HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4139
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4139)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances
Title: Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and Recommendation to City
Council to Adopt: 1. Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167 and Amend the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c)
Related to Parking Assessment Districts to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
Parking Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements Within the Downtown
Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking Assessment District. 2.
Interim Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD)
District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to Make the
Following Changes to be Effective for a Period of Two Years: a. Delete
Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to
Eliminate the 200 Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and Related Parking
Exemption for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete
Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to
Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site Use of Historic and Seismic
Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to Remove the On-site Parking
Exemption for Historic and Seismic Transfer of Development Rights up to
5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC Zoning
Districts. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) Related to
Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to Clarify that a Grandfathered Use May be
Remodeled and Improved, But May Not be Replaced and Maintain its
Grandfathered Status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) Related to Remove
the Sentence Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was
Developed or Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was Vacant at
the time of the Engineer's Report. These actions are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines.
From: City Manager
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council adopt:
1. An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently delete
Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to
eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district (Attachment A);
and
2. An Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown
Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the
following changes, to be effective for a period of two years:
a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to
eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking
exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus.
b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of
Historic and Seismic Bonus.
c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for
floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the
transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet
(SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the
CD or downtown PC zoning districts).
d. Amend Sections 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and
Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use/facility may be remodeled and
improved while maintaining ‘grandfather’ status, but that the floor area may
not be demolished and replaced onsite while maintaining such
‘grandfathered’ status.
e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor
area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at
the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment.
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 sets forth the process for amendments to
the City’s zoning regulations. The attached ordinances would amend the City’s zoning
regulations related to exemptions from provision of parking spaces for the development of new
floor area. The ordinances are recommended unanimously by the PTC and staff and would
City of Palo Alto Page 3
become effective 31 days following Council adoption. The City Council is requested to consider
and adopt the first ordinance (Attachment A) before mid-November, as it amends Chapter 18.52
to address “Exempt Floor Area parking exemption” in both the Downtown and California
Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. Adoption by mid-November would allow this ordinance to
become effective before the end of the current moratorium on Exempt Floor Area Parking
Exemptions, December 28, 2013. The Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) addresses parking
exemptions related to floor area bonuses, and is proposed to expire in two years (sunset) from
the date of Council action unless the ordinance is replaced by a permanent code change or
otherwise modified.
Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the attached Ordinances include findings as to why the public
interest or general welfare requires these amendments. The findings cited to support the urgent
need for limiting parking exemptions in the Downtown Assessment District include the increase
in development within the past five years, including eight projects approved between 2008 and
2012 which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet
with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition, as of October 1,
2013, there are three additional projects pending in the downtown totaling approximately
77,788 square feet and requesting exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces. Also, there
have been no new parking structures added to the City’s inventory since 2003 and there has
been a drop in the downtown commercial vacancy rate from a high of 6.39 per cent in 2008-
2009 to a 1.6 per cent rate in the 2011-2012 reporting period. The Downtown Parking Survey
conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within the downtown core area, the on-street parking
occupancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 per cent overall, and parking in
hourly public lots and garages was at 87.2 per cent occupancy, while permit parking was at 65.9
per cent occupancy. The parking surveys also show that compared to previous years, on-street
parking use has increased in the Downtown North, Professorville and South of Forest Avenue
neighborhoods.
Background
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and
recommended, by a 5-0-2 vote (Commissioners Tanaka and Martinez absent), the two attached
ordinances relating to parking exemptions in the zoning code. The PTC Report and meeting
minutes are provided as Attachments F and G. The Commissioners noted that the ordinances
are a step in the right direction. They discussed how charging higher in-lieu fees for not
providing required parking on a site could incentivize providing parking on site, and how an
update to the parking ratio and further progress in transportation demand management, such
as looking at incentives for other modes of transportation to bring fewer cars downtown and
using a business registry to obtain mode data from businesses, are needed. The PTC wanted to
ensure there are clear guidelines for what constitutes “remodel”, given that the interim
ordinance was written to disallow only replacement of grandfathered facilities. Commissioners
City of Palo Alto Page 4
also noted that the parking exemptions were put in place as incentives based on conditions at
that time; however, based on current conditions they are no longer needed. The
Commissioners would like to see the long term planning efforts, such as the update of the
Comprehensive Plan and the California Avenue Concept Plan move forward to provide guidance
on development and parking issues.
There were four public speakers, including three residents of Professorville or Downtown North
and one property owner with a planning application pending review by the Architectural Review
Board (scheduled October 17, 2013). The residents noted concern with destruction of
neighborhoods and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that
the intrusion of parking into the neighborhoods has increased over the years. Two of these
speakers asked that the City stop approvals of all permits via a moratorium. The property
owner (of 636 Waverley) noted that his project would be directly affected by a moratorium. He
also noted that his project included a 200 sf bonus floor area. Staff looked into this and can
confirm that the bonus floor area is requested for additional residential area above the 1:1
allowable residential floor area. However, it is not associated with exemption for parking since
residential parking is determined by the number of bedrooms; i.e. two or more bedrooms
require the provision of two covered parking spaces on site, not total floor area.
Council Direction
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for the
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address the concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Council requested an evaluation of existing zoning regulations, and
an assessment of realistic parking ratios and the desirability and viability of parking exemptions.
Following that meeting, staff identified one particular parking exemption, applicable to the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment districts likely to exacerbate the parking problems
without providing a public purpose. This provision had allowed exemptions from parking
requirements for any property within the two parking assessment districts; specifically, up to a
1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown Assessment District and up to a 0.5:1 ratio in the
California Avenue Assessment District.
On October 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance that established a
45-day moratorium on the use of this “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption pending further
study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (refer to Attachment C, CMR Report
and Minutes Excerpt dated October 15, 2012). On December 10, 2012, the City Council adopted
another Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend this moratorium for a period of one year through
December 28, 2013 (refer to Attachment D, CMR Report and Minutes Excerpt dated December
15, 2012).
On March 18, 2013, the Council gave additional direction on several items related to parking
City of Palo Alto Page 5
policy. This included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code
parking exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Since that
time, staff has examined the Municipal Code, and is recommending the subject changes. It is
important to note that this is the first step. Staff will most likely have additional
recommendations in the coming year. While the staff recommended interim suspension of the
subject parking exemptions is narrowly focused in the Downtown area, future
recommendations may be citywide and/or more comprehensive in nature. Furthermore, the
subject “interim” changes may or may not be recommended for permanent inclusions after
additional analysis is conducted during the two-year, interim stage.
Description of Proposed Ordinances
There are two types of ordinances under review. The first is a standard ordinance revision
permanently eliminating the Chapter 18.52 definition and rules for “Exempt Floor Area” within
the boundaries of the City’s two assessment districts. The ordinance would permanently
eliminate the use of this parking exemption for floor area of a building “at or nearest grade”.
This would affect the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts.
The second ordinance focuses on several parking exemptions that only affect downtown
properties zoned Commercial Downtown (CD), whether inside or outside the assessment
district. This is an interim ordinance which would be in effect for a trial 2-year period.
Ordinance to Eliminate the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions: The first ordinance would
make permanent the elimination of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. There is currently a one year
moratorium on the use of this exemption that expires on December 28, 2013. In the Downtown
Assessment District Area, this zoning code section allows floor area equal to the lot size to be
“un-parked”. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft. property, the first 10,000 sq. ft. of building would
have to provide zero parking spaces. This provision was originally included in the zoning code in
the 1980s to encourage downtown development by providing a benefit to offset the parking
assessments enacted at that time. This was also done at the same time when properties were
downzoned within the downtown area. This strategy was successful in its time, but the
downtown area is now thriving and the exemption is no longer needed to encourage
development.
In the California Avenue Assessment District Area, this code section allows floor area equal to
half the lot size to be un-parked. For example, on a 10,000 square foot lot in the California
Avenue area, the first 5,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking. Given that
there is no longer a need to incentivize development in the Downtown and California Avenue
areas and parking shortages are prevalent, the permanent elimination of this unnecessary
parking exemption is recommended.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Interim Ordinance to Eliminate other Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area: Since the
Council direction given in March, staff identified four (4) key areas where additional code
changes could be made to eliminate future use of parking exemptions for properties in the
Downtown area zoned CD. The second ordinance would be an interim ordinance for a period of
two years to eliminate the following four code provisions related to floor area and parking only
within the CD zone district.
1. Parking Exemptions Associated with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program:
The TDR program encourages seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings within the
CD district by allowing for the transfer of certain development rights to eligible CD-zoned
sites that are not historic properties. These provisions include both transfer of bonus
floor area to another site and provisions for exempting some of the bonus floor area
from parking requirements. The program has been successful and has resulted in
seismic and historic restoration of many older buildings in the Downtown area.
However, staff believes an incentive can still be provided through bonus FAR area,
without increasing nearby parking issues. The Interim Ordinance, therefore, would
prohibit the creation of new bonuses as they relate to parking. Specifically, 5,000 SF of
transferred bonus floor area to a site would no longer be exempt from on-site parking
requirements. This exemption has been applied to floor area transferred to a receiver
site within a CD or PC district from another CD-zoned site or even from an RT zoned site
within the SOFA district. TDRs that have already been approved and earned under
existing zoning code provisions before the effective date of this ordinance would still be
allowed to be utilized. Likewise, “receiver” properties could still utilize TDRs for parking
exemptions that were transferred after the effective date of the ordinance provided they
came from qualfiying “sender” sites that had earned the TDRs before the effective date
of the ordinance. Eliminating the use of already approved and earned TDRs would likely
be subject to judicial challenge under a “takings” or “vested rights” legal theory. Staff is
expecting to address the provision of parking related to already earned TDRs during
future recommendations.
2. Minor Exemptions for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus: The CD zone
district regulations also contain an exemption that allows a one time 200 square foot
floor area bonus increase for any building that does not qualify for the seismic or historic
bonuses. This increase, which has been used to increase floor area in both new buildings
and existing buildings, does not count towards the site’s gross floor area (GFA) and floor
area ratio (FAR), and is exempt from on-site parking requirements. Although it is minor,
any CD zoned property not eligible for the other bonuses may request it and the impacts
have been and will continue to be cumulative. The Interim Ordinance proposes to
eliminate this 200 square foot minor floor area bonus.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
3. Grandfathered Uses and Facilities: The CD Zone District contains provisions for
“grandfathered uses and facilities” that allow continuation of uses and rebuilding of
facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986 but which are no longer conforming
to the standards of the district. One of the provisions allows that the grandfathered
uses/facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site as long as it is within the same footprint and does not result in an increase in
floor area, height, building envelope or building footprint. Because the existing code
language allows replacement of a grandfathered facility’s “site improvements”, this
provision has been used when completely rebuilding a structure to allow the same
amount of floor area without providingparking for the replacement floor area that is
considered “grandfathered”. Any additional square feet beyond that grandfathered must
be served by on site parking. The Interim Ordinance proposes to clarify that one may
remodel or improve the grandfathered floor area and keep the parking exemption, but
the floor area may not be demolished and rebuilt into a replacement structure. Staff
believes that this exemption will not be proposed for permanent elimination in entirety
after the interim ordinance as it could “lock” property owners into older buildings that
do not function well for modern businesses. However, during this interim period, staff
would like to quantify the impact of building modernization, particularly in terms of
parking, so that suitable impact fees, conditions and/or municipal code provisions can
be incorporated.
4. Unoccupied/Vacant Floor Area Exemption: This portion of the interim ordinance would
eliminate, with respect to properties within the CD assessment district, a sentence in
Section 18.52.070(a)(3) allowing exemption for existing floor area developed or used
previously for nonresidential purposes but unoccupied at the time of the engineer’s
report for the parking district assessment. In other words, as currently written, the
Municipal Code allows for floor area that was unoccupied at the time the Downtown
Assessment District was created, and therefore not assessed, to be “grandfathered” for
rebuilding purposes. These properties are not responsible for providing or paying for
additional parking when a building is razed and rebuilt, even though payments were not
made to the assessment district for the previously unoccupied square footage. The
interim ordinance will eliminate this existing inequity in the Code.
Discussion
TDR Categories
In 1986, the City enacted its TDR program designed to encourage private property owners to
upgrade seismically unsafe buildings and to encourage preservation of known historic buildings
in the downtown area zoned CD. Lacking the financial resources to provide monetary incentives
for safety upgrades and historic preservation, the City instead adopted development regulations
that would provide property owners in the downtown area incentive to upgrade and preserve
their properties through a bonus program. In 2002, the TDR program was expanded to the
City of Palo Alto Page 8
SOFA 2 area.
According to City records, the downtown has approximately 78 buildings that are eligible for a
seismic or historic bonus under the TDR program. These buildings fall into three general
categories: (1) properties which have applied for and received TDRs under the City’s ordinance;
(2) properties which have been seismically or historically upgraded, but which have not applied
for or received TDRs and (3) properties which may be eligible for TDRs, but which have chosen
not to upgrade.
Table 3 summarizes the potential TDR bonuses and parking exemptions of the 78 eligible
historic and seismic buildings previously identified by the City. (Note that some of the City’s
records are incomplete and therefore this table is subject to further refinement.)
Table 3: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by Entitlement, October 2013
Origination Type Floor Area Parking
Exemptions
Number of
Properties
Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDRs
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA 7,813 31 3
City Owned 7,500 30 3
Sub-Total 139,095 532 38
Property Upgraded, No Claim
Downtown 29,307 117 11
SOFA 7,500 30 3
City Owned 0 0 0
Sub-Total 36,807 147 14
Eligible Properties but not Upgraded
Downtown 65,976 264 25
SOFA 2,500 10 1
City Owned 0 0 0
Sub-Total 68,476 274 26
GRAND TOTAL 244,378 998 78
Notes:
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1. City Owned properties include three properties outside of the Downtown area that could only be used in
the Downtown area. Properties included: Children’s' Library, College Terrace Library, and Sea Scout
Building.
2. TDRs generated in the SOFA may be used on site or transferred into the downtown area. Assumption is
that SOFA current remaining 5,000SF (20 parking) TDRs will be transferred into the downtown area.
Thus, if all TDR bonuses were in fact utilized, there would be a total of 244,378 additional
square feet added to the downtown and a total of 953 exempt parking spaces.
While all properties in fact did not take advantage of the TDR program, the City’s data collected
to date shows that the TDR program was successful in incentivizing the private redevelopment
and upgrade of historic and seismically unsafe buildings in the downtown. Table 4 summarizes
the TDRs that were created, the TDRs that were transferred to a receiver site, the TDRs that
were used on site and finally the TDRs that were created but which still remain. (Again note
that some of the City’s records are incomplete and it is expected that these numbers will be
further refined.)
Table 4: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the Downtown Area by Origin, October, 2013
Floor Area Parking
Exemptions
Number of
Properties
Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDR's By Origination
Downtown 123,783 471 32
SOFA 7,813 31 3
City Owned 7,500 30 3
Total 139,095 532 38
TDR's Transferred
Downtown 57,926 212 14
SOFA 2,000 8 1
City Owned 2,500 10 1
Total 62,426 230* 16
TDR's Used On Site
Downtown 47,586 219 20
SOFA 2,000 8 1
City Owned 0 0 0
Total 58,022 229* 21
City of Palo Alto Page 10
TDR's Remaining
Downtown 10,334 40 7
SOFA 3,313 13 2
City Owned 5,000 20 2
Total 18,647 73 11
*Some FAR transferred was not eligible for parking exemption.
Thus, according to the City’s records there are currently 18,647 square feet of TDRs that have
not been used and 73 available parking space exemptions.
Approved and Pending Projects
The Council has fairly broad discretion to decide how new regulations should be applied to
projects that have begun planning review but not received final planning entitlements. (These
pending projects are generally referred to as “pipeline” projects.) However, under State law,
projects that have obtained their entitlements and building permits and have begun work in
reliance on the building permit are largely exempt from new zoning provisions. (This is
sometimes referred to as the “vested rights doctrine.”) A key issue raised when the moratorium
on use of the “exempt floor area” parking was adopted in 2012 was the applicability of the
ordinance to projects that were in process (on file, pending decisions by the Director, Council or
building permit issuance). At that time, Council elected to exempt projects that had received
building permits, and those who had received Planning Permit approval. Planning projects that
had been submitted, but not yet approved, were subject to the moratorium. While Council is
required to exempt projects receiving building permits, it is a policy call whether to exempt
projects that are in earlier phases of entitlement review. As noted in the table below, there are a
number of projects that have received recent planning approval or are currently under planning
review.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Table 5 – Summary of Approved Planning Entitlements with Parking Exemptions
Address Description Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
135 Hamilton A four-story 28,085 square foot mixed-use
building (19,998 square feet commercial
and two residential units) and below grade
parking on a vacant lot. Zone: CD-C(P)
(exemption using 5000 Sf TDR and 200 SF
exemption)
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total 21
Approval
Effective 2/7/13
Building Permit
under review.
It is expected
that this permit
will be issued
prior to
ordinance
adoption.
611 Cowper A 34,703 square foot four-story mixed use
building (three floors commercial and one
floor residential) with below grade
parking, replacing two buildings totalling
7,191 SF commercial floor area and 1,270
SF residential floor area. Zone: CD-C(P)
(Exemption using grandfathered spaces,
10,000 SF TDR exemption and 400 SF
exemptions for two parcels)
Grandfather: 11
TDR 40
Bonus 2
Total 53
Approval
Effective 8/16/13
No Building
Permit
Application
submitted to
date
Table 6 – Summary of Pending Applications Requesting Subject Exemptions
Address Request Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
240 Hamilton A 15,000 square foot mixed use building,
replacing an (approx.) 7,000 SF building
(building plus mezzanine). Zone: CD-C(P)
(Exemption using 4,327 SF TDR exemption,
200 SF bonus, and “grandfathered” floor
area, including 2,000 that was not
assessed)
Grandfather: 8
TDR 17
Bonus 1
Total 26
Approved 7/23/13
but
Appealed to
Council. Hearing
to be scheduled.
Not Applicable
261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF
in retail storage use to third story office
atop an historic category III,
“grandfathered” commercial building (over
3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF
assessed for parking); 37,800 SF
retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P).
(requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR
via rehabilitation).
No Subject
Exemptions
Applied – Bonus
Floor Area to be
used off site equal
to 60 parking space
exemption
Formal ARB
submitted
6/18/13
Not applicable
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Address Request Subject Parking
Exemptions
Applied
(# of spaces)
Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building Permit
Status
429 University 22,750 SF building with below grade
parking for 29 cars, replacing
“grandfathered” building. Zone: CD-
C(GF)(P).(exemption using 5,000 SF TDR,
200 SF bonus and grandfathered building).
Grandfather:TBD1
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total TBD2
Prelim ARB
submitted
9/12/13
Not applicable
261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF
in retail storage use to third story office
atop an historic category III,
“grandfathered” commercial building (over
3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF
assessed for parking); 37,800 SF
retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P).
(requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR
via rehabilitation).
No Subject
Exemptions
Applied – Bonus
Floor Area to be
used off site equal
to 60 parking space
exemption
Formal ARB
submitted
6/18/13
Not applicable
640 Waverley ARB application for a new 10,463 SF mixed
use building with 2 dwelling units and
5,185 SF commercial area (replacing 1,829
SF of “grandfathered” floor area) providing
17 spaces. Zone: CD-C(P). (exemptions
grandfathered, mixed-use parking
reduction and 200 SF bonus).
TBD3 Prelim ARB
submitted
9/16/13
Not applicable
500 University Three-story 26,806 SF commercial building
replacing 15,899 SF previously assessed
for 64 spaces not provided on site;
includes 24 parking spaces below grade.
Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (Exemption using
grandfathered building, TDR and 200 SF
bonus).
TDR 20
Bonus 1
Total 21
Prelim ARB
reviewed. No
formal submittal.
Not applicable
301 High Addition and remodel of existing building.
Proposes 6,706 SF (including existing 6,255
SF plus bonus an ADA area). Zone: CD-
N(P). (requests 200 SF bonus).
Bonus 1 Formal ARB
Submitted
5/20/13
Not applicable
1 TBD = To be determined; project was recently submitted and floor area and parking determination are still under
review.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
In light of Council’s previous policy decision on this issue, staff makes the following
recommendations for pipeline projects:
1:1 Exemption Elimination: Apply new ordinance to all pipeline projects that have not
received final planning entitlement approval
200 Square Foot Bonus Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline
projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval
On and Off site use of TDR Parking Exemption: Only apply to newly created TDRs. TDRs
approved and created before effective date of interim ordinance eligible for on or off site
parking exemption. TDRs created after effective date of ordinance would be eligible for
square footage bonus, but not parking bonus.
Grandfather Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline projects that
have not received final planning entitlement approval
Vacant Building Exemption: Apply to all pipeline projects that have not received final
planning entitlement approval
Next Steps
The Interim Ordinance is proposed to be in place for a period of two years, during which time
staff will study the impacts on development of permanently removing these floor area bonuses
and parking exemptions. Much of this will be done during the policy recommendation phases
of the Downtown Development Cap Study. The following are some of the items that have been
identified for further analysis and consideration: residential parking program, in-lieu parking
provisions, adjustments to parking requirements, SOFA 2 parking exemptions (additional details
below), and other, city-wide parking exemptions. Other adjustments to the Municipal Code may
also be considered. Furthermore, historically made interpretations of the Municipal Code may
be taken to the PTC for consideration and recommendation to Council.
