111     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 15 Table 8: Office Vacancy Square Footage - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) Period Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 2,100,000 712,000 49,800 192,000 219,000 43,200 188,000 247,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 338,980 166,439 5,768 15,473 20,880 8,939 24,340 77,431 369,593 2023 Q4 373,997 125,480 5,768 8,914 32,472 8,939 25,297 74,240 342,659 2023 Q3 356,287 129,448 5,768 11,514 31,271 8,653 25,884 64,601 281,799 2023 Q2 343,975 166,543 5,768 11,514 30,435 8,533 24,435 56,739 274,774 2023 Q1 296,317 178,598 5,768 15,488 30,775 9,499 19,192 59,219 246,795 2022 Q4 228,762 142,548 3,600 32,520 34,099 8,583 20,027 42,506 237,438 2022 Q3 204,888 195,380 - 23,713 37,370 8,253 33,036 45,998 271,948 2022 Q2 182,597 115,147 - 23,713 62,987 8,461 33,642 48,241 211,668 2022 Q1 166,536 120,902 - 29,313 62,363 8,461 36,703 36,982 167,152 2021 Q4 183,733 130,842 1,881 33,353 63,940 3,326 38,424 34,829 186,772 2021 Q3 200,319 109,783 1,881 31,153 47,138 3,810 45,703 38,130 157,999 2021 Q2 249,472 109,639 1,881 30,313 40,471 6,359 25,046 54,411 156,037 2021 Q1 227,481 74,063 1,881 34,056 37,202 11,471 26,801 38,412 135,137 2020 Q4 246,443 71,183 1,881 28,380 19,680 11,471 25,741 40,470 115,644 2020 Q3 198,350 62,618 2,803 28,380 28,531 5,315 26,599 36,802 121,745 2020 Q2 108,452 38,263 3,872 26,713 35,197 3,315 27,434 12,606 94,942 2020 Q1 102,288 34,426 2,950 4,743 31,497 2,000 22,155 9,504 59,198 2019 Q4 75,003 51,261 - 4,743 14,396 2,000 24,972 12,476 50,570 2019 Q3 60,668 29,639 - 4,759 14,206 5,671 5,146 9,324 79,541 2019 Q2 45,072 42,238 - 3,775 14,773 5,671 5,052 1,470 65,206 2019 Q1 39,774 61,431 - 8,959 11,621 5,671 3,804 1,195 56,110 2018 Q4 41,800 55,749 - 61,500 10,271 6,203 2,910 1,195 35,511 2018 Q3 48,961 55,552 - 6,000 9,678 - 1,624 5,217 36,305 2018 Q2 44,085 25,221 1,006 11,650 22,255 - 1,944 5,217 95,083 2018 Q1 67,447 79,176 1,006 15,364 7,977 - 5,010 12,484 72,085 2017 Q4 93,961 68,883 1,006 13,423 8,834 - 6,451 7,733 95,575 2017 Q3 72,062 58,663 1,006 14,058 4,729 - 8,006 23,331 91,024 2017 Q2 63,375 42,736 2,878 10,856 11,262 - 8,006 26,922 91,771 2017 Q1 106,579 40,027 2,337 18,051 10,110 - 6,251 11,000 105,311 2016 Q4 81,137 32,422 2,337 12,038 7,730 - 9,671 15,459 101,340 2016 Q3 75,143 21,830 - 12,938 2,870 - 10,448 8,946 102,816 2016 Q2 67,517 9,857 - 17,017 6,170 - 5,109 15,248 88,763 2016 Q1 43,012 15,710 464 9,158 2,870 - 8,950 7,480 77,429 2015 Q4 32,332 19,032 464 6,199 9,217 - 8,950 8,110 98,179 2015 Q3 60,015 34,390 464 8,019 9,951 2,000 11,154 2,942 130,653 2015 Q2 67,695 70,579 464 7,166 4,516 - 3,186 4,023 119,298 2015 Q1 67,094 41,829 - 19,238 3,224 - 12,328 4,942 98,873 2014 Q4 63,266 36,802 - 36,015 8,560 - 26,489 6,319 91,257 2014 Q3 63,406 22,370 - 11,684 27,325 - - 12,848 90,162 2014 Q2 59,714 23,692 1,595 7,773 33,604 - - 6,471 117,272 2014 Q1 52,525 28,587 2,859 2,865 20,112 - - 20,364 95,659 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 112     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 16 Figure 6: Office Vacancy Square Footage - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 113     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 17 Table 9: Office Market Asking Rent per Square Foot - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) Period Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 2,100,000 712,000 49,800 192,000 219,000 43,200 188,000 247,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 $94 $72 $88 $72 $66 $65 $72 $59 $66 2023 Q4 $94 $72 $88 $72 $66 $65 $72 $59 $66 2023 Q3 $94 $72 $88 $72 $66 $65 $72 $59 $66 2023 Q2 $94 $73 $88 $73 $67 $66 $72 $59 $67 2023 Q1 $94 $73 $88 $73 $67 $66 $72 $59 $66 2022 Q4 $95 $74 $89 $74 $67 $67 $72 $59 $66 2022 Q3 $96 $76 $90 $76 $68 $67 $73 $59 $66 2022 Q2 $97 $76 $92 $77 $70 $68 $74 $59 $65 2022 Q1 $97 $76 $92 $78 $69 $68 $74 $59 $65 2021 Q4 $99 $78 $95 $80 $71 $69 $75 $58 $64 2021 Q3 $99 $78 $94 $80 $71 $69 $75 $58 $63 2021 Q2 $98 $77 $92 $79 $70 $68 $74 $58 $63 2021 Q1 $98 $77 $93 $79 $70 $68 $75 $59 $64 2020 Q4 $99 $78 $96 $80 $72 $68 $78 $59 $65 2020 Q3 $102 $80 $100 $82 $75 $70 $78 $60 $66 2020 Q2 $103 $80 $103 $82 $76 $71 $79 $62 $69 2020 Q1 $106 $82 $105 $84 $78 $73 $79 $63 $71 2019 Q4 $105 $82 $107 $84 $79 $73 $80 $63 $72 2019 Q3 $104 $82 $105 $84 $78 $73 $79 $63 $71 2019 Q2 $104 $82 $104 $84 $78 $73 $78 $62 $69 2019 Q1 $104 $82 $105 $84 $79 $74 $78 $62 $68 2018 Q4 $103 $80 $103 $83 $78 $72 $77 $61 $67 2018 Q3 $104 $80 $106 $83 $79 $72 $76 $62 $67 2018 Q2 $104 $80 $107 $83 $80 $73 $73 $61 $67 2018 Q1 $103 $79 $107 $82 $79 $73 $72 $59 $66 2017 Q4 $100 $77 $104 $80 $77 $70 $71 $59 $65 2017 Q3 $99 $75 $102 $79 $76 $69 $71 $59 $64 2017 Q2 $99 $76 $102 $80 $77 $70 $71 $59 $64 2017 Q1 $100 $77 $101 $80 $77 $71 $70 $58 $63 2016 Q4 $102 $78 $102 $81 $78 $73 $71 $57 $62 2016 Q3 $101 $78 $100 $80 $77 $72 $71 $56 $62 2016 Q2 $100 $77 $97 $79 $76 $72 $70 $56 $61 2016 Q1 $105 $79 $101 $81 $78 $74 $69 $55 $60 2015 Q4 $101 $77 $97 $78 $76 $71 $67 $54 $58 2015 Q3 $99 $76 $97 $77 $75 $71 $66 $53 $58 2015 Q2 $96 $73 $93 $75 $73 $68 $65 $51 $56 2015 Q1 $92 $70 $88 $71 $69 $65 $62 $50 $55 2014 Q4 $88 $67 $84 $68 $66 $62 $60 $49 $53 2014 Q3 $85 $64 $80 $66 $63 $59 $57 $48 $52 2014 Q2 $82 $61 $76 $64 $60 $56 $55 $47 $51 2014 Q1 $81 $60 $76 $63 $61 $56 $53 $46 $51 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 114     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 18 Figure 7: Office Market Asking Rent per Square Foot - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 20 2 4 Q 1 E S T 20 2 3 Q 4 20 2 3 Q 2 20 2 2 Q 4 20 2 2 Q 2 20 2 1 Q 4 20 2 1 Q 2 20 2 0 Q 4 20 2 0 Q 2 20 1 9 Q 4 20 1 9 Q 2 20 1 8 Q 4 20 1 8 Q 2 20 1 7 Q 4 20 1 7 Q 2 20 1 6 Q 4 20 1 6 Q 2 20 1 5 Q 4 20 1 5 Q 2 20 1 4 Q 4 20 1 4 Q 2 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 115     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 19 Table 10: Office Vacancy by Months - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1) Period Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Santa Monica 3rd Street INVENTORY SF 2,100,000 712,000 49,800 192,000 219,000 43,200 188,000 247,000 1,300,000 2024 Q1 9.5 11.0 15.3 11.6 5.5 4.3 4.7 2023 Q4 10.7 4.4 13.9 10.2 7.6 6.2 6.2 2.3 21.6 2023 Q3 10.1 9.1 10.9 7.0 9.8 2.8 1.4 10.6 2023 Q2 3.9 15.9 7.9 3.9 25 5.0 9.2 16.9 2023 Q1 32.0 15.0 4.4 4.6 10.9 5.0 6.0 1.9 5.6 2022 Q4 3.2 14.4 1.9 2.2 17.7 8.8 4.4 8.7 2022 Q3 3.5 12.8 24.2 16.8 19.0 12.4 2022 Q2 5.4 13.6 17.7 15.8 18.9 1.0 15.0 2022 Q1 10.4 19.0 14.7 12.8 6.1 5.1 13.8 2021 Q4 10.5 7.6 21.3 9.7 12.3 2.1 2.6 17.4 2021 Q3 16.5 14.3 18.2 6.7 12.2 16.9 7.3 19.8 3.5 2021 Q2 11.2 8.1 15.2 7.4 11.3 11.1 12.4 9.5 3.3 2021 Q1 5.3 12.2 6.2 10.4 10.3 9.5 2020 Q4 6.1 20.1 9.3 7.2 7.6 3.7 12.0 7.4 2020 Q3 11.5 5.5 4.1 4.6 1.8 2.3 3.6 2020 Q2 12.2 2.7 3.7 2.8 4.7 3.7 2020 Q1 6.7 8.8 0.2 1.4 13.7 3.4 4.6 4.0 11.9 2019 Q4 5.1 3.4 10.1 12.2 3.2 6.1 2019 Q3 8.5 4.1 0.8 6.1 5.6 4.2 5.0 2019 Q2 6.2 7.1 3.6 7.1 4.5 2.7 2019 Q1 4.8 4.3 0.9 2.9 4.2 1.3 4.2 2018 Q4 6.4 9.6 3.8 18.8 5.2 7.4 4.8 2018 Q3 4.6 6.4 0.8 15.8 2.6 1.8 3.3 6.6 2018 Q2 4.3 5.2 12.7 1.3 5.8 0.8 6.8 6.3 2018 Q1 3.1 7.4 9.8 9.8 4.5 41.9 3.5 5.6 2017 Q4 8.4 9.1 6.8 6.8 2.4 11.7 3.9 3.7 2017 Q3 4.6 3.3 3.8 4.1 5.3 6.7 7.6 2017 Q2 3.7 4.4 4.5 2.6 3.7 4.5 2017 Q1 2.5 1.9 4.1 7.9 5.6 6.0 3.9 2016 Q4 7.7 3.9 1.1 5.3 5.4 6.1 5.8 2016 Q3 3.6 4.7 4.0 5.0 11.8 4.0 2.0 2016 Q2 5.6 3.7 3.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 6.7 0.5 2016 Q1 10.1 9.4 4.8 8.3 5.7 10.9 8.5 2015 Q4 9.8 5.3 17.9 5.7 3.0 5.3 2015 Q3 2.9 2.4 6.9 7.5 6.1 2.8 2.6 4.6 2015 Q2 4.4 7.0 3.9 4.4 4.5 1.8 15.2 2015 Q1 3.6 6.4 0.9 6.8 1.6 4.6 7.1 2014 Q4 2.5 31.1 4.4 22 2.2 2.7 2014 Q3 3.3 2.2 2.9 10.6 1.6 4.8 4.2 2014 Q2 2.9 5.4 3.0 2.5 7.4 5.0 5.7 2014 Q1 2.3 3.4 9.2 1.2 6.2 3.4 4.0 3.5 Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 116     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix B, Page 20 Figure 8: Office Vacancy by Months - Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Santa Monica (2014 Q1 - 2024 Q1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 2 4 Q 1 Q T D 20 2 3 Q 3 20 2 3 Q 1 20 2 2 Q 3 20 2 2 Q 1 20 2 1 Q 3 20 2 1 Q 1 20 2 0 Q 3 20 2 0 Q 1 20 1 9 Q 3 20 1 9 Q 1 20 1 8 Q 3 20 1 8 Q 1 20 1 7 Q 3 20 1 7 Q 1 20 1 6 Q 3 20 1 6 Q 1 20 1 5 Q 3 20 1 5 Q 1 20 1 4 Q 3 20 1 4 Q 1 Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF) Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS) Palo Alto El Camino Real – South Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF) Los Altos CRS Zone Santa Monica Main Street Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R) Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC) Linear (#REF!)Linear (Palo Alto Downtown (CD-C/GF)) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – California Ave (CN, CS)) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – South) Linear (Palo Alto Midtown (CN/GF)) Linear (Los Altos CRS Zone) Linear (Santa Monica Main Street) Linear (Palo Alto California Ave (CC2/R)) Linear (Palo Alto El Camino Real – Town & County (CC)) Item 3 Attachment B: Appendix B Market Study     Packet Pg. 117     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY development projects, including those with specific income thresholds or fewer than 20 dwelling units. AB 2097 does not prohibit off-street parking from being built if that is desirable. Voluntary parking may be provided at a ratio less than what would otherwise have been required by the Zoning Ordinance. Introduction Purpose AB 2097 Parking Relief AreasThe purpose of this study is to review the implications of the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 on the City of Palo Alto’s parking regulations and management strategies, the adequacy of the existing parking inventory and potential impacts on retail establishments. The study areas subject to relief from enforcement of minimum parking standards provided by AB 2097 are shown in Figure 1 and described below. Detailed maps for each area can be found in Attachment 3. This parking review was conducted for the four major retail areas and corridors in Palo Alto: Downtown Palo Alto/University Avenue, California Avenue, Midtown, and the El Camino Real corridor. The study area boundaries are shown in Figure 1. Parking supply and occupancy data is based on limited city survey data from 2018 and 2019. The study areas included public on- and off-street parking. Downtown and California Avenue have the majority of the parking capacity, which resulted in their being the primary focus of the analyses and recommendations. Downtown/University Avenue: The Downtown/University Avenue study area is within a half-mile of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and the Palo Alto Transit Center and hence is subject to AB 2097. This High-Quality Transit Area nearly encompasses all but a half-block with 16 parcels of the Downtown/University Avenue commercially zoned (CD-C) study area. California Avenue: The entire California Avenue study area is within a half- mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station, a High-Quality Transit Stop, and hence is subject to AB 2097 provisions. AB 2097 Summary Midtown: Midtown is not within a half-mile of a High-Quality Transit Stop and therefore is not impacted by AB 2097. Development in this area is subjected to the parking standards set forth in the City’s zoning code.AB 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022, and went into effect January 1, 2023. AB 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most types of development within a half-mile of a major transit stop. AB 2097 does not apply to projects that designate any portion of the project as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, or reduce parking spaces designated for this purpose. AB 2097 does not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement for parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities or electric vehicle spaces and supply equipment for new multifamily residential or nonresidential development that is located within one-half mile of public transit. Additionally, AB 2097 does not affect event center parking requirements for employees and other workers as required by local ordinance. El Camino Real Corridor: The northern portion of the El Camino Real corridor, north of Acacia Avenue which includes Town and Country and areas around California Avenue, is within a half-mile of the California Avenue Train Station, a High-Quality Transit Stop, and hence is subject to AB 2097 provisions. AB 2097 is not applicable to the rest of the corridor. There are over 200 commercial parcels where the City can continue to impose minimum parking requirements, between Acacia Avenue and Los Altos Avenue. The bill authorizes jurisdictions to impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a housing development project if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on the public agency’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs or existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the housing development. These findings cannot be made against certain housing City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 1 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 118     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Figure 1: AB 2097 Parking Relief & Study Areas City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 2 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 119     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Existing Conditions Parking Supply At the time of this study, there are approximately 6,677 total public parking spaces, which includes public parking lots, public parking garages and on- street spaces within the four retail districts in the study area. Of these, 2,125 (32%) are on-street spaces and 4,552 (68%) are off-street public parking spaces. Detailed maps and tables for each area can be found in Attachment 2. These are summarized in the following table. Table 1: Study Area Public Parking Supply Public Parking Study Area On-street Parking*Off-street Parking Total per Study Area 4,255 Notes 76 percent of off-street parking is provided by structured parking. Excludes 14 spaces as a result of permanent vehicular closure of a segment of Ramona Street, between Hamilton Avenue and University Avenue. Parking data received from Office of Transportation based on 2019 survey data. 62 percent of off-street parking is provided by structured parking. Excludes 65 spaces as a result of permanent vehicular closure of California Avenue, between El Camino Real and Birch Street). Parking data received from Office of Transportation based on 2019 survey data. Downtown/ University Avenue 1,035 3,220 California Avenue Midtown 756 25 1,239 93 1,995 118 All off-street parking spaces are provided by parking lots. Parking data has been counted manually from Google Earth (February 2024). One public parking lot was identified; however, it provides parking for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields and was not counted. It should be noted that the Palo Alto City Council is considering a resolution to remove parking on El Camino Real to install bike lanes as a part of the upcoming repaving project per Caltrans’ request. Parking data derived for the study area from April 1, 2024 El Camino Real 309 0 309 staff report (item 11)presented to City Council, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14217. Total per Parking Type 2,125 4,552 6,677 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 3 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 120     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Outreach about parking supply, adequacy, regulatory approach, impacts and responses to AB 2097, and recommendations. x x Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments issued to fund transportation improvements identified. Reimbursement for administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining the transportation impact fee reserve account required by this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies to establish the requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds and yearly accounting and reports.1 This study included outreach to business owners and peer cities to obtain input on parking issues and regulatory approaches and recommendations to inform this study.Santa Monica, CA The City of Santa Monica has developed a robust parking program that maintains the walkable character of the downtown while providing ample parking for those who need it. Prior to the adoption of AB 2097, the City eliminated minimum parking requirements for a majority of active uses in the downtown. The City also developed 10 public parking structures in the downtown district funded by in-lieu fees for businesses, which provide plenty of parking for the area. The following describes a few of Santa Monica’s parking demand management strategies. Stakeholder Input Summary Interviews were conducted with six business/property owners who operate their businesses in Palo Alto to identify any regulatory constraints they have experienced. The list of business and property owners that were interviewed can be found in Appendix A of this report. The following is a summary of the comments, issues, and concerns regarding parking.It should be noted that the City of Palo Alto also has a Citywide Transportation impact fee (Chapter 16.59 of Municipal Code). These funds are expended only on the installation, acquisition, and construction of eligible citywide transportation enhancement including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and roadway and intersection improvements. Citywide transportation enhancements do not include intersection improvements designed primarily to accommodate increased traffic generated by a specific development or the addition of through- traffic lanes designed for primary use by private motorized vehicles. 1. Excessive in-lieu parking fees. 2. Allow parking transfer between uses.Unbundling Parking: One parking strategy Santa Monica uses is unbundling parking. The municipal code requires that parking spaces be leased or sold separately from residential or commercial structures. This way, non-drivers are not required to pay for parking they do not need, and the parking spaces that exist will be used more efficiently. For commercial developments, requiring that parking be unbundled helps facilitate the State’s Parking Cash-Out Program. 3. Unable to add parking for a change in use.ꢀ ꢀ 4. City staff parking is occupying valuable off-street parking spaces. Customers have to park on-street in the neighborhoods instead of the garages. 5. Need more flexible parking regulations when it is not feasible to provide required on-site parking.Transportation Demand Management Plan Requirements for New Developments: The City of Santa Monica also requires Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for new developments with 16 or more residential units or at least 7,500 commercial square feet.2 Strategies to reduce vehicle travel may include both programmatic measures and site improvements. 6. There is ample parking in California Avenue. 7. On-street parking time limit is a hindrance for employees. 8. Hard for employees to get permits for the garages due to limited number of permits available. Transportation Impact Fees: Santa Monica has a transportation impact fee program that requires developers to pay a fee based on the number of residential units or on the amount of square footage for nonresidential developments. Establishing this program required a nexus study9. Provide range of times for pricing to accommodate a mix of users.demonstrating the relationship between the expected transportation impacts of new developments and the fees required to address those impacts through transportation improvements and trip reduction strategies. Santa Monica utilizes the funds from transportation impact fees for projects that reduce vehicle traffic which also helps manage parking demand. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: It should be noted that the comments 1, 2, 3 and 5 summarized in the list above are no longer applicable for AB 2097 implications areas. Also permit availability was an issue pre COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, the demand has decreased for parking permits. Palo Alto also has TDM requirements per Section 18.52.050 (d) of Municipal Code that grants the Director of Planning and Development Services the authority to require including TDM strategies for any project requesting a reduction in parking or generating 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips.Peer City Parking Management Best Practices Los Altos, CAxReimbursement for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct transportation improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the cost of land and right-of-way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction, construction management, materials, and equipment. The following are parking management best practice strategies identified from the following jurisdictions through staff interviews (Cities of Santa Monica and Los Altos) and research (City of Pasadena). City staff were asked The City of Los Altos has a three-block by three-block downtown with two parallel commercial corridors, referred to as the Downtown Triangle. This retail district includes mostly single-story retail and restaurants, which is comparable in scale and character to California Avenue in Palo Alto. The City 1 Santa Monica Municipal Code- Section 9.66.070, Accessed May 1, 2024,2 Transportation Demand Management: a set of strategies aimed at improving transportation efficiency, reducing congestion, and promoting sustainable travel options.https://ecode360.com/42752344#42752425 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 4 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 121     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY owns six acres of parking in the form of parking plazas and smaller lots (10 total) located north and south of the two commercial streets, which along with on-street parking provide all of the parking for the existing uses. The following describes a few of Los Altos’ parking strategies. Parking Maximums and Public Parking in Transit-Oriented Development Areas: Pasadena’s Municipal Code establishes maximum parking requirements for new development in its transit-oriented development areas. The strategy of limiting parking provision is meant to help the City achieve long-term sustainable mobility goals and reduce private vehicle ownership and use. The City allows an exception for commercial parking in excess of the maximum, provided that the parking is available for public use, that signs advertise the availability of public parking on the property, and that rates do not exceed the City garage rates by more than 150 percent. In this way, parking maximums can help incentivize the provision of publicly available parking3. Customer Parking Permits - "Yellow Book Passes": Los Altos offers downtown businesses the option to purchase a book of 25 all-day parking permits at a $25 fee, to be used in any of the 10 downtown parking plazas. Parking is free downtown, but is subject to time limitations ranging between 20 minutes and 3 hours. The passes allow customers to exceed the time limits in the respective off-street parking lots. Permits are expected to be provided to customers free of charge and are not to be resold to customers. Downtown Employee Parking Permit Program: This program provides all- day parking for downtown business owners and employees in designated spaces on an annual and quarterly basis at $100 and $40 fee respectively. Pasadena, CA The City of Pasadena has a thriving business district, Old Pasadena, which includes shopping and dining establishments. The following describes a few of Pasadena’s parking demand management strategies. Park and Walk: Pasadena parking rates are more expensive for on-street parking than for its Park and Walk garages. The Park and Walk garages were intended to provide those more convenient on-street spaces for customers visiting specific businesses. The following lists the City’s parking rates. x x x The on-street metered rate in Old Pasadena is $1.25 per hour and $0.75 per hour on the edges of Old Pasadena. The Park and Walk garages are $1 for the first 2 hours; $2 per hour thereafter; $12 daily max. Visitors can use the Passport Parking app, which allows a driver to pay for the metered parking, extend the parking sessions from anywhere, and get reminders for time limits. 3 Transit Oriented Development Amendment, Accessed May 1, 2024,https://www.cityofpasadena.net/Planning/Transit-Oriented-Development-Amendment/ City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 5 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 122     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Findings Table 2 provides the parking supply and occupancy ratio for the study areas. The following findings listed here are relative to 2024 data received from the City. average of 50% leaving many buildings underutilized. The lack of office utilization has also led to a decrease in overall parking demand.” 