HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5286
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5286)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/8/2014
Summary Title: Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Discussion and Direction to Staff
Regarding the Scope and Schedule of the Planning Process, Including
Concurrent Zoning Changes (Note: This is the continuation of a discussion
that began on November 3, 2014.)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council discuss the scope and breadth of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, as well as changes in zoning that the Council would like to consider in advance of and
in parallel with the update, and direct staff to proceed with next steps, including scheduling a
City Council work session on an annual office/R&D growth management program in January
2015.
Specifically, staff recommends that the City Council consider directing staff to:
(a) Proceed immediately (i.e. in advance of the Comprehensive Plan Update) with
preparation of a draft zoning ordinance(s) to address retail preservation and adjust
parking exemptions as discussed at the City Council study session on September 8,
2014;
(b) Schedule a Council work session for January 2015 to discuss parameters of an annual
office/R&D growth management program;
(c) Schedule a series of Community/Commission/Council working sessions on “big
picture” planning issues in Spring 2015 utilizing simplified planning scenarios to test
the growth management program as well as:
the potential elimination of housing sites on San Antonio and South El
Camino in exchange for increased densities or new sites closer to transit
and jobs/services,
the potential for major transportation investments in the Caltrain
corridor and the County Expressway system, and new public transit;
the potential use of sustainability-based performance measures and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
programs; and
potential commercial zoning changes discussed at the City Council Study
Session on September 8, 2014
(d) Use the Spring 2015 working sessions as a venue to review goals, policies, and
programs (i.e. Comprehensive Plan language) from the existing Comprehensive Plan
and the Planning and Transportation ommission’s recommendation , building a plan
that is consistent with prior Council direction to maintain the fundamentals of the
existing plan, with an additional focus on sustainability;
(e) Also prepare an impacts analysis (Draft Environmental Impact Report) to inform the
Community/Commission/Council work sessions in the Spring of 2015, presenting the
impacts of the simplified planning scenarios (and the choices they represent) as well
as potential cumulative impacts over the next 15 years; and
(f) Concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update, prepare a draft zoning
ordinance(s) to implement the policy changes inherent in the draft Plan, including
many of the ideas discussed at the City Council study session on September 8, 2014.
(Note: Given the complexities of these issues, the Council initiated discussion on November
3, 2014 with the intention to resume the discussion and take action on November 17, 2014.
!t that time, the item was continued to today’s date. Changes to the staff report from
November 3, 2014 are shown in track changes, and three new attachments are provided,
including the power point presentation from November 3, 2014, information regarding the
City’s ground floor retail overlay zoning districts, and information about annual limits on
office/R&D.)
Executive Summary
The State of California requires every local jurisdiction to maintain a general plan containing
goals and policies to inform land use and development decisions, as well as capital investments.
Palo !lto’s general plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan,
was adopted in the late 1990s, and has served the community well.
The City recognized the need to update the plan as early as 2006, and the update has taken
longer than anticipated. In early 2014, the City embarced on a process for re-engaging with the
community on key issues, with the intention of completing the update and an associated EIR by
the end of 2015. Community workshops and other engagement ensued. At the same time,
there was increasing realization that the ity’s zoning regulations as well as its Comprehensive
Plan have enabled the job growth and office development that the City is currently
experiencing.
On August 6, 2014, the City Council paused the Comprehensive Plan Update process to permit
consideration of potential changes to the ity’s zoning code and zoning map for commercial
areas, and also requested that staff consider a revised scope and breadth for the
Comprehensive Plan Update. Then on September 8, 2014, the City Council conducted a study
session to provide their ideas about possible commercial zoning changes (Attachment A).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
As described further in the Discussion section below, staff recomends that some of the
ouncil’s suggested zoning changes related to retail preservation and parking exemptions be
studied and implemented well in advance of the Comprehensive Plan Update and recommends
that most of the ouncil’s other suggested zoning changes be studied in parallel with the Comp
Plan Update and adopted concurrently if/as desired at that time.
Staff also recommends scheduling a series of Community, Commission, and Council work
sessions in the Spring of 2015 about “big picture” planning questions and related
goals/policies/programs, and directing staff to prepare the necessary impacts analyss to inform
those discussions. The Leadership Group that has been appointed to assist with community
engagement would help to prepare for the Spring 2015 work sessions, which would be
designed to yield a Comprehensive Plan Update that is consistent with prior City Council
direction to maintain the fundamentals of the current Comprehensive Plan with an additional
focus on sustainability.
Materials presented and developed via the Community/Commission/Council work sessions
would include goals/policies/programs (i.e. Comprehensive Plan language) from the existing
omprehensive Plan and the Planning and Transportation ommissoin’s (PT’s) early 2014
draft, parameters of an annual office/R&D growth management program, which staff proposes
be developed at a Council work session to be scheduled for January 2015, and planning
scenarios designed to test a limited number of “big picture” planning concepts or choices. As
described below, the planning scenarios have been simplified and adjusted since the August 6,
2014 meeting in response to public and Council comments and would allow for community
dialog about critical issues (traffic, parking, climate change, housing affordability, etc.) and
about:
The pace of development and amount of job growth desired;
The location, type, and amount of housing growth desired, (while recognizing the need
to remain compliant with State law);
Major transportation investments desired over the life of the updated Comprehensive
Plan; and
Sustainability-based performance measures and programs desired (to be defined in
conjunction with the ongoing update to the ity’s Sustainability/limate !ction Plan);
The simplified planning scenarios can reflect input from the City Council and others during the
“scoping” process earlier this year; Scenario 1 can be the “uisiness as Usual” scenario, in
which the Comprehensive Plan is not updated, no major policy changes are made, and current
development trends continue. Scenario 2 can be a “slow growth” scenario in which the
locations of jobs and housing in Palo Alto do not change, but the pace of job growth is slowed,
housing production is focused specifically on local needs (e.g. small units), and roadway
capacity is increased along the County expressway system. Scenario 3 can remove housing sites
along San Antonio and South El Camino Real and focus new housing in downtown and the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
California Avenue area; it can also include depressing the Caltrain tracks in a trench (2% grade)
south of Oregon Expressway. Scenario 4 can be consistent with ABAG projections and add new
housing at nodes along El Camino Real, and envision a future with greater transit accessibility,
less auto ownership, and aggressive programs and performance measures to achieve
sustainability goals. The Community, Commission, and Council work sessions in Spring 2015
would review the impacts and benefits of these scenaro, and could result in a final
Comprehensive Plan Update that blends the features of multiple scenarios.