SOFA 2 Plan Area Policies and Programs:
Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are several sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The
sites are located north of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Code
allows for parking reductions and exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the
SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR program by transferring bonus floor
area achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver sites. Bonuses can
also be used within the SOFA 2 area. The same parking exemptions are currently available for
bonus floor area generated in the SOFA 2 area. Following Council action on the propeosed
ordinances, the SOFA 2 regulations and policies related to incentives for bonus floor area may
need to be reviewed in light of the proposed ordinances.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Policy Implications
The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal
regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To
implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The
proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing
parking requirements will improve parking availability in these areas and would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to
Attachment E, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking).
The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and
programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage
seismic retrofits.
Land Use Element:
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be
maintained.
Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights
from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to
non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program.
Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints
to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas.
Natural And Urban Environment Element:
Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the
University Avenue/Downtown area.
Staff believes the proposed changes remain consistent with the policies above, as historic
rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor area
associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow
historic buildings to be renovated and restored to retain their “grandfathered” status.
Resource Impact
The zoning evaluation work would be done within the currently approved work program of the
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Planning and Community Environment Department.
Timeline
The Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013.
In order for these provisions to stay in effect the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted
by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration ((by November 27, 2013). City Council action
on an Ordinance requires two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading.
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinances eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the
Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that
will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its
own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on
the environment and Section 15301 in that these proposed ordinances will have a minor impact
on existing facilities.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance for Elimination of 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (PDF)
Attachment B: Interim Ordinance to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown Area (PDF)
Attachment C: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated October 15, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated December 15, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: Transportation Element Parking Goals & Policies (PDF)
Attachment F: Excerpt Minutes of the September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation
Commission Meeting (DOCX)
Attachment G: September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff
Report (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking
and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Sections
18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
declares as follows:
A. On October 15, 2012, the City Council imposed a 45-day moratorium on the use
of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the Downtown and California
Avenue Parking Assessment areas. On December 10, 2012, the City Council further
extended the parking moratorium for an additional year in order to allow time to further
study the issue and develop strategies to address the identified parking issues. The
moratorium is due to expire on December 28, 2013, and if no new ordinance is adopted, the
previous exemptions would be reinstated.
B. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the zoning code to permanently
delete these “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions for properties within the Downtown
and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas.
C. The City of Palo Alto downtown and California Avenue areas have seen an
increase in development and have experienced increases in parking demand, as
documented in downtown and California Avenue monitoring reports produced in the past
five years.
D. According to the Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 provided to the City
Council on March 11, 2013, since 2008, eight projects were approved which included
seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet, with parking
exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition as of October 1, 2013,
there are three additional projects pending in the Downtown totaling approximately 77,788
square feet and requesting parking exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces.
E. No new parking structures have been added to the City’s inventory since 2003.
F. In addition, the overall vacancy rate within the Commercial Downtown (CD)
zoning district has dropped from a high rate of 6.39 percent in 2008-2009 to a 1.6 percent
rate in the 2011-2012 reporting period.
Not Yet Approved
2
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
G. The Downtown Parking Survey conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within
the Commercial Downtown core area, on-street parking occupancy between 12:00 noon
and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 percent overall.
H. According to the Downtown Parking Study, parking in hourly public lots and
garages was at 87.2% occupancy, while permit parking in public lots and garages was at
65.9% occupancy.
I. The Spring 2013 and Fall 2012 Downtown Parking Surveys also show that
compared to previous years, on-street parking use has increased in the Downtown North,
Professorville and South of Forest Avenue neighborhoods.
J. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning
to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts
permitting more employees per square foot.
K. Increased demand for parking caused by recent addition of office square
footage, increased office occupancy and an upswing in downtown retail activity has been
coupled with a decreasing supply of parking due to the use of existing parking exemptions
in new development and lack of a robust transportation demand management program.
L. The Downtown Parking Code was adopted at a time when the downtown was
underdeveloped and incentives for redevelopment were needed. One of the primary
incentives incorporated into the Code was a series of parking exemptions. These parking
exemptions were exceedingly successful in encouraging both the rehabilitation of historic
and seismically unsafe buildings and redevelopment in the Downtown core in general. The
City is now at a point where most of the historic and seismically unsafe buildings have been
renovated and the downtown has transformed into an economically thriving area.
M. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning
to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts
permitting more employees per square foot.
N. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking for
employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the
lack of parking for their employees.
O. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking for
employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in the downtown, California
Avenue and adjacent areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods.
P. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking results in
traffic seeking available parking spaces to circulate for longer periods of time, resulting in
related impacts on air quality from increased emissions.
Not Yet Approved
3
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
Q . The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading
Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements
within the downtown and California Avenue areas that result in less parking being provided
than the calculated demand for parking in new projects.
SECTION 2. Section 18.52.060 (Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General)
of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General
(a) Definitions
(1) Parking Assessment Areas"
Parking assessment areas" means either:
The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city
delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district
entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63
Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated
October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or
The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area
of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district
entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated
December 16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk;
(2) “Exempt Floor Area"
Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a
portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does
not exceed a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0;
Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area"
means either:
(A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest
grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or
(B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area
assessment district rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the
municipal code, whichever is greater.
(b) In-lieu fees
Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district
established by the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a
portion of the off-street parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of
Not Yet Approved
4
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
assessments or fees levied by such district on the basis of parking spaces required but not
provided.
(c) Exempt Floor Area
(1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design
approval prior to December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to
Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of
off-street parking required for construction of floor area in a parking assessment area
which may be satisfied by payment of assessments or levies made within such area on
the basis of parking spaces required but not provided, is that portion of the parking
requirements associated with the uses proposed to be conducted in that area of the
floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a portion of floor area
constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard as
required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor
which generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor
area.
(2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment
of assessments shall be provided in accordance with this chapter.
(3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all
exempt floor area and nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without
requiring additional parking; provided, that the change in use does not consist of a
change from residential to nonresidential, or an increase in actual floor area which does
not constitute exempt floor area.
(4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19,
1983, or which has undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall
increase the amount of floor area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed
or intended for parking without meeting the requirements of this chapter.
SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the
parking regulations within the Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo
Alto, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations
established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted
under the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review.
Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the
environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on
existing facilities.
Not Yet Approved
5
Revised September 20, 2013
130920 dm 0131136
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
Not Yet Approved
1
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
Ordinance No. ____
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend
Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking
and Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions
within the Downtown Area
The Council of the City of Palo ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
declares as follows:
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and
has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring
reports produced in the past five years. According to the Downtown Monitoring Report
2011-2012 provided to the City Council on March 11, 2013, since 2008, eight projects were
approved which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676
square feet, with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition
as of October 1, 2013, there are three additional projects pending in the Downtown totaling
approximately 77,788 square feet and requesting parking exemptions equivalent to 100
parking spaces.
B. No new parking structures have been added to the City’s inventory since 2003.
C. In addition, the overall vacancy rate within the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning
district has dropped from a high rate of 6.39 percent in 2008-2009 to a 1.6 percent rate in the 2011-
2012 reporting period.
D. The Downtown Parking Survey conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within
the Commercial Downtown core area, on-street parking occupancy between 12:00 noon
and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 percent overall.
E. According to the Downtown Parking Study, parking in hourly public lots and
garages was at 87.2% occupancy, while permit parking in public lots and garages was at
65.9% occupancy.
F. The Spring 2013 and Fall 2012 Downtown Parking Surveys also show that
compared to previous years, on-street parking use has increased in the Downtown North,
Professorville and South of Forest Avenue neighborhoods.
G. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning
to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts
permitting more employees per square foot.
Not Yet Approved
2
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
H. Increased demand for parking caused by recent addition of office square
footage, increased office occupancy and an upswing in downtown retail activity has been
coupled with a decreasing supply of parking due to the use of existing parking exemptions
in new development and lack of a robust transportation demand management program.
I. The Downtown Parking Code was adopted at a time when the downtown was
underdeveloped and incentives for redevelopment were needed. One of the primary
incentives incorporated into the Code was a series of parking exemptions. These parking
exemptions were exceedingly successful in encouraging both the rehabilitation of historic
and seismically unsafe buildings and redevelopment in the Downtown core in general. The
City is now at a point where most of the historic and seismically unsafe buildings have been
renovated and the downtown has transformed into an economically thriving area.
J. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in
complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their
employees.
K. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted
in complaints from residents in the downtown and adjacent areas about congested parking
in their neighborhoods.
L. The lack of available daytime downtown parking results in traffic seeking
available parking spaces to circulate for longer periods of time, resulting in related impacts
on air quality from increased emissions.
M. The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Chapters 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District)
and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and
reductions to parking requirements within the downtown area that result in less parking
being provided than the calculated demand for parking in new projects.
N. The Transfer of Development Rights provisions for Historic and Seismic Upgrades
to Structures and the minor floor area bonuses were enacted to encourage restoration of
historic buildings and to make existing structures seismically safe and the program has been
successful. However continued application of the parking exemptions granted by these
provisions will exacerbate Downtown parking deficiencies.
O. The provision allowing replacement of floor area within grandfathered buildings
extends the life of the grandfathered use without requiring it to meet current code
standards.
P. The City Council desires on an interim basis for a period of two years to eliminate
the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not eligible for Historic Bonus; to
eliminate the Transfer of Development Rights provision that allows a 5,000 square foot floor
area exemption from on-site parking requirements and for floor area transferred to a
Not Yet Approved
3
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
receiver site within the CD zone district; and to clarify that a grandfathered use may be
remodeled and improved, but may not be replaced and maintain its grandfathered status.
Unless a new ordinance is adopted to permanently establish these provisions, the these
zoning code amendments shall “sunset” (expire) two (2) years following the effective date
of the amendment; after which time, if revised regulations have not been adopted, the
previous provisions related to parking exemptions contained in Sections 18.18.070(a)(1),
18.18.080(g), 18.18.090(b)(1)(B) and (C), 18.18.120(c)(2), and 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and (C)(i)
shall be reinstated.
SECTION 2. Subsection 18.18.070(a) (Floor Area Bonuses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(a) Available Floor Area Bonuses
(1) Minor Bonus for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus
A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category I, II, or III
shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet without having this increase
count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor
area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict
or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(2)(1) Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor
area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without
having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such
increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the
CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(3)(2) Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation,
but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500
square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this
increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in
floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in
subsection (5).
(4)(3) Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation,
and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, shall be
allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50% of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the
Not Yet Approved
4
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings
that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S
subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5).
(5)(4) Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings
A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic rehabilitation and
that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:1 if located in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if located in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall nevertheless be allowed to obtain a floor area bonus of
50% of the maximum allowable floor area for the site of the building, based upon a FAR of
3.0:1 if in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, subject
to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the following limitation:
(A) The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic Category 1 or 2
building, but instead may be transferred to another property or properties under the
provisions of Section 18.18.080.
SECTION 3. Section 18.18.080 (Transfer of Development Rights) of Title 18 (Zoning)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging
seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III, and encouraging historic
rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1 and 2, and by establishing
standards and procedures for the transfer of specified development rights from such sites
to other eligible sites. Except as provided in subsection (e)(1) and for city-owned properties
as provided in Chapter 18.28, this section is applicable only to properties located in the CD
district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development rights for properties so
zoned.
(b) Establishment of Forms
The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient implementation
of this chapter.
(c) Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights
Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site
upon:
(1) certification by the city pursuant to Section 18.18.070 of the floor area from the
sender site which is eligible for transfer, and
(2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h).
(d) Availability of Receiver Sites
Not Yet Approved
5
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient
eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights.
(e) Eligible Receiver Sites
A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It is located in the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a
planned community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the CD commercial
downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to planned community (PC)
approves the use of transferable development rights on the site.
(2) It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as
those terms are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and
(3) The site is either:
(A) located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not
including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones within the
downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are.
(B) separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width
of at least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by an intervening
property zoned CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which intervening property has a width of not less than
50 feet.
(f) Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights
No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable
development rights under this chapter to the extent such transfer would:
(1) Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district,
result in a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would otherwise be
permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total
additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet.
(2) Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district,
result in a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would otherwise be
permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total
additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet.
(3) Cause the development limitation or project size limitation set forth in
Section 18.18.040 to be exceeded.
(4) Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1
FAR in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
Not Yet Approved
6
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
(g) Parking Requirements
The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether
located in the CD District or in the PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise-
applicable on-site parking requirements. Any additional square footage allowed to be
transferred to a receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the parking
regulations applicable to the district in which the receiver site is located.
(h) Transfer Procedure
Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a
receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements:
(1) An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of this code for major ARB
review of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall
include:
(A) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development
rights for the project;
(B) Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to
be transferred; and
(C) Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or
a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified amount of floor
area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use.
(2) The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city
determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that
purpose.
(3) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this
section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section
16.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the
sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for
approval under Chapter 16.48 or any specific requirement of the municipal code.
(4) Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to
issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the
director's designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the
sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This
confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of
building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the
TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant.
(i) Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation
Not Yet Approved
7
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
(1) Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by
their owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be effective
unless evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor and transferee and in a
form designed to run with the land and satisfactory to the city attorney. The document
shall clearly identify the sender site and the amount of floor area transferred and shall also
be filed with the department of planning and community environment.
(2) Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded
confirmation of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the requirements of this
section.
SECTION 4. Subsection 18.18.090(b) (Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(b) Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking
requirement of subsection (a):
(A) Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the
usable floor area, as determined by Section 18.18.060(e);
(B) An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic
rehabilitation, pursuant to Section 18.18.070;
(C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in Seismic Category I, II, or
II or Historic Category 1 or 2 pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1);
(D)(B) Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square
footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
(2) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 shall
be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided that the
building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use. Such
conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in conjunction with exterior historic
rehabilitation approved by the director of planning and community environment upon the
recommendation of the architectural review board in consultation with the historic
resources board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(3) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this
section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such development shall
be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of site area,
Not Yet Approved
8
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E
financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for
parking.
(4) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal
to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for
fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University
Avenue parking assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue
Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa
Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However,
square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used
for nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the
time of the engineer's report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this
exemption. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available where a residential
use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subsection (2).
SECTION 5. Subsection 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) (Exceptions to On-Site Parking
Requirement) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as
follows:
(a) Grandfathered Uses
(1) The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not
require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70:
(A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or
(B) use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily
discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or
(C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF
combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986,
notwithstanding any intervening conforming use.
(2) The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, or
improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy
by the same use, provided such remodeling, or improvement, or replacement:
(A) shall not result in increased floor area;
(B) shall not shift the building footprint;
Not Yet Approved
9
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
(C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or
any other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or
(E) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative
office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are
deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, or improvement, or
replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
(3) If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and
thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered
abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use.
(4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) 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.
(b) Grandfathered Facilities
(1) Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built,
was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to
the provisions of Chapter 18.70.
(2) The grandfathered facilities specified in subsection (1) shall be permitted to
remodel, or improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, provided such
remodeling, or improvement, or replacement:
(A) shall not result in increased floor area;
(B) shall not shift the building foot print;
(C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or
any other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section18.18.070.
SECTION 6. Subsection 18.52.070(a) (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District,
On Site Parking) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
Not Yet Approved
10
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
(a) On Site Parking
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 two hundred fifty gross square feet of
floor area, with the following exceptions:
(1) Square footage for:
(A) Handicapped access which does not increase the usable floor area,
pursuant to Section 18.18.070(CD District Floor Area Bonuses).
(B) An increase in square footage granted for seismic rehabilitation, pursuant
to Section 18.18.070 (CD District Floor Area Bonuses).
(C)(B) Category I or II Historic Structures may take advantage of the following
exceptions during the life of the historic building:
(i) An increase in square footage pursuant to CD FAR Exceptions for Historic
Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060 (b)(3), and
(ii)(i) A conversion to commercial use that is 50 feet or less in height
and that has most recently been in residential use, if such conversion is done in conjunction
with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director upon recommendation by the
Architectural Review Board and in consultation with the Historic Resource Board. Such
conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(D) A minor increase of two hundred square feet or less, pursuant to CD
district FAR Exceptions for Historic Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060(b)(4).
(E)(C) At or above grade parking, though included in the site FAR calculations
(pursuant to CD district FAR Exceptions for non-historical/non-seismic buildings in Section
18.49.060(a)) shall not be included in the on-site parking regulations of this section.
(2) Vacant parcels subject to redevelopment shall be exempt at the time when
development occurs from the on-site parking requirements of one parking space for each
two hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces for
every one thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time
assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were
subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking.
(3) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal
to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for
fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or
Not Yet Approved
11
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University
Avenue parking assessment district, entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-
Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara,
State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However, square
footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used for
nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time
of the engineer's report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this
exemption. No exemption parking requirements shall be available where a residential use
changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subdivision (1)(C) of this subsection.
SECTION 7. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the
parking regulations within the Downtown area of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in
projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations
will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this
Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this
proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities.
SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 9. Applicability to Pipeline Projects. [Placeholder for Council discussion.
See staff recommendation in Staff Report.]
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This interim ordinance shall be in full force and effect
on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption, and shall “sunset” (expire) two (2)
years following the effective date of the amendment (November 21, 2015), unless
extended by Council. Upon expiration of this interim ordinance, the previous provisions
related to parking
//
//
//
//
Not Yet Approved
12
Revised 10/15/13
130920 dm 0131137
exemptions contained in Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.080(g), 18.18.090(b)(1)(B) and (C),
18.18.120(c)(2), and 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and (C)(i) in effect immediately prior to adoption of
this ordinance shall be reinstated.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3174)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/15/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown Parking Exemption
Title: Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance to Place Temporary
Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption
Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown
and California Avenue Assessment Districts
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance)
establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue
parking issues (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the
downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more
accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking
exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to
both the Downtown and the California Avenue areas, is likely to immediately exacerbate
parking problems without seeming to provide for any public purpose. This provision (Section
18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from parking for any
property within the relevant assessment district, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the
Downtown area and up to 0.5:1 in the California Avenue area (see Attachment B.) This clause
was included in language adopted in the 1980s to encourage downtown development and as a
compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and establishment of parking assessments.
While the basis for those amendments is now outdated and downtown development is thriving,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking.
This is generally in addition to exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other
allowances pursuant to the code.
Staff recommends that the “Exempt Floor Area exemption” be suspended, at least for the
duration of staff’s study of downtown parking, to enable a more complete analysis of its effect
in combination with other parking measures. An interim “urgency” ordinance is attached that
would allow for such a moratorium on the use of this exemption. According to State law, the
moratorium may be adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, meaning at least
eight (8) Council members would need to agree to impose the change for a maximum of 45
days. The ordinance would become effectively immediately. State law requires that staff report
back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing
would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days.
State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years.
Background
The City of Palo Alto has studied parking limitations, particularly in Downtown, multiple times
since the 1980s, when the original assessments for the Downtown and California Avenue areas
were established, and Downtown was rezoned (downzoned) to more restrictive building
standards. Downtown parking was re-evaluated in the 1990s, leading up to the construction of
two new parking garages. Zoning requirements that limit downtown commercial development
also mandated that the staff prepare an annual report to monitor downtown development, the
use of transferable development rights (TDRs) and parking changes (the most recent report is
included as Attachment C).
Over the past year, staff has developed considerable data and initiated programs to evaluate
the status of parking in Downtown and in the California Avenue area, as well as to assess the
impact of overflow parking on nearby residential neighborhoods. On July 16, 2012, the City
Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts and directed staff to look at a variety
of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Staff is initiating studies of the
potential for adding parking facilities Downtown and in the California Avenue area, means to
more efficiently use available parking garages and lots, technology to enhance customer service
and the customer experience, and evaluation of the downtown development cap and related
zoning provisions.
Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will
include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios
and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however,
that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both Downtown and the California Avenue
area, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any
City of Palo Alto Page 3
public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow
exemption from off-street parking requirements for any property within the relevant
assessment district, associated with floor area up to a 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in Downtown
and up to 0.5:1-1.0:1 FAR in the California Avenue area. This clause appears to have been added
to the Zoning Code in the 1980s to encourage Downtown development and as a compromise
for then-recently enacted downzoning and the establishment of parking assessments. The
language is quite convoluted, resulting in varying interpretations by staff and applicants. The
City has not been able to locate complete documentation of the history of the exemption.
Property owners who never paid into the assessment district have argued that the Exempt
Floor Area exemption allows them to retroactively “buy into” the assessment district in order to
take advantage of the provision. The exemption has not, to staff’s knowledge, been requested
or implemented until recently, specifically:
In 2007, a one-story project at 135 Hamilton Avenue was exempted for approximately
7,700 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot (approximately 31 parking spaces),
providing no parking spaces on a site that had not ever paid into the assessment district
(note: the project was approved, but was not built and the permit has expired). The
applicant, however, was required and had agreed to pay into the assessment district to
qualify for the exemption.
In 2011, a subsequent application for the same site was submitted for a four-story
building, with 10,000 square feet (40 parking spaces) to be exempted from providing on-
site parking spaces or paying in-lieu fees, and another 5,000 square feet (20 parking
spaces) exempted through the use of TDRs. This project has received review by the
Architectural Review Board and is now under redesign. The applicant is again offering to
pay into the assessment district to qualify for this exemption. (Note: the applicant has
also recently provided a letter stating his intent to revise the application to
accommodate the prior one-story proposal).