41. Parking Availability There is significant public parking availability in the study areas. The stakeholders that were interviewed expressed no concern regarding parking availability. Data received from City’s Office of Transportation (2023) show that the average sale of parking permits per month in Downtown was 1,989 out of 3,878 available permits (51 percent) and for California Avenue they sold 510 out of 1,075 available permits (47 percent). A parking occupancy study conducted in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) by the Palo Alto Office of Transportation indicated occupancy of 47 to 76 percent in the Downtown area for off street public parking spaces, with the highest occupancy around noon. The same study indicated on California Avenue area ranged between 35 to 88 percent with peak occupancy during noon. A majority of this occupancy can safely be assumed to be from office workers in the pre- COVID-19 era. Hybrid schedules and vacant office space has significantly reduced the parking demand post-COVID-19. While a parking demand study has not been done for the commercial areas in Palo Alto post-COVID-19 except for El Camino Real, the interview with the Office of Transportation indicated that there is ample availability of parking of more than 40 percent in parking garages in both Downtown and California Avenue area. x There is excess capacity in the Downtown even during the peak hour with 76% occupancy and a 3.7% vacancy rate in 2019. Hence, there is a growth potential of 9% in Downtown. Note that the vacancy rate in Downtown in 2024 is 16.5% compared to 3.7% in 2019. x There may be the possibility of growth in both Downtown and California Avenue areas without building new parking since the potential lack of office utilization may have led to a decrease in overall parking demand. More up-to-date data is required to determine change in parking demand.x There was optimum parking capacity during the peak hour with 88% occupancy and 6.7% vacancy in 2019. Parking management strategies can be applied to manage parking to keep it at an optimum level. Note that the vacancy rate in Downtown in 2024 is 11% compared to 6.7% in 2019. 2. Parking Assessment Districts AB 2097 essentially invalidates the Downtown/University Avenue Parking Assessment District regulated by Section 18.52.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Since the commercial and residential uses in the affected area are no longer required to meet the minimum one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of floor area requirement provide parking, rendering the parking assessment district in the affected areas not enforceable or applicable. Downtown/University Avenue has a Parking x It should be noted that the data is from 2019 when hybrid work was not prevalent. The shift towards hybrid work and flexible workspaces due to the pandemic has led to a decrease in overall parking demand. As employees split their time between home and the office, fewer people are commuting daily, resulting in less pressure on parking spaces while occupying office space. "According to a survey by Leesman, 66% of employees expect to work from their organization’s workplace two days or less per week. While many companies are still perfecting and evolving their working models, office occupancy hovers around a nationwide Assessment District regulated by Section 18.52.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code5, which states that, “Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of floor Table 2: Parking Supply and Occupancy Ratios Growth Potential at 85% 0ccupancy (2019) Floor Area Vacancy Rate 2019* Floor Area Vacancy Rate 2024* Total Public Parking (2024) Public Parking Supply Ratio per 1,000 SF (2019) Public Parking Occupancy Ratio per 1,000 SF (2019) Total Floor Area- (SF)* Off-Street Public On-Street PublicArea Peak Hour Public Parking Occupancy*** Parking Parking Downtown/ Avenue** University 2,900,000 3.7%16.5%3,220 1,035 4,255 76%1.47 1.12 9% California Avenue El Camino Real Midtown 1,000,000 1,306,000 149,000 6.7% 2.2% 1.9% 11.0% 9.9% 8.6% 1,239 0 756 309 25 1,995 309 88% 47% 2.00 0.24 1.76 0.11 -3% NA**** 93 118 Notes: * Floor area and vacancy rates are for all property types based on CoStar classification and include office, retail, multi-family, hospitality, health care, specialty, industrial, sports, and entertainment. ** In 2019, 52 percent of total Downtown off street parking spaces were restricted to permit-only parking. Eight of the 19 parking facilities did not have any permit-only parking. The percentages of permit parking spaces in the remaining 11 facilities varied between 32 and 98 percent. ***Peak hour occupancy for both Downtown and California Avenue area was during noon based on 2019 data received from the City. Hence, the worst-case scenario is analyzed. Due to lack of data availability peak hour occupancy for off-site spaces was applied to on-street spaces for Downtown and California Avenue. Data for El Camino Real is from Staff Report #2403-2745 which refers to data collected on Saturday February 24, 2024, from 1pm-2pm. No occupancy data is available for Midtown area. **** Growth potential cannot be calculated confidently since off-street parking is unknown and on-street parking is a very small proportion of the total parking demand. 4 How Hybrid Work has Impacted Parking, January 23, 2024, Accessed April 24,2024, https://www.vendpark.io/post/how-hybrid-work-has-impacted-parking 5 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Accessed February 7, 2024,https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-81074. City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 6 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 123     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY area, except as may be exempt from such requirement… In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as "in-lieu parking" spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by this chapter. Off-site parking on such sites may be provided by payment of an in-lieu monetary contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking.” The RPPP areas in the Downtown study area are shown in Figure 2. RPPP requires all vehicles to have a permit to park on designated streets for more than two hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. A permit is not needed to park for less than two hours. AB 2097 does not directly impact the existing RPPP areas because it specifically targets minimum parking requirements for new developments near transit stops. Existing residential permit parking regulations can remain unaffected by AB 2097. Installing conspicuous signage is essential. There are several signs indicating RPPP zone in Downtown. However, some signs are not visible due to the vegetation growth. Signs are also small, and some information is displayed in small fonts that can easily be missed (refer to Figure 3). Enhanced design and proper placement can make these signs more visible. It is also important to indicate the consequences on the signs. Additionally, educating both residents and visitors about the RPPP hours and consequences is crucial. Effective communication ensures that visitors understand the rules and potential repercussions.Figure 2: Downtown Permit Parking AreasBased on stakeholder interviews, the participants were more concerned with parking regulations and fees than availability of existing parking needed to support business. It should be noted that a pending SB 834 that was introduced during the 2023-2024 legislative session, if passed, will prohibit local authorities from issuing permits for preferential parking privileges to residents or vendors of developments within 1/2 mile of public transit and exempt developments from parking minimums. The bill would require the local authority to revise the boundaries of any such preferential parking district to exclude all preferential parking within 1/2 mile of public transitǤ6 3. Curb Parking Space Management It is expected that AB 2097 will reduce the creation of new off-street parking spaces. This reduction may create more competition for limited on-street parking spaces. Among other things, reducing the number of parking spaces increases competition for the curb space from residents that may want to use on-street parking spaces, employees and visitors looking to park, and rideshare drivers dropping off the passengers. In addition, curb space is used for bike parking, parklets, landscaped islands and so on. Figure 3: Downtown Permit Parking Signage While there may be parking spaces in garages and lots, there will always be competition for on-street spaces that are be more convenient. The City currently regulates the long-term use of curb space in Downtown and California Avenue areas by imposing a two-hour time limit. The City also has designated bike spaces allocated along University Avenue and California Avenue. Curb space is also covered by parklets- outdoor dining area using parking spaces. These have become prevalent during COVID-19 pandemic and are well received by the patrons. These also create much needed vibrancy in the area. However, they reduce the number of spaces available for parking.5. Retail Locations Outside of the AB 2097 Areas Retail locations outside the designated AB 2097 areas are not subject to the parking reduction requirements specified by this law. These areas can continue to follow existing parking regulations without the constraints imposed by AB 2097. Additionally, sixteen parcels in Downtown area are just outside the AB 2097 radius and will need to comply with parking regulations per zoning code. These parcels are at a disadvantage compared to rest of 4. Residential Permit Parking Program The Palo Alto Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP) aims to provide parking availability for residents and employees living and working in RPPP areas. The RPPP allows residents and employees to obtain permits for on- street parking. These permits grant permit holder a priority access to on- street parking spaces within designated zones for certain time periods. However, despite the RPPP designating specific hours for residents, visitors may still choose to park in these zones due to the lack of alternative options or lack of knowledge of RPPP zones. The City must actively enforce RPPP regulations to discourage unauthorized parking. Regular patrols, ticketing, and penalties can serve as deterrents. 6 SB 834: Vehicles: preferential parking: residential, commercial, or otherdevelopment project. Accessed May 1, 2024,https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb834 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 7 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 124     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY the parcels within Downtown. For equity purposes, it is advised that the City consider extending the provisions of AB 2097 to these parcels. maximums to incentivize public parking provision, instituting employee parking programs, and implementing demand-based pricing. parking reductions as a tool to incentivize desired uses or improvements. This possible tool will be very limited or not otherwise available in areas covered by AB 2097 provisions.6. Peer City Management Strategies 7. Eliminates Possible Incentive Tool Parking management strategies from peer cities include integrating parking with TDM development standards, unbundling parking, establishing parking By removal of the parking requirements, AB 2097 creates and incentive for new development within the affected areas. However, many cities use City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 8 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 125     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Recommendations Figure 4: Downtown / CD-C Zoned Parcels Outside AB 2097 AB 2097 will dramatically limit and reduce the creation of new privately constructed or funded parking spaces associated with new or expanded development within the affected areas. This will require a shift from creation of new parking with development projects to a focus on management and optimization of the existing parking inventory to balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking from existing and future uses and development. Management and optimization will require ongoing monitoring of the use of the existing supply. The supply includes not only public parking garages, surface lots and on-street spaces, but also the private off-street parking. This section will discuss a number of the tools and methods to manage and optimize parking both in and outside of areas affected by AB 2097. Based upon the findings of this report, the following section provides further detail of specific recommendations for the identified impacts on parking for retail business in the four study areas of Palo Alto. 1. Extend AB 2097 to Entire CD-C Zone for Equity Within Downtown, there are 16 parcels in the CD-C district on University Avenue that lie just northeast of the half-mile radius from a high-quality transit stop that are not exempt from the parking requirements by AB 2097 (refer to Figure 4). Unless the provisions of AB 2097 are extended, these parcels will remain subject to minimum parking requirements and the Commercial Downtown Assessment District standards of 18.52 of the PAMC. To ensure equitable development conditions for all parcels in the Downtown area, it is recommended that uniform regulations be applied to the entirety of the CD-C districts in the Downtown area. 2. Allow Retail Flexibility Without Requiring Additional Parking In retail areas outside the influence of AB 2097, restrictions on retail conversion to retail or retail-like uses (for example, changing a boutique store into a restaurant or art gallery) can be removed due to provision of parking in accordance with the new use as long as the square footage is not increased. This will remove restrictions on developers and allow them to experiment with new uses to fill in vacancies. City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 9 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 126     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY 3. Parking Management & Optimization The City can use time limits and parking fees to manage and balance the use and occupancy of the parking supply at or near the optimum levels. Shorter parking periods can encourage more turnover and higher hourly parking fees are generally increased in the most popular areas while longer parking periods and lower parking fees are allowed in less popular areas. unused, it will reduce the perception of a parking shortage and need to oversupply parking. The City could collaborate with business owners and employees to understand parking needs and work schedules.Based on the initial findings, there is currently an ample supply of parking to absorb significant new development and to fill existing vacancies in both Downtown and California Avenue. However, as redevelopment occurs, the combination of intensification and the lack of parking requirements due to AB 2097 will begin to impact the existing parking supply. Optimum parking occupancy is approximately 85%. This ensures excellent utilization of a precious resource, but adequate availability to ensure reasonable access without excessive search and delay7. Beyond this point, parking availability becomes strained, and visitors may find it challenging to locate suitable parking spaces. When parking spaces are consistently occupied beyond this threshold it can lead to: During interviews, the stakeholders expressed concerns about employees encountering challenges when obtaining permits for parking garages. These permits come in various types (three-month, six-month, and annual) and can be purchased during specific periods of the year. In addition, the City charges flat $8 daily rate for garages and lots beyond the free 2-to-3-hour parking. Their suggestion is that the City should offer a variety of pricing options for different time periods. It is recommended that the City work with business owners to find solutions that are acceptable to both City and business owners. Recommendations 3 to 9 listed in this section include other methods to help manage and optimize the parking resources. 4. Develop Ordinance to Unbundle Parking AB 1317, passed in October 2023, focuses on unbundling parking in California, requiring owners of qualifying residential properties8 to separate parking costs from rent, i.e., renting or selling parking separately rather than automatically including it with the price of building space. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2025. Unbundling parking is the set of policies and actions to create a balance between the supply and demand of parking, reducing the inefficiencies that result in both high concentrations of localized parking demand in some areas and underutilized spaces in other areas. x x Inconvenience: Visitors may struggle to find available parking spots. Reduced Foot Traffic: High parking demand might discourage potential customers. Stakeholders also expressed that the time limit for on-street parking poses challenges for employees. As previously recommended, employees should refrain from using on-street parking spaces, reserving them instead for visitors. Educating business owners about the impact of employee use of on-street parking could foster an understanding of the necessity for parking in off-site garages and parking lots. x Business Impact: Commercial areas could lose business due to parking constraints. In order to understand this impact, it is recommended that the City conduct a parking supply and demand study of these areas at least once a year or as significant development or changes to mobility options occur in these areas. Below are some parking trends and factors to explore in such a study. Benefits of unbundling include:6. Pursue Shared-Use Agreementsx x x The parking spaces that exist will be more efficiently used. Non-drivers are not required to pay for parking they don’t need. The market value of land used as parking becomes clear. Owners of private parking facilities may be willing to enter an agreement that allows public parking outside of certain established hours. For example, if adequately compensated, offices may be willing to allow public parking in the evenings and on weekends, or religious institutions may be willing to allow public parking on weekdays. The City can facilitate shared parking between landowners by creating ready-to-use shared parking agreement. On-Street and Off-Street Parking Unbundling is especially helpful in areas that are not subject to minimum parking requirements, which now includes most of the Downtown and all of California Avenue study areas, due to their proximity to High Quality Transit Stop as defined by AB 2097. The success of this strategy also hinges on parking management, which seeks to ensure that concentrated locations of high parking demand are efficiently disbursed to locations where parking availability is plentiful. x x What is the supply and demand of on street and off-street parking conditions during the peak hours, on weekdays, and on weekends? Who are the parking user groups using these spaces—customers, business owners, employees, delivery drivers, or others?The City can enter into parking agreements with the landowners to use private parking during hours that it typically goes unused. These areas can be advertised on-site and, on the website, as available parking spaces during certain times of the day. Peak Parking Demand x x What time does peak parking demand occur on a typical weekday and on a typical weekend? What is the overall parking occupancy rate for the study area on these typical days? 5. Create an Employee Parking Plan and Program 7. Paid Parking Program Businesses can encourage employees not to park in the most convenient customer parking spaces. If patrons must drive around the block several times to find parking, they could potentially leave to seek another similar business with better parking space options. This situation often arises because employees use the on-street and off-street spaces that are most convenient to business patrons. If employees are encouraged to not park in these parking spaces and instead use the spaces that would otherwise be Paid on-street parking can effectively increase turnover rates and the supply of convenient parking spaces. Both California Avenue and University Avenue offer free on-street parking for the first two hours and then the visitors mustTurnover of Parking Spaces move their vehicle. Downtown has a system of color zones-x How long are cars staying and how often are spaces turning over and where? purple, coral, lime, and blue, once the time limit expires in a given color 7 The High Cost of Free Parking, Donald Shoup. 8 The bill would define “qualifying residential property” as any dwelling or unitthat is intended for human habitation that (1) is issued a certificate of occupancy on or after January 1, 2025, (2) consists of 16 or more residential units, and (3) is located within the County of Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside,Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, or Ventura. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1 317, Accessed April 29. 2024. City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 10 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 127     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY zone you must move your vehicle out of that zone. Reparking is not allowed in the same zone on same enforcement day once the time limit expires9. alternative source of access to the single occupant vehicle as well as a first, last, and/or only mile link to destinations, especially for locals. These are essential ingredients of TDM strategy. The report found that there is a robust regional bus network, but there is a lack of bus redundancy in parts of the City around neighborhood serving districts. This gap is being addressed to some degree with the recently instated on-demand transit service pilot program. While there is a robust bicycle network, some critical routes connecting commercial districts with neighborhoods and other destinations lack adequate signage and lane markings. Lastly, there is no micro mobility program for shared bicycles and/or scooters, which are now common and widely used services for people of vastly ranging ages and socioeconomic status. As new technologies emerge, it is advised that the City explore and implement technologies that can deliver real time information via an app or website. These can be applicable to parking garages, lots and on-street parking spaces and can help patrons find and receive directions to the nearest available space. The off-street parking is free for first 2 to 3 hours depending on the lot or garage. It jumps to a flat rate of $8 per day after that. The City could implement incremental increase in rates instead if a flat $8 per day10. This recommendation was brought to the PTC in 2019. At the time of recommendation, the flat rate was $25 per day. This was reduced to $8 during COVID 19 pandemic. This strategy is also applicable for areas not covered by AB 2097. 10. Improve Signage and Wayfinding for Parking Effective signage ensures visitors can find their way without confusion. Palo Alto has signage directing to the parking areas, but they don’t provide information on parking availability in particular garages or lots or directions to particular garage or lot. It is recommended that the City evaluate implementing a paid metered on- street instead of moving the vehicle every 2 hours when a parking utilization threshold is reached. While colored zones system may be a financially viable option for frequent turnover it requires familiarity and can be confusing for the visitors who may not be aware of the zones.The report recommended several strategies under Guiding Principle 2, all of which will help the City enhance its TDM strategy and reduce the need for parking. Figure 5: Downtown Parking Signage Similar to Pasadena, the City of Palo Alto can also implement higher rates for on-street parking and lower rates for public garages and lots to encourage long-term visitors and employees to park in the off-site garages and lots and leave more convenient parking for short-time visitors. Guiding Principle 2: Improve accessibility by embracing walking and biking solutions to/from/within all of the City's commercial districts and addressing parking policies and systems. 8. Enhance the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategy This strategy is also applicable for areas not covered by AB 2097. 9. Explore Emerging TechnologiesTDM refers to a set of strategies aimed at improving transportation efficiency, reducing congestion, and promoting sustainable travel options. These strategies encourage a shift away from single-occupancy vehicle trips and prioritize alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing the need for parking spaces. Palo Alto actively embraces technology to manage parking efficiently and enhance urban mobility.Palo Alto has deployed automated parking guidance system (APGS) in its Downtown and California Avenue area garages. These systems feature ceiling-mounted multi- function camera sensors that monitor and display the status of up to six parking spaces per aisle. Integrated LED indicators indicate space availability and permitted parking types. This real-time information helps drivers find available parking spots more efficiently. Palo Alto’s Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) grants the Director of Planning and Development Services the authority to require including TDM strategies for any project requesting a reduction in parking or generating 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips. While the developer is limited to the project site for the implementation of a TDM program/strategy the City can implement a TDM program/strategy at neighborhood or citywide scale which can have a more significant impact on the parking impacts in Downtown and California Avenue. In 2015, Palo Alto installed 545 Internet of Things (IoT) sensors throughout the city most of which were installed in Downtown11. These sensors are equipped to provide real-time data via website and app on vacant parking spots in the Downtown area. The goal is to reduce congestion and enhance the overall parking experience. However, there is no information on the data received by these sensors on the website and there is no app available to find parking spaces. Currently these sensors are nor active.An assessment by Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy adopted by the City Council in August 2023 focused on city-wide access and connectivity of transit and bike networks as these systems provide an 9Downtown Color Zone Parking, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Parking- 10 Parking Work Plan, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Palo-Alto- 11 Government Technology, California Cities Turn to Internet of Things to Solve Parking, Traffic Problems, October 27, 2015, Programs/Downtown-Color-Zone-Parking, Accessed April 29, 2024 Parking-Action-Plan/Parking-Work-Plan, Accessed April 22, 2024 https://www.govtech.com/fs/california-cities-turn-to-internet-of-things-to-solve-parking-traffic-problems.html City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 11 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 128     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Most garages in Downtown and California Avenue area have APGS as discussed in previous recommendation. Hence, once the patron reaches the garage, they can have the information on availability of parking. The existing APGS and emerging technologies can be integrated with digital signage at strategic locations, that can provide real time information on parking. This will reduce the time spent to find parking in the retail areas. 