Updating the Comprehensive Plan Update will ensure that this crucial document accurately
expresses the community’s collective vision for the future of the ity, reflects changes that have
occurred since the bulk of the current Comprehensive Plan was drafted in the 1990s, and
responds to current community concerns about housing affordability, traffic and parking, and
the pace and character of development in Palo Alto. Also, many sections of the plan are
required by State law, and having an up-to-date plan is critical to provide a legal foundation for
sound decision-making regarding land use, transportation, and related issues, including capital
improvements.
Proceeding wth an impacts analysis (i.e. preparation of a Draft EIR ) will inform the
Community/Commission/Council work sessions, allow the City to test the impacts of doing
nothing, as well as the different planning scenarios, and will also present an analyisis of
cumulaive impacts expected over the next 15 years (i.e. to the year 2030).
Background
The ity’s omprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in the late 1990s and sets goals and policies related to land
use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource, community
services, and safety.
Every local jurisdiction (including charter cities) in alifornia is required to have a “general plan”
like this (see Government Code 65300 et seq.), and the State recommends these plans be
updated on a regular basis. Palo Alto recognized the need to update its plan in 2006 and began
the process in earnest in 2008, when a consultant was retained to work with staff and the ity’s
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
The PT’s draft work product was provided to the City Council in early 2014, at which time staff
proposed a process that would complete the plan and an associated Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) in parallel (Staff Report 4415 from March 3, 2014). This approach recognized that
the Comprehensive Plan Update largely carried over the key principles of protection of
residential neighborhoods and open space contained in the prior plan while focusing on two
earlier identified growth areas – California Avenue and East Meadow Circle. Also, the EIR
process can be an effective way to compare various growth level scenarios. EIR preparation
itself takes approximately 18 months, so staff recommended that this effort commence
immediately with “scoping” and the identification of possible alternatives for analysis in the EIR
City of Palo Alto Page 4
that could then be used to inform proposed revisions and additions to the Comprehensive Plan.
(Staff Report ID# 4944 from August 4, 2014 is provided as Attachment B.) As noted above, the
Council requested a pause in this process on August 6th to permit consideration of potential
changes to the ity’s zoning code and zoning map for commercial areas . (Staff Report ID# 5033
from September 8, 2014 is provided as Attachment C)
The Comprensive Plan and zoning are directly linked because the zoning map and zoning
effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document
that identifies desired land uses and intensities via a Land Use and Circulation Map and the land
use designations defined on pp. L-10 through L-13 of the omprehensive Plan; The ity’s
zoning ordinance and zoning map are regulatory tools, rather than policy documents, and
implement the Comprehensive Plan land use designations by establishing specific uses,
densities, and development standards for every area of the City. Thus zoning districts and
standards are more specific than Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and each
Comprehensive Plan land use designation may be implemented via more than one zoning
district.
The City Council also requested baseline data regarding environmental issues to be considered
in the omprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and staff’s suggestions on a
revised breadth and scope for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Baseline data was
disseminated in a Draft Existing Conditions Report dated August 29, 2014, and the remaining
issues (potential zoning changes and the Comprehensive Plan Update process) are discussed in
this report.
The August 29, 2014 Draft Existing Conditions Report is posted on the ity’s website at
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-existing-conditions-report/
and provides information about the regulatory context, existing conditions, and trends related
to the 14 topics that will be covered in the program-level EIR that will be necessary to support
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Community comments on this draft report are
welcome. Any comments staff receives regarding the data presented or the potential for
additional data will be used to inform preparation of the environmental setting sections of the
omprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR; With the ity ouncil’s concurence, the data presented
on non-residential development over the last 25 years will also be used to inform a City Council
work session on an annual office/R&D growth management program to be scheduled in
January 2015.
Discussion
As noted above, on August 6, 2014, the City Council paused the Comprehensive Plan Update
process and directed staff to reconsider the breadth and scope of the effort and expressed
concern that needed adjustments to the ity’s zoning ordinance would be unnecessarily
delayed if they occurred after (instead of before or during) the Comprehensive Plan process.
Subsequent to that, on September 8, 2014, the City Council provided their ideas about
Commercial zoning changes and requested that staff return with an analysis of which changes
City of Palo Alto Page 5
could be accomplished before the Comprehensive Plan Update, and which could be
accomplished concurrently. (Staff was initially scheduled to return to Council on October 15,
2014 but several Councilmembers could not attend on that date.)
These two related issues – the timing of suggested zoning changes, and the scope/breadth of
the Comprehensive Plan Update are discussed below.
Commercial Zoning Changes
As shown in Attachment A, the City Council advanced a wide range of ideas on September 8,
2014, and these ideas can be grouped into four categories: Changes in Use/Density, Retail
Preservation, Parking-Related Changes, and Other Zoning Changes.
Determining which should proceed ahead of the Comprehensive Plan effort and which should
proceed concurrently involves an assessment of at least three factors: (1) whether a
Comprehensive Plan amendment might be needed for the proposed change ; (2) whether
extensive outreach and environmental review might be required that could be efficiently
accomplished concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update; and (3) the availability of staff
resources, given the host of other planning projects and priorities currently underway. Also, i t’s
important to note that some of the suggestions are more complex than others, suggesting that
they may take more time to address. In addition, all of the suggested changes will involve some
level of controversy, potentially affecting the timing and nature of the resulting ordinance.
Would Any of the Suggested Changes Require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment?
There are no suggestions on the list of suggested zoning changes that would definitely
necessitate a Comprehensive Plan amendment, although many would implement policy
changes that were discussed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update during the community
engagement process this summer. Specifically, none of the suggested changes in density (Floor
Area Ratio or FAR) would require amendments to the FAR associated with land use designations
on pp. L-11 to L-12 of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, no changes in land use designations, as
they are mapped in the Comprehensive Plan, would be needed to implement the suggested
adjustments to commercial zoning districts along El Camino Real and elsewhere.