In 2011, the applicants for the four-story Lytton Gateway project at 335 Alma Street
requested the 1:1 FAR exemption for the portion of the floor area that was located
within the Downtown assessment district, approximately 14,400 square feet (58
spaces). The project was considered as a Planned Community rezoning, however, and
the Council did not accept the exemption as a given, instead requiring additional parking
and contributions to the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund.
In September 2012, a Preliminary Architectural Review application was filed for a 4,903
square foot office development (with two residences above) at 636 Waverley Street,
requesting exemption for the 1:1 FAR equivalent, amounting to 14 spaces of the total 20
required for the office on-site, in addition to other exemptions allowing existing parking
deficiencies to be carried over to the new development.
Staff has spoken with owners of at least two other sites, for which the 1:1 FAR
exemption is being considered, but applications have not yet been submitted.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Given the current parking deficits in the City’s two assessment districts (downtown and
California Avenue) and the outdated rationale for applying this exemption, staff has been
discouraging recent applications since the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 335 Alma (Lytton
Gateway) projects from using this parking exemption. To staff’s knowledge, no project
applicant has requested use of the exemption for the California Avenue area.
Discussion
Staff believes that the basis for the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption”, i.e., encourage
development Downtown and compromise for the downzoning and parking assessment
requirements, is now outdated, as downtown does not require encouragement to develop, and
any equity issues have long been addressed. Nevertheless, the provision remains in place and
applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. There is also some ambiguity as to
whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the
exemption by paying into the district retroactively, and if so, how to calculate the payment.
Further, applicants are sometimes coupling this exemption with other parking exemptions due
to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. The result of
the continued use of this exemption would be to exacerbate parking deficiencies in the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment district areas.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area
Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements,
including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will of course remain
exempt from parking to the extent assessments have been paid for the site. Staff believes it is
appropriate to apply the moratorium to both the Downtown and California Avenue areas, as it
will in both areas exacerbate parking deficiencies documented previously by staff. Staff
distinguishes this provision from others for review, particularly the transferable development
rights (TDRs) section, as in those cases other public purposes are readily identified (seismic and
historic rehabilitation), and significant investments (either rehabilitation or purchase of TDRs)
have been made pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Those provisions will, however, be
evaluated as part of the more comprehensive parking studies.
Interim Ordinance Process
State law allows for a city to enact an interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, upon a vote of
4/5 of the members of the Council, to protect the health, safety or welfare of the community
(the draft ordinance includes the relevant findings). No public hearing and no input from the
Planning and Transportation Commission is required prior to the enactment of the urgency
ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this provision of State law takes effect
City of Palo Alto Page 5
immediately and does not require second reading. The next steps, pursuant to State law, would
be to:
1. Return to Council not later than 45 days later for a public hearing with an interim report
with steps taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of
the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. At that time the Council will also be asked to extend
the Interim Ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (as allowed under
Government Code Section 65858) to allow staff to propose zoning changes; and
2. Recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by
the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as
necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration
of the 10-month, 15-day extension.
Applicability to Pending Projects
Cities may revise zoning requirements at any time, except where a property owner has
acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing
substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of
particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. While
the Interim Ordinance as written does not make exceptions for projects that have begun the
planning process but not completed it by securing final permits (“pipeline projects”), in the past
the City generally has excepted pipeline projects from new ordinance requirements. The City is
not legally required to make such exceptions, but the Council may make a policy decision to do
so. Two projects are currently under review:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year
and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and
b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application
on September 10, 2012.
Staff has discussed the application of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption for a couple of other
projects, but owners have not yet submitted applications for those projects. Council may
choose to either include or exempt one or both of the “pipeline” projects from application of
the moratorium. If the Council chooses to exclude one or both projects from the moratorium,
staff suggests that exclusion be conditional upon: a) preparation of a robust transportation
demand management (TDM) program for the project, and b) payment of the equivalent
“assessment” amount or increment to the In-Lieu Parking Fund (rather than to pay down the
bonds) to contribute to construction of additional parking spaces in the future (note: the
amount of the “assessment” should be the present value of a stream of assessments as would
originally have been applied over the life of the parking bonds). Staff will be prepared to
suggest language to implement these requirements should Council desire.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Downtown Parking Exemption Urgency Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: Section 18.52.060 of Zoning Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment C: December, 2011 Downtown Monitoring Report to Council (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121010 jb 0131000
Ordinance No. _______
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking
Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment
Districts and Areas - General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New
Development in Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
2
121010 jb 0131000
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate Downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. This interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of
Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based
on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings
and a 4/5 vote is required for passage.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Moratorium. The City Council hereby enacts this Interim Urgency
Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as
set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any
development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in
the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
Not Yet Approved
3
121010 jb 0131000
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Effective Period. This urgency ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption.
Thus the moratorium shall expire on November 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the
City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858.
SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General
(a) Definitions
(1) "Parking Assessment Areas"
"Parking assessment areas" means either:
The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the
map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of
University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city
clerk; or
The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city
delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled
Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December
16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk;
(2) "Exempt Floor Area"
Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that
floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor
area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0;
Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either:
(A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which
does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or
(B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district
rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code,
whichever is greater.
(b) In-lieu fees
Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by
the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street
parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such
district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided.
(c) Exempt Floor Area
(1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to
December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and
18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for
construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of
assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not
provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be
conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a
portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard
as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which
generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area.
(2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall
be provided in accordance with this chapter.
(3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and
nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking;
provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential,
or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area.
(4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has
undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor
area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting
the requirements of this chapter.
(Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424)
City Council Informational Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012
March 05, 2012 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011
Subject: Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report for 2010-2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth
in the commercial downtown area (CD-C zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and
CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-January of 2012, there was a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within
the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 13,500 square feet of
space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An
additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated
before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
Background
Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was
established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require
reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district.
Staff regularly tracks vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting
from approved development to comply with Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine
the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code, until 2009, included an
exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate
exceeds 5%.
In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail
uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability
enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. A map of the districts subject to the
amendments was included in the 2009 City Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s
website. The ordinance amendment eliminated the provision for an exception process if the GF
vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring period.
March 05, 2012 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Staff completed field visits for this 2010/2011 monitoring period in early January 2012.
Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also
compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report
also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD)zone from
January 1987 through August 31, 2011 and specific data on vacancy information and rental
rates through January 2012.
Discussion
Economic conditions in Palo Alto downtown area are improving gradually. There is currently a
4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall
vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2.1
percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the
2007-2008 period vacancy rate, just before the start of the economic downturn. In the 2010-
2011 monitoring period, the rental rates for retail varied from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot
based on the location, and the average office rental rate was between $4.50 and $7.00 per
square foot. Office rental rates have increased in the last year and a half and retail rental rates
have remained steady throughout the 2010-2011 monitoring period. The following table shows
the approximate total vacant area and percentage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006-2007
monitoring period.
TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto
Year
Total CD-C
Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C
Vacancy
Total CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacancy
2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94
2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21
2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99
2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91
2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8
Non-Residential Development Activity
The Downtown Study, approved in 1986, incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of
additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re-
evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 173,356 square feet of non-residential uses has been added (or approved)
in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2008-2010,
March 05, 2012 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 2424)
approximately 46,500 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few
major contributing projects such as: 317-323 University Avenue, 325 Lytton Avenue, 564
University Avenue, 310 University Avenue, 278 University Avenue, and 265 Lytton Avenue. In
this current cycle (2010-2011) approximately 13,499 square feet of net new commercial floor
area has been added. Though significant construction activities continue in the downtown CD-C
zone area, most of the construction includes redevelopment of existing sites since the existing
downtown is close to being built-out. In the current cycle there were approximately five sites
that were redeveloped but only one project, at 524 Hamilton Avenue, added significant square
footage.
Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential
development remains available for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000
square feet growth limit is reached.
Demonstrating Special Public Benefits
The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to
be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, ten projects in the
Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a
finding of public benefit. Five of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would
otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet. The total changes in square
footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment E. The remaining five
projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All
of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in lieu of providing parking.
Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions
The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects
that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these
upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524
Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona Street, have used close to 5,000 square feet of Transfer
Development Rights (TDR) square footage in this evaluation period. These projects are shown
in the fifth column of Attachment E.
Parking Inventory
At the time of the Downtown Study, performance measures were established that specify that
new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that
expected from development that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces.
In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures: one located on 528 High Street and the
other at 445 Bryant Street, adding a total of 899 parking spaces. These parking structure
projects, in addition to other projects that provide a parking component, decreased the original
1986 deficit to approximately 628 spaces. At the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City
determined that a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken
when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions (transfer of development rights
and FAR bonuses) reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand
resulting from exemptions is 323 parking spaces. Through various projects, the total cumulative
parking deficit has been significantly reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main
March 05, 2012 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 2424)
reasons for the reduction are: 1) the two-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage; 2)
significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division, resulting
in 96 additional spaces; and 3) the construction of the two previously mentioned parking
structures located on 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. Attachment F is a chart of the CD
(Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Staff notes, however, that the effects of the parking
deficit, particularly on adjacent neighborhoods, appear to have been exacerbated by the
increased employee density of office uses in the downtown.
Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in
the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. In October 2011,
there was approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C(GF)(P)
zoning district following the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009 to enhance
protection of retail uses in the heart (University Avenue and side streets) of the downtown
commercial district. Attachment C provides the list of parcels affected by adoption of the
ordinance. A map showing the location of these parcels is provided as Attachment D. The result
was an approximate net 75,660 square feet reduction in the total square footage of GF district.
During the staff survey of Downtown vacancies in first week of January 2012, there were seven
properties, totaling 26,290 square feet, which met the requirements for vacant and available
ground floor area.
TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in
CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District.
(As of January 4, 2012)
Address Vacant Square Feet
541 Bryant 2,556
248 Hamilton 3,000
174 University 2,300*
180 University 12,459
435 University 1,450
429-447 University 1,800
522 Waverley 2,725
Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290
March 05, 2012 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 2424)
*Vacant since last year
This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 4.8 percent, a reduction of 2.1 percent from
the vacancy rate of last year.
Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District
The entire Downtown Commercial (CD) area includes approximately 3,850,000 gross square
feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2
area. About 525,000 square feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and
not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is
approximately 3,325,000 square feet.
Staff conducted a field survey in early January 2012 and communicated with local real estate
agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring
cycle there was a total vacancy of 66,226 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent,
somewhat less than the 2.6 percent vacancy noted in last year’s monitoring report. The overall
CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 4
percent.
Table 3 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, research of real estate websites and
responses received from local downtown real estate agents.
TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD)
(As of January 4, 2012)
Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P)
District
Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet
635 Bryant CD-C (P)545
644 Emerson CD-C (P)2,238
418 Florence CD-C (P)2,515
155 Forest CD-S (P); CD-C (P)550
120-122 Hamilton CD-C (P)2,260
209 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)9,000
261 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)783
400 Hamilton CD-C (P)3,320
245 Lytton CD-C (P)13,433
March 05, 2012 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 2424)
550 Lytton CD-C (P)2,892
552 Waverley CD-C (GF)(P)2,400
Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936
CD –Commercial Downtown, (C) –Commercial, (S) –Service,
GF –Ground Floor Combining District, P -Pedestrian Overlay
Trends in Use Composition
The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle, a
reduction of approximately 12,860 square feet of religious/institutional use that was converted
to office use at the 661 Bryant Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning
regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as
office, retail, eating/drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower-
intensity commercial uses like manufacturing and warehousing has decreased (see Attachment
G).
Retail Rents
Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to
the data gathered from the January 2011 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering
properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space generally range from $2.75 to $4.00 per
square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and
taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from
University Avenue. Retail rental rates in the core downtown University Avenue sometimes
increase to highs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. For some vacant properties outside the
downtown core, rental rates have been listed as negotiable.
Office Rents
Based on the information gathered from the commercial real estate agents listing properties for
lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings
on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller
buildings further from University Avenue) range from $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot triple net,
compared to $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot triple net in last year’s monitoring report.
Timeline
This is an annual report.
Resource Impact
This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have
positive impacts on the City’s potential source of property and sales taxes.
Policy Implications
This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive
March 05, 2012 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14,
1986.
Environmental Review
This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review.
Courtesy Copies
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Palo Alto
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Professorville Neighborhood
University Park Neighborhood Association
Attachments:
·Attachment A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF)
·Attachment B: Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District Map(PDF)
·Attachment C: List of Parcels Added and Removed From CD-C(GF) P District (PDF)
·Attachment D: Downtown Map Showing the Zone Changes (PDF)
·Attachment E: CD Non-Residential Change in SQFT 09/01/86 to 08/31/11 (PDF)
·Attachment F: CD Parking Deficit(PDF)
·Attachment G: CommercialDowntown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(PDF)
Prepared By:Chitra Moitra, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986)
The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study:
1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and
applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The
basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS
zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites
adjacent to residential zones.
2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was
existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches
235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating
special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions.
3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving
historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or
less.
4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non-
residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this
requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic
rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for
parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking.
5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total
parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and
that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions,
reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public
parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit.
6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the
major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses
other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.
7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and
commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations.
8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the
Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or
purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.
9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit
underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be
necessary.
10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking.
11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit
a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through
traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues.
12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for
Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways
which cross pedestrian walkways.
13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR
increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area.
14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of
minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.
COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP ATTACHMENT B
o
•
,
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF PARCELS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM CD-C (GF) P DISTRICT
The following properties were added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
200-228 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-008
230-238 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-009
240-248 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-010
412 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-106
420 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-025
430 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-026
The following properties were removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
115-119 University Avenue---APN 120-26-108
102-116 University Avenue---APN 120-26-039
124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043
125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138
525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093
529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110
535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091
135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111
440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014
437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020
443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019
DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES ATTACHMENT D
o
:~
o
.~
,
gi • I i :
J' .!
I
1
ATTACHMENT E
CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/11
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
520 Ramona Street A
CDCGFP
11/20/84
-
400
+400
220 University Avenue
CDCGFP
2/5/87
-
65
+65
151 Homer Avenue
CDSP
3/17/88
-
-
-9,750
314 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
5/5/88
-
-
-713
247-275 Alma Street
CDNP
8/4/88
-
-
+1,150
700 Emerson Street
CDSP
9/15/88
-
-
+4,000
431 Florence Street
CDCP
9/15/88
-
2,500
+2,500
156 University Avenue
CDCGFP
12/15/88
-
4,958
+4,958
401 Florence Street
CDCP
3/2/89
-
2,407
+2,407
619 Cowper Street
CDCP
5/6/89
-
-
+2,208
250 University Avenue
PC-3872
5/15/89
11,000B
300
+20,300
2
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
550 University Avenue
CDCP
6/1/89
-
-
-371
529 Bryant Street
PC-3974
5/3/90
2,491C
2,491
+2,491
305 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
9/28/90
-
200
+200
550 Lytton AvenueDE
CDCP
10/22/90
-
-
+4,845
531 Cowper Street
PC-4052
5/21/91
9,000
475
+9,475
540 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/24/92
-
404
+404
530/534 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
4/15/93
-
432
+432
555 Waverley Street/425
Hamilton AvenueE
CDCP
9/21/93
-
-
+2,064
3
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
201 University Avenue
CDCGFP
11/18/93
-
2,450
+2,450
518 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/3/94
-
180
+180
245 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
7/21/94
-
-
-21,320
400 Emerson StreetEF
PC-4238
9/19/94 -
200
+4,715
443 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
1/5/95
-
26
+26
420 Emerson Street
CDCP
3/16/95
-
125
+125
340 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/6/95 - -
-402
281 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/20/95 - -
-2,500
456 University Avenue
CDCGFP
5/18/95
-
7,486
+7,486
536 Ramona Street
CDCGFP
7/11/95
-
134
+134
725/753 Alma Street
PC-4283
7/17/95
- -
-1,038
4
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
552 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
7/18/95
-
177
+177
483 University Avenue G
PC-4296
10/2/95
3,467C
2,789
+7,289
424 University Avenue
CDCGFP
9/21/95
-
2,803
+2,803
901/909 Alma Street E,F
PC-4389
8/1/96
-
-
+4,425
171 University Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
9/19/96
-
1,853
+1,853
401 High Street
CD-C(P)
10/3/96
-
350
+350
430 Kipling Street D,H
CD-C(P)
10/22/96
-
200
+1,412
460-476 University
Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
3/20/97
-
1,775
+1,775
400 Emerson Street D
PC-4238
3/21/97
-
-
+2,227
275 Alma Street
CD-N(P)
7/8/97
-
200
+3,207
390 Lytton Avenue
PC-4436
7/14/97
8,420C
689
+17,815
411 High Street H
CDCP
12/18/97
-
2,771 +2,771
5
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852
705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814
200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945
701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434
723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400
880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312
539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500
270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642
901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063
800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700
6
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799
335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249
382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194
102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515
310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481
317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290
564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475
278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137
265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151
340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360
524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345
7
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437
668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940
661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0
Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931 173,356
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among
the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces
C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning
D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit
E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit
F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint
use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces
H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces
I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT F
CD PARKING DEFICIT 9/1/86 to 8/31/2011
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
1986 deficit
1,601
520 Ramona
StreetA
CDCGFP
+400
2
0
0
+2
1,603
220 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+65
0
0
0
0
1,603
151 Homer
Avenue
CDSP
-9,750
0
11
0
-50
1,553
314 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
-713
0
0
0
-3
1,550
247-275 Alma
Street
CDNP
+1,150
5
5
0
0
1,550
700 Emerson
Street
CDSP
+4,000
16
16
0
0
1,550
431 Florence St
CDCP
+2,500
10
0
10
+10
1,560
Page 2
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
156 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+4,958
20
0
20
+20
1,580
401 Florence
Street
CDCP
+2,407
10
0
10
+10
1,590
619 Cowper
Street
CDCP
+2,208
9
9
0
0
1,590
250 University
Avenue
PC-3872
+20,300
103
131B
0
-28
1,562
550 University
Avenue
CDCP -371
0
0
0
-1
1,561
529 Bryant
Street
PC-3974
+2,491
10
0
10
+10
1,571
520 Webster
StreetC
PC-3499
0
0
163
0
-163
1,408
305 Lytton Ave
CDCP
+200
1
0
1
+1
1,409
550 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
+4,845
19
19
0
0
1,409
Page 3
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313
531 Cowper
Street
PC-4052
+9,475
38
0
2
+38
1,351
540 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+404
2
0
2
+2
1,353
530/534 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+432
2
0
2
+2
1,355
555 Waverley
Street/425
Hamilton
AvenueD
CDCP
+2,064
8
0
0
+8
1,363
201 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+2,450
10
0
10
+10
1,373
518 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+180
1
0
1
+1
1,374
245 Lytton Ave
CDCP
-21,320
90
149
0
-59
1,315
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+4,715
18
5
1
+14
1,329
Page 4
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
443 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329
420 Emerson
Street
CDCP
+125
1
0
1
+1
1,336
340 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-402
0
0
0
-2
1,334
281 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-2,500
0
0
0
-10
1,324
456 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+7,486
30
0
30
+30
1,354
536 Ramona
Street CDCGFP
+134
1
0
1
+1
1,355
725-753 Alma
Street
PC-4283
-1,038
7
7
0
-11
1,344
552 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP
+177
1
0
1
+1
1,345
483 University
Avenue
PC-4296
+7,289
29
-2E
11
+31
1,376
Page 5
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
424 University
Avenue
CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387
901/909 Alma
StreetD
PC-4389
+4,425
18
18
0
0
1,387
171 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,853
7
0
7
+7
1,394
401 High Street
CDCP
+350
1
0
1
+1
1,395
430 Kipling
Street
CDCP
+1,412
5
-4E
1
+10
1,405
460/476
University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,775
7
0
7
+7
1,412
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+2,227
9
0
0
+9
1,421
275 Alma
StreetF
CDNP
+3,207
0
0
1
+1
1,422
390 Lytton
Avenue
PC-4436
+17,815
74
50
3
+27
1,449
Page 6
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
411 High Street
CDCP
+2,771
0
-4E
11
+15
1,464
530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475
705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486
200 Hamilton
Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527
528 High St PF 0 0 211 G 0 -211 1316
445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G 0 -688 628
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 632
701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 633
723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 633
Page 7
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
880 / 884
Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 630
539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 640
270 University
Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 651
SUBTOTAL
86-02 106,930 672 1483 236 -578 651
901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 650
800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 587
164 Hamilton
Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 587
335 University
AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 587
Page 8
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
382 University
Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 588
102 University
Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 588
310 University
Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 618
317-323
University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 618
564 University
Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 628
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 622
265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 676
278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 677
340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0 0 677
524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 700
Page 9
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 702
668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 722
661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 722
TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323 649 722
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project
is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit
C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage
D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared
parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee
F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion
G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003
H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area.
Page 10
ATTACHMENT G
Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet)
* The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on
a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000
square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to
update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare
directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report.
Use Category Area
(October
1986)
Area
(October
2011)
Area Change,
percentage
1. Offices 1,100,000 1,350,000 23%
2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00%
3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33%
4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00%
5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67%
6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86%
7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00%
8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67%
9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00%
11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%
12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00%
13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
14. Warehousing &
Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00%
16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00%
18. Single Family
Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
19. Vacant & Under
Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66%
20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0
21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52%
ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct
residential uses, religious institutions,
vacant & for sale and vacant & under
construction.)