11. Curb Space Management will reduce the burden on curb space. Lastly, paid parking effectively increases turnover rates and the supply of convenient parking spaces. Leveraging technology to provide real-time information on parking availability can play an important role in efficient parking management These strategies are discussed in the Recommendation section of this report. Increasing the opportunity to walk and bike to various locations and to complete short distance trips can alleviate pressure on parking. Adopting a micromobility program for shared bicycles and/or scooters and providing adequate curb space may also reduce the need for car for shorter trips. Other strategies, such as encouraging employees to not park in the most convenient customer parking spaces and instead use the off-street parking,This strategy is also applicable for areas not covered by AB 2097. City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 12 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 129     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Attachment 1 - Parking Requirements The following are the minimum off-street parking requirements for retail establishments. Table 3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Use Parking Requirement Retail Intensive (retail not defined as extensive)1 per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1 per 350 sq. ft. of gross floor area Extensive (retail with more than 75% of gross floor area used for display, sales, and related storage, with demonstrably low parking demand generation per square foot of gross floor area) 1 space for each 500 square feet of sales, display, or storage site areaOpen lot Shopping Center 1 per 275 sq. ft. of gross floor area Table 4: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts Use Parking Requirement Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District All uses (except residential) 2 1 per 250 square feet City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 13 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 130     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Attachment 2 - Existing Parking Downtown/University Avenue Figure 6: Off-Street Parking - Downtown/University Avenue Figure 7: On-Street Parking - Downtown/University Ave City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 14 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 131     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Table 5: Downtown/University Avenue Public Parking Supply California Avenue Type Parking Spaces Size (Acres)Figure 8: Off-Street Parking - California AvenueOff-Street Structure High/Alma South Garage (R) High/Alma North Garage (Q) Ramona/University Garage (B) Bryant/Lytton Garage (SL) Webster/Cowper Garage (WC) Civic Center Garage (CC) Total Off-Street Structure Off-Street Lot 210 130 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.4 2.0 6.3 133 681 587 721 2,462 Emerson/Ramona Lot (N) Cowper/Hamilton (H) High/Hamilton Lot (P) Lytton/Kipling Lot (T) Lytton / Waverley Lot (K) Hamilton/Waverley Lot (D) Gilman/Waverley Lot (G) Gilman/Bryant Lot (E) Florence/Lytton Lot (F) Ramona/Lytton Lot (C) Emerson/Lytton Lot (A) Emerson/High Lot (O) Total Off-Street Lot 48 93 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.3 12.6 - 52 52 97 84 53 35 47 52 68 77 758 3,220 1,035 4,255 Total Off-Street Total On-Street Grand Total 12.6 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 15 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 132     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Figure 9: On-Street Parking - California Avenue Table 6: California Avenue Public Parking Supply Type Parking Spaces Size (Acres) Off-Street Structure Lot 5 - Cambridge E/Garage (A) Lot 3 - Cambridge W/Garage (B) 350 Sherman Garage (C) 157 182 627 966 0.7 0.7 1.0 2.4Total Off-Street Structure Off-Street Lot Lot 9 - Birch/Cambridge (D) Lot 1 - Cambridge/Park (E) Lot 2 - Cambridge/Birch (F) Lot 8 - Sherman/Ash Lot (G) Lot 4 - Cambridge/Birch (H) Total Off-Street Lot 28 27 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.5 1.9 4.3 - 28 103 87 273 1,239 756 1,995 Total Off-Street Total On-Street Grand Total 4.3 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 16 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 133     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Midtown Figure 11: On-Street Parking - MidtownFigure 10: Off-Street Parking - Midtown Table 7: Midtown Public Parking Supply Type Parking Spaces Size (Acres) Off-Street Lot Colorado/Midtown Ct Lot (A) Total Off-Street Lot Total On-Street 93 93 0.7 0.7 -25 Grand Total 118 0.7 City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 17 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 134     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY El Camino Real Figure 12: On-Street Parking - El Camino Real Table 8: El Camino Real Public Parking Supply Type Parking Spaces Size (Acres) PAMF Drive to Galvez St. / Embarcadero Rd.26 - -Serra St./ Park Blvd. to College Ave. Sheridan Ave. to San Antonio Rd. Total On-Street 61 222 309 309 - -Grand Total City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 18 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 135     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Attachment 3 - AB 2097 Relief Areas Figure 13: AB 2097 Relief Area - Downtown/University Avenue and El Camino Real- Town and Country Figure 14: AB 2097 Relief Area - California Avenue City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 19 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 136     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Figure 15: AB 2097 Relief Areas - Midtown Figure 16: AB 2097 Relief Area - El Camino Real s City of Palo Alto Appendix C, Page 20 Item 3 Attachment C: Appendix C Impact of AB 2097 on Parking     Packet Pg. 137     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 1 Introduction A detailed review of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance was conducted to review the permitted uses, development standards, and procedures. The purpose of the analysis is to identify likely and potential constraints and opportunities to improve the health and function of retail uses and the main commercial retail and commercial corridors and provide recommendations for improvement. Zone Districts There are five primary zone districts with several subdistricts and combined districts layered on the base districts, as follows: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) The CN district is designed to create neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving and compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Community Commercial (CC) The CC district is designed to create major commercial centers accommodating a wide range of uses intended to support the greater Palo Alto and regional community identified in the General Plan. Community Commercial 2 (CC[2]) The CC (2) subdistrict is designed to modify the site development regulations of the CC district and has a different approval process compared to the CC district. Service Commercial (CS) The CS district is designed to accommodate local and regional services that generally require vehicular access and convenience. Downtown Commercial (CD) The CD district is designed to cover the entirety of downtown Palo Alto and support a wide variety of uses to support local and regional businesses with the following key objectives: • Control the rate and size of commercial development • Preserve and promote ground-floor retail • Enhance pedestrian activity • Create transitions from commercial to retail uses • Preserve historic buildings The CD district includes the following subdistricts: • CD-C (Community) • CD-S (Service) • CD-N (Neighborhood) Combining Districts Retail Shopping (R) Modifies the CN, CC, and CD districts to allow only retail, eating, and service- oriented commercial on the ground floors. Pedestrian Shopping (P) Modifies the CN, CC, and CD districts to require pedestrian site design amenities, including: • Display windows or retail display areas • Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or any covered pedestrian areas • Landscaping or architectural design features • Vehicular restriction on pedestrian areas Figure 1: Palo Alto Layers of Regulation Source: Streetsense Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 138     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 2 Ground Floor (GF) The district provides design standards when combined with the CD-C subdistrict and permits the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency at ground level. Office not allowed. Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) The PTOD district permits a mix of uses and densities through development standards as well as providing context-based design criteria standards aimed to activate and create an attractive pedestrian-level environment along the California Avenue corridor. The objectives of the PTOD district include: • Supporting use of public transportation • Encouraging a variety of housing types, commercial retail, and limited office uses • Encouraging context-based project design • Requiring streetscape design elements that support pedestrian and bike infrastructure Definitions Formula Retail Business Retail, personal, or eating and drinking service that has more than 10 locations throughout the United States and are standardized in character and function, typically known as a franchise or chain. Standardized merchandise, menu and/or services are defined as having 50 percent or more of in-stock merchandise from a single distributor bearing the same or similar markings, and 50 percent or more of menu items identical in name and presentation with other locations. Retail Service Retail service in Palo Alto is defined as open to the public during typical business hours and relates to retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items intended for consumer or household use. Retail services are further separated into two categories: • Extensive retail service: A retail sales use that has more than 75 percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales, and related storage. • Intensive retail service: Any retail service use that is not defined as extensive retail service, including limited food services such as premade food and packaged items. Retail-like Use Retail services and closely related services are open to the public during typical business hours, and include the following type of uses: eating and drinking services, hotels, personal services, theaters, travel agencies, commercial recreation, commercial nurseries, auto dealerships, and daycare centers. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 139     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 3 Permitted Uses The following table details the permitted retail uses for each district, subdistrict, and combining district. Table 1: Permitted Uses by Area and Zone Dsitrict PALO ALTO RETAIL ZONING STUDY El Camino Real, Midtown California Ave University Ave El Camino Real Combining Districts Land Use CN(1) CC, CC(2) CD-C CS R (ground floor use restrictions) (Cal Ave) GF (ground floor use restrictions) (Univ Ave) PTOD (Cal Ave) Retail Use Eating and Drinking Service, except drive-in or take-out services P P P P P P P Retail Service P P P P P P P Shopping Center P P Liquor Store CUP P P P Retail-like Services Hotel P P P P P Personal Services P P(6) P(4) P P(2) P(3) P Travel Agency P Commercial Recreation Less than 5,000 sf CUP(5) CUP(5) P(7) CUP(5) P P Over 5,000 sf CUP(7) CUP P Day Care Centers P P P P CUP P Business or Trade School P CUP Financial Services (no drive-in) P CUP CUP General Business Service CUP CUP Learning Center (small) CUP CUP Formula Retail on California Avenue CUP Beauty Shops, Nail Salons, Barbershops, Fitness Studios > 1,800 gfa, Small Learning Centers (6) (4) CUP Professional, and General Business Offices P* P* P P* Medical Offices CUP(5) CUP(5) P CUP(5) NOTES: California Ave R Combining District in conflict with this footnote - R Combining District doesn't list and therefore prohibits where explictly allowed with a CUP in CC(2) zone. Conflicts between GF and underlying zone - Combining/overlay supersedes base zone. PTOD is limited to approximately 2 small properties on/near CalIfornia Ave. FOOTNOTES: (1) For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use permit (CUP). (2) Personal services, except the following on California Avenue: Beauty shops; nail salons; Barbershops; Laundry and cleaning services as defined in Section 18.04.030(114)(B); Fitness or exercise studios exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area; and Learning centers intended for individual or small group settings. (3) Personal services, except for parcels with frontage on University Avenue, where uses defined in Section 18.04.030(114)(B), (G),(H), and (I) are not permitted. (4) A CUP is required for the following uses when fronting on University Avenue: (A) fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses; and (B) learning centers intended for individual or small group settings. (5) A CUP is not required for medical office or commercial recreation uses up to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, with the following exceptions, for which a CUP is always required: (A) medical office fronting on California Avenue and in the Midtown Shopping District; (B) commercial recreation uses fronting on California Avenue and in the Town and Country Village Shopping Center. (6) A CUP is required for the following uses when fronting on California Avenue: (A) fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area; and (B) learning centers intended for individual or small group settings. A CUP is required for fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area in Town and Country Village Shopping Center. (7) A CUP is not required for commercial recreation uses up to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, with the following exceptions, for which a CUP is always required: (A) medical office fronting on University Avenue; (B) commercial recreation uses fronting on University Avenue. * Per 18.16.050(a), Medical, professional, and business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such offices: 1. Occupy a space that was not occupied by retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services. 2. Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001, if the ground floor area is devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 140     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 4 Grandfathered Uses CN District Office Uses In the CN district, all office uses existing as of August 1, 1989, which were conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit and exceeding 5,000 square feet in size or 25 percent of lot area, may remain as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit. CS District Office Uses In the CS district, medical, professional, or general business or administrative office uses existing on August 1, 1989, and which, as of such date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit may remain as nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to termination. Development Standards CN, CC, CC(2), CS, and CD districts have development standards for exclusively nonresidential and mixed-use and residential. The following table identifies the maximum size of retail establishments by type. A comprehensive list of the development standards for the CD district can be found in Table 4. Table 2: Maximum Size of Retail Establishment by Type Maximum Size of Establishment (sq ft) Type of Establishment CN CD Personal Services 3,000 3,000 Retail Services, except grocery stores 15,000 15,000 Grocery Stores 20,000 20,000 Eating and Drinking Services 5,000 5,000 Neighborhood Business Services 3,000 - Retail Preservation Ordinance 18.40.180 (Relevant portions excerpted) 1. Conversion of Retail and Retail-Like Uses Prohibited. a. Any ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015, may be replaced only by another Retail or Retail- Like use, as permitted in the applicable district. 2. Non-conforming Uses. a. The requirements imposed by the retail ordinance do not apply to Retail or Retail-like uses that are no longer permitted or conditionally permitted in the applicable district. 3. Waivers and Adjustments; and Exemptions. a. Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this section would force an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property; or b. Alternative Viable Active Use. Except in the GF or R combining districts, an applicant may request that the requirements of the retail ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that: the permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable; the proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and the proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections. 4. Exemptions. a. A 100% affordable housing project not within the Ground Floor (GF) and/or Retail (R) combining districts or on a site abutting El Camino Real (households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income). b. A 100% affordable housing project on a site abutting El Camino Real in the CN and CS zone districts outside the Retail (R) combining district(households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income and where the average household income does not exceed 80% of the area median income level). c. A high-density residential or mixed-use project in the CS zone district, but not within the Ground Floor (GF) or Retail (R) combining districts, shall be required to replace only 1,500 square feet of an existing retail or retail-like use. For the purposes of this partial exemption, high-density shall mean 30 or more dwelling units per acre. d. Reconstruction. Any ground floor Retail use existing on or after March 2, 2015 may be demolished and rebuilt provided that the portion of square footage used as Retail use on or after March 2, 2015 is not reduced except that Retail square footage may be reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floor and/or lower level. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 141     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 5 Parking Requirements Table 3: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements by Use Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts Use Vehicle Parking Requirement (# of spaces) For Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District: All uses (except residential) 1 per 250 sf For California Avenue Parking Assessment District: Retail Uses1 Intensive 1 per 200 sf of gross floor area 1 per 240 sf of gross floor area Extensive 1 per 350 sf of gross floor area 1 per 350 sf of gross floor area Open lot 1 space for each 500 sf of sales, display, or storage site area 1 for each 500 sf of sales, display, or storage site area Eating and Drinking Services With drive-in or take-out facilities 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area All others 1 space for each 60 gross sf of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 gross sf for all other areas. 1 per 155 sf of gross floor area Personal Services 1 per 200 sf of gross floor area 1 per 450 sf of gross floor area Hotel/Motel/Inn 1 space per guestroom; plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other as required for such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the mix of uses. 1 For residential mixed-use developments in the CD-C zone, CC(2) zone, on CN and CS zoned sites abutting El Camino Real, and on CS zoned sites abutting San Antonia Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road, the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail uses shall not be counted toward the vehicle parking requirement. Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District 18.52.070 (Relevant portions excerpted) On-site parking 1. On-Site Parking Requirement a. Any new development, addition, or any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of floor area. 2. Exceptions a. Square footage for handicapped access, which does not increase the usable floor area, and square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square footage is included in the FAR calculations b. A conversion to commercial use of a historic building shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection provided that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use. Conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking. c. Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements at the time when development occurs. Development shall be exempt to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces 1,000 square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking. Off-site parking 1. Must be within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site is within an assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment district boundary and approved in writing by the director of planning and community environment. Any development occurring on the site where parking is provided shall not result in a net reduction of parking spaces provided, considering both the parking previously provided and the parking required by the proposed use. In-lieu parking 2. In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as "in-lieu parking" spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by this chapter. Off-site parking on such sites may be provided by payment of an in-lieu monetary contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Criteria to be eligible for in-lieu parking program: a. On site parking would impact historic structure b. Site is >10,000 sf c. Site is located in an area where curb cuts are prohibited d. Physical constraints Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 142     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 6 Table 4: Palo Alto Zoning Comparison Matrix - Santa Monica and Los Altos # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 1 Level of regulation – Zone Districts Zone Districts  Downtown Commercial (CD)  Neighborhood Commercial (CN)  Community Commercial (CC) ­ Community Commercial 2 (CC[2])  Service Commercial (CS) Downtown Districts  Bayside Conservation (BC) – Third Street Promenade Area  Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB)  Neighborhood Village (NV)  Transit Adjacent (TA)  Ocean Transition (OT)  Wilshire Transition (WT)  Lincoln Transition (LT) Design Guidelines Zone Districts  Neighborhood Commercial (NC) ­ Main Street ­ Pico Boulevard ­ Ocean Park Boulevard ­ Montana Avenue  Mixed-Use Boulevard Low (MUBL)  Mixed-Use Boulevard (MUB)  General Commercial (GC) Zone Districts  Commercial Downtown (CD)  Commercial Retail Sales (CRS)  Commercial Retail Sales/Office (CRS/OAD) 2 Overlay Districts Combining Districts  Retail Shopping (R)  Pedestrian Shopping (P)  Ground Floor (GF) Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Neighborhood Conservation (NC)  Purpose of identifying, conserving, maintaining, strengthening, and enhancing a neighborhood’s cohesive and distinctive architectural or physical characteristics. Off-Street Parking (A)  Intended to provide adequate parking facilities to support important commercial corridors and neighborhood commercial areas. Loyola Corners Specific Plan (LCSP) LC/SPZ overlay (14.42) applies to CN zoned areas surrounding Miramonte Ave and Fremont Ave. Special requirements in addition to base zoning.  Certain restrictions on expansion of existing office/administrative and retail uses under a master use permit  Parking requirements encourage of non- conforming uses to turn over to conforming uses  Ground floor retail uses encouraged in LC/SPZ overlay through restricting new net square footage of other ground floor uses Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 143     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 7 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 3 Ground floor use regulations/restrictio ns Combining Districts  Ground Floor (GF) - The district provides design standards when combined with the CD- C subdistrict and permits the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency at ground level. ­ Prohibits ground floor office Downtown and Midtown unless grandfathered.  Retail Shopping (R) - Modifies the CN, CC, and CD districts to allow only retail, eating, and service-oriented commercial on the ground floors. ­ Prohibits ground floor office on California Ave. Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) (18.40.180)  Any ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015, may be replaced only by another Retail or Retail-Like use, as permitted in the applicable district.  Restaurants, bars/nightclubs/lounges, car showrooms, offices, personal services, food and beverage sales, and instructional services allowed with CUP or specific limitations.  Office and residential limited to upper floors or behind ground floor tenants.  Franchise restaurants (+150 locations) prohibited on the ground floor. Active Ground Floor Use and Design 9.11.030(A) Active Use Requirement  Active use requirements on the ground floor street frontage on Main Street and Montana Ave. ­ Cultural facilities; ­ Food and beverage sales; ­ Eating and drinking establishments; ­ Grooming and pet stores; ­ Banks and credit unions; ­ Business services; ­ Commercial entertainment, recreation, and Instructional Services; ­ General personal services and personal physical training; ­ General retail sales; and ­ Childcare facilities. Active Commercial Design  Design standards (i.e., façade) for ground floor street frontage active uses. Pedestrian-Oriented Design  Design standards to improve the ground floor level environment for pedestrians. Active Uses  Active uses and active ground floor uses are required/encouraged in certain commercial districts.  Design guidelines to promote active ground floor uses (e.g. transparency requirements)  Sites over 5,000 sq. ft. with existing retail or restaurant space on the ground floor must retain the existing sq. ft. of those uses (CD district)  Office uses restricted to upper floors (CN, except for new development)  Housing restricted to upper floors (CD, CRS/OAD districts)  Trade schools restricted to upper floors (CRS, CRS/OAD districts)  Certain uses restricted on ground floor on Main Street or State Street (CRS district)  Minimum ceiling height on ground floor to promote active uses (CT, CD/R3 districts)  Retail expansion limited, but more encouraged than office/administrative uses in LC/SPZ overlay district Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 144     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 8 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 4 Change of Use/ Intensification process Change from retail use prohibited in Ground Floor (GF) and Retail Shopping (R) combining districts. Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits (9.41)  All Minor Use or Conditional Use Permits must meet the following criteria: ­ The proposed use is conditionally allowed within the applicable Zoning District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the Municipal Code. ­ The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. ­ The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed. ­ The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the land uses are to remain. ­ The proposed use is compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located (e.g. size, intensity, hours of operation, number of employees, or the nature of the operation). ­ The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ­ No significant environmental impacts ­ Not deemed detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. Certain districts allow commercial expansion only under specific circumstances or of specific sizes. Certain districts encourage turn-over of non- conforming uses in active use areas. 5 Retail Definition Retail Service Retail service in Palo Alto is defined as open to the public during typical business hours and relates to retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items intended for consumer or household use. Retail services are further separated into two categories:  Extensive retail service: A retail sales use that has more than 75 percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales, and related storage.  Intensive retail service: Any retail service use that is not defined as extensive retail service, including limited food services such as premade food and packaged items. Retail-like Use Retail services and closely related services are open to the public during typical business hours, and include the following types of uses: eating and drinking services, hotels, personal services, theaters, travel agencies, commercial recreation, commercial nurseries, auto dealerships, and daycare centers. Retail Sales Use Classification 9.51.030  General Retail Sales, Small-Scale. The retail sale or rental of merchandise not specifically listed under another use classification. This classification includes retail establishments with 25,000 square feet or less of sales area; including department stores, clothing stores, furniture stores, pet supply stores, small hardware, and garden supply/nurseries stores (with 10,000 square feet or less of floor area), and businesses retailing goods including, but not limited to, the following: toys, hobby materials, handcrafted items, jewelry, cameras, photographic supplies and services (including portraiture and retail photo processing), medical supplies and equipment, pharmacies, electronic equipment, sporting goods, kitchen utensils, hardware, appliances, antiques, art galleries, art supplies, and services, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, office supplies, bicycles, video rental, and new automotive parts and accessories (excluding vehicle service and installation). Retail sales may be combined with other services such as office machines, computers, electronics, and similar small-item repairs.  General Retail Sales, Medium-Scale. Retail establishments with more than 25,000 square feet - 80,000 square feet of sales area.  General Retail Sales, Large-Scale. Retail establishments with over 80,000 square feet of sales area. Retail Uses Defined as: uses that predominantly sell products rather than services, directly to the public, and generally for consumer or household use. Retail uses are designed to attract a high volume of walk- in customers and have floor space that is devoted predominantly to the display of merchandise to attract customers. Retail businesses may also provide incidental after-sales services, such as repair and installation, for the goods sold.  “Extensive retail” as used with respect to parking requirements, means a retail use primarily selling large commodities such as home or office furniture, floor coverings, stoves, refrigerators, other household electrical and gas appliances, including televisions and home sound systems, and outdoor furniture, such as lawn furniture, movable spas and hot tubs.  “Intensive retail” as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail use not defined as an extensive retail use. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 145     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 9 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 6 Approval Processes (ministerial, principal permitted use, CUP, Special Permits, variances, deviations) Review Procedures – Summary (18.77.050)  Variance, Conditional Use Permits, and Neighborhood Preservation Exception ­ Staff - Review ­ Director – Tentative Decision ­ Planning Commission – Hearing and Recommendation (upon request) ­ City Council – Final Decision (upon request)  Major Architectural Review ­ Architectural Review Board - Hearing and Recommendation ­ Director – Decision ­ City Council – Final Decision on Appeal  Minor Architectural Review ­ Staff – Tentative Decision ­ Architectural Review Board - Hearing and Recommendation (upon request) ­ Director – Decision (if ARB hearing is requested) ­ City Council – Final Decision on Appeal Administrative Approval (9.39) Required for non-housing projects of more than 1,000 square feet, all new construction, and new additions to existing buildings that do not exceed the following:  Tier 1 maximum limits;  In Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts, 7,500 square feet;  In the Pico Neighborhood Area 7,500 square feet. Chapter 9.40 Development Review Intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design and siting could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Required if the following thresholds are met:  Tier 1 maximum limits;  In Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts, 7,500 square feet;  In the Pico Neighborhood Area 7,500 square feet. Chapter 9.42 Variances  Mechanism for relief from the strict application of zoning code where it will deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by similar properties because of the subject property’s unique and special conditions.  Property owner must provide required findings to prove special conditions. Waivers (9.43.40) Waiver may be granted from the following requirements.  Upper-story stepbacks.  Build-to lines.  Active commercial design standards, including transparency.  Active use requirement.  Unit mix.  Pedestrian-oriented design standards Design and Transportation Review—Multiple- Family, Public and Community Facilities, Office and Administrative, and Commercial Districts (14.78)  Staff level review (Director or designee); or Planning Commission review if larger than 500 sq. ft., 50% increase in size, or increasing height.  Director can require administrative design review based on special circumstances. Multimodal transportation review (14.78.090)  Required for projects subject to Planning Commission design review  Complete Streets Commission review at public meeting and recommendation to Planning Commission Variances (14.78.070)  Variances reviewed by Planning Commission at public hearing based on special circumstances of the property Use Permits (14.80)  Director or designee initial review  Use permits reviewed by Planning Commission at public hearing  Appeals or call-ups to City Council 7 Approving Authority & Approval Times (Ministerial/Building department, Planning Staff, PC, City Council) New construction (permitted uses)  Director — Varies New construction (CUP uses)  Director — Varies Major remodeling/tenant improvement  Director — Varies Minor changes  Director — 6+ Months New signage/signage change  Director — 6+ months  Zoning Conformance Review — Director  Administrative Approval — Director  Conditional Use Permit — Planning Commission  Development Review Permit — Planning Commission  Minor Use Permit — Director Hearing (Zoning Administrator)  Temporary Use Permit — Director  Minor Modification — Director  Major Modification — Director Hearing - (Zoning Administrator)  Waiver — Director Hearing (Zoning Administrator)  Variance — Planning Commission  Conditional Use Permit — Planning Commission  Design & Transportation review (minor) — Director  Design & Transportation review (major) — Planning Commission (with Complete Streets Commission recommendation)  Temporary Use Permit — Director  Variance — Planning Commission Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 146     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 10 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 8 Permitted Uses Downtown Commercial (CD-C) Retail Use  Eating and Drinking Services, except drive-in or take-out services  Retail Service  Shopping Center  Liquor Store Retail-like Services  Hotel  Personal Services  Commercial Recreation – Day Care Centers  Business or Trade School  Financial Services (no drive-in)  Professional, and General Business Offices  Medical Offices Community Commercial (CC, CC(2)) Retail Use  Eating and Drinking Service, except drive-in or take-out services  Retail Service  Shopping Center  Liquor Store Retail-like Services  Hotel  Personal Services  Commercial Recreation – Day Care Centers Professional, and General Business Offices Bayside Conservation (BC) - Third Street Promenade Area Commercial Uses  Animal Care, Sales, and Services ­ Grooming and Pet Stores  Commercial Entertainment and Recreation ­ Cinemas & Theaters ­ Convention and Conference Centers  Eating and Drinking Establishments ­ Food Hall (up to 175 seats)  Food and Beverage Sales ­ Farmer’s Market ­ Liquor Stores  Lodging ­ Bed and Breakfast ­ Hotels and Motels  Personal Services ­ General Personal Services  Retail Sales ­ General Retail Sales, Small- and Medium-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC) – Main St, Pico Blvd, Montana Ave Commercial Uses  Eating and Drinking Establishments ­ Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service & Take-Out (2,500 – 5,000 square feet and smaller, including Outdoor Dining and Seating) Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) – Main St, State St  Business, professional, and trade schools  Office-administrative services  Personal services  Private clubs, lodges, or fraternal organizations  Restaurants, excluding drive-through services  Retail  Cocktail lounges  Uses which are determined by the community development director to be of the same general character Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 147     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 11 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 9 Conditional/ Limited Uses Downtown Commercial (CD-C) Retail-like Services  Commercial Recreation – Over 5,000 sf  General Business Service Community Commercial (CC, CC(2)) Retail-like Services  Commercial Recreation – Less than 5,000 sf Medical Offices Bayside Conservation (BC) - Third Street Promenade Area Commercial Uses  Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service ­ Automobile Rental L(10) ­ New Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing L(8), L(5)  Business Services L(15)  Commercial Entertainment and Recreation ­ Large-Scale Facility L(21) ­ Small-Scale Facility L(5)  Eating and Drinking Establishments ­ Bars/ Nightclubs/ Lounges ­ Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service & Take-Out (2,500 square feet and smaller, including Outdoor Dining and Seating) L(22) ­ Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service & Take-Out (2,501 -5,000 square feet and smaller, including Outdoor Dining and Seating) L(22) ­ Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service & Take-Out (greater than 5,000 sq ft, including Outdoor Dining and Seating) L(22)  Food and Beverage Sales ­ Convenience Market ­ General Market  Instructional Services L(1), L(5)  Live-Work L(1), L(13)  Offices ­ Business and Professional L(1) ­ Creative L(1) ­ Walk-In Clientele L(1)  Personal Services ­ Physical Training L(17), L(5) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) – Main St, Pico Blvd, Montana Ave Commercial Uses  Eating and Drinking Establishments ­ Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service & Take-Out (greater than 5,000 square feet, including Outdoor Dining and Seating) (10)(11)  Food Hall (up to 175 seats)  Food and Beverage Sales ­ Convenience Market ­ Farmers Markets ­ General Market L(12) ­ Liquor Stores  Instructional Services L(17)  Live-Work L(14)  Maintenance and Repair Services L(2)  Nurseries and Garden Centers L(17)  Offices ­ Business and Professional L(21) ­ Creative L(21) ­ Medical and Dental L(21) ­ Walk-In Clientele L(21)  Retail Sales ­ General Retail Sales, Small-Scale L(2) Commercial Retail Sales (CRS) – Main St, State St  New building >7,000 sf  Commercial recreation  Day care centers  Hotels  Housing  Medical and dental clinics or offices >5,000 sf  Uses which are determined by the planning commission to be of the same general character. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 148     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 12 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 10 Major remodeling/ tenant improvement process, limits N/A Major Modifications (9.43.030)  For uses permitted by right or by discretionary review.  May be granted relief on no more than 2 of the following. ­ Setbacks ­ Build-To Line ­ Parcel Coverage ­ Height ­ Ground Floor (Floor-to-Floor) Height ­ Landscaping. Up to 10% of the required landscaping  May not be granted for the following. ­ Parcel area, width, or depth; ­ Maximum number of stories; ­ Minimum or maximum number of required parking spaces; ­ Residential density; or ­ Maximum floor area ratio (FAR). N/A 11 Minor change process, requirements Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)  Granted to site development and parking and loading requirements to enhance the design of commercial development – subject to architectural review.  Design enhancement include minor architectural elements and design features.  Exceptions limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. Minor Modifications (9.43.020)  For uses permitted by right or by discretionary review.  May be granted relief on no more than 2 of the following. ­ Setbacks ­ Build-To Line ­ Parcel Coverage ­ Height ­ Transparency ­ Parking, Loading, and Circulation ­ Outdoor Living Area ­ Bicycle Parking ­ Parcel Lines  May not be granted for the following. ­ Parcel area, width, or depth; ­ Maximum number of stories; ­ Minimum or maximum number of required parking spaces; ­ Residential density; or ­ Maximum floor area ratio (FAR). N/A Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 149     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 13 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 12 New signage process, requirements Signs (16.20)  Design review required by Architectural Review Board.  Master sign program for multiple signs as part of one building project.  Prohibited signs include flashing or moving signs and roof signs that have not been grandfathered.  Signs are prohibited on public property.  Specific requirements for fuel price signs, freestanding signs, wall signs, projecting signs, and awning signs. Signs (9.61)  Sign Permit application requirements include: ­ Site Plan. ­ Existing Building Elevation. ­ Proposed Building Elevations. ­ Sign Illustration.  Sign permit application reviewed by The Secretary of the Architectural Review Board  The Planning and Community Development Director can administratively approve sign permits if the type of sign is permitted.  Prohibited signs include: ­ Animated signs ­ Emitting signs ­ Miscellaneous signs ­ Paper, Cloth, or Plastic Streamers and Bunting  Total sign area regulated by District.  Provisions for portable signs and upper-level signs in the Bayside Conservation District (Third Street Promenade). Signs on Private Property (Chapter 14.68)  Initial review by Director. Successive reviews: (1) Staff (2) Architectural and Site Review Committee and/or Board of Adjustments (3) Planning Commission (4) City Council  Master Sign Program required for all multiple tenant sites, nonresidential projects and buildings  Regulations vary by district.  Sign Permit not required for certain sign face changes, wayfinding/informational signs  Prohibited signs: animated, upper floors, emitting, billboards, A-frames (unless permitted in Downtown Outdoor Display Permit Guidelines)  Digital signs permitted in windows of stores in the downtown commercial district under certain circumstances Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 150     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 14 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 13 Parking strategy - minimum requirements? Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District (18.52.070) Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements  Retail Uses ­ Intensive - 1 per 200 sf of gross floor area ­ Extensive - 1 per 350 sf of gross floor area ­ Open Lot - 1 space for each 500 sf of sales, display, or storage site area. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements for Parking Assessment Districts  Retail Uses ­ Intensive - 1 per 240 sf of gross floor area ­ Extensive - 1 per 350 sf of gross floor area ­ Open Lot - 1 space for each 500 sf of sales, display, or storage site area.  No minimum off-street parking requirements for all land uses within the Downtown Community Plan area.  Retail Sales (Maximum parking allowed) ­ 5,000 SF or less = 1 space per 500 SF ­ 5,001 SF or more = 1 space per 300 SF Parking, Loading, and Circulation (9.28.40)  Projects Outside of One-Half Mile of a Major Transit Stop (minimum parking required) ­ Retail, less than 2,500 sq. ft.- 1 space per 300 sq. ft. ­ Retail, 2,500 – 5,000 sq. ft. - 1 space per 300 sq. ft. ­ Retail, 5,000 sq. ft. or more - 1 space per 300 sq. ft.  Projects Within One-Half Mile of a Major Transit Stop: no minimum parking required.  Location of Parking for Mixed- Use and Nonresidential Districts above ground restricted to Interior Side and Rear Setbacks and Rooftops except in Neighborhood Commercial Districts.  Provisions for required setbacks, openings, and parking podium heights for subterranean and semi-subterranean parking structures.  All off-street parking spaces associated with new nonresidential projects in the Neighborhood Commercial District require unbundled parking. Off-Street Parking and Loading (Chapter 14.74)  Regulations vary for commercial vs. residential uses in districts which allow mixed-use  Public Parking District: allows participating properties not to require parking for new or changed uses for the first 1.0 of floor area ratio. Parking required if square footage exceeds lot area.  If not subject to Public Parking District regulations the following ratios apply: ­ Office: 1/300 ­ Commercial ▪ Intensive: 1/200 ▪ Extensive: 1/500 ­ Bars, cafes, nightclubs, restaurants: 1 per 3 employees and 1 per 3 seats ­ Assembly/recreation uses: varies ­ Residential (in mixed-se commercial district): 1-2 depending on size, and 1 visitor per 4 units Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 151     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 15 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 14 Improvement Districts (BID/Promotion/ Economic Development Programs/ Departments) Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.  Bayside and Downtown Mall Operations & Maintenance District  Central Business District - Business Promotion Assessment  Colorado Avenue Property Based Assessment District PBAD Overlay Zone  Downtown Santa Monica Property-Based Assessment District (PBAD)  Lincoln Boulevard Property-Based Assessment District Main Street  Main Street Business Assessment  Main Street Light and Sidewalk Cleaning Assessment Area Montana Avenue  Montana Avenue Assessment Pico Boulevard  Pico Boulevard Assessment Santa Monica Alliance The Santa Monica Alliance is a collaborative effort of the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce dedicated to nurturing a vibrant, healthy, and profitable business climate in Santa Monica working to attract, retain, and to help grow Santa Monica businesses.  Improvement district mechanism in place for neighborhoods, however this seems to have limited applications.  Downtown BID feasibility study considered in 2018, but not ultimately funded. 15 Housing - allowed? Min. max.; encouraged?  Residential not allowed in Ground Floor (GF) or Retail (R) Combining districts.  100% affordable housing projects are exempt from the Retail Preservation Ordinance, but can’t be within the Ground Floor (GF) and/or Retail (R) combining districts or on a site abutting El Camino Real.  Residential limited to upper floors on Third Street Promenade.  If development is approved above the base FAR and height, it must be accompanied by a range of community benefits from 4 priority categories: Affordable Housing, Trip Reduction and Traffic Management, Community Physical Improvements, and Social and Cultural Facilities.  Residential limited to upper floors for parcels located on Main Street, Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard, and Ocean Park Boulevard. Permitted on all floors for all other parcels. Varies by district:  CD/R3: Permitted use  CN and CT: Mixed-use residential conditionally permitted  CD, CRS, CRS/OAD: Residential above ground floor conditionally permitted  Not permitted in LC/SPZ Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 152     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 16 # ZONING STANDARD/ APPROACH PALO ALTO SANTA MONICA LOS ALTOS Downtown Community Plan (Bayside Conservation - 3rd Street Promenade) Mixed-use and Commercial Districts (Neighborhood Commercial) 16 Formula (i.e. Franchise) retail regulations Conditional use permit required for formula retail business in a R-Combining district - five required additional findings. Formula retail business - one of ten (10) or more business locations in the United States. Regulations in place before the pandemic. Restaurant, Limited-Service, and Take-Out establishments with frontage on the Third Street Promenade are prohibited if:  More than 150 locations nationwide; and  Restaurants where orders are placed at a walk-up window, counter, or machine; payment prior to food consumption; and food served with disposable, one-time, or limited-use wrapping, containers, or utensils.  