Would Any of the Suggested Changes Require Extensive Outreach & Environmental Review?
As noted above, there is no question that the suggested changes will engender some level of
controversy, requiring public outreach about why the suggested changes are being pursued,
what the alternatives are, etc. If the number of properties that could be affected by the
proposed changes provide any indication of their level of controversy, the following
information may be instructive:
There are approximately 53 parcels in the retail overlay (R) zone along California
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Avenue.
There are approximately 119 parcels in the ground floor overlay (GF) in Downtown.
There are approximately 338 parcels zoned Downtown Commercial (CD).
There are approximately 163 parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) or Service
Commercial (CS) that front on El Camino Real.
There are approximately 7 parcels in the Hotel (H) overlay zone.
There are approximately 97 parcels in the California Avenue area zoned Community
Commercial (CC2).
For comparison, the ordinance considered by the City Council earlier this year to increase
setbacks (and effective sidewalk widths) along El Camino Real would have affected
approximately 295 parcels if it had been adopted.
The level of environmental review required for the suggested changes is difficult to judge in
advance of some further analysis, however many of the suggestions would limit densities in a
way that should result in less impacts than the existing zoning. This suggests that taken one by
one, the suggested changes would not require extensive review. It is clear, however, that
adopting one or more zoning strategies to pace the growth in commercial office space may
have unintended consequences, such as stimulating housing growth, and would require careful
review for that reason. Also, with limited staff resources and many competing priorities, there
is something to be said for consolidating individual changes into a group of similar ideas that
can be considered concurrently.
Recommended Approach
While the City Council may clearly re-prioritize staff’s work as desired, staff’s recommendation
is to pursue a limited number of discrete retail preservation and parking-related changes in
advance of the Comprehensive Plan Update, and to pursue many of the other items on the list
concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan update. For these concurrent items, draft ordinance
language would be developed during the planning process for the Comprehensive Plan update,
the impacts of the suggested ordinance would be analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR, and
the City Council could ultimately consider adoption of a resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan concurrent with an ordinance amending the Municipal Code.
If the ity ouncil were to accept staff’s recommendation, the items in !ttachment ! would be
re-grouped as follows:
Before the Comprehensive Plan Update is Adopted:
Assess trends related to basement conversions downtown, and consider how to address
the loss of basements that support retail uses when these are converted to office space.
Re-examine code provisions regarding square footage and parking exemptions for on-site
amenities.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
onsider regulating chain stores on al !ve by setting a quota for “formula retail;”
Consider limiting the number of restaurants downtown and on Cal Ave.
Adjust the list of uses allowed (by right and with a CUP) within the area of downtown and
Cal Ave with ground floor retail protections to prevent non-retail uses on the ground floor.
Re-examine parking exemptions in the code and consider prohibiting applicants from
combining them.
Consider eliminating the parking exemption for mixed use.
Clean-up sections of the code that require interpretation, increasing clarity and reducing
the reliance on staff interpretations (Part 1).
Concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update:
Explore reducing commercial densities Downtown and replacing with residential (“modest
turning of the dial”); This would mean considering where appropriate locations would be and
to what degree we should adjust, also what types of residential should be
allowed/encouraged.
Examine areas zoned CN and CS on El Camino Real and consider reducing non-retail portions of
the commercial FAR. Also consider whether this FAR should become residential FAR. The goal
would be to give more flexibility and achieve better designs.
Re-examine the 2.0 FAR provided in the hotel overlay a few years ago, and make a modest
adjustment downward.
Consider reducing the FAR in the CC-2 zoning district near Cal Ave down from 2.0.
Adjust the list of uses allowed (by right and with a CUP) within the area of downtown and Cal
Ave with ground floor retail protections to prevent non retail uses.
Explore the tools that are available to prescribe (regulate or incentivize) employment densities,
recognizing that the requirements/incentives might be different depending on how close a
project is to transit because parking demand and trip generation are the issues we would be
trying to address.
Clean-up sections of the code that require interpretation, increasing clarity and reducing the
reliance on staff interpretations (Part 2).
Adopt zoning code changes that slow down the pace of development.
Adjust the zoning code to add incentives for small lot consolidation along El Camino Real.
Requiring Further Definition/Discussion:
Ensure areas that are marginal for retail retain their retail requirements so there are places for
local-serving retail uses that are priced-out of Downtown and Cal Ave as those areas gentrify.
Consider amortizing non-retail uses in areas of downtown with ground floor retail protections.
Explore what should happen to sites where existing non-conforming uses are phased-out.
Consider changes to code sections about Design Enhancement Exceptions to ensure these are
used for minor things, and not as a substitute for variances.
Scope & Breadth of the Comprehensive Plan Update
Since the Council meeting on August 6, staff has considered ways to simplify the planning effort
City of Palo Alto Page 8
and still accommodate the ity ouncil’s desire for robust community dialog around critical
issues such as the pace of non-residential development and the location of housing sites
needed to meet State requirements. Staff also considered how the list of suggested
commercial zoning changes could be accommodated in the process, and how to address several
substantive comments about the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR received immediately
before and during the Council meetings on August 4 and 6. Staff has also begun meeting
monthly with the Leadership Group of citizens appointed to assist with community
engagement, and benefited from “focus group” type discussions with the Leadership Group in
September and October.
The ity ouncil’s original direction to staff and the Planning and Transportation ommission
envisioned retaining the themes of the current Comprehensive Plan, and adding a theme (with
associated goals, policies and programs) about sustainability. This is still very much the plan,
however the Council and the public have also identified a number of “big picture” issues that
will need to be resolved as part of the planning process and that lend themselves to exploration
via simplified planning scenarios. As the Leadership Group has pointed out, planning scenarios
can facilitate community engagement around the important policy choices that the City Council
is interested in resolving via the Comprehensive Plan Update.
With the ouncil’s concurrence, the simplified planning scenarios would be presented with
existing and PTC-proposed goals/policies/programs (i.e. draft Comprehensive Plan language) for
review and refinement at Community, Commission, and Council working sessions in the Spring
of 2015. Also, quantification of two of the scenarios would be predicated on City Council
direction at a working session to be scheduled for January 2015 regarding establishment of an
annual office/R&D growth management program.