3,125,000 3,350,000
MINUTES
Page 19 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
departments with higher turnover and how the age of the City’s workforce
compared to other Bay Area communities. She also asked of the cost of
living in Palo Alto and housing in particular was a barrier to younger
employees. She understood that some larger cities were not in CalPERS and
were self-funded and wondered if Palo Alto could remove itself from
CalPERS.
Ms. Shen said they would look at employee tenure and provide the
information. The City did not have a retention issue. The turnover rate was
between one and two percent depending on the employee group. Staff was
also compiling a report that compared the City to neighboring communities.
Council Member Klein said the larger cities had not opted out of CalPERS,
they had always had their own systems. With few exceptions they had been
less successful than CalPERS. He said San Diego’s system was scandal
ridden and he did not see the larger cities as a better model than CalPERS.
Every pension system struggled with increased costs and stagnant income.
Mayor Yeh asked Staff for final comments.
Ms. Shen pointed out that Council was provided binders because Staff
intended to provide additional supplemental information. She asked that
any requests for specific references be directed to her attention.
Mr. Keene said Staff was returning in November with the pension and
December with healthcare and he wanted to set the expectations. Staff
understood the framework of the colleague’s memorandum and its
questions. They also had to consider Council’s suggestions over the coming
three weeks. Palo Alto was considered a leader in the State with what it had
done and its knowledge of the situation. Staff’s inability to answer questions
was a matter of the capacity to do research. He needed Council to know
that Staff was working on the information but could not provide everything
by the November meeting. However, he said Staff could ensure the
community had a better understanding of what the City could or could not
do and what was necessary to pursue other options.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
10. Interim Urgency Ordinance 5167 to Place Temporary Moratorium on
use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption Contained in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown and
California Avenue Assessment Districts.
MINUTES
Page 20 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
Curtis Williams, Planning and Community Environment Director
recommended City Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance that
established a moratorium on the use of an exempt floor area provision in the
zoning code related to parking exemptions. The Council previously
considered on multiple occasions issues surrounding downtown parking and
directed Staff to look at measures that evaluated parking supply, parking
demand, Zoning Ordinance provisions, and Downtown Development Cap
Study. The exemption provision, Section 18.52.060(c), of the zoning
ordinance had the potential to further exacerbate downtown parking
problems if it continued to be applied to projects. Section 18.52.060(c)
allowed exemption from parking for any property within the downtown or
California Avenue districts that had up to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The
language was adopted in the 1980’s when the Downtown Plan was adopted
and shortly after the assessment district was in place. Staff believed it was
done to encourage downtown development. Staff suggested the moratorium
because the provision outlasted the economic circumstances of downtown
development and existing and potential parking deficiencies continued to
occur. Staff intended to study the issues and return to Council. He
explained the measure was an interim urgency ordinance. State law allowed
a Council to adopt such an ordinance without the review of the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) and full public hearing notice, but only if
there was a four fifths vote, or 8 of the 9 Council Members approval. It also
required Staff to return to Council within 45 days with details on a
comprehensive parking ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez and Staff planned to
provide that report by November 5, 2012. With respect to the pending
projects in the development review process, the ordinance did not provide
for specific exceptions. It was the Council’s option to include exemptions.
In the past the Council generally exempted projects in process from
Ordinance changes. The only exception he remembered was the Green
Building Ordinance, which only exempted projects currently in the building
permit process. There were two projects currently in the review process
that utilized the 1.0 FAR exemption. The first was 135 Hamilton Avenue,
which had been in process for over a year and went to the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) six weeks prior. The Applicant was currently reviewing
design changes and would return to the ARB. He noted that the site had a
project approved but not built in 2009 for a one story building that utilized
the 1.0 FAR parking exemption. The second project was 636 Waverley
Street, which was submitted in September 2012 and was scheduled to go to
the ARB in November for the architectural review application. Staff
suggested that if Council chose to exempt either or both of the projects that
they contain a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
requirement that the assessment district funds be placed in the in lieu
parking fund instead. He said that the Applicant for 135 Hamilton Avenue
submitted a request that the application be amended to include review and
MINUTES
Page 21 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
approval of the single story project that was submitted and approved in
2009 but had since expired. That did not qualify as an amendment, but the
Council could consider it if it made a determination that there was a
distinguishing characteristic from that project as opposed to new
applications.
Molly Stump, City Attorney added that many people asked if there was an
expectation or right of downtown property owners to continue with the
current zoning rules in place. Legally the answer was clearly no. She said
the Council could choose to allow projects to continue utilizing the rule and
to change it in the future, but legally it was clear. Property owners acquired
a vested legal right to continue on with the status quo rules only once a final
building permit had been issued and substantial work took place that relied
on the building permit. Once a building permit was issue and work began,
the vested right was limited by the building permit. Once a permit expired
so did the legal right. She said it was important that the Council treat
similarly situated individuals in a similar way. When distinctions were made
they needed a rational basis for the different rule. That was a standard that
required careful thinking and articulation.
Chop Keenan of Emerson Street said he was a long time parking zealot in
Palo Alto. He was Chair of the Downtown Parking Committee in the 1990’s.
They met monthly and discussed a variety of parking issues. He said
parking equaled prosperity. 90 days ago he proposed a public/private
collaboration on Lot P to build 190 additional spaces. He acknowledged that
was separate from the evening’s conversation but stated he mentioned it to
show his commitment for parking in Professorville. On 135 Hamilton Avenue
in 2007 he has a 7,700 foot building approved on a 10,000 foot lot with a
1:1 FAR exemption. The ARB stated it was an important corner and wanted
it built to the maximum FAR with residential units. Consequently he
returned in December 2011 with a 20,000 square foot building that met the
criteria with the 1:1 FAR exemption. There was over a half a million dollars
invested in the project. In January 2012 they received a notice of
incompletion, which was promptly answered and turned around. On August
29, 2012, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published. The ARB
meeting was held on September 30, 2012, and they were currently working
on the ARB’s comments. He asked that the project be exempted from the
moratorium.
Jim Baer said with the exception of the project at 135 Hamilton Avenue he
fully supported the urgency Ordinance eliminating the 1:1 FAR exemption
both downtown and on California Avenue. He stated he was involved in 75
projects between those two areas. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project
needed an exemption because of process, fairness, and equity. The 40
MINUTES
Page 22 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
spaces which were relieved under the exemption represented less than one
percent of the parking deficit identified in Mr. Alsman’s handout. The project
was initially approved in 2007 by the ARB, with the ARB Chair demanding a
larger project. Until 2007 he and Mr. Keenan were unaware of the 1:1 FAR
exemption and were astonished it existed. The 1980’s zoning ordinance
update included no lobbying by downtown owners. The 2007 approval
would have lasted until the submittal of a building permit was required by
January 2010. The new project was submitted in December 2011. Prior to
that he met with Mr. Williams and Staff had had dialogue about 101 Lytton,
which looked at the 1:1 FAR exemption. Planning Staff issued a notice of
incompletion in January 2012 but nothing was included about parking or the
1:1 FAR exemption. 135 Hamilton Avenue was an actively pursued project
that included rental units and used TDR as allowed and was fully parked
other than the 1:1 FAR exemption.
David Kleiman spoke regarding 636 Waverley Street, which was a smaller
project about 10,000 square feet in total. They were only weeks away from
the first ARB hearing. He requested clarity as soon as possible on the
parking issue. Passing the moratorium without granting an exception for his
project was unfair because there was a reasonable expectation based on
past history of Council’s action for already started projects. They spent
substantial money and time readying the project. The parking was to code;
the project did not ask for exceptions to any zoning. He felt it was
unreasonable for the City to ask them to pay an in lieu fee or to purchase
TDR’s when the existing code clearly exempted the project.
Ken Alsman was concerned about all the issues surrounding parking in
downtown. He urged Council to accept Staff’s recommendation on the
moratorium with no exceptions. He thought 135 Hamilton Avenue would
generate at least 70 unparked cars upon completion. He completed an
analysis of the 18 projects Palo Alto had approved, under consideration and
construction but not occupied and estimated they would generate in excess
of 700 additional unparked cars.
Richard Brand stated he was a member of the University South
Neighborhood Group Board. Following the residential parking permit
meeting in July he thought the process was broken, but there was a
proposal and he applauded Staff’s efforts to correct the root problem. He
thought the 1980’s ordinance was created to revitalize the downtown and it
was extremely successful. He respected the developer’s points regarding
their investments, but the City had worked on the downtown parking
problem for over a year. He thought if there were exemptions granted they
needed to have financial conditions that required parking near the
MINUTES
Page 23 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
development. Parking needed to be located where the development
occurred and not five blocks away.
Robert Moss urged the Council to adopt the urgency Ordinance
recommended by Staff without any exceptions. He said when Staff returned
to Council in 45 days the conditions for exemptions could be discussed at
that time. He said people in Downtown North and Professorville had
complained of spillover parking for many years. Most garages in downtown
had been built in the last 15 years as a result of the parking impacts. If the
proposal at 27 University Avenue was built, he thought it created a huge
parking overflow. He recommended the Council adopt the urgency
Ordinance and consider the exemptions carefully.
Council Member Schmid left the meeting at 10:21 P.M.
John R. Shenk, Thoits Family Board of Directors, stated that he wanted to
make sure there was clarity around if this moratorium were to go forward
that projects or properties that have paid into the assessment district are
not somehow harmed. He believed 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley
Street should be looked at with a deferential eye and given an exemption.
Mr. Williams said the ordinance change did not affect any other provisions of
the parking and downtown regulations. Projects that had paid into the
assessment district were allowed to build to their assessments or rebuild to
the level they existed at currently.
Council Member Klein said his questions were related to whether 135
Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street were subject to any amount of
assessment. He heard different things from the Applicants than what was
stated in the report. Page four of the report indicated that people who paid
into the assessment district were able to obtain the benefit of the 1:1
exclusion, but there was a sentence which read, “there’s also some
ambiguity to whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment
district can qualify for the exemption by paying into the district retroactively
and if so how to calculate the payment.” He asked if there was no
moratorium and the projects moved forward under the exemption if they
would have been required to make any payment. If so, he wanted to know
how the payment was to have been calculated.
Mr. Williams said the concept of buying into the assessment district was
confusing. The projects would have had to do so and that was a condition of
the approval at 135 Hamilton Avenue in 2009. No method had been
determined at that time, but Staff suggested one way to do it. He did not
know if Staff spoke to Mr. Kleiman about it, but they had talked to Mr.
MINUTES
Page 24 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
Keenan and Mr. Baer previously about the condition. It was also attached to
the most recent conditions for approval for 135 Hamilton Avenue when it
went to the ARB.
Council Member Klein said Mr. Kleiman stated he did not believe he should
have to pay any amount. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kleiman said he raised the question during a meeting with Amy French
and Mr. Williams. He was not sure there was a mechanism in the Municipal
Code or by practice to allow a later assessment of a property like his that
had not been assessed in the parking district. He was open for discussion,
but the code stated that properties that had not been assessed were
exempt. Based on that there was no rationale for an exempt property to
pay into the district. He asked what the rationale was for a property to be
assessed aside from the City’s standpoint of revenue.
Mr. Williams said Staff’s interpretation was that it only allowed a project to
take advantage of the 1:1 if it was assessed.
Council Member Klein recalled that in 1987 there was a different system for
assessments on the parking district. There were no bonds at that time.
Staff recalculated annually on the basis of who was in business.
Mr. Williams agreed. There was a mechanism at the time it was adopted for
changing the assessments annually.
Council Member Klein said the bonds came later. He asked how much that
would be compared to what was charged at the Lytton/Alma project.
Mr. Williams said the calculation under the assessment district was much
less. For 136 Hamilton Avenue depending on the methodology used
$150,000 to $350,000. That was six spaces under the in lieu fee. If the in
lieu fee was applied for all 40 spaces it was $2.5 million.
Council Member Klein said he needed to think about that.
Vice Mayor Scharff thought the ordinance needed to be passed, but he had
questions related to the potential exemptions. He did not believe the
projects should be completely grandfathered in, especially the one story
building. He thought they should apply the TDM to the four story building
and that some parking was necessary. He agreed that parking equaled
prosperity.
MINUTES
Page 25 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium
on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section
18.52.06 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and
California Avenue parking issues. Return to Council within 45 days
regarding the potential exemptions.
Vice Mayor Scharff believed the City owed Professorville, Downtown North,
and other areas a commitment to resolve the parking issues and solve the
problem. The difficult parking issues that required serious thought related to
the exemptions.
Council Member Shepherd was conflicted about the projects in process. She
was prepared to go forward with the urgency ordinance but not with the
exemption. The TDR exemption was easy; it was the 40 parking exempted
at 135 Hamilton Avenue that concerned her.
Council Member Espinosa noted that if the item returned in 60 days he
would probably no longer be on the Council. He believed in fairness and
equity and thought the Council often forgot the time and money spent on
moving projects through the City’s system. The Council avoided changing
rules during the process in the past for good reasons. He believed it was
inappropriate for the Council to change the rules related to projects in
process.
Council Member Holman was unclear about the 60 days mentioned in the
Motion because the ordinance lasted for 45 days.
Vice Mayor Scharff said they were not exempted until they returned to
Council for discussion.
Ms. Stump said the urgency ordinance provided that the use of the 1:1 was
under a moratorium effective on the Council’s vote that evening. That
applied to all projects, including the projects in process unless the Council
specifically exemption them. The Motion as stated applied to all projects
and considered an exemption in 60 days.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed to 45 days if Staff believed that to be appropriate.
He had wanted to give Staff time and had not been sure 45 days was
enough.
Mr. Williams believes they were required by State law to have a public
hearing in 45 days.
MINUTES
Page 26 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
Council Member Holman said the projects were included according to Staff
so her only concern was the 45 days.
Vice Mayor Scharff called a point of order that the Motion was seconded by
Council Member Shepherd.
Council Member Price supported the Motion and concurred with Council
Member Espinosa regarding the issues of fairness and the process laid out.
Council Member Klein confirmed that the two in process projects could not
move forward for 45 days.
Mr. Williams said it was not unusual to have a preliminary design review
without all of the compliance details worked out.
Council Member Klein asked if the 45 days would delay the final approval of
the projects.
Mr. Williams thought it would delay them, but indicated the projects could
move forward in the interim at their own risk in terms of ARB review. He
said that either project could solve the issue by paying in lieu fees, but was
not sure that either developer was interested in moving forward until the
parking issue was resolved.
Council Member Klein stated he reluctantly supported the ordinance because
he wanted to exempt the projects in process. He also agreed with Council
Member Espinosa’s comments because the Council’s job was to be fair and
equitable. He generally supported the Motion because the City needed a
definition of “in process” for future ordinance changes. Secondly Staff had
to return to Council with a recommendation of what the projects in process
needed to pay. He believed that the Council made it clear in 1987 that they
should pay some amount, and urged Staff to use a formula other than the
bond formula, which did not exist in 1987.
James Keene, City Manager said Staff would review that, but indicated the
opposite could be argued. In 1987 the thinking was to redress the situation
as it was then and currently they attempted to redress the current situation
which was more complex.
Council Member Klein was open to suggestions, but stated the bonds did not
make sense because it was a static amount. 2012 Inflation or property
values needed to be taken into consideration.
MINUTES
Page 27 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
Mr. Keene said that was why Staff needed the 45 days.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with Council Members Burt and Espinosa that it
was necessary to treat people fairly, but the question was how much of an in
lieu fee the projects in process needed to pay and how to calculate that
figure. He did not believe the projects needed to be delayed through the
process.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff needed the full 45 days.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Shepherd was opposed to moratoriums because they ended
up with bad projects. She cited Alma Plaza as an example. However, she
noticed that there was a consideration that there was an exemption from
any in lieu or parking assessment for the buildings.
Mr. Williams thought there was an understanding that a fee was to be paid
to the assessment district. An in lieu parking fee was a separate thing in the
process. Staff suggested that it was more purposeful to provide money to
the in lieu fund. The question was how much was reasonable and under
what standards. Staff planned to return with a recommendation.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed they were not looking at a complete
redesign on the projects.
Council Member Holman said the possibility of providing additional onsite
parking had not been discussed. She suggested they look at that as well.
Mayor Yeh supported the Motion because Staff needed additional time for
analysis and discussion with the project applicants. He was unclear about
the projects in process eligibility for the 1:1 and wanted clarity.
Council Member Burt requested TDM be included in the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the staff report in 45 days will contain a
proposal for the exemptions to include the preparation of a robust
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the projects.
Mr. Keene said the way the Motion was crafted allowed Staff to return within
45 days with more information. Because Council Member Schmid was no
longer in the meeting, the Council needed a unanimous vote to pass the
Motion.
MINUTES
Page 28 of 28
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 10/15/12
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Price reported on attending a fundraiser for Outlet, which is
a member of Project Safety Net. The Mental Health Board held a meeting
regarding Veterans services. She also attended a crisis intervention training
program conducted at Stanford University.
Council Member Holman asked about a letter from a citizen regarding a
construction project. She asked Staff to provide information to Council
regarding the letter.
Council Member Shepherd reminded everyone that the League of California
Cities is recruiting for several of their policy setting committees.
Mayor Yeh noted that three members of the public had commented on
Elizabeth Seton School item and asked when it would come back to Council.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning & Community Environment stated that
that item will be on Council’s agenda on November 5, 2012.
Mayor Yeh asked if it was standard timing to come before Council.
Mr. Williams answered yes and stated that Council could set a Public Hearing
for a later date.
Mayor Yeh asked about the DAS process and an individual appeal process.
Mr. Williams stated that was also coming to Council on November 5, 2012
and would be the same process as the Elizabeth Seton School item.
Mayor Yeh appointed Council Member Burt to the new Caltrain Policy Maker
Committee. Each January the new Mayor will appoint to this committee. He
thanked the Council and public for their participation in Bike Palo Alto.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3344)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/10/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Exemption Moratorium Extension
Title: Public Hearing: Consider Extending up to December 28, 2013 a
Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section
18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and
California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Adopt a Resolution
Providing Exceptions to the Moratorium for "Pipeline Projects" at 135
Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Attachment A) establishing a
moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section
18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement
or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue
parking issues (Attachment A), for a period of one year through December 28, 2013, and
allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate Resolution; and
2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment B) providing exceptions from the moratorium, with
conditions as specified, for properties at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street.
Background
On October 15, 2012, the Council adopted an interim “urgency” ordinance that provides for a
moratorium on the use of a parking exemption for Exempt Floor Area (up to a 1.0 FAR) on a
site. As further detailed in the October 15 staff report, this zoning provision has been used very
infrequently in the past and its rationale no longer applies. In accordance with State law, the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
moratorium was adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, 8-0
(Councilmember Schmid was absent). Council also directed that staff return with
recommendations for criteria to identify appropriate exceptions for projects in the
development review “pipeline.” The ordinance became effective immediately. State law
requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at
which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an
additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a
maximum duration of one year beyond the first extension.
The ordinance was extended on November 19, 2012 for an additional 30 days, but the
consideration of exceptions for “pipeline projects” was deferred until this review on December
10. A 4/5 vote was again required, and an 8-0 vote was recorded (Vice Mayor Scharff absent).
The November 19 Council staff report (including the October 15 report) is included as
Attachment E, and provides more detailed background about the code and the basis for the
moratorium.
Discussion
Attachment A provides for a further extension of the ordinance for up to a one year period
(December 29, 2013), which is permitted by State law for a second extension. A noticed public
hearing is required, and approval by a 4/5 vote of the Council (8 members) is again needed.
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would continue to suspend use of the “Exempt
Floor Area Parking Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and
zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown “development cap.” Floor area
will remain exempt from parking to the extent parking assessments have been paid for a site.
The ordinance also includes a provision that would allow the Council to consider exceptions
from the moratorium for “pipeline projects” by separate resolution. A draft Resolution is
included as Attachment B. The Resolution may be acted upon with a majority vote of the
Council.
Interim Ordinance Process and Evaluation
State law allows for a city to extend the interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, subject to an
interim report that outlines steps that have been and are expected to be taken to alleviate the
parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. Staff
attached the Parking Study Report presented to Council on November 13 as part of the
November 19 staff report (Attachment E) as the background report detailing the proposed
evaluation process. The outcome of the Parking Study, particularly related to the Downtown
Development Cap, will include recommendations for zoning changes, following public hearing
and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ordinance as necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the
expiration of the moratorium.
Applicability to Pending Projects
As outlined in prior reports, cities may revise zoning requirements at any time and new
development must comply with those updated requirements. The major exception to this rule
is where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by
obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is
not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance
of obtaining a permit. Staff does not believe there are any pending projects that have acquired
a vested right to develop under the prior requirements. Council has discretion, however, to
exempt projects from complying with new zoning requirements if there is a rational and
equitable basis for the exemption.
Staff has noted that there are two development projects currently under review that would be
affected by the moratorium:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, including 19,960 square feet of office space with two residential
units above, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year, has
been reviewed twice by the Architectural Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final
review in January; and
b) 636 Waverley Street, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two residential
units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012, and received Preliminary
Architectural Review on November 15.
Attachment C outlines the parking requirements for each of these projects, and exemptions
that were permitted by the code upon submittal of these applications. The 135 Hamilton
Avenue project would result in exemption of 40 parking spaces through the use of the 1:1 FAR
exemption (plus another 21 spaces with other exemptions) of a total of 84 spaces required. The
636 Waverley Street project would result in exemption of 15 parking spaces through the use of
the 1:1 FAR exemption (plus 1 other space with a second exemption) of a total of 25 spaces
required.