Regulation in place for 5 years and can be updated or continued after that by council approval. N/A No limit on chain stores in our downtown area. The City doesn’t have chain stores in the downtown currently. They would like to attract some through new redevelopment projects in downtown to help facilitate some bigger companies and retailers to come to town which will in turn support the other businesses. Neighborhood Commercial NC (2) Limitation shall only apply to new construction and alterations to existing buildings that result in a combination or enlargement of tenant spaces: Limited to facilities with no more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or 40 linear feet of ground floor street frontage; greater area and/or width requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (10) Limited to restaurants with 50 or fewer seats. (11) Limited to 2 restaurants greater than 5,000 square feet per block along Main Street. A block is defined as both sides of Main Street and the adjacent sides of adjoining side streets. Portions of Main Street to be designated a “block” for the purpose of this Section are as follows: • Block 1: South City limits to Marine Street. • Block 2: Marine Street to Pier Avenue. • Block 3: Pier Avenue to Ashland Avenue. • Block 4: Ashland Avenue to Hill. • Block 5: Hill to Ocean Park Boulevard. • Block 6: Ocean Park Boulevard to Hollister Avenue (total of 4 restaurants and bars permitted in this block). Block 7: Hollister Avenue to Strand. • Block 8: Strand to Pacific. • Block 9: Pacific to Bicknell. • Block 10: Bicknell to Bay. • Block 11: Bay to Pico Boulevard. (12) General markets greater than 15,000 square feet require a Conditional Use Permit. In the Neighborhood Commercial District, establishments shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of floor area. (14) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with Chapter 9.41. Even if the commercial use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the live-work unit, there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An example of a potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from uses that generate airborne particulates in a unit with an unenclosed kitchen. (17) Limitation shall only apply to new construction and alterations to existing buildings that result in a combination or enlargement of tenant spaces: No individual tenant space in the NC District shall occupy more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 50 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (21) Permitted if within buildings existing as of July 24, 2015, subject to the active use requirement set forth in Section 9.11.030(A)(1), except: • All new construction, including new additions of 50% or more additional square footage to an existing building at any one time, or incrementally, after the effective date of this Ordinance, requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 153     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 17 • In the NC District, ground floor, street-fronting, tenant space occupied by non-media production, support facility uses shall not be changed to an individual office use or media production, support facility use occupying more than 12,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 75 linear feet of street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. • In the NC District, no non-medical or non-dental office use tenant space shall be changed to an individual medical or dental office use anywhere in an existing building occupying more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 50 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. • In the MUBL, MUB, and GC Districts, no non-medical or non-dental office use tenant space shall be changed to an individual medical or dental office use anywhere in an existing building occupying more than 12,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 75 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Bayside Conservation (BC) Third Street Promenade Area (1) Limited to upper floors, and on the ground floor where the entire tenant space shall be located at least 25 feet from the front property line, except for residential units shall be limited to upper floors only. (5) Permitted if within buildings existing as of the date this Ordinance effective. Permitted in new buildings, except: (a) No individual ground floor tenant space shall occupy more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 50 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without a Conditional Use Permit. (b) Ground floor tenant spaces in the Santa Monica Place are not subject to size limitations. (10) Permitted as an ancillary use to support a primary use. (13) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with SMMC, Chapter 9.41. Even if the commercial use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the live-work unit, there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An example of a potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from users that generate airborne particulates in a unit with an unenclosed kitchen. (15) Limited to the ground floor with frontage along 2nd Court and 3rd Court alleys or to upper floors. (21) No individual Fitness Center tenant space shall exceed 100 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (22) Restaurant, Limited-Service and Take-Out establishments with frontage on the Third Street Promenade and the following characteristics shall be prohibited: (a) More than 150 locations nationwide at the time that the application for the establishment is deemed complete by the City; and (b) Characteristics, including, but not limited to, orders placed at a walk-up window, counter, or machine; payment prior to food consumption; and food served with disposable, one-time, or limited-use wrapping, containers, or utensils. Palo Alto Retail – Zoning Comparison with Santa Monica Summary/Key Takeaways 1. Level of regulation – Zone Districts a. Santa Monica’s primary retail/commercial areas are Downtown (Third Street Promenade), Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard, and Montana Ave. b. The Downtown Community Plan provides development standards as well as design guidelines for new development projects. c. Zone districts are very prescriptive but clear in intent and procedure. 2. Overlay Districts a. Santa Monica has two primary overlay districts but aren’t applicable in the established retail/commercial corridors. 3. Ground floor use regulations a. Santa Monica allows for a variety of uses other than retail on the Third Street Promenade, however there are specific limitations per use. b. Santa Monica also provides active ground floor use and design provisions for the Mixed Use and Commercial Districts. 4. Change of Use/Intensification process a. Santa Monica doesn’t prohibit change of use from retail. 5. Retail definition a. Santa Monica defines Retail Sales as any establishment that allows the retail sale or rental of merchandise. 6. Approval Processes a. Santa Monica has administrative review and development review (discretionary) and provides the option for variances and waivers from development standards. 7. Approving Authority a. All Planning related permits are approved by either the Planning and Community Development Director or the Planning Commission, the Director has approval authority in Palo Alto unless appealed in which case the final approval is from City Council in Palo Alto. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 154     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Palo Alto Appendix D, Page 18 8. Permit Process a. New construction (permitted uses and CUP uses) i. Santa Monica allows by right and conditionally allows a variety of uses in their Downtown and Mixed Use and Commercial Districts. b. Major remodeling/tenant improvement and Minor changes i. Santa Monica allows for relief on up to two development standards. c. New signage i. Santa Monica’s sign standards are very prescriptive. 9. Parking strategy a. Santa Monica has parking maximums for Downtown and minimum parking requirements for projects outside of one-half mile of a major transit stop. 10. BID/Promotion/Economic Development Programs / Departments a. Santa Monica has property based assessment districts for all of their commercial/retail corridors. 11. Housing a. Residential is limited to upper floors along the Third Street Promenade and along the primary retail corridors. 12. Formula retail regulations a. Restaurants with 150 locations are prohibited on the Third Street Promenade. Item 3 Attachment D: Appendix D Zoning Review and Comparison     Packet Pg. 155     Draft: May 2024 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 156     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Acknowledgements City Council Members Commissioner Keith Reckdahl Thoits Bros., Inc. – John Shenk Mayor Greer Stone Vice Mayor Ed Lauing Chamber of Commerce – Charlie Weidanz Performance Gaines – Chris Gaines Italico – Franco Campilongo Ad Hoc Committee MembersCommissioner Allen Akin Commissioner Bryna Chang Commissioner Keith Reckdahl Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member Lydia Kou Council Member Patrick Burt Council Member Vicki Veenker Taste Buds Kitchen – Scott Andersen Peer City IntervieweesCity Staff City of Santa Monica: Jennifer Taylor- Economic Development Manager City of Santa Monica: Roxanne Tanemori- Principal Planner City of Los Altos: Nick Zornes- Development Services Director City of Redwood City: Evelyn Garcia- Associate Planner Jonathan Lait- Planning and Development Services Director Amy French- Chief Planning Official Bruce FukujiPlanning and Transportation Commission Chair Doria Summa Commissioner Allen Akin Commissioner Bart Hechtman. Commissioner Bryna Chang Commissioner Carolyn Templeton Commissioner George Lu Steven Guagliardo- Assistant to the City Manager – Economic Development Consultants Michael Baker InternationalStakeholders Premier Property Management – Jon Goldman, Brad Ehikia Ellis Partners – Jim Ellis Cover Image Credit: Palo Alto online Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 2 Approval Process ........................................................................................14 AB 2097 Implications and Recommendations ..........................................15 Zoning Analysis and Recommendations...................................................18 Market Profile.......................................................................................... 7 Demographic Profile .................................................................................... 7 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 2 Relationship to Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy ............. 2 Top Tier.................................................................................................... 7 Urban Chic ............................................................................................... 7 Laptops and Lattes .................................................................................. 7 Zoning Review and Comparison.................................................................18 Zoning Recommendations..........................................................................18Guiding Principle 3 ................................................................................... 2 Strategy 9................................................................................................. 2 Action Items ............................................................................................. 2 Leakage and Surplus .................................................................................... 8 Leakage (Demand)................................................................................... 8 Surplus (Supply) ....................................................................................... 8 Stanford Shopping Center........................................................................ 8 List of AppendicesStudy Area............................................................................................... 3 Downtown/University Avenue..................................................................... 3 California Avenue......................................................................................... 3 Midtown....................................................................................................... 3 El Camino Real.............................................................................................. 3 Appendix A: Outreach Summary Appendix B: Market Study Appendix C: Implications of AB 2097 Appendix D: Zoning Review and Comparison Summary...................................................................................................... 8 Vacancy Trends and Findings .................................................................... 9 Outreach ................................................................................................. 4 Stakeholders............................................................................................ 4 Peer Cities ............................................................................................... 4 Retail Space Trends and Findings ................................................................ 9 National Trends ....................................................................................... 9 Palo Alto Findings .................................................................................. 10 Comparison with Peer Cities.................................................................. 11City of Santa Monica .................................................................................... 4 City of Los Altos............................................................................................ 4 Redwood City ............................................................................................... 5 Office Space Trends and Findings.............................................................. 12 National Trends ..................................................................................... 12 Palo Alto Findings .................................................................................. 12 Comparison with Peer Cities.................................................................. 13 Changing Nature of Retail ........................................................................ 6 Rise of E-Commerce..................................................................................... 6 Palo Alto Specific Trend............................................................................ 6 Experience-based Retail............................................................................... 6 Best Practices......................................................................................... 14 Land Use and Zoning Ordinance................................................................ 14 Parking and Curb Management................................................................. 14 City of Palo Alto i Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 157     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto seeks to retain, attract, and reinvigorate existing commercial areas, particularly areas that provide retail services. The purpose of this study is to recommend zoning strategies to help retain, strengthen, and facilitate retail in the key commercial areas of Palo Alto. This study complements and furthers the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy adopted by the City Council in August 2023. There was a remarkably strong consensus among the stakeholders with respect to the opinions about the problems and recommended improvements. The zoning analysis revealed an extremely complex, complicated, confusing, and difficult to comprehend and navigate set of regulations, which poses significant challenges for staff, property owners, and prospective businesses, alike. The code contains many overlapping, redundant, and narrowly targeted provisions. Altogether, it creates a negative, overly protective, and business-adverse regulatory environment. The good news is that there are many opportunities to make improvements that will reduce and eliminate deterrents and unreasonable constraints on existing and future investments in retail uses in Palo Alto. to provide the foundational analysis, policy, and strategic recommendations to authorize and enable the development and adoption of future specific zoning amendments. This study contains approximately 20 recommendations organized around the following 7 primary strategies: 1. Conduct a Comprehensive Zoning Cleanup of Mature, Complex CodeThis study includes: ƒ ƒ Several immersive reviews of the Palo Alto Zoning Code 2. Create Streamlined and Predictable Approval Processes 3. Limit the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) (18.40.180) 4. Allow Non-retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations 5. Repeal the Office Conversion and Construction Limitations 6. Relax the Formula Retail Restrictions Several rounds of stakeholder interviews, including business and property owners, and property managers, peer city staff ƒ ƒ Reviews and summaries of best retail revitalization practices The recommendations of this study reflect the overall consensus on the following general principles:A review and summary of national and local retail and office market trends 1. It is better to have occupied spaces, patrons, customers, and services for the community than the deleterious effects of vacant ground-floor spaces. 7. Ease the Parking Regulationsƒ ƒ Market and demographic profile of Palo Alto Implementation of these recommendations will take time. Some may be able to be implemented quickly, while others will require considerably more time. It is important that the City take swift action to execute actions as soon as possible. The recommended zoning strategies in this study provide a coordinated framework to identify and implement individual and coordinated sets of revisions in phases. Review of past City planning efforts and correspondence, including the recent Streetsense Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy study and the Car-Free California Avenue Engagement Reports 2. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and often counterproductive to try to outsmart or manipulate the free market. ƒ ƒ Multiple meetings and workshops with the Planning and Transportation Commission This study recommends a variety of modifications to the Zoning Code to eliminate or reduce regulatory constraints, conflicts, and outdated zoning strategies that deter, discourage, or overcomplicate the attraction, retention, and adaptation of retail business in Palo Alto.Multiple meetings and reviews with Palo Alto Planning and Economic Development department staff The trend analyses show significant and persistent vacancies in Palo Alto in both office and retail spaces. Some of the vacancy trends are consistent with larger regional and national trends, particularly the impacts of the COVID- 19 pandemic. However, some of the local trends and patterns appear to be unique to Palo Alto. The recommendations include strategies for future specific zoning amendments. This study provides the background conditions, understanding, best practices, community and stakeholder engagement, and policy discussions and regulatory implications that led to the development of the recommended zoning strategies. This study is intended City of Palo Alto 1 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 158     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Introduction Purpose Action ItemsLike many retail districts throughout the United States, the City of Palo Alto is struggling with high rental and vacancy rates in addition to challenges elicited by the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging retail trends. The City requested evaluation of its land use controls relative to the evolving economic and market conditions for the City's major retail areas and corridors. Regulatory and procedural complexities play a significant role in the retail challenges for the City. The main focus of this report is to analyze, understand, and recommend changes to these land use controls and, to a lesser extent, discuss procedural hindrances. strategies identified in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy aim to reflect the delicate ecosystem that drives the vibrancy of the City’s downtown and commercial centers with a focus on the retail and hospitality sectors significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting hybrid work environment. Three guiding principles emerged from this study. ƒAction 9.1 Consider removing or consolidating zoning overlays, incorporating an at a glance permitted use table and design standards, and an interactive online map with quick links to relevant regulations. ƒ ƒ Action 9.2 Consider amending Section 18.76.20, Architectural Review, of the municipal code to enable more over the counter approvals for minor changes.Each guiding principle has recommended strategies accompanied by one or more distinct actions. Guiding Principle 3, Strategy 9, and action items 9.1 – 9.4 of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy report are directly relevant to the purposes of this study and noted below. Action 9.3 Reevaluate the city-wide Retail Preservation Ordinance and consider refocusing its applicability to targeted areas of existing retail concentration while also allowing flexibility in non-street facing portions of buildings. The report also reviews national and regional trends as well as best practices. In addition, local business owners, City staff, and neighboring communities were interviewed to understand the local trends and climate. Appendix A includes the outreach summary and lists the individuals and businesses/agencies that were interviewed. Guiding Principle 3 ƒAction 9.4 Enable growth in Neighborhood Goods and Services along California Avenue by updating the Formula Retail Ordinance and easing use restrictions on in demand neighborhood serving uses that are currently heavily regulated or prohibited. Adopt policies that reflect changing market conditions by easing the regulatory burden for businesses, removing outdating restrictions that create hurdles to tenancy, and focus retail and retail like uses in places where they are market-supported. Relationship to Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Strategy 9This study complements and furthers the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy adopted by the City Council in August 2023. The Streamline, update and/or remove unnecessary use restrictions and pursue regulatory reform to enable tenancy and competitiveness. City of Palo Alto 2 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 159     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Study Area Four major retail areas and corridors were identified and analyzed to understand the current retail trends and land use conditions across the retail landscape of Palo Alto. The areas that were reviewed are Downtown Palo Alto/University Avenue, California Avenue, Midtown, and El Camino Real. These areas are depicted in Figure 1. multifamily housing, auto dealerships, veterinary services, gas stations, banks, fitness centers, public parks, and retail services. Figure 1 Palo Alto Retail Study Area Downtown/University Avenue Downtown Palo Alto, defined by the boundaries of Alma Street, Lytton Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, and Webster Street, is a mixed-use commercial district consisting of a variety of service industry land uses, including hotel, eating and drinking services, retail services, laundry services, theaters, beauty salons, public parks, places of worship, fitness studios, single- and multifamily housing, office, and parking. California Avenue California Avenue from El Camino Real to the California Avenue Train Station is a four-block-long commercial corridor consisting of a large mix of commercial and retail uses, including eating, and drinking services, banks, optometrists, offices, retail, health and wellness services, fitness studios, beauty salons, post office, hotel, and parking structures. The City Council authorized California Avenue as a temporary car-free street early in the COVID-19 pandemic as an economic recovery effort and to provide community members with outdoor spaces to gather. In December 2023, City Council determined California Avenue will permanently remain a car-free street. Midtown The Midtown retail district is located along Middlefield Road between Sutter Avenue and Moreno Avenue. Midtown is a traditional American horizontal mixed-use retail complex comprising multiple buildings accessed largely by vehicle trips intended to attract patrons from outside the immediate area. Land uses include eating and drinking services, offices, civic/institutional, barber shops, fitness studios, retail services, beauty salons, dance, and music studios, and learning centers. El Camino Real El Camino Real is a 4-mile-long commercial highway corridor that runs the entire length of Palo Alto from Sand Hill Road to Los Altos Road. The corridor is a major thoroughfare supported by auto-oriented uses and large retail complexes, including hotels, banks, medical and dental services, eating and drinking services, learning centers, car rental shops, beauty salons, City of Palo Alto 3 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 160     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY City of Santa Monica City of Los AltosOutreach The City passed an extensive list of emergency orders during the pandemic. These included both planning and building/safety emergency orders, many of which have been formally adopted or extended. The following are key policy and zoning changes identified in the interview with City staff. The following are key policy and zoning regulations and permitting procedures identified in the interview with City staff.Outreach efforts included interviews with six stakeholders and three peer cities. The outreach efforts are summarized in Appendix A of this document. ƒLos Altos has an active Chamber of Commerce that supports and works with businesses. Using a Downtown Vacancy matrix, the Chamber of Commerce tracks vacancies, allowed uses, and building floor area/square footage. Stakeholders ƒ ƒ ƒ Changes in zoning included allowing a wider variety of uses by right in areas that were historically more restrictive, such as pop-ups and creative commercial uses. Six stakeholders—landowners, businesses, and the Chamber of Commerce—were interviewed in order to understand the restrictions or hindrances to development; they then provided recommendations to mitigate them. There was a strong consensus on many issues among all of the stakeholders. Below are the main takeaways from these interviews. ƒThe City’s streamlined permit processing via online submittals take days, not months.The City eliminated the need for conditional use permits (CUP), minor use permits, and other discretionary approvals for several uses.