This approach represents a modest adjustment to the planning process articulated earlier this
year, and would also mean adjustment to the four scenarios presented to the City Council in
August. Changes are summarized below.
Changes to the Proposed Process
Planning scenarios would be simplified and designed to illustrate policy choices that
need to be made prior to adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update
The City Council would hold a working session in January 2015 to provide direction
regarding desired parameters of a growth management program
Ordinance language would be developed during the Comprehensive Plan Update
process, so zoning changes could be adopted concurrent with the updated Plan
The planning scenarios and goals/policies/programs (i.e. draft Comprehensive Plan
language) would be the subject of Community, Commission and Council working
sessions in the Spring of 2015
The working sessions would be informed by an analysis of impacts (i.e. a Draft EIR)
illustrating the impacts and benefits of the various scenarios and the policy choices they
City of Palo Alto Page 9
represent, as well as cumulative impacts expected over the next 15 years
A proposed Comprehensive Plan Update would be developed based on the working
sessions by the end of 2015, and would be the subject of public hearings in 2016,
following certification of a Final EIR.
Changes to the Scenarios
The scenarios would be simplified to illustrate clear policy choices that will have to be
made as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The policy choices relate to the pace
of office/R&D development, the location and amount of housing growth, major
transportation investments, and sustainability-based programs and performance
measures.
As before, two of the scenarios would include and test an annual limit on office/R&D
development, and one would include sustainability-based performance measures in lieu
of an annual limit. The latter scenario would be revised in response to “scoping”
comments about the need for a scenario consistent with ABAG growth projections and
about the vulnerability associated with defining an alternative by its performance (e.g.
“net zero”); While this scenario (Scenario 4) would not be defined by its performance, it
would still envision a future with greater transit accessibility, less auto ownership, and
aggressive programs and performance measures to achieve sustainability goals.
Scenario 2 would test roadway capacity improvements included in the ounty’s
Expressway Plan, Scenario 3 would place Caltrain in a trench (2% grade) south of Oregon
Expressway, and Scenario 4 would include significantly enhanced transit services.
Scenarios 3 & 4 would eliminate housing sites along San Antonio and outside of
pedestrian “nodes” on South El amino; Scenario 3 would transfer the housing
potential to “Pedestrian & Transit Oriented Development” (PTOD) zone in the
Downtown and the California Avenue area. Scenario 4 would transfer the housing
potential to these areas and to new housing sites along the El Camino Real frontage of
the Stanford Research Park and the Stanford Shopping Center.
As discussed at the November 3, 2014 session, the scenarios would be used as a basis for
analysis of policy choices facing the City, and it’s expected that the omprehensive Plan Update
that is finally adopted would mix and match various components of the planning scenarios .
Timeline
With ouncil’s concurrence, next steps would include:
January 2015: Council work session on an annual office/R&D growth management
program
Early 2015: Consideration of zoning changes related to retail preservation and parking
exemptions
December November 2014 – May April 2015: Staff and consultant preparation for
Spring 2015 working sessions, with the assistance of the Leadership Group. Preparation
City of Palo Alto Page 10
would include organizing existing and PTC-proposed goals/policies/programs for
discussion, describing simplified planning scenarios in a way that illustrates policy
choices, and preparing an impacts analysis (program-level Draft EIR) to inform the policy
choices
Spring - Summer 2015: Community/Commission/Council work sessions and other
community engagement. Council direction regarding preparation of the Comprehensive
Plan Update and concurrent zoning ordinance(s)
End of 2015: dissemination of a Comprehensive Plan Update based on input from the
work sessions.
2016: certification of a Final EIR, adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update and
concurrent implementing zoning ordinance(s).
Resource Impact
The City has contracted with the planning firm, Placeworks, to assist with preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan Update and the associated EIR. No additional budgettary resources are
anticipated for these tasks at this time.
Development of zoning ordinances in advance of and concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan
Update will require some additional staff time, including planning and legal support. If the
Council wishes to prioritize more items (i.e. more of the zoning suggestions) ahead of the
Comprhensive Plan Update, staff would request that the Council review and re-prioritize other
planning initiatives.
Policy Implications
The ity’s omprehensive Plan sets land use policy and forms the foundation for zoning
regulations. The Comprehensive Plan must address certain State-mandated topics, and the
State recommends that local agencies update their plans every 10 years.
Environmental Review
Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update will require preparation of a program-level EIR to
assess the potential cumulative impacts of development expected to occur over the life of the
Plan. Adoption of zoning amendments will also require environmental review and may be
considered in the same EIR, or in a separate process; the level of review required depends on
the specific nature of the proposed zoning amendments.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Possible Commercial Zoning Changes (PDF)
Attachment B: Presentation to Council on November 3, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment C: Ground Floor Retail Districts in Palo Alto with Code Sections (PDF)
Attachment D: Memorandum Regarding Annual Limit on Office/R&D (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Attachment A
Ideas Generated at the September 8, 2014 City Council Study Session about Changes to Commercial
Portions of the Zoning Code and Zoning Map
Changes in Use/Density
a) Explore reducing commercial densities Downtown and replacing with residential
(“modest turning of the dial”). This would mean considering where appropriate
locations would be and to what degree we should adjust, also what types of
residential should be allowed/encouraged.
b) Assess trends related to basement conversions downtown, and consider how to
address the loss of basements that support retail uses when these are converted to
office space.
c) Examine areas zoned CN and CS on El Camino Real and consider reducing non-retail
portions of the commercial FAR. Also consider whether this FAR should become
residential FAR. The goal would be to give more flexibility and achieve better
designs.
d) Re-examine the 2.0 FAR provided in the hotel overlay a few years ago, and make a
modest adjustment downward.
e) Re-examine code provisions regarding square footage and parking exemptions for
on-site amenities.
f) Consider reducing the FAR in the CC-2 zoning district near Cal Ave down from 2.0.
Retail Preservation
a) Ensure areas that are marginal for retail retain their retail requirements so there are
places for local-serving retail uses that are priced-out of Downtown and Cal Ave as
those areas gentrify.
b) Adjust the list of uses allowed (by right and with a CUP) within the area of downtown
and Cal Ave with ground floor retail protections to prevent non-retail uses.
c) Consider regulating chain stores on Cal !ve by setting a quota for “formula retail.”
d) Consider limiting the number of restaurants downtown and on Cal Ave.
e) Consider amortizing non-retail uses in areas of downtown with ground floor retail
protections.