Options for Exempting Pending Projects
Staff has identified a few options for potential exceptions for Council consideration:
1. Allow no Exceptions. Each project would need to provide all spaces on site (which may
not be practical for either project as currently planned), pay in-lieu parking fees (e.g.,
approximately $2.4 million for 135 Hamilton and $900,000 for 636 Waverley), or be
modified substantially to comply.
2. Allow an Exception for each project, with a requirement to pay the Parking District
assessment “equivalent,” but payable to the Downtown Parking “In-Lieu” Fund, to be
City of Palo Alto Page 4
used for future construction of parking spaces. The assessment “equivalent” would
represent the cost of principal and interest of the project’s share of the overall
Assessment District bond, from inception to its terminus (estimated $326,531 for 135
Hamilton and $122,784 for 636 Waverley). Note: Staff evaluated other options for this
calculation, using prior assessments, but those were based on year-to-year changes in
assessments, which is impractical to recreate now. Note also this calculation does not
include interest or inflation.
3. Allow an Exception for each project with a requirement to pay the assessment
“equivalent” as outlined in #2, but also including a funding contribution to the proposed
Downtown “Cap” planning study, estimated at about $150,000 (approximately $109,005
for 135 Hamilton and $40,995 for 636 Waverley);
4. Allow an Exception for each project, but with a requirement to pay into the Downtown
Parking In-Lieu Fund equal to half the spaces for each project that would be exempt due
to the 1:1 FAR provision (e.g., about $1.2 million for 135 Hamilton and $450,000 for 636
Waverley).
5. Allow an Exception for 135 Hamilton Avenue, given its length of time in the review
process, but deny an Exception for 636 Waverley, or provide some combination of the
above differentiating between the projects.
Any of the options allowing for an Exception would also include a requirement for an aggressive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, including provision of transit passes, Zip
Cars (or similar), bicycle facilities, etc., with specified targets for mode-splits and penalties for
not meeting objectives. The condition of such language is summarized in the section below and
included in the proposed Exemption Resolution (Attachment B).
Staff Recommended Exceptions
Staff believes that, while there are important reasons to impose this moratorium, and while no
“vested rights” exist, it is also important to recognize that such a moratorium works a financial
hardship on applicants who have submitted development plans to the City and that the
moratorium may project an undesired image to the business community that rules may be
changed mid-stream. Staff therefore recommends that Council provide exemptions for the two
projects consistent with option #3 above, more specifically:
1. Exemptions would be allowed for “Pipeline Projects,” defined as those discretionary
development review applications that were submitted prior to October 15, 2012 (the
date of the moratorium) and that have not yet received approval by the Director of
Planning or the City Council. The two projects identified are the only ones that meet
these qualifications.
2. The Exemption shall only apply to the development project set forth in, or in substantial
compliance with, the application pending as of October 14, 2012.
3. An Exemption would expire if approval by the Director of Planning (subsequent to
City of Palo Alto Page 5
review by the Architectural Review Board) is not obtained by June 30, 2013, or if
building permits are not issued by December 31, 2013.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant for an Exempted Project must pay an
assessment “equivalent,” to be deposited in the City’s Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fund,
with the amount calculated as the pro-rata share of the exempt spaces relative to the
total Parking Assessment District spaces spread across the principal and interest
schedule from the inception through the life of the current parking district bonds (see
Attachment D).
5. Not later than 30 days following approval of the Exemption Resolution, the applicant for
an Exempted Project must pay a pro-rata share (based on the ratio of the total exempt
spaces between the two projects) of the estimated $150,000 cost of the City’s proposed
Downtown Parking “Cap” Study.
6. A condition of approval for any Exempted Project will require a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to
issuance of building permits and to be implemented immediately upon occupancy,
setting forth measures to achieve a minimum 20% mode-split for other than single-
occupancy vehicles, with annual monitoring and financial penalties established for
failure to attain the diversion objectives.
The proposed Resolution (Attachment B) provides for these exceptions and would require a
majority Council vote for passage. Alternative proposals could be written into the Resolution or
Council could provide direction to staff and the revised Resolution could return on Consent at
the Council’s first meeting in January. If no Exceptions are granted, the Resolution would not be
approved.
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown. The approval of the exceptions would be consistent with the
intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by attaching conditions
expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully address these
concerns.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council. The two projects granted exceptions both require
City of Palo Alto Page 6
environmental review concurrent with their Architectural Review Board process.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance Extending Moratorium Through December 28, 2013 (DOCX)
Attachment B: Resolution Exempting Projects at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636
Waverley Street from Parking Exemption Moratorium (DOCX)
Attachment C: Parking Requirements for 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
(DOCX)
Attachment D: Tables Outlining Parking Assessment "Equivalents" for 135 Hamilton
Avenue and 636 Waverley Street (PDF)
Attachment E: November 19, 2012 Council Staff Report and Attachments (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121210 jb 0131022
Ordinance No. ______
Interim Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending
Ordinance No. 5172 a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt
Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts for
a Period of One Year Through December 28, 2013
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Not Yet Approved
2
121210 jb 0131022
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parkin Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15,
2012, by a four-fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
Ordinance 5167 expired on November 29, 2012; and
O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment
on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of
parking issues in the Downtown area; and
P. On November 19, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5172
which extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 29,
2012; and
Q. The Council desires to extend Interim Ordinance 5172 in accordance with
the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth
in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage; and
R. The Interim Urgency Ordinance would continue to suspend the use of
“Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking
and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the downtown “development cap”; and
S. There are two development projects currently under review that could be
affected by the moratorium:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, , including 19,960 square feet of office space with
two residential units above, which has been under discussion and review
Not Yet Approved
3
121210 jb 0131022
for more than a year, has been reviewed twice by the Architectural
Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final review in January; and
b) 636 Waverley, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two
residential units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012,
and received Preliminary Architectural Review on November 15; and
T. While the Interim Ordinance would apply to all projects, including the two
pending pipeline projects, the Council has the authority to address equity exceptions to the
moratorium by separate resolution; and
U. The Interim Ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability
for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion; and
V. The Interim Ordinance is consistent with Council’s recent direction to study
parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. The approval of the exceptions would
be consistent with the intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by
attaching conditions expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully
address these concerns.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Written Report. The Report referenced in Recital O is hereby
deemed by the City Council to be the written report describing the measures taken to alleviate
the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167 and the
subsequent extension.
SECTION 3. Moratorium. The City Council hereby extends Interim Urgency
Ordinance Nos. 5167 and 5173 establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area
parking exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in
connection with any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for
any project located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 4. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
Not Yet Approved
4
121210 jb 0131022
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 7. Effective Period. This extension ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5172. In accordance with
Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of
one year following expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5172. Thus the moratorium shall expire
on December 28, 2013.
SECTION 8. Exemptions to Moratorium. The Council may adopt by separate
resolution specifying equitable considerations for exempting pending development projects for
which an application was submitted to the City prior to October 15, 2012.
SECTION 9. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Providing Exceptions
for Limited “Pipeline” Projects from Temporary Moratorium on the Use
of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section
18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in
Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and
has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports
produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in
complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their
employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted
in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development
in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development
existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when nonresidential
development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium
on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new
nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects
now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the
re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts)
and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirement) provide for a variety of exemptions and
reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the
calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a
floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Downtown
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
2
Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California
Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and
appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve
such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further
exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the
Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15, 2012, by a
four-fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. Ordinance
5167 expired on November 29, 2012; and
O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment on a
Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of parking
issues in the Downtown area; and
P. On November 19, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5172 which
extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 29, 2012;
and
Q. On December 10, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. XX which
extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 28, 2013 in
accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 2.04.270 and based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare.
R. There are two pending development projects currently under review that could
be affected by the moratorium:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, , including 19,960 square feet of office space with
two residential units above, which has been under discussion and review
for more than a year, has been reviewed twice by the Architectural
Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final review in January; and
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
3
b) 636 Waverley, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two
residential units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012,
and received Preliminary Architectural Review on November 15; and
S. Application of the Interim Ordinance to these projects could create an
appearance of inequity because the City’s past practice in most instances when enacting major
land use changes has been to exempt pipeline projects from such changes, regardless of
whether legally required to do so.
T. While the City recognizes it is not bound by past practice and while applicants do
not have a “vested right” to develop in conformance with existing zoning, the Council finds it
important to recognize that such a moratorium could work a financial hardship on applicants
who have submitted development plans to the City before the moratorium was enacted and
that the moratorium may project an undesired image to the business community that rules may
be changed mid-stream.
U. The Council desires in this instance to exempt pipeline projects in order to
preserve certainty for such pending developments, especially since downtown development
has been impacted by the national recession. The approval of exceptions would be consistent
with the intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by attaching
conditions expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully address
these concerns; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Interim Ordinance XX, extending Interim Ordinance 5162, shall not
apply to any pending Development Projects meeting all of the following criteria (“Exempt
Project”) and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant has submitted a discretionary development review application to
the City prior to October 15, 2012 (the date of the moratorium) and has not yet
received approval by the Director of Planning or the City Council.
2. The Exemption shall only apply to the development project set forth in, or in
substantial compliance with, the application pending as of October 14, 2012.
3. An Exemption shall expire if applicant fails (a) to receive approval by the Director
of Planning (subsequent to review by the Architectural Review Board) by June
30, 2013, or (b) to receive building permits from the City by December 31, 2013.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant for an Exempt Project must
pay an “equivalent” assessment, to be deposited in the City’s Downtown In-Lieu
Parking Fund, in the amount calculated as the pro-rata share of the exempt
parking spaces relative to the total Parking Assessment District spaces spread
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
4
across the principal and interest schedule from the inception through the life of
the current parking district bonds (see Exhibit A).
5. Not later than 30 days following approval of this Resolution, the applicant for an
Exempt Project must pay to the City a pro-rata share (based on the ratio of the
total exempt spaces between the two projects) of the estimated $150,000 cost
of the City’s proposed Downtown Parking “Cap” Study. This payment is not
refundable.
6. A condition of approval for any Exempt Project will require a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to be approved by the Director of
Planning prior to issuance of building permits and to be implemented
immediately upon occupancy, setting forth measures to achieve a minimum 20%
mode-split for other than single-occupancy vehicles, with annual monitoring and
financial penalties established for failure to attain the diversion objectives.
SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this resolution, or the
application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
the provisions of the Interim Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision
or application and, to this end, the provisions of the Interim Ordinance are hereby declared to
be severable from this Resolution.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
5
SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds that this project qualified for a
Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA guidelines (Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) and
procedures adopted by the City of Palo Alto, and therefore no further environmental
assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Not Yet Approved
121210 jb 0131023
6
Exhibit A
Exemptions from Parking Exemption Moratorium
Equivalent Assessment Requirements
135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
1. 135 Hamilton Avenue: $326,531
2. 636 Waverley Street: $122,784
Proposed Parking for
135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
135 Hamilton (4 stories) 636 Waverley (4 stories)
Parcel Size 9,910 sf 5,275 sf
Proposed Total FAR 28,146 sf (2.8) 10,550 sf (2:1)
Commercial FAR 19,960 sf 4,903 sf
Residential FAR 8,186 (2 units) 5,846 (2 units)
Parking
Existing 0* 5
Proposed 23 9
Required 84 25
Exemptions
1:1 Exemption (18.52.060(a)(2)&(c)) 40 15
TDR Exemption (18.18.080(g)) 20 N/A
200 SF Bonus (18.18.070(a)(1)) 1 1
*approximately 20-25 spaces exist on the vacant parcel and are leased for use by private businesses;
they are not supporting existing business on the site, however.
Spreadsheet for 135 Hamilton
135 Hamilton Pro‐Rated Share of Assessment District Principal and Interest
40 space share from original bond issue 326,531$
Data for Calculations:
District Spaces
Spaces in District (1)9,122
135 Hamilton spaces 40
Total District spaces 9,162
135 Hamilton Share 0.004366
Principal and interest payments for original issue and for refunding (in thousands)
Original Issue Original Issue Refunded Issues
Sept. 2002 Mar. 2012 Sept. 2012‐2030
2001 2002 2012 Total
Principal paid (cols. B+C) & outstanding (E)1,675 5,460 31,300 38,435
Interest 4,441 16,701 15,215 36,357
Total 6,116 22,161 46,515 74,792
Original Par Issues in 2001 and 2002
Assess. Dist. 2001 Series 9,135
Assess. Dist. 2002 Series 35,460
Total Par 44,595
Refunding in 2012
Refunded 2012 Par 31,300
Notes:
(1) From original Engineer's Report
(2) Principal cited on line 17 will obviously not match original issue. Between what has been paid and
the use of some reserves used to pay down principal in refunding, these numbers will not balance but
can be reconciled.
Spreadsheet for 636 Waverly
15 space share from original bond issue 122,784$
Data for Calculations:
District Spaces
Spaces in District (1)9,122
135 Hamilton spaces 15
Total District spaces 9,137
135 Hamilton Share 0.001642
Principal and interest payments for original issue and for refunding (in thousands)
Original Issue Original Issue Refunded Issues
Sept. 2002 Mar. 2012 Sept. 2012‐2030
2001 2002 2012 Total
Principal paid (cols. B+C) & outstanding (E)1,675 5,460 31,300 38,435
Interest 4,441 16,701 15,215 36,357
Total 6,116 22,161 46,515 74,792
Original Par Issues in 2001 and 2002
Assess. Dist. 2001 Series 9,135
Assess. Dist. 2002 Series 35,460
Total Par 44,595
Refunding in 2012
Refunded 2012 Par 31,300
Notes:
(1) From original Engineer's Report
(2) Principal cited on line 17 will obviously not match original issue. Between what has been paid and
the use of some reserves used to pay down principal in refunding, these numbers will not balance but
can be reconciled.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3291)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/19/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Moratorium Extension and Exceptions
Title: Public Hearing: Consider Extending through December 29, 2013 a
Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section
18.52.060(c) of of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and
California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Considerations for Making
Exceptions from the Moratorium for Proposed Projects at 135 Hamilton
Avenue and 636 Waverley Street
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) establishing
a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California
Avenue parking issues (Attachment A), for a period of thirty (30) days through
December 29, 2012; and
2. Direct staff to return prior to further extension of the ordinance with proposed language
related to potential exceptions for properties at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636
Waverley Street.
Background
On October 15, 2012, the Council adopted an interim “urgency” ordinance that provides for a
moratorium on the use of a parking exemption for Exempt Floor Area (up to a 1.0 FAR) on a
site. As further detailed in the October 15 staff report, this zoning provision has been used very
City of Palo Alto Page 2
infrequently in the past and its rationale no longer applies. Further, its application to properties
that have not paid into the assessment district is of some question. In accordance with State
law, the moratorium was adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, 8-0
(Councilmember Schmid was absent). Council also directed that staff return with
recommendations for criteria to identify appropriate exceptions for projects in the
development review “pipeline.” The ordinance became effective immediately. State law
requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at
which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an
additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a
maximum duration of two years.
The October 15 Council staff report is included as Attachment B, and provides substantially
more detailed background about the code and the basis for the moratorium.
Discussion
Attachment A provides for a further extension of the ordinance for another 30 days, rather
than the 10 months, 15 days allowed by State law. A noticed public hearing is required, and
approval by a 4/5 vote of the Council (8 members) is needed. Staff has not prepared an
“exception” proposal for “pipeline” projects for this meeting, since we are aware that a full
Council would not be in attendance. By coming back within 30 days (December 10 is proposed),
staff will then propose an exception provision that Council may consider and extension for an
additional one year period.
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would continue to suspend use of the “Exempt
Floor Area Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning
requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will
remain exempt from parking to the extent parking assessments have been paid for a site.
Interim Ordinance Process and Evaluation
State law allows for a city to extend the interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, subject to an
interim report that outlines steps that have been and are expected to be taken to alleviate the
parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. Staff
has attached the Parking Study Report presented to Council on November 13 (Attachment C) as
the background report detailing the proposed evaluation process. The outcome of the Parking
Study, particularly related to the Downtown Development Cap, will include recommendation of
zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and
Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as necessary or consider permanent
elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the moratorium.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Applicability to Pending Projects
As outlined in the October 15 report, cities may revise zoning requirements at any time and
new development must comply with those updated requirements. The major exception to this
rule is where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by
obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is
not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance
of obtaining a permit. Staff does not believe there are any pending projects that have acquired
a vested right to develop under the old requirements. That being said, Council has discretion to
exempt projects form complying with new zoning requirements if there is a rational and
equitable basis for the exemption.
Staff noted that there are two development projects currently under review:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year
and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and
b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application
on September 10, 2012.
Staff has engaged to some extent in discussions with the property owners for these projects,
and will continue to meet and then will return on December 10 with a proposal related to
exceptions for these “pipeline” projects, in conjunction with the second ordinance extension.
Given the need for 8 votes for any exception, staff believes it is important to have a full Council
present to discuss the scope of the exception.
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council.
Attachments:
A: Ordinance Extending Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF)
B: October 15, 2012 City Council Staff Report re: Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
C: November 13, 2012 Council Staff Report re: Update of Parking Program (continued
from 11/5/12) (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121113 jb 0131016
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance Extending Ordinance No. 5167 of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt
Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c)
[Parking Assessment Districts and Areas ‐ General] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L‐8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re‐evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re‐evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
Not Yet Approved
2
121113 jb 0131016
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parkin Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15,
2012, by a four‐fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858
and Ordinance 5167 will expire on November 29, 2012.
O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment
on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of
parking issues in the Downtown area.
P. The Council desires to extend Interim Ordinance 5167 in accordance with
the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth
in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage; and
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Written Report. The Report referenced in Recital O is hereby
deemed by the City Council to be the written report describing the measures taken to alleviate
the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167.
SECTION 3. Moratorium. The City Council hereby extends Interim Urgency
Ordinance No. 5167 establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking
Not Yet Approved
3
121113 jb 0131016
exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with
any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project
located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 4. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 5. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 7. Effective Period. This extension ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. In accordance with
Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of
thirty (30) days following expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. Thus the moratorium shall
expire on December 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in
Government Code Section 65858.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
4
121113 jb 0131016
SECTION 8. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3174)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/15/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Downtown Parking Exemption
Title: Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance to Place Temporary
Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption
Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown
and California Avenue Assessment Districts
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance)
establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue
parking issues (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the
downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more
accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking
exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to
both the Downtown and the California Avenue areas, is likely to immediately exacerbate
parking problems without seeming to provide for any public purpose. This provision (Section
18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from parking for any
property within the relevant assessment district, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the
Downtown area and up to 0.5:1 in the California Avenue area (see Attachment B.) This clause
was included in language adopted in the 1980s to encourage downtown development and as a
compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and establishment of parking assessments.
While the basis for those amendments is now outdated and downtown development is thriving,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking.
This is generally in addition to exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other
allowances pursuant to the code.
Staff recommends that the “Exempt Floor Area exemption” be suspended, at least for the
duration of staff’s study of downtown parking, to enable a more complete analysis of its effect
in combination with other parking measures. An interim “urgency” ordinance is attached that
would allow for such a moratorium on the use of this exemption. According to State law, the
moratorium may be adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, meaning at least
eight (8) Council members would need to agree to impose the change for a maximum of 45
days. The ordinance would become effectively immediately. State law requires that staff report
back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing
would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days.
State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years.
Background
The City of Palo Alto has studied parking limitations, particularly in Downtown, multiple times
since the 1980s, when the original assessments for the Downtown and California Avenue areas
were established, and Downtown was rezoned (downzoned) to more restrictive building
standards. Downtown parking was re-evaluated in the 1990s, leading up to the construction of
two new parking garages. Zoning requirements that limit downtown commercial development
also mandated that the staff prepare an annual report to monitor downtown development, the
use of transferable development rights (TDRs) and parking changes (the most recent report is
included as Attachment C).
Over the past year, staff has developed considerable data and initiated programs to evaluate
the status of parking in Downtown and in the California Avenue area, as well as to assess the
impact of overflow parking on nearby residential neighborhoods. On July 16, 2012, the City
Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts and directed staff to look at a variety
of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Staff is initiating studies of the
potential for adding parking facilities Downtown and in the California Avenue area, means to
more efficiently use available parking garages and lots, technology to enhance customer service
and the customer experience, and evaluation of the downtown development cap and related
zoning provisions.
Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will
include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios
and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however,
that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both Downtown and the California Avenue
area, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any
City of Palo Alto Page 3
public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow
exemption from off-street parking requirements for any property within the relevant
assessment district, associated with floor area up to a 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in Downtown
and up to 0.5:1-1.0:1 FAR in the California Avenue area. This clause appears to have been added
to the Zoning Code in the 1980s to encourage Downtown development and as a compromise
for then-recently enacted downzoning and the establishment of parking assessments. The
language is quite convoluted, resulting in varying interpretations by staff and applicants. The
City has not been able to locate complete documentation of the history of the exemption.