ƒ ƒ The City made alcohol sales an ancillary use allowed by right. The City does not typically use CUPs; uses are either allowed or prohibited.ƒ ƒ ƒ Provide flexibility in the reuse of ground-floor space. Rescind ground-floor Retail Protection Ordinance. The City staff stressed the importance of City staff being a known, visible, and trusted figure in the community.Figure 3 Los Altos - Downtown Triangle - Commercial Retail Sales (CRS)Figure 2 Third Street Promenade - Bayside Conservation District (BC)Remove ground-floor retail restrictions on side streets and blocks away from the main commercial corridor. ƒExpand the definition of “retail-like use” to include uses that generate pedestrian activity. ƒ ƒ ƒ Remove restrictions on formula retail. Make permitting process simple, quick, and predictable. Reduce in-lieu parking fee to allow new development or intensification. ƒAllow transfer between uses without requiring parking. Peer Cities To gain a broader understanding of Palo Alto's regulatory provisions and procedures and inform the recommendations, three communities were interviewed to identify gaps and differences in approaches to retail development as well as to review the zone districts most similar to Palo Alto. The jurisdictions were identified during the Planning and Transportation Commission and stakeholder interviews as having flexible zoning codes, efficient permit procedures and processing, and similar or desired retail districts. These were the following: City of Santa Monica (focus was on Third Street Promenade – Bayside Conservation District) City of Los Altos (focus was on Downtown Triangle – CRS Zone) City of Redwood City (focus was on Downtown area) City of Palo Alto 4 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 161     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Redwood City Figure 4 Redwood City Zoning Map The following are key policy and zoning regulations and permitting procedures identified in the interview with City staff. ƒ ƒ ƒ Any changes to use in the downtown area, including retail, can be done by right. The City provides a floor area ratio increase if the applicant provides housing or mixed uses in their development project. The City has several vacancies in the downtown and they are trying to attract other active uses, not just retail. City of Palo Alto 5 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 162     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Changing Nature of Retail Rise of E-Commerce Experience-based Retail Retail has changed significantly over the last decade with the evolution of online retailer platforms and flexible mixed-use spaces. The pandemic has exacerbated this evolution, increasing the quantity of purchasing of goods and services via a myriad of avenues, especially via e-commerce. This trend is less of an anomaly and more of a paradigm shift in retail. As consumers diversify the ways they purchase goods and services, the role of brick-and- mortar establishments and traditional retail districts are transitioning. While there are always consumers who prefer e-commerce, many businesses remain important physical anchors in retail districts, such as grocery stores, eating and drinking establishments, personal services, exercise studios, medical services, and theaters. The growth rate of e-commerce is significantly higher compared to the growth rate of total retail sales in the US, indicating a strong preference for online shopping versus brick-and-mortar stores. The US e-commerce grew 7.6 percent in 2023 and total sales grew 3.8 percent. This trend is projected to continue and create competition for and innovation in local retail and commercial spaces. Experiential retail aims to provide customers with unique and memorable experiences beyond traditional shopping. The desire for retail experiences is on the rise with millennials saying that 52 percent of their spending goes on experience-related purchases.2 “Retailtainment” is a subset of experiential retail that elevates the customer experience through entertainment by offering immersive retail experiences, where brands are able to provide customers with fun, unique, and in-person experiences that elevate shopping to new heights. Key features of experiential retail include:Palo Alto Specific Trend While specific statistics on the share of e-commerce in Palo Alto may not be readily available, it is important to recognize that national trends significantly influence local communities. Palo Alto, like many other cities, experiences the effects of broader economic shifts. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, done by Streetsense and adopted by the Council in 2023, indicated that there is an oversupply of 460,000 square feet of retail space in the City. While the shift to e-commerce is one of the factors, the study also indicates that hybrid work has reduced the demand for retail in Palo Alto by over 100,000 square feet. ƒ ƒ ƒ Unique Spaces and Objects: Retail spaces that stand out, interesting displays, and creative use of physical environments. High Customer Engagement: Interactivity, personalization, and emotional connections.E-commerce has and continues to grow as a percentage of total retail sales. It grew from 8 percent to 19.1 percent of total retail sales from 2012 to 2021. The growth was significant during the pandemic. In 2022, US e- commerce represented 21.2 percent penetration total retail sales and that in 2023 was 22.0%, according to Digital Commerce 360 analysis of US Department of Commerce data.1 Technology Integration: Leveraging tech to enhance customer interactions. According to a recent report from Forrester and Adobe, brands defined as “experience-driven” are seeing an average growth rate of 19 percent per year, compared to 13 percent for other types of retailers. That study also found that retailers utilizing experiential tactics are driving repeat purchases at rates nearly twice those of traditional retail.3 Figure 5: US E-commerce Sales as a Percentage of Total Sales Source: Digital Commerce 360 1 Digital 360, US ecommerce sales penetration hits new high in 2023, accessed April 18, 2024, https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/us-ecommerce-sales/. 2 Washington Post, “Shoppers are choosing experiences over stuff, and that’s bad news for retailers,” accessed April 18, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/shoppers-are-choosing-experiences-over-stuff-and-thats-bad-news-for-retailers/2016/01/07/eaa80b5a-b4a7-11e5- a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html. 3 Experiential Retail: What You Need to Know in 2020, accessed April 18, 2024, https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/experiential-retail-what-you-need-to-know-in-2020/. City of Palo Alto 6 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 163     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Market Profile Market research was conducted to understand the area's demographics and office and retail market conditions, as well as retail demand and supply. ESRI Business Analyst- demographic mapping software tool and CoStar- a real estate information tool, were used for this research; the information was supplemented by City staff and stakeholder interviews. The data used to summarize the market study can be found in Appendix B Top Tier These are the residents of the wealthiest Tapestry market and earn more than three times the median US household income. They have the purchasing power to indulge in any choice. Aside from the obvious expense for the upkeep of their homes, consumers select upscale salons, spas, and fitness centers for their personal well-being and shop at high-end retailers for their personal effects. They take lavish vacations and fill their weekends and evenings with opera, classical music concerts, charity dinners, and shopping. They mostly shop at high-end retailers such as Nordstrom, but also at other meddle-end stores such as Target, Kohl's, Macy's, and Bed Bath & Beyond. They also shop online. This section is divided into three sections: Demographic Profile: An understanding of demographics, their purchasing power, and the products they consume helps businesses located in the area to cater to these groups and, in turn, increase their chances of success.Source: ESRIUrban ChicLeakage and Surplus: An analysis of leakage and surplus provides a snapshot of the type of retail that is missing in the area. This information, along with the demographic makeup of the areas, helps business owners target the retail stores that will cater to the population in the area. Urban Chic residents are professionals that live a sophisticated, exclusive lifestyle. Half of all households are occupied by married-couple families, and about 30% are singles. These are busy, well-connected, and well-educated consumers—avid readers and moviegoers, environmentally active, and financially stable. This market is a bit older, with a median age of 43 years, and growing slowly but steadily. They shop at stores such as Trader Joe's, Costco, or Whole Foods. They like to eat organic foods, drink imported wine, Summary: This section summarizes key observations and findings from the market profile. Demographic Profile and truly appreciate a good cup of coffee. They travel extensively (domestically and internationally) and shop at upscale establishments. They embrace city life by visiting museums, art galleries, and movie theaters for a night out. In their downtime, they enjoy activities such as skiing, yoga, hiking, and tennis. ESRI provides a system of market segmentation built by using a large, well- selected array of attributes of demographic and socioeconomic variables to identify numerous unique consumer markets throughout the United States. This system is called Tapestry Segmentation. The data can provide insight on essential consumer variables, such as age, education level, the likeliness of car or home ownership, a consumer's willingness to buy or purchase certain products, and their overall economic purchasing power. This is an important aspect of market research and helps create an understanding of the types of land uses that will best serve the neighboring population in a 10-minute drive time. Source: ESRI Laptops and Lattes These residents are predominantly single, well-educated professionals in business, finance, legal, computer, and entertainment occupations. They are affluent and partial to city living—and its amenities. Many residents walk, bike, or use public transportation to get to work, a number work from home. Laptops and Lattes residents are cosmopolitan and connected— technologically savvy consumers. They are active and health conscious and care about the environment. They spend money on nice clothes, dining out, travel, treatments at day spas, and lattes at Starbucks. Physical fitness is a priority, exercising at a club or other facility on a regular basis. They enjoy sports such as jogging/running, biking, tennis, soccer, skiing, yoga, and Pilates, as well as participating in fantasy sports leagues. They favor organic food and purchasing groceries at higher-end markets. More than 70 percent of the population living in the 10-minute drive time of the commercial areas in Palo Alto falls in one of these three tapestry segments: Source: ESRI City of Palo Alto 7 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 164     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Leakage and Surplus ESRI's Retail MarketPlace database includes a leakage/surplus factor that measures the balance between the volume of retail sales (supply) generated by retail businesses and the volume of retail potential (demand) produced by household spending on retail goods within the same industry. Analysis of the data has led to the following results for supply and demand within a 10- minute driving time of California Avenue and University Avenue (Trade area). restrictions, or City approval. All of this results in key advantages and competition for Downtown and California Avenue. Summary There seem to be several gaps in the market based on the leakage/surplus reports. These include personal services and grocery stores. At the same time, the demographics of the area seem to use upscale salons, spas, and fitness centers for their personal well-being and shop for groceries at Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and other organic stores. Hence, such retail and retail- like uses, if provided in the area, have chances of success, and can help lower vacancies indicated in the findings section. Based on such findings, there are opportunities for possible code and regulatory changes to help capture the market. Leakage (Demand) Leakage in an area represents a condition where demand exceeds supply. In other words, retailers outside the market area are fulfilling the demand for retail products; therefore, demand is “leaking” out of the trade area. Such a condition highlights an opportunity for new retailers to enter the trade area or for existing retailers to extend their marketing outreach to accommodate the excess demand. Trade area leakage includes- Auto parts, motor vehicle dealers, auto accessories, building materials, lawn and garden equipment, other general merchandise stores, florists, vending machine operators, direct selling establishments, special food services, drinking places, used merchandise stores, office supplies, stationery, and gift stores, gasoline stations, health and personal care stores, specialty food stores, and grocery stores. Surplus (Supply) Surplus in an area represents a condition where supply exceeds the area’s demand. Retailers are attracting shoppers that reside outside the trade area. The “surplus” is in market supply. Brand positioning and product mix are key differentiators in these types of markets. Trade area surplus includes- Shoe stores, book, periodical, and music stores, furniture stores, department stores, home furnishings stores, electronics and appliance stores, jewelry, luggage, and leather goods store. Stanford Shopping Center It should be noted that the commercial areas along California Avenue and University Avenue receive direct competition from the Stanford Shopping Center due to being in its close vicinity. The Stanford Shopping Center is successful and attracts clientele from the region. The retail areas in the City can learn from the success of the professionally managed shopping center, which does not have the same zoning constraints. The mall emphasizes continuous pedestrian activation and comfort, and more non-exclusive retail on the ground floor, such as spas, personal services, restaurants, and food and convenience. It should also be considered that parking is set, and tenants can change usage without triggering parking fees, construction, City of Palo Alto 8 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 165     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Vacancy Trends and Findings Retail Space Trends and Findings National Trends Figure 6: US Retail Vacancy Trend According to a CoStar report, “The US retail market has demonstrated remarkable resilience over the past three years, culminating in historically tight availability at the end of 2023 with the national average vacancy rate hitting a new low of just 4.0 percent. Current demand and supply-side factors are likely to persist regardless of economic conditions. On the demand front, the retail sector has benefited significantly from a marked decrease in bankruptcies and large-scale store closures over the past three years, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in the amount of retail space vacated compared to pre-pandemic norms. With retail tenants no longer moving out of spaces at the same robust clip seen in 2017 through 2020 and demand supported by a historic surge in consumer spending, the amount of available retail space tightened quickly as less and less backfill space became available. Supply-side factors equally drove the rapid contraction in vacancy, as very little new retail development coupled with an active pace of demolitions resulted in the lowest levels of net retail space deliveries seen in decades.” 4 This trend appears likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future based on the current range of outcomes. In only the two most adverse scenarios, the Depression and Severe Downside alternatives, does retail vacancy increase above 5 percent. The boost in consumption coming out of the pandemic, retail sales, excluding e-commerce, stand 10 percent higher than pre-pandemic levels, even after accounting for inflation. This increased sales potential suggests closures will likely be limited to a select few underperforming stores and those stemming from bankruptcies.Source: CoStar 4 CoStar reports, “Retail Supply and Demand Likely To Remain in Balance for Foreseeable Future,” accessed April 18, 2024, https://www.costar.com/article/523238330/retail-supply-and-demand-likely-to-remain-in-balance-for-foreseeable-future. City of Palo Alto 9 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 166     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Palo Alto Findings ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ An evaluation of recent changes in vacancy rates over the last year (2023-2024) shows improvement in the California Avenue area and Midtown areas.5 ƒ ƒ ƒ All areas except Midtown show an increase in period of months vacant since the pandemic with some retail spaces being vacant for 20 to 30 months in the Downtown and California Avenue areas.Data derived from CoStar illustrates retail vacancy trends in Palo Alto. Detailed ten-year trend tables and graphs for study areas in Palo Alto as well as peer cities are documented in Appendix B. Below are key observations and findings from the CoStar data. Vacancy rates vary considerably quarterly, particularly in smaller market areas where one vacancy represents a significant percentage of the total. Retail space vacancy in the Town and County area has increased dramatically since the COVID-19 pandemic from an average of 4.5 months in 2019 and 2020 to over 40 months in Q1 of 2024.ƒRetail and office vacancy rates have increased significantly in each of Palo Alto's retail districts in the last decade, specifically in the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real-Town and Country area. The Town and Country area was hit particularly hard by the COVID- 19 pandemic, with vacancy rates increasing from among the lowest rates in Palo Alto to the second highest after Downtown. Landowners seem to be willing to forgo rents and keep their properties vacant for longer periods of time. According to a Harvard study, “Why Do Urban Storefronts Stay Empty for So Long?”6 storefronts often remain empty for months or years at a time, even in some of the world’s highest-rent retail districts. The study concluded that, eventually, a primary driver of retail vacancy in dense urban areas is the fact that landlords are willing to forgo rents today to preserve the option to lease their space to someone else (who might pay higher rents) tomorrow. The study found that while a vacancy tax would decrease the vacancy rate and rents, it would also lower tenant quality and lead to faster churn in the city’s storefronts. The rents for the retail spaces in the commercial areas that were studied have been on a steady rise despite increases in the vacancy rate, with the highest rent per square footage in the Downtown and Town and Country areas. ƒ ƒ Unlike national trends, the trend in Palo Alto shows a rise in vacancy rates since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vacancies seemed to have been rising several years before the pandemic began. This could be due to a combination of factors such as changes in regulatory environment, rise of e-commerce, and a continued and latent expression of weakness in the retail sector following the Great Recession. ƒ ƒ All retail areas still have vacancy rates greater than what they were pre-COVID. Midtown has performed well regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, likely due to being isolated and supported as local service to surrounding residential areas with a strong customer base. Table 1: Retail Vacancy Trends as of 2024 Q1 Vacancy Rate Change* (2023-2024)Area Total Retail Space (SF)Vacant Retail Space (SF)Vacancy Rate Rent per Square Foot Downtown 740,000 295,000 175,000 54,300 463,000 104,000 1,831,300 112,000 28,200 21,400 5,000 8,100 3900 15.1% 9.6% 12.2% 9.1% 1.8% 3.8% 9.8% 6.90%$77.11 $54.47 $76.70 $48.81 $53.65 $55.67 California Avenue ECR - Town and Country ECR - California Avenue ECR - South Midtown TOTAL -4.10% 0.50% 8.20% 0.20% -0.4% 178,600 Source: February 2024 CoStar Group Analytical Reports ECR = El Camino Real * Indicates one-year change. A negative percentage indicates that the vacancy has reduced in a one-year period. Positive numbers indicate an increase in vacancy in one-year period. 5 CoStar Data Analytical Reports accessed February 9, 2024, https://www.costar.com/.6 Moszkowski, Erica and Daniel Stackman, “Why Do Urban Storefronts Stay Empty for So Long?”, 2023, accessed February 7, 2024, https://emoszkowski.github.io/ericamoszkowski.com/Moszkowski_JMP.pdf. City of Palo Alto 10 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 167     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Figure 7: Retail Vacancy Rate (2014 Q1 to 2024 Q1)Comparison with Peer Cities As a part of the study, the retail vacancy trends were compared to peer cities Santa Monica and Los Altos. Detailed graphs of these trend comparisons can be found in Appendix B. ƒSimilar to Palo Alto, unlike national trends, the vacancy rate significantly increased in Santa Monica in both areas studied, i.e., the Third Street Promenade and the Main Street area. ƒThe Third Street Promenade was hardest hit, post-COVID-19, of all the retail areas studied. One contributing factor could have been the pedestrian nature, which became less favorable due to limited in- person interactions during the pandemic. As a result, foot traffic and business activity declined, impacting the Promenade’s overall performance. ƒThe vacancy rate in downtown Los Altos increased only slightly post- pandemic but has showed signs of recovery since 2021. It remains below 3 percent. Figure 8: Retail Rent per Square Foot (2014 Q1 to 2024 Q1) City of Palo Alto 11 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 168     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Office Space Trends and Findings National Trends According to Office News, Class A office space in highly prestigious and well- connected locations is still in demand, especially where new or newly renovated offices are concerned. Premiums for high-end offices have increased nationwide by more than 30 percent since the onset of the pandemic, although it has not affected demand.8 2023 Q4, reducing the vacancy by approximately seven percentage points, the vacancy increased again in the last quarter. This could be due to office closures or offices not reinstating lease agreements and shrinking office space in a hybrid work environment. The US office vacancy rate has reached an all-time high due to the impact of remote work arrangements. It rose to a record-breaking 19.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023. This is the largest quarterly increase since the first quarter of 2021, and larger than the 19.3 percent level reached twice in 40 years. In conjunction, the new construction of office space has cooled to the lowest levels since 2012.7 ƒEl Camino Real retail areas, except for Town and Country, show a drop-in vacancy rate post-COVID-19 pandemic. A relatively small amount of vacant office space in Town and Country (5,800 square feet) could result in a high vacancy percentage due to limited overall inventory. Palo Alto Findings Vacancy rate data derived from CoStar illustrates retail vacancy trends in Palo Alto. Detailed ten-year trend tables and graphs for study areas in Palo Alto as well as peer cities are documented in Appendix B. Below are the findings. The remote work trend is seen as the foremost reason for high vacancy rates. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote work. Many companies shifted to telecommuting, reducing the need for physical office spaces. ƒ ƒ Similar to Town and Country, Midtown shows a high vacancy rate with actual vacant square footage of only 8,900 square feet. ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Similar to national trends, the office vacancy rate has been increasing in Palo Alto. Vacancy rates are greater than 10 percent in most areas, post-COVID-19 pandemic. Office rents have also dropped, with peak asking rents being right before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this has not helped with net absorption. Overall, Downtown and Town and Country have the highest rents per square foot in Palo Alto. Industries like tech and finance have embraced remote work more readily, affecting office demand. Sectors that rely heavily on in-person collaboration (e.g., creative agencies, legal firms) may still require office space.Most office space in Palo Alto catered to tech companies. The demand for office space has been impacted by tech companies readily embracing remote work and lease expirations.Lease expirations also provide opportunities for companies to renegotiate terms or explore alternative spaces. Some businesses choose not to renew leases, contributing to higher vacancies. Sustainability and environmental awareness are also influencing office design. Some companies prioritize green buildings or energy-efficient spaces. Older, less efficient buildings may struggle to attract tenants. x Most office buildings in the four-district study area are older. There is limited Class A building space in the study areas, the largest of which is in the Downtown area with 85,000 square feet. However, this is an older building, built in 1980s.9 Downtown has the highest overall inventory of office space and highest square footage of vacancy. The vacancy rate has continued to increase post-COVID-19 pandemic with no sign of recovery. California Avenue has the highest vacancy rate as of February 2024. While there has been some absorption of space from 2022 Q4 to Table 2: Office Vacancy Trends as of February 2024 Vacancy Rate Change (2023-2024) *Area Total Office Space (SF) 2,100,000 712,000 Vacant Office Space (SF)Vacancy Rate 16.0% Rent per Square Foot $93.77Downtown339,000 166,000 5,800 3.7% 1.0% 2.3% -4.6% -5.6% -0.2% California Avenue ECR - Town and Country ECR - California Avenue ECR - South 23.4%$72.23 49,800 11.6%$87.63 192,000 15,500 20,900 8,900 8.1%$72.45 219,000 9.6%$66.11 Midtown 43,200 20.7%$65.13 TOTALS/AVERAGE 3,316,000 556,100 16.8%-1%$76.22 Source: February 2024, CoStar Group Analytical Reports ECR=El Camino Real * Indicates one-year change. A negative percentage indicates that the vacancy has reduced in a one-year period. Positive numbers indicate an increase in vacancy in a one-year period. 