Parking-Related Changes
a) Explore the tools that are available to prescribe (regulate or incentivize) employment
densities, recognizing that the requirements/incentives might be different
depending on how close a project is to transit because parking demand and trip
generation are the issues we would be trying to address.
b) Re-examine parking exemptions in the code and consider prohibiting applicants from
combining them.
c) Consider eliminating the parking exemption for mixed use.
1
Other Zoning Changes
d) Explore what should happen to sites where existing non-conforming uses are
phased-out.
e) Clean-up sections of the code that require interpretation, increasing clarity and
reducing the reliance on staff interpretations.
f) Consider changes to code sections about Design Enhancement Exceptions to ensure
these are used for minor things, and not as a substitute for variances.
g) Adopt zoning code changes that slow down the pace of development.
h) Adjust the zoning code to add incentives for small lot consolidation along El Camino
Real.
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, September 2014
2
Attachment B
Comprehensive Plan Update &
Commercial Zoning Ideas
City Council
November 3, 2014
1
Overview
Why we’re here tonight
Why update the Comprehensive Plan?
Commercial zoning changes suggested by the
City Council
Recommended path forward
Discussion & public comments
Note: This is an initial discussion and will be
continued on November 17th when the City
Council will provide direction to staff.
2
Why We Are Here Tonight
On August 6, 2014, the City Council requested
that staff provide baseline data, reevaluate the
breadth and scope of the ongoing Comp Plan
Update process, and consider whether
commercial zoning changes can occur ahead of
or concurrent with the Update.
On September 8, the City Council outlined their
suggested commercial zoning changes
3
Baseline Data
Draft Exiting Conditions Report dated August 29,
2014 provides baseline data in 14 subject areas,
and can inform future policy discussions. See for
example:
• TABLE 8‐3 CITYWIDE GROWTH IN NON‐RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
1989‐2014
• TABLE 10‐1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
• TABLE 10‐19 JOB TRENDS AND FORECAST
• TABLE 12‐11 DAILY VMT BY TRIP ORIENTATION
The report is available on line & is not proposed
for discussion tonight.
Community comments are welcome.
4
Why Update the Comp Plan?
• Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan, Embracing
the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010, was
adopted in 1998; many objectives of the
existing Plan have been met, and new
opportunities and challenges have arisen in
the intervening 16-17 years since the plan was
adopted.
1998 2000
A ciTY oF
WPALO ALTO
2010 2015
5
Why Update the Comp Plan?
• Some contents of the plan are prescribed by
State law, and updating the plan will provide a
legal foundation for future decision-making
about land use, transportation, related issues
and capital investments.
2010 2015
A ciTY oF
WPALO ALTO
2030
6
Why Update the Comp Plan?
120,000
110,940
86,960 89,690
104,820
100,000
80,000
• An updated plan can help to manage
60,000 the pace of Palo Alto’s growth and
respond to current community
40,000 concerns about housing affordability,
traffic and parking, and other critical
issues
20,000
0
2000 2010 2020 Jobs Forecast 2030 Jobs Forecast
7
Why Update the Comp Plan?
• The planning process also provides an
opportunity for positive interaction and
collaboration, as members of the community
are engaged in shaping a coherent, collective
vision for our City's future.
A ciTY oF
WPALO ALTO 8
Commercial Zoning Changes
Suggested by the City Council
List of 19 Ideas in 4 Categories:
– Changes in Use/Density
– Retail Preservation
– Parking‐Related Changes
– Other Zoning Changes
(List provided in Attachment A)
9
Commercial Zoning Changes
Suggested by the City Council
Zoning Amendments Can be Pursued Prior to
or Concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Decision to Prioritize ahead of the Comp Plan
Update should consider:
– Is a Comp Plan Amendment Required?
– Level of Outreach & CEQA Review Required
– Available Resources & Other Priorities
10
Recommendation 1
1. Proceed immediately (i.e. in advance of the
Comp Plan Update) with zoning ordinances
to address retail preservation & parking
exemptions
11
Recommendation 2
2. Schedule a Council work session in January
2015 to discuss parameters of an annual
office/R&D growth management program
12
Recommendation 3
3. Schedule a series of Community/Commission/
Council work sessions about “big picture”
planning issues in Spring 2015 utilizing
simplified planning scenarios to test the
growth management program and other
policy choices.
13
Recommendation 3 Cont.
The Leadership Group would help plan
the work sessions and other concurrent
community engagement
Work sessions would be designed to
appeal to all audiences & to receive
input on critical issues, policy choices,
and plan language
14
Recommendation 3 Cont.
Critical Issues Include: Growth; Housing
Affordability; Traffic & Parking; Climate Change; etc.
Policy Choices Include:
– Office/R&D growth management program
– Possible shift of housing from San Antonio/So. El Camino
to Downtown & the California Avenue area
– Major transportation investments
– Sustainability‐based performance measures from S/CAP
– Desired commercial zoning changes
– Other?
15
Recommendation 4
4. Also use the Community/Commission/
Council work sessions to review goals,
policies, and programs from the existing
Comp Plan & the recommendation
forwarded by the PTC in early 2014, with the
goal of developing a Comp Plan Update that
is consistent with prior Council direction to
maintain fundamentals of the existing plan,
with an additional focus on sustainability.
16
Recommendation 5
5. Also prepare a impacts analysis (Draft EIR) to
inform the Community/Commission/ Council
work sessions in the Spring of 2015,
presenting the impacts of the simplified
scenarios (and the policy choices they
represent) as well as potential cumulative
impacts over the next 15 years
17
Recommendation 6
6. Concurrent with the Comp Plan Update,
prepare a draft zoning ordinance(s) to
implement the policy changes inherent in
the plan, including many of the zoning ideas
discussed at the City Council study session
on September 8, 2014.