Property owners who never paid into the assessment district have argued that the Exempt
Floor Area exemption allows them to retroactively “buy into” the assessment district in order to
take advantage of the provision. The exemption has not, to staff’s knowledge, been requested
or implemented until recently, specifically:
In 2007, a one-story project at 135 Hamilton Avenue was exempted for approximately
7,700 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot (approximately 31 parking spaces),
providing no parking spaces on a site that had not ever paid into the assessment district
(note: the project was approved, but was not built and the permit has expired). The
applicant, however, was required and had agreed to pay into the assessment district to
qualify for the exemption.
In 2011, a subsequent application for the same site was submitted for a four-story
building, with 10,000 square feet (40 parking spaces) to be exempted from providing on-
site parking spaces or paying in-lieu fees, and another 5,000 square feet (20 parking
spaces) exempted through the use of TDRs. This project has received review by the
Architectural Review Board and is now under redesign. The applicant is again offering to
pay into the assessment district to qualify for this exemption. (Note: the applicant has
also recently provided a letter stating his intent to revise the application to
accommodate the prior one-story proposal).
In 2011, the applicants for the four-story Lytton Gateway project at 335 Alma Street
requested the 1:1 FAR exemption for the portion of the floor area that was located
within the Downtown assessment district, approximately 14,400 square feet (58
spaces). The project was considered as a Planned Community rezoning, however, and
the Council did not accept the exemption as a given, instead requiring additional parking
and contributions to the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund.
In September 2012, a Preliminary Architectural Review application was filed for a 4,903
square foot office development (with two residences above) at 636 Waverley Street,
requesting exemption for the 1:1 FAR equivalent, amounting to 14 spaces of the total 20
required for the office on-site, in addition to other exemptions allowing existing parking
deficiencies to be carried over to the new development.
Staff has spoken with owners of at least two other sites, for which the 1:1 FAR
exemption is being considered, but applications have not yet been submitted.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Given the current parking deficits in the City’s two assessment districts (downtown and
California Avenue) and the outdated rationale for applying this exemption, staff has been
discouraging recent applications since the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 335 Alma (Lytton
Gateway) projects from using this parking exemption. To staff’s knowledge, no project
applicant has requested use of the exemption for the California Avenue area.
Discussion
Staff believes that the basis for the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption”, i.e., encourage
development Downtown and compromise for the downzoning and parking assessment
requirements, is now outdated, as downtown does not require encouragement to develop, and
any equity issues have long been addressed. Nevertheless, the provision remains in place and
applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. There is also some ambiguity as to
whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the
exemption by paying into the district retroactively, and if so, how to calculate the payment.
Further, applicants are sometimes coupling this exemption with other parking exemptions due
to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. The result of
the continued use of this exemption would be to exacerbate parking deficiencies in the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment district areas.
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area
Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements,
including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will of course remain
exempt from parking to the extent assessments have been paid for the site. Staff believes it is
appropriate to apply the moratorium to both the Downtown and California Avenue areas, as it
will in both areas exacerbate parking deficiencies documented previously by staff. Staff
distinguishes this provision from others for review, particularly the transferable development
rights (TDRs) section, as in those cases other public purposes are readily identified (seismic and
historic rehabilitation), and significant investments (either rehabilitation or purchase of TDRs)
have been made pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Those provisions will, however, be
evaluated as part of the more comprehensive parking studies.
Interim Ordinance Process
State law allows for a city to enact an interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, upon a vote of
4/5 of the members of the Council, to protect the health, safety or welfare of the community
(the draft ordinance includes the relevant findings). No public hearing and no input from the
Planning and Transportation Commission is required prior to the enactment of the urgency
ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this provision of State law takes effect
City of Palo Alto Page 5
immediately and does not require second reading. The next steps, pursuant to State law, would
be to:
1. Return to Council not later than 45 days later for a public hearing with an interim report
with steps taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of
the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. At that time the Council will also be asked to extend
the Interim Ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (as allowed under
Government Code Section 65858) to allow staff to propose zoning changes; and
2. Recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by
the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as
necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration
of the 10-month, 15-day extension.
Applicability to Pending Projects
Cities may revise zoning requirements at any time, except where a property owner has
acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing
substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of
particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. While
the Interim Ordinance as written does not make exceptions for projects that have begun the
planning process but not completed it by securing final permits (“pipeline projects”), in the past
the City generally has excepted pipeline projects from new ordinance requirements. The City is
not legally required to make such exceptions, but the Council may make a policy decision to do
so. Two projects are currently under review:
a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year
and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and
b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application
on September 10, 2012.
Staff has discussed the application of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption for a couple of other
projects, but owners have not yet submitted applications for those projects. Council may
choose to either include or exempt one or both of the “pipeline” projects from application of
the moratorium. If the Council chooses to exclude one or both projects from the moratorium,
staff suggests that exclusion be conditional upon: a) preparation of a robust transportation
demand management (TDM) program for the project, and b) payment of the equivalent
“assessment” amount or increment to the In-Lieu Parking Fund (rather than to pay down the
bonds) to contribute to construction of additional parking spaces in the future (note: the
amount of the “assessment” should be the present value of a stream of assessments as would
originally have been applied over the life of the parking bonds). Staff will be prepared to
suggest language to implement these requirements should Council desire.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Policy Implications
Staff believes that the interim ordinance is necessary to assure parking availability for
businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance
is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and
requirements for Downtown.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the
status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes
will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and
Transportation Commission and Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Downtown Parking Exemption Urgency Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: Section 18.52.060 of Zoning Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment C: December, 2011 Downtown Monitoring Report to Council (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
121010 jb 0131000
Ordinance No. _______
Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking
Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment
Districts and Areas - General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New
Development in Assessment Districts
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in
development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown
monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and
B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has
resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for
their employees; and
C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also
resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their
neighborhoods; and
D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential
development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of
development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when
nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and
E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square
feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and
F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of
projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and
G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation
of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and
H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial
Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of
exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically
within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than
the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and
I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up
to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
2
121010 jb 0131000
Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the
California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and
J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s
and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to
parking assessment district members; and
K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to
achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and
L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will
further exacerbate Downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and
M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of
the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning
commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time; and
N. This interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of
Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based
on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings
and a 4/5 vote is required for passage.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated.
SECTION 2. Moratorium. The City Council hereby enacts this Interim Urgency
Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as
set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any
development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in
the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts.
SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider
and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to
eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency
Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency
Ordinance.
Not Yet Approved
3
121010 jb 0131000
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Effective Period. This urgency ordinance shall take full force and
effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption.
Thus the moratorium shall expire on November 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the
City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858.
SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General
(a) Definitions
(1) "Parking Assessment Areas"
"Parking assessment areas" means either:
The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the
map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of
University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city
clerk; or
The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city
delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled
Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December
16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk;
(2) "Exempt Floor Area"
Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that
floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor
area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0;
Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either:
(A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which
does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or
(B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district
rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code,
whichever is greater.
(b) In-lieu fees
Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by
the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street
parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such
district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided.
(c) Exempt Floor Area
(1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to
December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and
18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for
construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of
assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not
provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be
conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a
portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard
as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which
generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area.
(2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall
be provided in accordance with this chapter.
(3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and
nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking;
provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential,
or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area.
(4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has
undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor
area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting
the requirements of this chapter.
(Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424)
City Council Informational Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012
March 05, 2012 Page 1 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011
Subject: Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report for 2010-2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth
in the commercial downtown area (CD-C zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and
CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-January of 2012, there was a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within
the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 13,500 square feet of
space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An
additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated
before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
Background
Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was
established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require
reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district.
Staff regularly tracks vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting
from approved development to comply with Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine
the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code, until 2009, included an
exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate
exceeds 5%.
In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail
uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability
enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. A map of the districts subject to the
amendments was included in the 2009 City Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s
website. The ordinance amendment eliminated the provision for an exception process if the GF
vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring period.
March 05, 2012 Page 2 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Staff completed field visits for this 2010/2011 monitoring period in early January 2012.
Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also
compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report
also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD)zone from
January 1987 through August 31, 2011 and specific data on vacancy information and rental
rates through January 2012.
Discussion
Economic conditions in Palo Alto downtown area are improving gradually. There is currently a
4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall
vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2.1
percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the
2007-2008 period vacancy rate, just before the start of the economic downturn. In the 2010-
2011 monitoring period, the rental rates for retail varied from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot
based on the location, and the average office rental rate was between $4.50 and $7.00 per
square foot. Office rental rates have increased in the last year and a half and retail rental rates
have remained steady throughout the 2010-2011 monitoring period. The following table shows
the approximate total vacant area and percentage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006-2007
monitoring period.
TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto
Year
Total CD-C
Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C
Vacancy
Total CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacant
(SQFT)
% of CD-C (GF)
(P) Vacancy
2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94
2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21
2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99
2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91
2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8
Non-Residential Development Activity
The Downtown Study, approved in 1986, incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of
additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re-
evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 173,356 square feet of non-residential uses has been added (or approved)
in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2008-2010,
March 05, 2012 Page 3 of 7
(ID # 2424)
approximately 46,500 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few
major contributing projects such as: 317-323 University Avenue, 325 Lytton Avenue, 564
University Avenue, 310 University Avenue, 278 University Avenue, and 265 Lytton Avenue. In
this current cycle (2010-2011) approximately 13,499 square feet of net new commercial floor
area has been added. Though significant construction activities continue in the downtown CD-C
zone area, most of the construction includes redevelopment of existing sites since the existing
downtown is close to being built-out. In the current cycle there were approximately five sites
that were redeveloped but only one project, at 524 Hamilton Avenue, added significant square
footage.
Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential
development remains available for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000
square feet growth limit is reached.
Demonstrating Special Public Benefits
The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to
be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, ten projects in the
Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a
finding of public benefit. Five of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would
otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet. The total changes in square
footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment E. The remaining five
projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All
of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in lieu of providing parking.
Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions
The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects
that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these
upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524
Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona Street, have used close to 5,000 square feet of Transfer
Development Rights (TDR) square footage in this evaluation period. These projects are shown
in the fifth column of Attachment E.
Parking Inventory
At the time of the Downtown Study, performance measures were established that specify that
new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that
expected from development that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces.
In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures: one located on 528 High Street and the
other at 445 Bryant Street, adding a total of 899 parking spaces. These parking structure
projects, in addition to other projects that provide a parking component, decreased the original
1986 deficit to approximately 628 spaces. At the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City
determined that a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken
when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions (transfer of development rights
and FAR bonuses) reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand
resulting from exemptions is 323 parking spaces. Through various projects, the total cumulative
parking deficit has been significantly reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main
March 05, 2012 Page 4 of 7
(ID # 2424)
reasons for the reduction are: 1) the two-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage; 2)
significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division, resulting
in 96 additional spaces; and 3) the construction of the two previously mentioned parking
structures located on 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. Attachment F is a chart of the CD
(Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Staff notes, however, that the effects of the parking
deficit, particularly on adjacent neighborhoods, appear to have been exacerbated by the
increased employee density of office uses in the downtown.
Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in
the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. In October 2011,
there was approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C(GF)(P)
zoning district following the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009 to enhance
protection of retail uses in the heart (University Avenue and side streets) of the downtown
commercial district. Attachment C provides the list of parcels affected by adoption of the
ordinance. A map showing the location of these parcels is provided as Attachment D. The result
was an approximate net 75,660 square feet reduction in the total square footage of GF district.
During the staff survey of Downtown vacancies in first week of January 2012, there were seven
properties, totaling 26,290 square feet, which met the requirements for vacant and available
ground floor area.
TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in
CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District.
(As of January 4, 2012)
Address Vacant Square Feet
541 Bryant 2,556
248 Hamilton 3,000
174 University 2,300*
180 University 12,459
435 University 1,450
429-447 University 1,800
522 Waverley 2,725
Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290
March 05, 2012 Page 5 of 7
(ID # 2424)
*Vacant since last year
This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 4.8 percent, a reduction of 2.1 percent from
the vacancy rate of last year.
Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District
The entire Downtown Commercial (CD) area includes approximately 3,850,000 gross square
feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2
area. About 525,000 square feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and
not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is
approximately 3,325,000 square feet.
Staff conducted a field survey in early January 2012 and communicated with local real estate
agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring
cycle there was a total vacancy of 66,226 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent,
somewhat less than the 2.6 percent vacancy noted in last year’s monitoring report. The overall
CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 4
percent.
Table 3 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, research of real estate websites and
responses received from local downtown real estate agents.
TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD)
(As of January 4, 2012)
Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P)
District
Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet
635 Bryant CD-C (P)545
644 Emerson CD-C (P)2,238
418 Florence CD-C (P)2,515
155 Forest CD-S (P); CD-C (P)550
120-122 Hamilton CD-C (P)2,260
209 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)9,000
261 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)783
400 Hamilton CD-C (P)3,320
245 Lytton CD-C (P)13,433
March 05, 2012 Page 6 of 7
(ID # 2424)
550 Lytton CD-C (P)2,892
552 Waverley CD-C (GF)(P)2,400
Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936
CD –Commercial Downtown, (C) –Commercial, (S) –Service,
GF –Ground Floor Combining District, P -Pedestrian Overlay
Trends in Use Composition
The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle, a
reduction of approximately 12,860 square feet of religious/institutional use that was converted
to office use at the 661 Bryant Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning
regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as
office, retail, eating/drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower-
intensity commercial uses like manufacturing and warehousing has decreased (see Attachment
G).
Retail Rents
Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to
the data gathered from the January 2011 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering
properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space generally range from $2.75 to $4.00 per
square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and
taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from
University Avenue. Retail rental rates in the core downtown University Avenue sometimes
increase to highs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. For some vacant properties outside the
downtown core, rental rates have been listed as negotiable.
Office Rents
Based on the information gathered from the commercial real estate agents listing properties for
lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings
on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller
buildings further from University Avenue) range from $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot triple net,
compared to $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot triple net in last year’s monitoring report.
Timeline
This is an annual report.
Resource Impact
This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have
positive impacts on the City’s potential source of property and sales taxes.
Policy Implications
This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive
March 05, 2012 Page 7 of 7
(ID # 2424)
Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14,
1986.
Environmental Review
This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review.
Courtesy Copies
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Palo Alto
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Professorville Neighborhood
University Park Neighborhood Association
Attachments:
·Attachment A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF)
·Attachment B: Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District Map(PDF)
·Attachment C: List of Parcels Added and Removed From CD-C(GF) P District (PDF)
·Attachment D: Downtown Map Showing the Zone Changes (PDF)
·Attachment E: CD Non-Residential Change in SQFT 09/01/86 to 08/31/11 (PDF)
·Attachment F: CD Parking Deficit(PDF)
·Attachment G: CommercialDowntown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(PDF)
Prepared By:Chitra Moitra, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986)
The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study:
1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and
applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The
basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS
zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites
adjacent to residential zones.
2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was
existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches
235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating
special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions.
3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving
historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or
less.
4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non-
residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this
requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic
rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for
parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking.
5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total
parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and
that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions,
reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public
parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit.
6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the
major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses
other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.
7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and
commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations.
8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the
Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or
purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.
9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit
underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be
necessary.
10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking.
11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit
a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through
traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues.
12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for
Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways
which cross pedestrian walkways.
13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR
increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area.
14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of
minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.
COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP ATTACHMENT B
o
•
,
•
,
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF PARCELS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM CD-C (GF) P DISTRICT
The following properties were added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
200-228 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-008
230-238 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-009
240-248 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-010
412 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-106
420 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-025
430 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-026
The following properties were removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
115-119 University Avenue---APN 120-26-108
102-116 University Avenue---APN 120-26-039
124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043
125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138
525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093
529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110
535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091
135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111
440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014
437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020
443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019
DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES ATTACHMENT D
o
:~
o
.~
,
1
ATTACHMENT E
CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/11
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
520 Ramona Street A
CDCGFP
11/20/84
-
400
+400
220 University Avenue
CDCGFP
2/5/87
-
65
+65
151 Homer Avenue
CDSP
3/17/88
-
-
-9,750
314 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
5/5/88
-
-
-713
247-275 Alma Street
CDNP
8/4/88
-
-
+1,150
700 Emerson Street
CDSP
9/15/88
-
-
+4,000
431 Florence Street
CDCP
9/15/88
-
2,500
+2,500
156 University Avenue
CDCGFP
12/15/88
-
4,958
+4,958
401 Florence Street
CDCP
3/2/89
-
2,407
+2,407
619 Cowper Street
CDCP
5/6/89
-
-
+2,208
250 University Avenue
PC-3872
5/15/89
11,000B
300
+20,300
2
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in non-
Residential Floor
Area
550 University Avenue
CDCP
6/1/89
-
-
-371
529 Bryant Street
PC-3974
5/3/90
2,491C
2,491
+2,491
305 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
9/28/90
-
200
+200
550 Lytton AvenueDE
CDCP
10/22/90
-
-
+4,845
531 Cowper Street
PC-4052
5/21/91
9,000
475
+9,475
540 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/24/92
-
404
+404
530/534 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
4/15/93
-
432
+432
555 Waverley Street/425
Hamilton AvenueE
CDCP
9/21/93
-
-
+2,064
3
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
201 University Avenue
CDCGFP
11/18/93
-
2,450
+2,450
518 Bryant Street
CDCGFP
3/3/94
-
180
+180
245 Lytton Avenue
CDCP
7/21/94
-
-
-21,320
400 Emerson StreetEF
PC-4238
9/19/94 -
200
+4,715
443 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
1/5/95
-
26
+26
420 Emerson Street
CDCP
3/16/95
-
125
+125
340 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/6/95 - -
-402
281 University Avenue
CDCGFP
4/20/95 - -
-2,500
456 University Avenue
CDCGFP
5/18/95
-
7,486
+7,486
536 Ramona Street
CDCGFP
7/11/95
-
134
+134
725/753 Alma Street
PC-4283
7/17/95
- -
-1,038
4
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in
non/Residential
Floor Area
552 Emerson Street
CDCGFP
7/18/95
-
177
+177
483 University Avenue G
PC-4296
10/2/95
3,467C
2,789
+7,289
424 University Avenue
CDCGFP
9/21/95
-
2,803
+2,803
901/909 Alma Street E,F
PC-4389
8/1/96
-
-
+4,425
171 University Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
9/19/96
-
1,853
+1,853
401 High Street
CD-C(P)
10/3/96
-
350
+350
430 Kipling Street D,H
CD-C(P)
10/22/96
-
200
+1,412
460-476 University
Avenue
CD-C(GF)(P)
3/20/97
-
1,775
+1,775
400 Emerson Street D
PC-4238
3/21/97
-
-
+2,227
275 Alma Street
CD-N(P)
7/8/97
-
200
+3,207
390 Lytton Avenue
PC-4436
7/14/97
8,420C
689
+17,815
411 High Street H
CDCP
12/18/97
-
2,771 +2,771
5
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852
705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814
200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945
701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434
723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400
880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312
539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500
270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642
901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063
800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700
6
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799
335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249
382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194
102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515
310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481
317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290
564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475
278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137
265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151
340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360
524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345
7
Project Address Zoning Date Approved
Public Benefit
Bonus Non
Residential Square
Footage
Seismic, Historic, or
Minor Bonus
Square Footage
Net change in Non
Residential Floor
Area
630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437
668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940
661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0
Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931 173,356
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among
the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces
C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning
D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit
E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit
F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint
use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces
H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces
I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT F
CD PARKING DEFICIT 9/1/86 to 8/31/2011
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
1986 deficit
1,601
520 Ramona
StreetA
CDCGFP
+400
2
0
0
+2
1,603
220 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+65
0
0
0
0
1,603
151 Homer
Avenue
CDSP
-9,750
0
11
0
-50
1,553
314 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
-713
0
0
0
-3
1,550
247-275 Alma
Street
CDNP
+1,150
5
5
0
0
1,550
700 Emerson
Street
CDSP
+4,000
16
16
0
0
1,550
431 Florence St
CDCP
+2,500
10
0
10
+10
1,560
Page 2
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
156 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+4,958
20
0
20
+20
1,580
401 Florence
Street
CDCP
+2,407
10
0
10
+10
1,590
619 Cowper
Street
CDCP
+2,208
9
9
0
0
1,590
250 University
Avenue
PC-3872
+20,300
103
131B
0
-28
1,562
550 University
Avenue
CDCP -371
0
0
0
-1
1,561
529 Bryant
Street
PC-3974
+2,491
10
0
10
+10
1,571
520 Webster
StreetC
PC-3499
0
0
163
0
-163
1,408
305 Lytton Ave
CDCP
+200
1
0
1
+1
1,409
550 Lytton
Avenue
CDCP
+4,845
19
19
0
0
1,409
Page 3
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313
531 Cowper
Street
PC-4052
+9,475
38
0
2
+38
1,351
540 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+404
2
0
2
+2
1,353
530/534 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+432
2
0
2
+2
1,355
555 Waverley
Street/425
Hamilton
AvenueD
CDCP
+2,064
8
0
0
+8
1,363
201 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+2,450
10
0
10
+10
1,373
518 Bryant
Street
CDCGFP
+180
1
0
1
+1
1,374
245 Lytton Ave
CDCP
-21,320
90
149
0
-59
1,315
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+4,715
18
5
1
+14
1,329
Page 4
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
443 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329
420 Emerson
Street
CDCP
+125
1
0
1
+1
1,336
340 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-402
0
0
0
-2
1,334
281 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
-2,500
0
0
0
-10
1,324
456 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+7,486
30
0
30
+30
1,354
536 Ramona
Street CDCGFP
+134
1
0
1
+1
1,355
725-753 Alma
Street
PC-4283
-1,038
7
7
0
-11
1,344
552 Emerson
Street
CDCGFP
+177
1
0
1
+1
1,345
483 University
Avenue
PC-4296
+7,289
29
-2E
11
+31
1,376
Page 5
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
424 University
Avenue
CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387
901/909 Alma
StreetD
PC-4389
+4,425
18
18
0
0
1,387
171 University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,853
7
0
7
+7
1,394
401 High Street
CDCP
+350
1
0
1
+1
1,395
430 Kipling
Street
CDCP
+1,412
5
-4E
1
+10
1,405
460/476
University
Avenue
CDCGFP
+1,775
7
0
7
+7
1,412
400 Emerson
Street
PC-4238
+2,227
9
0
0
+9
1,421
275 Alma
StreetF
CDNP
+3,207
0
0
1
+1
1,422
390 Lytton
Avenue
PC-4436
+17,815
74
50
3
+27
1,449
Page 6
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
411 High Street
CDCP
+2,771
0
-4E
11
+15
1,464
530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475
705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486
200 Hamilton
Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527
550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527
528 High St PF 0 0 211 G 0 -211 1316
445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G 0 -688 628
437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 632
701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 633
723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 633
Page 7
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
880 / 884
Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 630
539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 640
270 University
Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 651
SUBTOTAL
86-02 106,930 672 1483 236 -578 651
901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 650
800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 587
164 Hamilton
Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 587
335 University
AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 587
Page 8
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
382 University
Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 588
102 University
Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 588
310 University
Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 618
317-323
University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 618
564 University
Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 628
325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 622
265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 676
278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 677
340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0 0 677
524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 700
Page 9
PROJECT
ADDRESS
ZONING
NET CHANGE
IN NON/
RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA
ADDED
PARKING
REQUIRED
NET
ADDED
PARKING
SPACES
PARKING
EXEMPTIONS
PER 18.52.060
OF PAMC
NET
DEFICIT
CHANGE
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DEFICIT
630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 702
668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 722
661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 722
TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323 649 722
A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project
is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986
B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit
C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage
D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared
parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space.