7 CNN Business, “Office vacancy rate hits record high,” January 8, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/economy/office-space-vacancies-hit-a-record- high/index.html#:~:text=The%20national%20office%20vacancy%20rate,vacancy%20rate%20was%20ar ound%2016.8%25. 8 Office News, US Office Market Trends 2022 – Statistics, Challenges and Outlook, February 24, 2022, https://offices.net/news/us-office-market-trends-2022-statistics-challenges-and-outlook/.9 Commercial Café, Commercial Listings Palo Alto, accessed February 7, 2024, . City of Palo Alto 12 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 169     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Figure 9: Office Vacancy Rate (2014 Q1 to 2024 Q1)Comparison with Peer Cities Similar to Palo Alto, the peer cities show increases in office vacancies post- COVID-19 pandemic. Detailed graphs of these trend comparisons can be found in Appendix B. ƒThe vacancy square footage and the trend of increases in vacancy in the Third Street Promenade area is similar to Downtown Palo Alto but the vacancy rate is higher. For 2024 Q1, it is 27.1 percent for the Third Street Promenade area compared to 16.5 percent in Downtown Palo Alto. ƒ ƒ Santa Monica Main Street also experienced a remarkably high vacancy rate of 29.9 percent, as of 2024 Q1. The vacancy rate has increased significantly in Los Altos since peaking in 2021 Q3 at 24.3 percent to 13.7 percent in 2024 Q1. This is besides the fact that the rents in Los Altos are comparable to California Avenue and El Camino Real while being lower than Downtown Palo Alto. This is also despite the fact that retail areas in Palo Alto have closer proximity to regional transit facilities compared to Los Altos. However, it should be noted that absorption of one office space in Los Altos could result in a significant drop in the vacancy percentage due to significantly lower overall inventory, compared to the Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue areas. City of Palo Alto 13 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 170     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Best Practices The best practices summarized here are derived from respected leading industry resources such as the Urban Land Institute and the National League of Cities. In addition, several jurisdictions in the state (Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, and San Diego) that have adopted retail revitalization plans and strategies were also studied. Some of these may already be in practice in Palo Alto. The Recommendation Section provides detailed suggestions specific to Palo Alto services, museums/galleries, health/fitness, performing arts, commercial recreation, and entertainment. 6. Create a parking relief program for businesses that have outdoor dining, are undergoing a change of use, or currently have off-site parking conditions.6. Encourage Complementary Uses. Non-retail complementary uses such as professional services and restaurants attract and allow people to stay in the area for longer and, in turn, support retail sales and street and district vitality. 7. Designate strategic zones with clear signage for rideshare uses and curbside delivery (e.g., Lyft, Uber, taxi). 8. Provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking at key locations throughout the commercial district.7. Encourage New Office and Residential Uses. Office workers create a demand for retail along the street, especially in the morning and at noontime. Residential development in and adjacent to the commercial areas also generate customers, pedestrian activity, and retail demand. Office uses generate significantly more persons per square foot than residential uses. These best practices and principles are summarized and organized into the following key categories:9. Use technology to provide parking signage indicating "where" and "how many" spaces are available for parking.1. Land Use and Zoning Ordinance 2. Parking and Curb Management 3. Approval Process Approval Process Time, fees, complexity, and clarity/certainty of the approval process play a vital role in a developer's or business owner's decision to locate or invest in a particular area. Below are some best practices for improving the process and creating a business-friendly environment in a community. 8. Extend Retail and Restaurant Hours. Longer hours equal strongerLand Use and Zoning Ordinance sales, and strong sales define a successful shopping street. 1. Attract and Retain People. Allow land uses that can attract and 9. Concentrate Retail on Blocks and Nodes. Shoppers typically willretain people throughout the day and evening hours.walk for only three or four city blocks.10 1. Work with property and business owners and applicants to allow and make changes of uses and tenant improvements quickly to adapt and respond to changing market demands. 2. Prioritize People. Focus longer-term land-use code adjustments on efforts that put people's use (not vehicles or parking) of public space first. 10. Create Attractive Spaces. Incentivize privately owned public spaces and improve physical access to the public space. Parking and Curb Management 2. Amend use regulations, development standards, and approval processes to earn a reputation for quick, efficient, predictable, and business-friendly service and approvals. 3. Create Flexible, Permissive Zoning. Eliminate restrictive zoning for potential low-impact uses of vacant spaces and reduce regulatory hurdles. While the focus of this report is not specifically on parking ordinance reform, parking is closely related to land use and retail recovery. Below are some best practices for creating healthy commercial areas.3. Ensure that the business licensing and permitting process is not an impediment to good retail activity.ƒ ƒ ƒ Fill ground-floor vacant spaces by allowing the use of space to incubate small or start-up businesses.1. Create a program to provide credits for municipal parking spaces to reduce the overall development burden.Allow pop-ups, incubators, and temporary uses that can operate with short-term leases. 4. Ensure that zoning regulations are designed with flexibility in mind and that changes can happen administratively during times of need.2. Preserve on-street spaces for customers. Allow artisan shops that create and sell products on site such as handmade candle shops, hand crafted jewelry and so on. 5. Allow most uses and improvements without discretionary approval (i.e., by right or ministerially). Retail and supportive uses should be allowed by right, without discretionary approval, to the extent possible. 3. Promote shared parking that can support multiple different uses throughout the day. 4. Create Certainty with Objective Standards. Replace vague and 4. Adjust (reduce) minimum requirements to better align with demand and reduce construction costs for developers. Minimums should be less than the actual demand. subjective standards with objective development standards.6. Consider reducing or waiving fees associated with building construction or redevelopment in the focus area.5. Include Active Use as a Part of Retail Use. Broaden the definition of retail to include active uses—those that generate activity on the street, such as eating and drinking, hotels, entertainment, personal 5. Create a flat rate for parking regardless of use to provide flexibility in the change of use. 10 Urban Land Institute, “Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail,” January 1, 2003, accessed February 7, 2024, https://americas.uli.org/ten-principles-for-rebuilding-neighborhood-retail-2/. City of Palo Alto 14 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 171     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY AB 2097 Implications and Recommendations The purpose of this portion of the study is to review the implications of recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 on the City of Palo Alto’s parking regulations and management strategies, the adequacy of the existing parking inventory and potential impacts on retail establishments. The full AB 2097 analysis is contained in Appendix C. Figure 10: AB 2097 Relief Areas Effective January 1, 2023, AB 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most types of development within a half-mile of a major transit stop. However, this reduction does not apply to projects that designate any portion of the project as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, or reduce parking spaces designated for this purpose. Exceptions are allowed in limited circumstances. The bill authorizes a city, county, or city and county to impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a housing development project if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on the public agency’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs or existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the housing development. Figure 10 identifies the areas of Palo Alto that are affected by and subject to the provisions of AB 2097. There are approximately 6,677 public parking spaces across the four retail districts in the study area. Of these, 2,125 are on-street spaces and 4,552 are off-street public parking spaces within the public parking lots and public parking garages that existed at the time of this study. Based on the limited data received from the City as well as on interviews with the City’s Office of Transportation and stakeholders, there seems to be surplus parking in the commercial core areas of the City, especially the Downtown and California Avenue areas. The stakeholders did not express any concern related to availability of parking. However, as development occurs, the adequacy of the existing parking supply may be challenged from new or intensified land uses without construction of new on-site parking due to AB 2097. City of Palo Alto 15 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 172     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Below are some of the recommended strategies from the AB 2097 parking and retail impact assessment. Figure 11: Commercial Zoned (CD-C) Parcels Outside AB 2097 Impacted Areas- Downtown/University Ave 1. Extend AB 209 to Entire CD-C Zone for Equity. Within Downtown, there are 16 parcels in the CD-C district on University Avenue that lie just north of the half-mile radius from a high-quality transit stop that are not exempted from the parking requirements by AB 2097. Unless the provisions of AB 2097 are extended, these parcels will remain subject to minimum parking requirements and the Commercial Downtown Assessment District standards of 18.52 of the PAMC. To ensure equitable development conditions for all parcels in the Downtown area, it is recommended that uniform regulations be applied to the entirety of the CD-C districts in the Downtown area. 2. Allow Retail Flexibility Without Requiring Additional Parking: In retail areas outside the influence of AB 2097, the conversion of retail space to other retail or retail-like uses (for example, changing a boutique store into a restaurant or art gallery) should not impose restrictions on developers to provide parking in accordance with the converted uses, as long as the square footage is not increased. 3. Parking Management & Optimization. Without the ability to require on-site parking or require in-lieu payments toward public parking, the City will need to focus primarily on management and optimization of the existing parking supply. An optimal parking threshold for commercial areas is typically around 85 percent occupancy11. Beyond this point, parking availability becomes strained, leading to inconvenience for visitors and potential business impact. To address this, the City should actively monitor and manage parking utilization. At some point, future growth and intensification may challenge the adequacy of the existing supply. 4. Develop Ordinance to Unbundle Parking. The city should update the parking ordinance to include provisions of AB 1317 that will go into effect on January 1, 2025, which requires developers to unbundle parking from residential developments. The benefits of unbundling include more efficient use of existing parking spaces, cost savings for non-drivers, and clearer market valuation of land used for parking. It is especially helpful in areas not subject to minimum parking requirements. 11 Shoup Donald, 2011, The High Cost of Free Parking, Routledge City of Palo Alto 16 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 173     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY 5. Create Employee Parking Plan and Program. Business owners should encourage employees to not park in the most convenient customer parking spaces. 8. Enhance City’s Transportation Demand Strategy (TDM) Strategy. The City has an ordinance granting the Planning and Development Services Director the authority to require TDM strategies. However, a developer’s influence is limited to the site. The City can be more effective in implementing area-wide TDM strategies such as public transit improvements, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and promotion of active transportation and mixed-use development as suggested by the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy- Guiding Principle 2. 10. Improve Signage and Wayfinding for Parking: Effective signage ensures visitors can find their way without confusion. Palo Alto has signage directing to the parking areas, but they don’t provide information on parking availability in particular garages or lots or directions to garage or lot. The existing APGS and emerging technologies can be integrated with digital signage at strategic locations, which can provide real time information on parking. This will reduce the time spent to find parking in the retail areas. 6. Pursue Shared-Use Agreements. The City can facilitate a shared parking between landowners by creating ready to use shared parking agreements. The City can also enter into parking agreements with the landowners to use private parking during hours that it typically goes unused. These areas can be advertised on-site and, on the website, as available parking spaces during certain times of the day. 11. Curb Space Management. Increasing the opportunity to walk and bike to various locations and to complete short distance trips can alleviate pressure on parking. Adopting a micromobility program for shared bicycles and/or scooters and providing adequate curb space may also reduce the need for car for shorter trips. 9. Explore Emerging Technologies. As innovative technologies emerge, it is advised that the City explore and implement technologies that can deliver real time information via app or website. These can be applicable to parking garages, lots and on- street parking spaces and can help patrons find and receive directions to the nearest available space. 7. Reevaluate City’s Paid On-Street Parking Program. The City could implement incremental increase in rates instead of a flat $25 per day for public parking garages and lots12. The City could also evaluate implementing a paid on-street parking program instead of moving the vehicle every threshold is reached. 2 hours when a parking utilization 12 Parking Work Plan, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Palo-Alto- Parking-Action-Plan/Parking-Work-Plan, Accessed April 22, 2024 City of Palo Alto 17 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 174     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Zoning Analysis and Recommendations Zoning Review and Comparison RECOMMENDATION 1.1 laundry and cleaning; art and dance studios; fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses; learning centers.]The current state of the code suggests that a comprehensive review, revision, and update is warranted to ensure the code functions efficiently, equitably, and as intended. A detailed review of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance was conducted to review the permitted uses, development standards, and procedures. This is documented in Appendix D. The purpose of the analysis is to identify likely and potential constraints and opportunities to improve the health and function of retail uses and the main commercial retail and commercial corridors and provide recommendations for improvement. In addition, the analysis and recommendations are derived from the interviews with stakeholders, including developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and business owners (refer to Appendix A). Following the interviews with the cities of Santa Monica and Los Altos, the zoning for all commercial areas was reviewed and compared with zoning for the Palo Alto study areas. Appendix D contains excerpts and notes on the most relevant portions of the code. CD-N Zone: "A conditional use permit is required for the following uses when fronting on University Avenue: (A) Fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses; and (B) Learning centers intended for individual or small group settings."Examples of some symptoms and characteristics that suggest comprehensive review and update are warranted include: a CS Zone: "A conditional use permit is not required for medical office, or commercial recreation uses up to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, with the following exceptions, for which a conditional use permit is always required: (A) medical office fronting on California Avenue and in the Midtown Shopping District; (B) commercial recreation uses fronting on California Avenue and in the Town and Country Village Shopping Center." a. Many and overlapping combining districts. b. Complex listings of permitted uses with multiple exclusions, exceptions, and footnotes c. Inconsistent language and many variations of similar regulations d. Reliance on subjective standards, findings, and determinations e. Complaints and frequent requests from applicants f. Lengthy processing times, difficult implementation, variable application and interpretation, and errors CC, CC(2) Zones: "A conditional use permit is required for the following uses when fronting on California Avenue: (A) Fitness or exercise studios, and similar uses exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area; and (B) Learning centers intended for individual or small group settings. A conditional use permit is required for fitness or exercise studios and similar uses exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area in Town and Country Village Shopping Center." Zoning Recommendations The analysis resulted in the following findings, observations, and recommendations. It is recommended that the code be reviewed and revised to make it more user-friendly. In an effort to understand and evaluate the use regulations and development standards, comparative use tables for the commercial districts and the combining districts were created. The tables make it easier to see which uses are permitted in each district and improve the overall understanding of the zones through the comparison of districts. 1. Conduct a Comprehensive Zoning Cleanup of Mature, Complex Code.CD-C, S, N Zones: "A conditional use permit is not required for commercial recreation uses up to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, with the following exceptions, for which a conditional use permit is always required: (A) medical office fronting on University Avenue; (B) commercial recreation uses fronting on University Avenue."RECOMMENDATION 1.2The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance is complex and robust. It is a mature code that reflects decades of cumulative modifications to address a variety of concerns. However, the overall structure and organization have grown to be intricate and complicated. As a result, it is difficult, even for a seasoned professional planner, to navigate, understand, and implement the many overlapping layers, sections, and exceptions, and unique, narrowly defined, and targeted provisions. This is common with older codes. They accumulate many targeted amendments and revisions over the years. This detracts from the original organization and can impact the overall functional integrity. The Zoning Ordinance is particularly complex with respect to the regulation of retail and office uses. It appears that numerous individuals, specific amendments to address many concerns over the years may now have the cumulative effect of overregulating and preventing the healthy reuse and improvement of sites and buildings. The code could be made more user-friendly by integrating the use and development standards of the combining districts into the use and development standard tables.CN, CC, CC(2), CS Zones: "Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor unless any of the following apply to such offices:Below are examples of some of the subtle differences and restrictions on personal service uses that warrant evaluation of their need and effect on protecting or restricting a healthy commercial corridor:"Occupy a space that was not occupied by retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services. R Retail Shopping Combining District: Permitted: "Personal services, except the following on California Avenue: beauty shops; nail salons; barbershops; laundry and cleaning services as defined in Section 18.04.030(114)(B); fitness or exercise studios exceeding 1,800 square feet in gross floor area; and learning centers intended for individual or small group settings." "Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001, if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services." These uses are typical and necessary components of a healthy commercial corridor. The complexity of the many variations and different applications suggests that these standards were created and adopted independently and may not be necessary or are unnecessarily restrictive. GF Ground Floor Combining District: Permitted: "Personal services, except for parcels with frontage on University Avenue, where uses defined in Section 18.04.030(114)(B), (G), (H), and (I) are not permitted." [Prohibits: City of Palo Alto 18 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 175     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY RECOMMENDATION 1.3 opinion and grievance could be favored or have a greater influence on the decision than compliance with objective standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Combined with the many subjective standards, the approval process for even simple projects can easily become costly and cumbersome. In addition to the cost and risk to project applicants, this can dramatically increase the workload and resources on behalf of City staff as well as the PTC, City Council, and supporting staff. otherwise be preferable to extensive and prolonged vacancies that detract from and impact the overall health and vitality of the larger district.A comprehensive review can streamline and standardize the standards where possible and reevaluate the need and effect of the precise standards and whether they are consistent with the broader goal of a healthy commercial corridor. As noted in the 2023 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, there is a large amount of vacant commercial and retail space that exceeds the current and foreseeable market demand for retail. Large proportions of this space will remain vacant unless and until it is allowed to be converted to uses other than retail. By preventing the conversion of former retail spaces to non-retail uses, the RPO has contributed to the increasing vacancies. Because the RPO is applicable to all retail uses citywide, the restrictions also have the effect of interfering with the natural selection and adaption of the market. It treats all retail areas as equally important. As a result, there is no ability to adjust with and adapt to the market. Instead of allowing the market to concentrate the limited demand for retail on core areas of strength, the RPO effectively dilutes the limited retail demand citywide. 2. Create Streamlined and Predictable Approval Processes RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The approval processes should: 1. Create a ministerial approval process for certain projects (e.g., minor tenant improvements, sign permits, minor changes of use, expansions, or additions).Where possible, it is desirable to allow project approvals through a ministerial, non-discretionary process subject to compliance with objective standards. This saves time and money for applicants and staff and enables timely improvement and investments in private property and the public realm. Discretionary approval is necessary and appropriate where projects have unique features and circumstances that are beyond purely objective standards. In these cases, the decision-making authority should be kept at the professional staff level to the extent possible. Approval by the City Council should generally be limited to projects that involve policy and legislative matters such as general plans, specific plans, or zone changes, amendments, or deviations. 