18
Resulting Timeline
Jan 2015 work session on growth management
Early 2015 zoning ordinance on retail/parking
November 2014‐April 2015 prepare for Spring work
sessions
Spring 2015 Work Sessions & Engagement
Late 2015 prepare Comp Plan Update based on input
received in the Spring
Early 2016 Plan adoption following EIR certification
Concurrent zoning ordinance(s) adoption
Prepare “Users Guide” to ensure the Comp Plan remains
a living document
19
Pursue Initial
Zoning Ideas
Prepare for
Spring Work
Resulting Timeline
Pursue Additional Zoning Ideas
Spring 2015
Work Sessions
Prepare
Comp Plan
Plan
Adoption
January 2015 Work Session: Office/R&D Growth
Management Program
A ciTY oF
WPALO ALTO 2o
Pursue Initial
Zoning Ideas
Prepare for
Spring Work
Resulting Timeline
• January 2015 Work Session on Growth Management
• Plan Spring work sessions & outreach w/Leadership Group
• Assess impacts of policy choices & cumulative/regional
growth using simplified scenarios (Draft EIR)
• Prepare comparison of existing & PTe-recommended
goals/policies/programs (Plan language) for Citizen review
• Prepare first commercial zoning ordinance for PTC &
A CIT ~<(H!l cil consideration
WPALO ALTO 21
Resulting Timeline
Pursue Additional Zoning Ideas
Spring 2015
Work Sessions
Prepare
Comp Plan
• Entry Level, Intermediate, Advanced Sessions & Engagement
• Introduction to Planning Concepts & the Existing Comp Plan
• Review of Available Data & Analysis
• Discussions about Critical Issues and Policy Choices
• Focus on Goals/Policies/Programs (Comp Plan Language)
• Use Input to Prepare Comp Plan Update & Zoning Ordinance(s)
A ciTY oF
WPALO ALTO 22
Questions & Comments
23
Legend
E:::J Ground Floor a nd Reta il Overl ay Z one Distri cts
T h e City of
P a l o Alto
D owntown
Gr ound Floor Combining District
AI·eaMap
Attachment C
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--500'
This document is a gaplic represertaticn rriy d best ~able SOI..I'CeS.
The City d Palo Alto assunes no respcnsibity fer any errors 4:11989 10 20M Cily of Palo Alo
I
I
h
lf--
f'
T
lar BOARD
",,
I -=I-!~~~ =rl' ~~ . 7 0,,. ~'ah,t::i-
---i F i ~ i ~WL0.:~o..:.~-'l>~--=-==:;:--J ~MASTREET ~~ ALMAsTR:!JJf1._-~._.J__,__,__I'-'--'•
~STREET ALMASTREET~ 2 AU.IA STREET ~.,_Q.. 8 ~STRE!
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD \ :))0,0
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
Califomia A venue
Retai l Combining District
Area Map
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOI
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto G IS
The City of
P a l o Alto ---(J
This document tS a gapl"ic represen:aocn «<y d best ~able SOI..I'CeS.
The Cityd PaloAtto assunes no respcnsibity fer any emn C1989to 2014 Cilyof PaloAio
Chapter 18.30 COMBINING DISTRICTS Page 1 of 4
Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.30(A)
RETAIL SHOPPING (R) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(A).010 Specific Purposes
18.30(A).020 Applicability of Regulations
18.30(A).030 Zoning Map Designation
18.30(A).040 Permitted Uses
18.30(A).050 Conditional Uses.
18.30(A).060 Special Requirements
18.30(A).010 Specific Purposes
The retail shopping combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in a commercial
district, where applied in combination with such district, to allow only retail, eating and service-
oriented commercial development on the ground floors.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).020 Applicability of Regulations
The retail shopping combining district may be combined with any commercial district, in
accord with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations set forth in
this chapter shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by the underlying
commercial district regulations.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).030 Zoning Map Designation
The retail shopping combining district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map
by the symbol "R" within parentheses, following the commercial designation with which it is
combined.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).040 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in an R district:
(a) Eating and drinking services, except drive-in and take-out services;
http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/25/2014
Chapter 18.30 COMBINING DISTRICTS Page 2 of 4
(b) Personal services;
(c) Retail services;
(d) All other uses permitted in the underlying commercial district, provided they are not
located on a ground floor.
(Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).050 Conditional Uses
The following uses may be conditionally permitted in an R district, subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals):
(a) Financial services, except drive-in services, on a ground floor;
(b) All other conditional uses allowed in the underlying commercial district provided they are
not located on a ground floor.
(Ord. 4826 § 86, 2004: Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
18.30(A).060 Special Requirements
The following special requirements shall apply in the R retail shopping combining district:
Lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use
permit which were existing on April 26, 1984 may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not
require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. Such uses shall
be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual
use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or
replacement result in shifting of building footprint or increased height, length, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of
noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to
Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this section
ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered
abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant
to this section which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished,
and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a
grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a
conforming use.
(Ord. 4826 § 87, 2004: Ord. 4140 § 15, 1993: Ord. 4016 § 29, 1991: Ord. 3519 § 3 (part), 1984)
Chapter 18.30(C)
GROUND FLOOR (GF) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose
http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/25/2014
Chapter 18.30 COMBINING DISTRICTS Page 3 of 4
18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses
18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses
18.30(C).040 Annual Monitoring of Ground Floor Retail Use
18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose
The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD
commercial downtown district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other
service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. For the purposes of this
chapter, "ground floor" means the first floor which is above grade. Where the ground floor
combining district is combined with the CD district, the regulations established by this chapter
shall apply in lieu of the uses normally allowed in the CD district. Except for the regulations
relating to uses set forth in this chapter, all other regulations shall be those of the applicable
underlying CD district.
(Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses
(a) The following uses shall be permitted in the GF combining district:
(1) Eating and drinking;
(2) Hotels;
(3) Personal services;
(4) Retail services;
(5) Theaters;
(6) Travel agencies;
(7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving nonground floor uses;
(8) All other uses permitted in the underlying district, provided such uses are not on the
ground floor.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), not more than twenty-five percent of the ground floor
area not fronting on a street may be occupied by a use permitted in the applicable underlying CD
district.
(Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses
(a) The following uses may be conditionally allowed on the ground floor in the GF ground
floor combining district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter
18.76 (Permits and Approvals) and with the additional finding required by subsection (b):
http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/25/2014
Chapter 18.30 COMBINING DISTRICTS Page 4 of 4
(1) Business or trade school;
(2) Commercial recreation;
(3) Day care;
(4) Financial services, except drive in services;
(5) General business service;
(6) All other uses conditionally permitted in the applicable underlying CD district, provided
such uses are not on the ground floor.