E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee
F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion
G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003
H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP
I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area.
Page 10
ATTACHMENT G
Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category
(Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet)
* The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on
a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000
square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to
update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare
directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report.
Use Category Area
(October
1986)
Area
(October
2011)
Area Change,
percentage
1. Offices 1,100,000 1,350,000 23%
2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00%
3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33%
4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00%
5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67%
6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86%
7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00%
8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67%
9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00%
11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%
12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00%
13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
14. Warehousing &
Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00%
16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00%
18. Single Family
Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00%
19. Vacant & Under
Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66%
20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0
21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33%
Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52%
ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct
residential uses, religious institutions,
vacant & for sale and vacant & under
construction.)
3,125,000 3,350,000
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3242)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/5/2012
Summary Title: Parking Program Update
Title: Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy
Strategies
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review this Parking Program Update and provide direction to
staff on the Parking Policy Strategies outlined, focused on parking supply options, technology
and residential improvements.
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2011, the City began extensively monitoring downtown parking utilization in
response to resident concerns that downtown parking structures were underutilized and on-
street parking was intruding into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Extensive parking data
collection efforts began immediately in both the Downtown and California Avenue Business
Districts so that parking utilization baselines and strategies could be developed for Council
consideration along with input from business and residential interests.
On July 16, 2012, the City Council discussed a range of proposed work efforts by staff, but
focused on potential residential permit parking program (RPPP) for the Professorville
neighborhood. The Council directed staff to not proceed with the RPPP at this time and instead
to focus on several other parking and zoning efforts. The Council asked for more specifics and
an update of the efforts prior to the end of the year.
This update provides a summary of parking strategies implemented-to-date within the
Background section and outlines policy strategies for enhanced parking supply, technology
solutions, and residential improvements in the Discussion section for consideration of the
Council. Staff will be making substantive progress on these items over the coming 3-6 months
subsequent to Council direction.
Background
The Council directed at the July 16, 2012 meeting that staff would not move forward with the
trial Residential Permit Parking program for Professorville at this time, but would proceed with
additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown, including but not limited to:
a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and costs;
b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant parking and
adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces;
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space identification systems,
and parking permit processing improvements, etc.;
d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential
space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and
how to treat non-conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluation of paid parking options.
Amendments to the main motion further directed that staff should evaluate:
a. Parking exemptions;
b. A Transportation Demand Management Program for downtown;
c. Underutilized private parking garages;
d. Funding options for new public parking garage sites;
e. Zoning disincentives to having two car garages;
f. Selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage; and
g. The use of the $250,000 from the Lytton Gateway Project earmarked for neighborhood
parking preservation.
Council asked that Staff to return to Council in three months with check in and return with an
update before the end of the year. The Council’s July 16 Action Minutes are included as
Attachment D and the full minutes are included as Attachment E.
The remainder of this Background section recounts efforts to date and the Discussion section
outlines the programmatic effort to address parking in the next 3-6 months.
Parking Assessment Districts
Both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts include parking assessment
districts that provide parking for the respective areas. The parking assessment districts include
fees paid by property owners/merchants to help repay city bonds issued to cover the cost of
parking garage construction and permit fees that are used to cover the operations and
maintenance costs of the parking programs including staff costs for the distribution of permits
and parking enforcement. In the downtown, fees from parking permits also help to pay for
police enforcement. Table 1 provides the current fee structure program for the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts – Parking Assessment Programs. The table also provides a
brief comparison of parking permit fees to those from Redwood City, San Jose, and San
Francisco for Council reference.
Table 1
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts
Parking Assessment Fee Program
Parking Fee
Palo Alto Local Agency Comparisons
Downtown
District
California Ave
District Redwood City San Jose San Francisco
Assessment
Fee $1.11/SQ FT * - - -
Permit
(Monthly) $45.00 $14.33 $30 to $60 $100 $215 to $395
Permit
(Annual) $420.00 $123.00 $330 to $660 $1,200 $2,580 to
$4,740
Day Permit $16.00 $7.00 None None None
* Cal Av Assessment Fee varies by Parcel.
Local employees working within the Districts are allowed to purchase parking permits to park in
garages or on surface lots pending permit availability. Employees working outside of the
assessment districts, however, are not allowed to purchase parking permits, but can purchase
Day Passes to park within the facilities.
When the two assessment districts were formed, the assessment districts allowed the City to
issue bonds for the construction of parking structures and provided a guaranteed revenue
mechanism through the assessment fee to pay the bonds back. Assessment districts are not
common for jurisdictions, as many more typically opt to fund parking garage construction on
their own and then recover the cost of construction strictly through monthly permit sales.
Parking Permits
In 2011 the City began evaluating changes in the parking permit distribution process in order to
better allocate permits to employees within the districts, to fill up underutilized parking garage
space, and to reduce parking intrusion to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following
parking permit program changes were implemented:
Establish Monthly Parking Permits Distribution Thresholds
Permits were previously distributed on a quarterly basis based on parking occupancy
counts counted by the City’s parking enforcement unit. The amount of permits available
at each lot varied per quarter depending on the results of the parking occupancy counts.
Using historical data, the City established a maximum number of permits that should be
released at any given time and the City continues to monitor parking occupancy to
determine whether the threshold should be increased or decreased. The maximum
number of permits released at any given time and the percentage of permits over
supply by parking facility is provided in Table 2. Permit sales in the Downtown were up
9% in 2011 compared to 2010 and up 13% in 2012-to-date compared to 2010. In the
California Avenue Business District permit sales have remained consistent with prior
years.
Permit Wait List Management
Previously, anyone wishing to obtain a permit within a district could sign up for as many
sites as they wanted in efforts to obtain a permit as quickly as possible. This resulted in
unusually high wait list numbers at each facility or district in the case of the California
Avenue Business District where a parking permit allows a permit holder to park at any
parking garage or surface lot. The City now only allows a person getting on the wait list
for a parking permit to do so once, and for only one site. In addition, the City charges a
$10.00 fee to get onto a wait list, which is credited towards the ultimate first purchase
of a parking permit. The number of persons waiting for a parking permit within the two
assessment districts is provided in Table 3; the changes in permit wait list management
are beginning to have a positive impact with shorter wait lists now than in previous
years.
California Avenue District – Permit Distribution
Previously, because there was no limit on the number of permits or types of permits
that a person could obtain within a district, it was not uncommon for someone in the
California Avenue District to be on the wait list multiple times. Signing up on the wait
list multiple times was a common practice of start-up owners trying to get permits for
future employees.
With the policy change to only distribute one permit per person, people who are on the
wait list multiple times are contacted for permit availability, but only allowed for one
permit to be registered to them. For the additional permits that the person may have
been waiting for, the permits are allowed to be distributed to members of the same
company but the permits are registered to the other individuals directly. This practice
does allow for “hopping” of the wait list but there were only a few individuals who were
on the wait list multiple times and staff anticipates that this condition will be phased out
over the next six months.
Unlike Downtown, previously distributed permits in the California Avenue Business
District did not require permit holder validation at the time of renewal. People leaving
the district simply passed their permits to other people, thereby delaying permit
availability for people legitimately on the wait list. This resulted in unusually long permit
wait times, sometimes in excess of one year. The City now requires a person renewing a
parking permit to prove that they are a valid permit holder to whom the permit was
originally distributed. If the person cannot show proof that they are the original permit
holder, they are only being allowed a one-time renewal warning and then are required
to get on the wait list as the permit will be cancelled at the end of the permit term.
Online Permit Management System
In the spring of 2012 the City awarded a contract to Progressive Solutions to develop
and implement an online permit management system for the City. Using the maximum
permit thresholds established by the City, the City can now release permits weekly
(instead of quarterly) as they become available. The system also allows for monthly
permit renewal versus the traditionally available quarterly or annual renewal options;
the monthly permits costs shown in Table 1 reflect the current quarterly fee divided by
three. Implementation of the system was delayed through the fall while the online wait
list form was being developed. The City also just finalized hosting details for the system
server. The wait list module is scheduled to be completed in October and the system
should be launched in November. Persons are still required to return to City Hall to
obtain their first permit and to validate proof of employment within their business
district; the requirement to return to Revenue Collections may eventually be phased out
and permits distributed by mail as additional technology enhancements are made.
Table 2
Parking Permit Distribution Thresholds
Lot Name # Hourly
Spaces
# Permit
Spaces
Total #
Spaces
Max #
Permits
% Permits
to Supply
Downtown - Parking Garages
Q Alma/High (North) - 134 134 205 153%
R Alma/High (South) 77 134 211 200 149%
S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 575 187%
WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 630 162%
CC City Hall 187 519 706 820 158%
B Ramona/University 63 - 63 - -
800 High Street 10 53 63 85 160%
Downtown – Surface Parking Lots
O Emerson/High 78 - 78 - -
A Emerson/Lytton 68 - 68 - -
C Ramona/Lytton 50 - 50 - -
F Florence/Lytton 46 - 46 - -
H Cowper/Waverly 90 - 90 - -
D Hamilton/Waverly 86 - 86 -
E/G Gilman St - 87 87 130 149%
P High/Hamilton 51 - 51 - -
KT Lytton/Kipling-Waverly 40 67 107 96 143%
N Emerson/Ramona 48 - 48 - -
X Sheridan Hotel - 36 36 55 153%
California Avenue Business District
California Avenue* 915 30 945 710 75%
* Parking permits valid for any garage or lot.
Table 3
Parking Permit Wait List as of October 18, 2012
Lot Wait List Lot Wait List
CC 99 R 93
CW 152** S 70
EG 41 X 11
KT 4
Q 27 CAL AVE 333
** Permit distribution temporarily suspended due to active construction at lot.
Day Permits
The Bryant Street (Lot S/L) and Cowper/Webster (Lot C/W) garages have permit machines that
allow drivers to purchase daylong parking permits. Use of the machines has been extremely
successful with each unit averaging $8,000 in sales per month each. Each of the downtown
parking garages offer three (3) hours of free hourly parking, but requires rigorous enforcement
to identify and cite violators.
Day Permits may also be purchased at Revenue Collections in City Hall at a cost of $16.00 per
day for Downtown and $7.00 per day for California Avenue. The City has also switched to
“scratcher” day permits in 2012 in both districts to curb violators who were photocopying the
previous paper permit formats.
Parking Way-Finding Signage
The City deployed 49 parking banners throughout the Downtown in January 2012 to help better
guide motorists to surface parking lots and garages. The banners were reviewed and approved
by the Architectural Review Board prior to implementation. The City also fabricated signs that
matched the banners. However, the signs were ineffective due to the architectural color tones
used and sign implementation stopped. There are 125 existing guide signs to parking facilities
throughout the Downtown and 40 around the California Avenue Business District.
The same parking banners used in Downtown will be presented later this fall to the California
Avenue merchants as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project
for input so that deployment in that district can occur before next Spring; the City estimates 40
up to 20 banners can be deployed around the existing California Avenue area parking structures
and surface lots. The City is continuing its research on effective parking guide signs as discussed
further in this report.
Neighborhood Parking Preservation
Staff spent the first half of the year trying to develop draft policies and pilot projects for a
Professorville Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. The general community consensus on
a Professorville RPP pilot program showed that such a program was not supported by the
broader neighborhood and Council directed that staff should focus on identifying a range of
parking solutions within the Downtown core area and to identify appropriate technologies and
strategies to advance as part of a comprehensive parking program for the City.
The remainder of this report focuses on proposed parking strategies and policies for Council
consideration to help improve the efficiency of parking operations and conditions in residential
neighborhoods as a comprehensive parking program is further developed and implemented.
The recommendations in the Discussion section are priotized in a time line provided in
Attachment A.
Discussion
The modifications to the City’s permit management program are showing a positive change in
the City’s ability to more quickly distribute permits. The impact has been more profound in the
Downtown Business District where permits are managed by lot, rather than the California
Avenue Business District, where permits can be used at any surface lot or garage and where
changes in permit distribution will have a gradual effect over the next year. Permit
management has also been the focus of the City’s efforts to get vehicle users to obtain and use
permits. Permit management will be ongoing for efficiency purposes but new strategies beyond
permit management are now required to enhance the parking program in both districts. It
should be noted that in the Downtown District, the Cowper-Webster Garage (Lot C/W) is
currently undergoing facade improvements that have resulted in the temporary loss of permit
parking through the construction period. Persons with permits for the Cowper-Webster Garage
are being temporarily allowed to park at the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S), further slowing down
permit distribution at that garage as well. Construction at the Cowper-Webster Garage should
be complete before the start of the Holiday shopping season.
Several other key efforts are underway to enhance parking supply, more efficiently use
available supply, reduce parking demand, and address the impacts of new development.
Downtown Parking Garage and Attendant Parking Study
The City completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation in October and will be awarding a
contract this fall to complete a feasibility study for an additional parking structure(s) in the
Downtown. The study will focus on five surface parking lot sites including:
Lot D Hamilton Avenue & Waverley Street
Lot EG Gilman Street
Lot P High Street between University Avenue & Hamilton Avenue
Lot O High Street between University Avenue & Lytton Avenue
Caltrain Lot Urban Lane between University Avenue and PAMF
For each of the sites the feasibility study will identify potential Parking Garage Footprints,
Parking Space Counts, 3D Modeling of Parking Structure Massing, Constructability Factors, and
Engineer’s Estimates. Staff will also evaluate potential funding options in its report-out to
Council.
The Constructability Factors will include elements to determine which sites provide the best
value for parking versus construction constraints, such as: parking space count; private property
impacts (during and post-construction); construction staging impacts; number of
driveway/pedestrian access points for convenience measure; cost; adjacent land uses to
determine whether a preferred long-term land use opportunity would be lost if garage
construction were pursued; and utility relocation impacts.
The study will also include an Attendant Parking Study to determine whether the deployment
of a parking attendant program may be a viable option to temporarily or permanently
supplement the City’s parking permit program needs. The Attendant Parking Study will
determine the number of additional parking spaces that can be gained at each of the existing
parking garages in Downtown and provide program outlines to implement them on a trial basis
including key-return stations. Two options for attendant programs are typically used: a) where
a motorists parks the vehicle themselves, guided by an attendant, and the keys are then
handed over to the attendant in case the vehicles needs to be moved; or b) a motorists leaves
the vehicle with the attendant who then parks the vehicle. In other cases, a motorist may be
issued a valet card to confirm car release later and the vehicles are typically parked behind
other parked cars. The study will also focus on likely hours of operation to maximize benefit
and minimize cost.
The Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association – Parking Committee,
which is responsible for helping the City provide oversight on the Downtown Parking
Assessment District, has indicated a preference towards immediately implementing an
attendant pilot project, focused on permit parking. Staff believes such a trial for permit spaces
should proceed, however, only after the work on the Cowper-Webster garage is complete and
all spaces are then available, and probably after the Holiday season, to avoid any confusion for
shoppers. Funding for the trial would come from the Downtown Permit Fee program.
The study will take up to 6 months to complete and the results presented to the City Council in
the spring. The study is funded substantially by a community benefit contribution from the
Lytton Gateway Project, which provided $60,000 to complete the study. The study will cost
$100,000 and the gap is being funded by the City through the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), PL-12000 (Transportation & Parking Improvements).
The results of the study will be used to determine whether the City should pursue construction
of a new parking structure using its own local funding, enterprise funding to build a parking
structure in conjunction with additional office facilities, or to pursue a private partnership with
land developers to help build a parking facility. The City currently has approximately $2.6
million in the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee program (once the building permit is issued for
Lytton Gateway, expected prior to the end of the year).
During the July 2012 discussion on parking the Council expressed interest in also pursuing
opportunities to make available private structure parking for public parking. Staff surveyed the
existing private lots around downtown and found them either fully parked or inaccessible due
to security procedures.
Recommendation No. 1: Direct staff to implement a trial Parking Attendant Valet Parking
Program for permit parking in at least one garage, beginning
shortly after the first of the year in 2013. The study should
monitor operations, estimate costs, and identify
benefits/challenges with implementation.
Downtown Cap Study
Staff is currently developing a Request for Proposals to study the land use types, densities, and
recent and projected development around the Downtown to determine future land use and
parking needs/strategies to support land use changes. The study is a requirement of the City’s
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan, which establishes a Downtown Cap of 350,000 square foot net
increase since the adoption of the 1986 Downtown Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires a re-
evaluation of the cap when a 235,000 square foot “study threshold” is met. That threshold is
nearly met with the approval of the Lytton Gateway project approved earlier this year and will
be exceeded if the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley projects are approved. While the 27
University project is not within the bounds of the Downtown zone prescribed in the 1986 study,
staff will be reviewing ways to appropriately consider it in the Downtown study and specific
impacts would be considered in that project’s Environmental Impact Report .
Staff expects that the Downtown Cap Study will cost approximately $100,000-$150,000 and will
take approximately 6 months to complete. The budget does not currently include funding for
the study, but staff proposes that at least some of the funding come from the Lytton Gateway
“Neighborhood Parking Preservation” benefit (of a total $250,000) and perhaps be
supplemented by other development project contributions.
Recommendation No. 2: Direct staff to pursue the RFP for the Downtown Cap study, and
report back to Council in six months regarding results and
recommendations.
Zoning/Parking Revisions and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Staff will, simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study, review a variety of zoning provisions
related to parking, particularly in Downtown. Staff has recently proposed and Council has
enacted a moratorium on one such zoning provision that exempted up to 1.0 floor-area ratio
from parking requirements for certain properties. Staff expects to also evaluate:
a. Other exemptions from parking requirements, including but not limited to transfer of
development rights (TDR);
b. Parking reductions for transit proximity, mixed use, transportation demand
management (TDM) measures, and for affordable and senior housing;
c. Appropriate ratios of parking, particularly for office development, more reflective of
recent employee densities, and possible parking incentives for retail over office uses;
d. How conversions of existing uses to more intense office uses are treated/managed in
the zoning requirements; and
e. The relationship between required/covered parking and floor area, particularly for
homes (e.g., to avoid discouraging garages, though respective of historic issues where
applicable)
Planning and Transportation staff also will work with on-call transportation consultants to
initiate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the City and its employees
to demonstrate exemplary means of reducing work and non-work trips. This effort will be a
precursor to facilitating a downtown-wide TDM program, coordinated with the Palo Alto
Downtown and area businesses to take advantage of programs that can benefit the Downtown
as a whole.
Recommendation No. 3: Direct staff to develop zoning ordinance revisions to address
parking impacts from development, including: a) parking ratios, b)
parking exemptions, c) requirements for both TDM programs for
new development; and to work with the Downtown businesses to
develop a coordinated downtown area TDM effort.
Technology Enhancement: Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
The City’s new Permit Management System will allow the City to more easily distribute permits
but when used in combination with garage parking access controls (gates) the City will also be
able to track parking permit usage to further manage the permit program. For example, the City
currently does not have any data that shows how regularly people use their parking permits.
Later this fiscal year, the City will release its first ever transportation survey that aims to
measure transportation mode use by region of the City. The high percentage of permits sold
over supply (Table 2) shows that within the Downtown, people are likely regularly using
another form of transportation to get to work such as Caltrain or are choosing to park
elsewhere when it’s more convenient, even though they have a permit.