2. Keep the majority of typical discretionary approvals at the staff or Planning and Development Services Director approval authority. 3. Limit projects that require City Council approval to those that involve policy or legislative changes or formal appeals to the Planning and Development Services Director's decision. Further, it has been noted multiple times in interviews with property owners and managers that the RPO (and the limitations on the creation and conversion to office uses) has created traps for property owners. Once a retail use is established, the property is effectively locked into only that retail use. This dramatically limits the ability of the property owner to manage and market the property and adapt to market conditions. This trap may have the unintended consequence of discouraging establishment of new retail uses for fear of the inability to ever change back to another use— at least without great difficulty, time, and cost. 3. Limit the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) (18.40.180).The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance allows for approval of many projects by the Planning and Development Services Director. This is to be commended as this approach can significantly shorten the approval period and reduce processing costs. It also has the benefit of avoiding or minimizing politicization of a particular project and decisions that are based on anything other than the objective merits of the project. Keeping the approval decision with professional staff and subject to objective standards and procedures is preferable for most projects. It is essential that restrictive regulations have standards and procedures to obtain relief for hardships. The standard for relief of this section allows waivers based on economic hardship. However, the current standard is among the highest possible and most difficult thresholds to achieve—an unconstitutional taking and deprivation of all economic value. This section of the Zoning Ordinance is an example of the complexity and extremely strict nature of the zoning regulations. It appears that the effect of the regulations, standards, and process may, contrary to the implied intent of the regulations, actually contribute to the erosion and decline of the health of the prime retail corridors. While regulations are necessary and can create great places and value, they also often have unintended consequences. They need to be evaluated periodically to ensure that they continue to function as intended. This waiver threshold is disproportionate to the perceived potential threat of allowing non-retail uses on the ground floor. It implicitly favors vacant former retail space over non-retail use. However, every approval by the Planning and Development Services Director can be elevated to the City Council. While this is typical in the case of a formal appeal of a decision, the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance encourages this elevation with a simple request from any party. This is allowed by Planning and Development Services Director decisions on relief from the Retail Preservation Ordinance (18.40.180[c][3]) and other normal staff approvals (18.77.060[c-f]). Change among ground floor and retail and similar uses is common and a necessary part of a healthy commercial corridor. Without change, there is less investment and updating of commercial spaces that typically occurs with new tenant improvements. As noted, the nature of retail has been changing, which has increased turnover and vacancies of many retail spaces and commercial corridors. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated some of the shift to e-commerce and led to the failure of many retail and other commercial businesses. The RPO regulations appear to have contributed to the increasing vacancy rate by preventing alternative uses, which would RECOMMENDATION 3.1 This standard should be reconsidered. A lower and easier threshold or otherwise more permissive standards based on a simple finding of practical difficulty and/or economic hardship would help increase the occupancy of vacant former retail spaces, which would contribute to the overall activity and vitality within the corridor.The process requires notification of all neighbors within 600 feet of the project and a hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Section 18.40.180(c) Waivers and Adjustments; and Exemptions for the RPO should be revised to delete the unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard of subsection (A) Economic Hardship in favor of the practical hardship standard of subsection (B) Alternative Viable Active Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. This adds considerable time, cost, and risk to every project. This process appears to create an environment where City of Palo Alto 19 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 176     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY Allow non-retail uses:Use. Further, it is recommended that subsection (B) be amended to delete the exception of the applicability to the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts to allow Alternative Viable Active Uses in the Downtown/University (GF) and California Avenue (R) areas. balance of the City will allow the conversion of excess retail space over time, as well as a concentration in the Downtown and California Avenue areas. The changes should be clearly communicated with the business and property owners. The effect of the changes should be monitored to evaluate whether the focused RPO is having the desired effect. ƒIn back office, not street-facing locations (i.e., behind retail or store fronts) ƒ ƒ On side streets, off University and California AvenuesParallel revisions are recommended for Section 18.30(A).070 Waivers and Adjustments applicable to the R combining district. Section 18.30(C) Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations does not have any waiver or adjustment provisions. It should be amended to also have a practical difficulty standard as recommended for the RPO and R combining district. The relief and waiver provisions of the RPO and R and GF combining districts should be eased to be based on achievable objective standards, to keep the decision-making authority at the Planning and Development Services Director level (unless formally appealed), and to allow the practical difficulty standard of the alternative viable active use waiver option. When vacancies exceed threshold (by percentage and/or duration) ƒE.g., when vacancies exceed 10% in district for more than 12 months. ƒSubject to limits (concentration, size, proximity), e.g.: Minimum 25% ground-floor commercial (Palo Alto Mixed- Use standards) The alternative waiver option requires the applicant to demonstrate standards that are purely within the subjective determination of the City and potentially impossible, and are at least very costly and difficult, to prove: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Maximum 15% of total floor area (Town & Country office standards)4. Allow Non-retail Uses on Ground Floor with Limitations.Maximum 30% of all street frontage within 300-foot radius (San Francisco)ƒ ƒ "The permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable; The proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and Maximum 50% of street frontage per building > 100-foot frontage (Thousand Oaks)ƒThe proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections."The Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts in the Downtown/University Avenue and California Avenue core commercial areas, respectively, add a level of complexity and regulation that may not be necessary. The extensive and persistent ground-floor vacancies in these areas suggest that alternatives or modifications to the restrictions may be appropriate. The overall objectives and outcomes are to reduce vacancies, increase occupancy, foot traffic and vibrancy. Increase fitness, spas, exercise without a CUP from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet to match the industry average!The subjective, uncertain, and expensive waiver process is likely to deter many potential applicants from attempting the waiver or to give up before obtaining a decision. This has a chilling effect on the marketplace and contributes to a negative reputation for the City. This is particularly true for local, small, and sole proprietor uses that do not have the depth of resources and expertise to "fight City Hall." Allow other viable active uses without a CUP: ƒExamples: pet grooming, beauty shops, nail salons, barbershops, small learning centers, day care ƒMedical office with retail component, lifestyle, health services Several strategies could be employed to allow more retail-supportive uses on the ground floor, such as personal service uses and small professional offices that bring employees and generate customers and foot traffic in the area to the benefit of overall activity and vitality. This objective could include a modification to the definition of “retail and/or retail-like” to allow a broader range of uses. The list of permitted uses in the relevant zone and combining district use tables can be amended. If necessary, require a CUP for certain uses in excess of a maximum size (Palo Alto for offices, commercial recreation; CN district uses)Such restrictions appear to favor the national franchises and "formula retail" that Palo Alto has determined are problematic and should be restricted but are among the few that can afford to navigate the code and approval process. It is important to recognize that Palo Alto, while a strong and desirable market, is very much part of the larger competitive market. Existing and prospective businesses have the ability and choice to locate in other cities where the regulatory environment is easier and more welcoming and supportive of their large and risky investments. Many suitable and desirable retail and other uses, even if allowed, may avoid locating in Palo Alto based on the knowledge of the code, complex process, and high costs and frustration that inevitably are experienced over the life of use. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Amend the zoning code with one or more of the above methods to allow more retail-supportive uses on ground floor. The selected methods should be part of a coordinated package of amendments. There are many methods and mechanisms to manage such uses, if necessary, to ensure a balance of compatible and complementary uses and to preserve and encourage active street frontages. The following are examples of potential zoning strategies to permit non-retail or retail-like uses: 5. Repeal the Office Conversion and Construction Limitations. Amend the definition of “retail-like” to include the following performance- based uses: “commercial uses that are accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele, and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity.” RECOMMENDATION 3.2 Consideration should be given to whether the RPO is beneficial or should be modified or repealed. As an initial step, we recommend that the RPO be limited to the essential core retail areas of businesses fronting on Downtown’s University Avenue and California Avenue. Removal from the There are two provisions of the code that limit office construction: 18.40.210 Annual Office Limit and 18.18.060 Development Standards for City of Palo Alto 20 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 177     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY the Downtown Commercial (CD) District. These are notable in their own right, but also as they interact with the RPO. facing façade to ensure a percentage for retail and retail-like uses. Ground- floor office uses that do not front on University or California Avenues, i.e., behind retail frontages, should be allowed. There should be no limit to upper-level office uses. Any limitation should be proportionate to the size of the site or building to ensure an equitable impact. Section 18.40.210 Annual Office Limit should be revised to replace the unconstitutional taking of all economic value standard of (e) Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment, with a practical difficulty standard like that recommended for the RPO, R and GF combining districts. otherwise. The need to obtain a CUP is already a high standard and barrier, but the required findings are again subjective, numerous, and must all be met. Such standards make it easy to deny and prevent any use or applicant for nearly any reason or perceived objection by staff or City Council (Section 18.76.015): Section 18.40.210 limits the conversion of existing non-office uses to office uses to 50,000 square feet per year. The annual limit serves as another constraint to the loss or conversion of retail space and appears to lessen any need for the RPO. Office workers represent a major portion of the retail customers, sales, and market base. The dramatic loss of office uses, and reduced occupancy and days workers spend in the office since COVID-19 has had a proportionately significant reduction on retail demand in Palo Alto. While there has been some recovery, the long-term trend and reduced office occupancy is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Office vacancy rates in Palo Alto have increased dramatically since COVID-19 to over 556,000 square feet, an average of 17 percent of all office space in Palo Alto. The total vacancy is project to increase over the next five years according to CoStar. "A conditional use permit shall not be granted in an R-Combining district for a formula retail business, or a beauty shop, nail salon, barbershop, or financial services use, unless it is found, in addition to the findings required by section 18.76.010, that: "(1)The retail or personal service business will offer merchandise and/or services that meet the underserved needs of the City's residents and visitors.6. Relax the Formula Retail Restrictions. "(2)The type of retail or personal service business will enhance the balance and diversity of businesses in the district and in the City as a whole.The rationale for limiting “formula retail” on the basis of the franchise and standardized merchandise and branding on California Avenue is not clear and should be stated explicitly. The assumptions and perceived threats of ten or more of the same uses, standardized merchandise, décor, color scheme, uniforms, façade, and trademark use has been evaluated for current relevance and necessity. Research of and interviews with peer cities and business and property owners indicated only limited concern over such uses and a desire to limit and relax the formula retail restrictions. It was noted that formula retail or franchise businesses often represent and bring new innovations and trends and foot traffic that benefit other businesses in the vicinity. The perceived threat of office outcompeting and converting ground-floor retail spaces to office uses, which was the basis of the regulation, is extremely low and effectively no longer exists. Conversion of vacant, formerly retail ground-floor spaces to personal service and office uses that generate customers for nearby retail is preferable to extensive and persistent vacancies that create a sense of failure and blight that remaining retail uses must combat. Occupancy of the vacant office spaces should be encouraged. Conversion of excess vacant retail spaces, particularly by uses that generate potential customers and pedestrian foot traffic, and those that do not front on University or California Avenues, should be allowed. "(3)The retail or personal service business will enhance the economic vitality of the district where the business is proposed to be located and of the City as a whole. In considering this finding, the director or city council may consider existing retail vacancy rates within the district and in the City as a whole. "(4)The retail or personal service business is consistent with the character of the district where the business is proposed to be located. It is also noted that concerns over the impact of a standard and generic corporate franchise design can be regulated more directly and objectively through design standards rather than limiting or preventing use on the basis of the characteristics of formula retail. The regulation appears to prevent otherwise appropriate and desirable uses and occupancy of vacant spaces without a clear or superseding public benefit. "(5)The design of the retail or personal service businessIt appears that Section 18.40.210 could be repealed as the conditions and circumstances and rationale for its existence no longer exist.will be compatible with the architectural and aesthetic character of the district where the business is proposed to be located." Section 18.18.060 limits the total amount of office to a total of 5,000 square feet per site in the CD-S and CD-N zones. The rationale, purpose, and public benefit of this limitation are not clear. It appears to establish an arbitrary limitation that may cause more harm than good. This provision is not proportionate to the size of the site or building—the larger the site, the greater the constraint and loss of development potential. Further, this provision appears to apply to all office spaces, both ground floor and upper floor. Upper-floor office space is supportive of ground-floor retail and other commercial uses. It is not clear why there should be a limit on an upper- floor commercial on any given site. Rather, such uses should be encouraged. While always a best practice and feature of the best land use codes, an increasing number of cities have initiated the review and revision of their development codes in recent years to reduce and replace subjective standards with objective standards and certain and efficient approval processes. They recognize that such regulations allow and encourage desirable and necessary growth, as well as a continuous cycle of renewal and improvement, and are important to the overall health of the City. RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Consideration should be given to modifying or eliminating this restriction. Any restrictions should be demonstrated to be the minimum necessary to advance a legitimate public purpose. It is recommended that the threshold to qualify as a “formula retail” use be increased from 10 to 50 such businesses. It is also recommended to limit formula retail to restaurant uses. Another option the City may consider is to limit the number of formula retail establishments in certain areas. This method can ensure a balance between formula and non-formula uses. RECOMMENDATION 6.2 The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance and existing and future property owners, businesses, and uses would benefit from objective development standards and a streamlined approval process program.RECOMMENDATION 5.1 The purposes, assumptions, and impacts of these provisions should be evaluated. If any limits are found to be necessary, they should be designed to minimize the restriction to the extent possible. They should only apply to ground-level office spaces, such as a maximum percentage of the street- Similar to the waiver provisions for the RPO, the code assumes that formula retail and certain other personal service uses are detrimental unless proven City of Palo Alto 21 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 178     PALO ALTO RETAIL REVITALIZATION STUDY RECOMMENDATION 7.2 Reduce Minimum Requirements and California Avenues as well as portions of El Camino Real. This requires Palo Alto to change its approach to parking in these areas. It will require a change from a regulatory approach to provide adequate parking to the active management and optimization of existing public and private parking spaces to meet the existing and projected long-term growth and parking needs in the affected areas. The areas not directly affected by AB 2097 and still subject to minimum parking requirements should still be evaluated for the parking relief and modifications described in this section. 7. Ease the Parking Regulations. A parking use survey and approach should be evaluated to reset standards to appropriate levels. For example, the minimum of 16 to 30 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for eating and drinking services is punitively high. It may be used to effectively prohibit fast-food franchises and drive-through facilities. These standards are based on the outmoded concept that restaurants are destination uses that operate and need to be parked independently of all other uses with no sharing of trips or parking. This is inconsistent with the actual and preferred operation of most urban commercial districts and most certainly exceeds actual parking demand. While not a major focus of this analysis, as a major development cost, design, and spatial constraint, excess parking supply and excessive minimum parking standards are among the most common deterrents to a healthy and vibrant commercial district. Many municipalities continue to rely on outdated parking standards that, more often than not, were based on reference to other adopted standards as opposed to actual demand and occupancy studies. Most standards are also based on low-density suburban land use patterns, not the more dynamic urban patterns like those in Palo Alto. The following are a few high-level observations and recommendations related to zoning code. See Appendix C for more comprehensive analysis and recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 7.3 Allow Change of Use If adequate parking is available in the vicinity of the use, allowing a change of use for existing spaces without a requirement to provide additional parking could be considered. Existing buildings and outdoor spaces could be exempted from providing parking for a change of use. There are three typical approaches to improving downtown and main street parking standards: i. Reduce outdated minimum requirements to require fewer spaces than the cumulative demand for the district.RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Promote Public Shared Parking Over Off-Street/On-Site Parking.RECOMMENDATION 7.4 Incentivize Priority Usesii. Eliminate minimum parking standards and let business and property owners provide the parking deemed necessary to support the uses.Private, off-street/on-site parking is the most inefficient type of parking. It generally is not appropriate for dense, pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use districts where the majority of properties are developed with buildings and have little or no room for efficient parking. On-site parking is least likely to be shared. Shared public parking is most appropriate for such districts. It allows maximum access, utilization, and effective management to respond to changing conditions. Reducing requirements for desired or priority uses like restaurants could be taken into consideration. Incentives could also be provided, such as increased credits and/or reductions in minimum requirements for shared parking. iii. Establish maximum parking standards to limit and prevent oversupply and inefficient use of land at the expense of buildings and uses. Recently adopted AB 2097 effectively codified these best practices by eliminating minimum parking requirements within one-half mile of High- Quality Transit Stop. As discussed in greater detail in Appendix C of this report, this exemption applies to the core commercial areas on University City of Palo Alto 22 Item 3 Attachment E: Final Draft Retail Study Report     Packet Pg. 179     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2024 Report #: 2404-2960 TITLE Election of Chair and Vice Chair RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hold elections for offices of Chair and Vice Chair or continue the election to a later meeting with any newly appointed member in attendance. BACKGROUND The City Council interviewed candidates on April 8, 2024, and was scheduled to make the appointment of a candidate on May 6, 2024. There is only one position under consideration. The incumbent applied along with one other applicant. On April 10, 2024, the PTC reviewed Section 2.1 of the PTC Bylaws that establishes the first April meeting for elections or following the first meeting with newly appointed Board members in attendance. On April 10th, the PTC voted to postpone elections until after the Council had appointed a candidate to the position. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the PTC’s bylaws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any commissioner may appeal a decision to the commission as a whole. The process for the most recent past election practices is summarized below: 1. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Commissioners may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 2. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 3. The Commissioners who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 4. Nominees may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. 5. Other Commissioners may give comments or ask questions to the nominees. 6. The PTC will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominees have stated whether they will accept. 7. Four votes are required for confirmation. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 180     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 2 8. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 181     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2024 Report #: 2404-2941 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of December 13, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes from the December 13, 2023 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the May 8, 2024 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 182