(b) The director may grant a conditional use permit under this section only if he or she makes
the following finding in addition to the findings required by Chapter 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals): The location, access or design of the ground floor space of the existing building
housing the proposed use, creates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district.
(c) Any use conditionally permitted pursuant to this section shall be effective only during the
existence of the building that created the exceptional circumstance upon which the finding set
forth in subsection (b) was made.
(Ord. 4826 §§ 94, 95, 2004: Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).040 Annual Monitoring of Ground Floor Retail Use
A downtown retail vacancy rate survey shall be prepared annually in September of each year,
and a report shall be prepared conveying that information to the Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council prior to the end of the year. The purpose of the survey is to assess
changes in retail use in the downtown zones. The vacancy rate shall address all areas zoned CD-
C or GF in downtown.
(Ord. 5065 § 3, 2009)
http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/25/2014
Attachment D
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER &
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: December 8, 2014 ID#: 5286
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE & ZONING CHANGES: ANNUAL LIMIT ON
OFFICE/R&D DEVELOPMENT
At the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting, a Councilmember asked whether the suggested
Council work session regarding establishment of an annual limit on office/R&D could consider
adoption of an annual limit as an interim ordinance. Subsequently, the same Councilmember
also asked staff to provide information regarding other jurisdictions with annual office limits
immediately, rather than as preparation for the January work session.
This memo responds to both questions/requests and will be supplemented by additional staff
analysis and a staff recommendation in advance of the January work session. Specifically, staff
and the City Council will have to explore a number of issues when considering establishment of
an annual limit on office/R&D development. At a minimum, these include the following:
(1) what the annual limit should be;
(2) what the process and criteria for receiving and considering applications should be (i.e.
should applications be considered in the order received, or based on some criteria
establishing preferences; what should those criteria be?);
(3) whether there should be a geographic component to the program;
(4) whether some areas of the City or types/sizes of projects should be exempt;
(5) whether unused allocations should roll forward for some period of time;
(6) how to handle applications already in the “pipeline-”
(7) how to ensure continued conformance with the Permit Streamlining Act;
(8) necessary changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning; and
(9) potential impacts and benefits.
CAN THE COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ANNUAL OFFICE CAP AS AN INTERIM ORDINANCE?
The short answer is yes, the Council could consider adoption of an annual cap on office/R&D
development under the provision in State law (Government Code Section 65858) which allows
cities to temporarily prohibit any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan,
specific plan, or zoning proposal that the city is studying or intends to study within a reasonable
time. To enact an interim ordinance, a 4/5 vote (8 votes) would be required, and the City
Council would have to make legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional development would
result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
An interim ordinance is effective for 45 days, after which it may be extended, but in no instance
may it be in effect for over two years. An interim ordinance does not require review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and many are exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is because interim ordinances are temporary
and many, in practice, perpetuate the status quo. To the extent this is not the case, additional
review may be required.
It should be noted again, however, that there are many complexities that would need to be
resolved to establish an annual office limit, suggesting that considerable time and effort will be
involved.
Whether it’s adopted as an interim ordinance or concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan
Update, an annual limit is also likely to cause concern by property owners in areas zoned for
commercial use, resulting in the need for extended outreach, public hearings, and etc. Stanford
University has already voiced its concerns about the effect that an annual office limit could
have on the Research Park.
WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN ANNUAL OFFICE CAP?
Earlier this year, the City’s Comprehensive Plan consultants, Placeworks, gathered information
regarding a number of growth management systems used by California jurisdictions to meter
the amount or pace of non-residential development. They identified communities that, like
Palo Alto, have some kind of cap on non-residential development (for example Cupertino), as
well as communities that have attempted to cap residential development (for example
Pleasanton).
Page 2
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
Placeworks identified Walnut Creek and Santa Monica as two jurisdictions that have
implemented programs to govern the pace of non-residential development, and these
programs are summarized below, along with the program in place in San Francisco.
These three examples are presented for background information only, and are not intended as
a recommendation to adopt one or more of these strategies. As the Placeworks staff observed,
any program adopted in Palo Alto would need a high degree of customization to fit its unique
local conditions. In addition, if a program is developed for Palo Alto, it would require careful
legal analysis to ensure that it can operate effectively in tandem with the State’s Permit
Streamlining Act and withstand legal challenge.
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek has regulated commercial growth since 1985, when voters approved Measure H,
a growth-control initiative that would have limited or prevented non-residential development
until traffic congestion at major intersections improved. Measure H was a reaction to resident
concerns about traffic and the construction in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when a number
of large commercial office buildings in downtown Walnut Creek, primarily around the Walnut
Creek BART station. A major local landowner sued the City, and the case eventually went to the
California Supreme Court.
In 1990, the Court ruled that Measure H was invalid because it functioned as a zoning ordinance
but conflicted with the City’s adopted General Plan, which called for Walnut Creek to be a
regional job and retail center. Although Measure H was invalidated, the City continued to
regulate the amount of commercial and residential development allowed each year,
acknowledging the residents’ desire to meter growth in Walnut Creek. In 1993, the City Council
adopted a Growth Limitation Program that limited new commercial growth to 75,000 square
feet per year, metered in increments of 150,000 square feet every 2 years, and was adopted for
10 years. The program helped the City to limit growth to 620,000 square feet of new
commercial development in the first 10 years (1993-2003), and was extended through 2015 in
the City’s 2005 General Plan Update. The Growth Limitation Program excludes the Shadelands
Business Park.1
1. Does the system include an annual limit on non-residential approvals? If so, how is
that set? Changed? Enforced?
1 City of Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek General Plan 2025, page 4-13. Available online at http://www.walnut-
creek.org/citygov/depts/cd/planning/documents/general plan 2025.asp .
Page 3
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
Yes. The Walnut Creek Growth Management Program includes a cap of 75,000
commercial square feet/year metered in 2-year increments. Therefore allocations for
150,000 square feet of commercial development are available in each two year cycle.
The cap is set in the General Plan (which incorporated an earlier Growth Limitation
Program from the 1990s). It is enforced by the Planning Division. Staff tracks available
allocation and a building permit cannot be issued unless an allocation is available. If the
building permit is allowed to expire prior to construction, the allocation is revoked and
returns to the pool. Unused allocations from one cycle are rolled over to the next
cycle. Project applicants get credit for any existing commercial SF that would be
demolished with construction of their project.
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects
under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
There is no “beauty contest” type competition. Allocations are awarded on a first-come,
first-served basis when the project planner deems a project application complete.
Development in the Shadelands Business Park on the eastern edge of the City and
specific types of Community Facilities are exempt from the Growth Management
Program. Additionally, the Planning Manager can grant exemptions to larger, more
complex projects so that their allocation can be reserved for longer than the 12-month
period for which allocations are usually reserved.
The system had a fair degree of flexibility built in – not in the cap, but rather in how it is
calculated and implemented. Calculating the cap in 2-year increments of up to 150,000
sf offers some flexibility; as does carrying forward the unused allocation. In addition,
the system allows project applicants to reserve allocations as soon as their application is
deemed complete, with the possibility of having that reservation extended at the
discretion of the Planning Manager for larger, more complex projects.
Santa Monica
Goal T19 in the Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the Santa Monica
General Plan (adopted in 2010) is to “Create an integrated transportation and land use program
that seeks to limit total peak period vehicle trips with a Santa Monica origin or destination to
2009 levels.” This goal is also known as the “No Net New Evening Peak Period Vehicle Trips”
goal. The LUCE focuses not only on reducing vehicle trips, but also on encourage walking,
bicycling and transit use, creating pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The LUCE foresees the creation of a multi-modal transportation
system and “identifies local strategies to manage trips, treating the entire City as an integrated
Page 4
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
transportation management system with aggressive requirements for trip reduction, transit
enhancements, pedestrian and bike improvements, and shared parking. Transportation
demand management (TDM) programs that reduce automobile travel demand and incentivize
alternative modes such as carpool, vanpools, and shuttles, walking, bicycling, and shared
parking are all encouraged.”2 The LUCE calls for the City to manage new trips from new
development and reduce trips from existing major employers. New trips must be offset through
the development of new transportation infrastructure providing alternatives to automobile
travel, including public transit, bicycling, ridesharing, and walking. The LUCE also contains a list
of transportation policies, projects, and programs that are necessary to accommodate
projected growth with no net increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips through 2030.
The LUCE identifies the establishment of fees as a tool to manage vehicle trips and increase
alternative transportation options. The LUCE states that “New projects will be required to
minimize the trips they generate and contribute fees to mitigate their new trips.” However, the
LUCE also states that “To achieve the No Net New Trips goal, developers cannot be expected to
have every project generate zero trips by itself;” rather, developers will pay mitigation fees that
will fund capital improvement projects citywide, such that the net impact of each development
project ultimately is zero. Fees will be used for improvements that benefit the City’s
transportation system overall, such as additional buses to increase frequency, improved
walking routes and new bike lanes.”3 The provision that the City as a whole will achieve no net
new trips by 2030, but that individual projects will not be required to generate no net new
trips, has created some confusion and concern among Santa Monica residents as the LUCE is
implemented.
1. Does the system include an annual limit on non-residential approvals? If so, how is
that set? Changed? Enforced?
No. Santa Monica’s growth management program resembles a performance measure,
rather than an annual limit, and the City is still developing the zoning ordinance that will
implement the program set forth in its General Plan.
2 City of Santa Monica, Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Final), April 2012. Page 1-3. Available online at
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/Developers/Santa-Monica-Nexus-
Study.pdf
3 City of Santa Monica, Land Use and Circulation Element, July 2010. Page 4.0-12. Available online at
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/General-Plan/Land-Use-and-Circulation-
Element.pdf
Page 5
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects
under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
It does not appear that Santa Monica envisions projects competing against each other
for allocations. Instead, projects that cannot achieve the “No Net New Trips” goal on
their own can pay into a fund for investments that will offset their trips.
San Francisco
San Francisco’s Downtown Plan dates from 1985 and included the City’s first annual cap on
office development, which was intended as a temporary measure. This original office cap was
modified and extended by the voters when Proposition M was adopted in 1986. The annual
growth limit is codified in Section 320-25 of the City’s Zoning Code and from time to time, the
City’s Planning Commission has adopted implementing policies and procedures.
1. Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? If so, how is that set? Changed?
Enforced?
San Francisco has two office caps, one for small projects and one for larger ones. The
“small” cap is 75,000 square feet per year and applies to projects between 25,000 and
50,000 square feet. The “large” cap is 875,000 square feet per year and applies to
projects over 50,000 square feet.
The two annual office limits were set by the voters and cannot be changed except with
voter approval, although the Planning Commission has been able to adopt implementing
policies and procedures as needed.
Unused allocations roll forward indefinitely, and the annual cap has only been a
constraint on development in periods like the dot com boom, when new office
development proposals exceeded the available allocation. In the current tech boom,
San Francisco is once again in this situation and the Planning Department has started
discussions about policies and procedures to implement the annual limit.
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are there any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry,
projects under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
Prop M itself did not include a competitive system, but the City Planning Commission
has had to establish procedures to compare and select among projects when the
number of projects exceed the available allocation. For example, in the 1990s, the City
conducted a “beauty contest” in which large office projects competed with each other
for the annual allocation. Each application was subject to analysis and environmental
Page 6
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
review, and the Planning Commission compared the projects to each other before
approving one or more. Applicants whose projects were not approved had the choice to
either request continuance to the next evaluation period, or to have their projects
denied. The Planning Department has recently begun discussing implementation of a
revised competitive process, which is expected to focus on “good planning” issues such
as proximity to transit and housing displacement rather than aesthetics or public
benefits. In fact, Prop M prohibits the City from considering monetary contributions in
any competition, by stating that “Payments, other than those provided for under
applicable ordinances, which may be made to a transit or housing fund of the City, shall
not be considered.”
Office projects less than 25,000 square feet are exempted from San Francisco’s annual
limit, as are City projects. State, Federal, Port, and Redevelopment Agency projects are
not exempt, and reduce the allocation available for private development projects.
Page 7
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D