Garage Parking Access control is another step the City can take in the long-term management
of its parking infrastructure by helping to reduce operations costs for enforcement. The access
controls regulate entry and exit from a garage and allow visitors to continue to enjoy the
current three hours of free parking to support downtown business activities, but include
Revenue Control equipment that allow visitors to stay parked beyond the free 3-hour period at
a fee up to the $16.00 day permit fee.
Staff has a prepared a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) so that cost estimates can be
determined and to “bring the best of the technology” to the city for review with participation
from the Downtown Parking Committee. The Draft RFP proposes conversion of the Bryant
Street Garage (Lot S/L) to gate control with revenue collection elements but identifies the Alma
Street/High Street Garage (Lot R) as an alternative site for inclusion depending on bid results.
The City estimates the cost of installing Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
at each garage at approximately $250,000. The RFP proposes unique technology development
through the use of QR Codes in combination with apps for processing of payments as a
convenience alternative to motorists. The same technology would allow businesses to establish
convenient validation alternatives for visitors, patron and employee parking needs. The RFP
was shared with the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee during its September and
October 2012 meetings. Concerns have been expressed about the controls being the first step
to imposing “paid” parking on downtown, but staff believes that this technology actually
provides flexibility for a wider range of parking options, with no increase in parking costs for
those visitors staying less than 3 hours. Revenue realized from the metering beyond the free 3-
hour period could be partially dedicated towards the Parking In-Lieu Fee program to help fund
construction of future parking facilities, consistent with the setup of typical assessment district
programs. Funding for a trial garage parking access and revenue control equipment project is
available within the existing CIP but, if interested, funding through the current Parking
Assessment or Parking In-Lieu fee program are viable alternatives.
Recommendation No. 4: Direct staff to release an RFP for Garage Parking Access and
Revenue Control Equipment for near-term deployment, and to
involve the Downtown Parking Committee in the operations and
design process.
Technology Enhancement: Parking Occupancy Tracking and Dynamic Way-Finding
Directing motorists immediately to available parking helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
enhances the customer experience in the downtown, improves the economic vitality of the
downtown, and improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The City currently does not have
any mechanism in place to monitor parking occupancy “real-time,” so deployment of dynamic
way-finding with accurate information is not feasible, nor is pushing parking availability
information online feasible either.
The City has outreached to three vendors over the past year to help develop new technology to
monitor parking occupancy and tabulate information that can be made available to the public
online, through apps, and to Parking Guidance Systems that offer dynamic way-finding
technology. Unfortunately, no viable option has yet been identified. The City was approached
by Streetline Networks in partnership with Cisco Systems over the summer to deploy their
technology to monitor and push parking occupancy information online but that was not
desirable due to the high on-going annual operations cost. The Streetline Networks/Cisco
System solution included one free year of service and included maintenance of field equipment,
but the solution though would cost the City over $350,000 per year. Solutions such as that of
Streetline Networks only make sense at locations where metering is utilized to offset the cost of
the technology, as is the case in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Staff is not
recommending metering on-street parking spaces at this time, but does want to identify
parking monitoring solutions that can be City-owned solutions versus leased to reduce long-
term operations costs. Effective monitoring of parking occupancy also introduces the ability to
consider congestion-pricing parking on-street if the Council wants to consider that type of
technology in the future. Being immediately adjacent to the second largest Caltrain Station
along the Peninsula supports that type of activity by making alternative modes of
transportation more attractive to people over driving.
The City will continue to try and outreach to technology firms to develop new market solutions
for the City. The Gate Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment would allow for dynamic
way-finding to be deployed, highlighting parking availability at parking structures. Alternative
solutions may include establishing detection technology only now, that may be used later by
future Garage Parking Access technology, to estimate garage occupancy.
In the meantime, the City will continue its seasonal parking occupancy data collection of the
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts, that includes counting each vehicle parking
space on-street and within each parking facility by time-of-day to track changes in parking
patterns. The City collected parking occupancy data in the Spring/Fall/Winter 2011 and is
scheduled to collect data gain in early November. Data collection includes monitoring parking
occupancy between 12AM-2AM, 8AM-10AM, 12PM-2PM, and 7PM to 9PM on a weekday and
12PM-2PM on a Saturday.
Recommendation No. 5: Direct staff to continue research of technology-based parking
solutions to monitor parking occupancy.
Electric Vehicle Parking
The City currently has 7 electric vehicle charging stations available in the Downtown at the Civic
Center Parking Garage (Lot CC – Level A, 3 chargers), Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L – Level 2, 3
chargers), and the Alma/High North (Lot R – Level 2, 1 charger). The charging stations are
extremely popular and realize regular occupancy usage throughout a typical week.
There are no charging stations available in the California Avenue Business District. The City has
considered the development of a Request for Proposals for the development of a privately-
owned network of electric vehicle charging stations network. The Stanford Shopping Center
currently has 3 charging stations including Northern California’s only Rapid Charging (Level 3)
Charger. The Stanford Shopping Center chargers are privately owned and require a fee-per-use
to charge. Development of a private network of chargers in Palo Alto would operate under the
same model and convert the existing charging stations into the private network to avoid
competition with the private network given the high cost to install the network.
To meet the immediate demand for electric vehicle charging in the City, staff recommends
conversion of at least five (5) parking spaces in the California Avenue Business District to
electric vehicle charging spaces and an additional six (6) parking spaces in the Downtown. Staff
recommends additional Level 2 Chargers similar to those currently deployed that can charge a
vehicle in as fast as 2 hours. The Downtown Library, which was renovated last year, includes
infrastructure for providing electric vehicle charging stations in its parking lot; this could be a
location for some of the additional Downtown spaces.
The City has 6 electric charging stations included as part of development conditions of approval
for the 101 Lytton Gateway Project (4 chargers) and the Edgewood Plaza (2 Chargers) shopping
center. These stations will not be available until next year when construction at each site is
complete.
Recommendation No. 6: Direct staff to pursue the installation of 6 additional electric
vehicle charging stations in Downtown and up to 5 electric vehicle
charging stations around California Avenue.
Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Share Programs
The City has approximately 150 bicycle racks (250 bicycle capacity) in the Downtown. This
includes 6 recently deployed bicycle corrals deployed around Downtown which offer up to ten
bicycle parking spaces in lieu of one on-street parking space. Downtown has an additional
three bicycle corrals planned for installation this calendar year as part of the New Apple Store
construction at University Avenue & Florence Street (2 bicycle corrals) and one at Lyfe Kitchen,
which requested installation by the City this fall. The City offers free installation of bicycle
corrals upon submittal of an application (Attachment B) and investigation by the City, including
outreach to adjacent businesses to validate support for installation of the facility.
In the California Avenue Business District, the City has 24 existing bicycle racks (77 bicycle
capacity). The City has a dozen additional bicycle parking facilities identified for the California
Avenue Business District for a future bicycle parking capacity of up to 130 bicycles as part of the
active California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape project including 6 bicycle corrals.
Business owners may request free installation of bicycle racks within the public right-of-way
following an engineering investigation by staff. Where installation of bicycle racks within the
public right-of-way is not feasible for convenient, the City offers free bicycle racks to business
and property owners for their installation on their private property; persons interested in free
bicycle racks may simply contact the city via email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Share Program will be providing 100 bicycle
share bicycles to Palo Alto as part of its partnership program with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) to deploy a program along the Peninsula. The program was
delayed due to technology development but should return to the City with a deployment
schedule by the end of the year. The sites reviewed by the Architectural Review Board include:
University Avenue & Emerson Street (adjacent to Lytton Plaza in an on-street Parklet), King
Plaza at City Hall, University Avenue & Cowper Street, the University Avenue Caltrain Station,
and the California Avenue/Park Boulevard Park Plaza. Additional facilities will be provided
around the Stanford Campus as part of the program. As part of the bicycle share investigation,
staff identified dozens of additional potential bicycle share sites including the Stanford
Research Park, libraries and community centers, senior facilities, and Midtown but during this
initial deployment both MTC and the VTA request to keep the deployment focused along the
Caltrian stations. As bicycle share deployment continues, staff will outreach to existing
business parks to solicit and encourage participation in the program.
Recommendation No. 7: Direct staff to pursue additional bicycle parking stations around
both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts.
Residential Parking Policies
During the discussion of the Professorville trial Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in July,
the Council requested that staff consider options to allow designated on-street parking spaces
for historic homes within the Professorville neighborhood that do not have on-site parking
(driveways and/or garages), since consideration for RPP programs is being deferred until a
broader parking program is put in place. In response to the Council request, staff has developed
two policy approaches focused more collectively to the entire neighborhood concerns:
1) On-Street “Disabled Accessible” Parking Spaces
The City does not currently have a policy to allow for the installation of on-street
parking spaces for the disabled within residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends
Council consider a policy allowing for residents to apply the consideration of on-street
accessible parking spaces in front of their homes for convenience and quality of life
benefits.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will return with a draft policy and
application for the Council’s review to define the criteria and investigation that staff
would be required to complete to ensure consistent distribution of accessible parking
spaces. The policy would address factors including costs of installation and maintenance
of the accessible parking, proof of “accessibility” need, and compliance and
misuse/removal procedures if abused. The accessible spaces would not be designated
spaces for the applicant but by providing the space immediately in front of one’s
residence increases the likelihood of having the space available for use by the resident.
As an accessible space, however, the parking could be used by any motorist displaying a
valid accessible placard issued by the State of California.
2) Neighborhood Short-Term and Commercial Loading Zones
One of the frequent concerns from residents adjacent to business districts includes the
lack of parking for service vehicles such as landscapers, plumbers, etc., who are trying to
provide basic services to residents but cannot do so at times depending on parking
availability. Professorville residents who do not have any on-site parking facilities feel an
even greater impact.
Staff recommends consideration of the deployment of Neighborhood Short-Term and
Commercial Loading Zone spaces around the Professorville and Downtown North
neighborhoods, at least one per block and spaced a maximum of 500-FT apart to allow
for parking availability to accommodate basic service vehicles and short-term parking
needs. The spaces can be either a short-term parking restriction (30-minutes) or
commercial/service vehicle use (2-hours) to support residents. This solution provides an
equitable solution for all residents regardless of whether the homes are historic or not.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will provide outreach to neighborhood
groups to identify the appropriate on-street parking spaces to support these activities
and then will return to the Council following input from the Planning & Transportation
Commission for implementation of a demonstration project in the Spring.
3) On-Street Parking Spaces in the Professorville Area
During the July 2012 parking discussion, the Council requested that staff consider
options to help alleviate parking impacts to homes around the Professorville area
without garages, driveways, or other on-site parking. Staff has identified eleven homes
around that Professorville area without on-site parking (see Attachment C), additional
sites may exist.
The proposed Neighborhood Short-Term/Commercial Loading Zone spaces would offer
solutions equitably to the community, but may not be enough for residents of these
particular homes. If the Council is supportive of such a solution staff will initiate
outreach with affected residents and return with a policy for adoption. Staff expects
that any related implementation would be on a trial basis.
Recommendation No. 8: Direct staff to return to the City Council for consideration of an
On-Street Accessible Parking Space Policy.
Recommendation No. 9: Direct staff to initiate outreach to residents in Professorville and
Downtown North to develop short-term parking space strategies.
Recommendation No. 10: Discuss and provide direction for On-Street Parking Permits for
homes in the Professorville area without parking or driveways.
Parking Permit Management
Regular parking permit management and recent enhancements have proven effective to date
to more quickly get permits to vehicle users and should be continued. Permit management has
benefited the Downtown Business District more quickly than the California Avenue Business
District due to the permits being designated to individual facilities. The California Avenue
Business District has two parking garages, each of which realize high occupancy during peak
noon periods on top floors, but much lesser use at other times. The availability of new parking
permits in the California Avenue Business District that can be used only at top floors of each
garage may be helpful in more quickly distributing permits to motorists and help to fill
underutilized portions of the garages and allow for premium first floor parking to be retained
for visitors until after the noon peak hour.
Recommendation No. 11: Direct staff to begin discussions with California Avenue merchants
focused around the development of new parking permit
strategies.
Timeline
This report recommends several project and policy considerations for the Council focused
around further developing parking strategies to develop a comprehensive Parking Program for
the City. Staff will return to the Council within three months with a more defined schedule for
the implementation of solutions the Council identifies as appropriate for further consideration
or immediate implementation.
Resource Impact
Two new contracts are being pursued as part of the Parking Program, including a $100,000
contract for a Downtown Parking Garage and Attedant Valet Study and $100,000-$150,000 for
the Downtown Cap/TDM Study. Each contract will be submitted separately to Council for
approval, along with any necessary Budget Amendment Ordinances. This staff report includes
recommendations for helping to develop a Parking Program Master Plan. After Council
provides feedback on which recommendations to pursue, staff will return to the Council within
3 months with a more refined cost program.
Environmental Review
This report requests direction from Council on parking strategies that it would like staff to
pursue, but at this time no specific projects affecting the environment ar being approved. Each
project within the Parking Program may require additional environmental review for
compliance with CEQA requirements and will be evaluated prior to implementation.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of Parking Work Program (PDF)
Attachment B: Bicycle Corral Application (PDF)
Attachment C: Professorville Homes w/No Driveways - Oct 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: City Council Action Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: City Council Full Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF)
Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Nov ‘11 Dec Jan ‘12 Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY2014
Tasks
Permit Management
Garage Study
- Garage Analysis
- Valet Analysis
Pilot Valet Study
Downtown Cap Study
Neighborhood
Programs
- ADA On-Street
- Short Term
Alternatives/Homes
with No Off-Site
Parking
Technology Solutions
Cal Ave Parking Program
Parking Program Task Timeline
Pending Council Input
On‐Street Bicycle Corral
Application
Bicycle Corrals are enhanced bicycle parking facilities installed on‐street within a traditional vehicle
parking space or appropriate on‐street location. The bicycle corral includes a green textured pavement
treatment to help designate the space from adjacent vehicle parking spaces with a 10‐bike, bicycle rack.
Yellow parking blocks are installed on each end of the bicycle corral to prevent vehicle parking intrusion.
The City of Palo Alto installs bicycle corrals to help promote bicycling activity and to help provide visible
and secured bicycle parking in high‐use bicycle areas. The bicycle corral installations are a partnership
between the City of Palo Alto and the adjacent property owners/businesses through a maintenance
agreement (attached). The City provides installation of the bicycle corrals while the property
owners/businesses take on maintenance around the bicycle corrals.
For a bicycle corral to be considered in front of your business or property, please complete the
application below and return to the City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division.
Business Owner Property Owner – (Optional)
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Address:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Day Phone:
Email:
Signature/Date:
1. Preferred Bicycle Corral
Location
2. Estimated amount of
bicycle activity on weekday
and weekends
Note: After submission of the application, Transportation staff will contact the applicant to
discuss location feasibility and determine if bicycle parking demand exists.
Submit to: City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division Staff Review:
250 Hamilton Avenue Date:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: (650) 329‐2441 F: (650) 329‐2154 Recommend Install: Yes
transportation@cityofpaloalto.org No
Director Approval:
Professorville Historic Neighborhood
Homes without accessible Off-Street Parking
October 23, 2012
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
ATTACHMENT D
Water, Gas, Wastewater, Storm Drain and Public Works Construction
Inspection Services.
10. Resolution 9274 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Plao
Alto Placing an Initiative Measure on November 2012 Ballot to Permit
Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Operate in Palo Alto.
11. Approval of Contract for Goods (Purchase Order) for the Acquisition of
Toshiba Laptops.
12. Approval of Fiscal Year 2012 Re-appropriation Requests to be Carried
Forward into Fiscal Year 2013.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Burt, Klein, Scharff Schmid absent
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to not
hear Agenda Item No. 15.
-±-5-;-CONFERENCE V/ITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City DeSignated Representatives: City ~4anager and his designees
pursuant to ~4erit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen,
Sandra Blanch, ~4arcie Scott, Darrell ~4urray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
ACTION ITEMS
13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial
Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville
Neighborhood.
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not
move f6rward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to:
1. Direct Staff to proceed with additional studies and actions related to
parking in downtown, including but not limited to:
a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and
costs;
b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
ATTACHMENT D
parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces;
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space
identification systems, and parking permit processing improvements,
etc.;
d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap
on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights,
variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non
conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluate paid parking options.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) TDM
Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look at underutilized private parking
garages.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council
in 3 months with check in and return with an update before the end of the
year
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER. AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options
for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies
would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted
in the Lytton Gateway Project.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after
"Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for
those homes without a driveway or garage.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to
call the question.
MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent
EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012
MINUTES
ATTACHMENT E
ACTION ITEMS
13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial
Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville
Neighborhood.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said one
of the main pOints he wanted to make was that while they would probably
spend most of the time that evening discussing the trial permit program in
the Professorville area that it was a small but important part of a more
comprehensive look at the downtown parking situation. There were a
number of efforts related to parking management, supply, and demand that
the City had worked on. There was an active permit management system
they re~ently put into place to distribute permits. Staff was beginning a
parking garage study to look at the supply issue as well as more efficient
ways to use the garages and parking lots. They were looking at a number of
technologies and parking enhancements to more efficiently use the spaces
and publicize and provide mobile technology for information purposes. They
were before Council to discuss the trial program for a portion of
Professorville but would then go into a larger look at areas of downtown
including Downtown North. They also had a bicycle share program parking
efforts that they were undertaking to study bike parking as well as vehicular
parking. In terms of the parking garage study the Staff was looking at using
some of the funding provided by the Lytton Gateway project to complete a
feasibility study of three or four parking lot sites in the downtown area. The
study would determine the feasibility of construction of additional garages at
those locations and the capacity and construction costs. Staff was also
looking at a trial of attendant parking in some of the garages to see if there
was away to provide more spaces and increase the use of the garage space
the City had more efficiently. He said they would continue to evaluate the
balance of permit and hourly spaces in those garages. They had already
converted some hourly spaces to permit spaces which had helped create
more parking supply for permits. On the technology side they looked at
parking guidance systems which let people know how many spaces were
available. They also looked at evaluating gate controls to allow for metered
parking and longer stays downtown. Specifically related to the proposed
residential parking permit trial program in Professorville, Staff visited with
the Council in fall 2011 regarding the broad parking program efforts. Many
people attended the meeting who were concerned about the parking impacts
from downtown on the Professorville area. He said they convened a Staff
generated group to discuss those issues further and included a handful of
active residents and representatives from downtown businesses. There were
also Staff members and one Council Member and one Planning and
Transportation Commissioner in the group. They met monthly for
Page 6 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
approximately the past six months with the aim of looking at trial parking
programs and how the City monitored the effects of the other parking
strategies on the neighborhood. He said they also tried to evaluate why
people parked on the street as opposed to in garages and parking lots.
From there they outlined potential opportunities for residential permit
parking programs. Some of the concerns they heard were how parking
impacted the quality of life in residential neighborhoods and the parking
availability for residents. He stressed the need to balance those concerns
with the needs of employee parking in the downtown area because the
streets were also public resources. He recognized that they worked with a
group they invited to meet with them and not the broader neighborhood of
Professorville or the entire downtown residential community. He said that
they were looking at a fairly small area, but it was Staff's feeling that it was
extremely important to put together something that could be looked at to
ascertain the balance of how much residential protection was necessary
versus how much employee parking could be allowed without creating an
extreme impact one way or the other. They thought a localized program
allowed them to beta test the approach. Staff recognized there would be a
broader effort following the three to six month trial period.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, said it was important to look
at the effort Staff made over the last year with the parking issues. He
showed a slide of available parking spaces within the downtown corridor.
Staff used that data to educate itself about the supply and to try to find
ways to maximize on-street spaces. As an example, through analysis, Staff
added 32 on-street spaces, reduced red zones, and converted inefficient
parking allocations. Staff also measured the occupancy of on-street
throughout the greater downtown area from Palo Alto Avenue down to
Embarcadero to Alma to Middlefield because they needed it for the permit
parking process. on-street Staff used data in conjunction with research from
the residents to determine the correct corridor to look at a potential
residential permit parking (RPP) study project. The downtown core of
Lytton, University, and Hamilton had about 1,100 parking spaces on-street.
He said that Staff took the data and guided the discussions held by the
working group. They recommended a framework of four specific items to
the working group as they developed the RPP program. One was to provide
a buffer of at least one block between commercial uses and residential use
to allow for transition and change in use. When they considered RPP streets
they focused on the streets that were local and not arterial. For example,
Alma or Middlefield were not appropriate streets for a RPP. At the same
time, residential arterials such as Homer and Channing also moved traffic in
and out of the downtown so those were streets that were not appropriate for
consideration of RPP. Staff suggested that RPP's should focus on-streets
that were more single family home based versus multifamily unit based.
Page 7 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
When the land uses were majority multifamily use it automatically generated
a high demand for parking. Streets with those uses did not lend themselves
to programs such as the RPP. Staff also wanted to make sure that whatever
program was recommended in an RPP form was cost neutral and sustained
itself without impacting or drawing from existing City resources. Thinking
more globally, Staff tried to pool all of the RPP districts into one fund to help
maintain costs for RPP permits around the City, rather than try to manage
several RPP funds. Different tiers of RPP only created inequity in the
community. He showed the proposed boundary for the proposed RPP district
that the working group reached consensus on. It was south of Channing,
Addison, Lincoln, Ramona, and Emerson and represented approximately 190
on-street parking spaces. The working group discussed details on how the
RPP would work and they came to consensus on several factors. One was
that offering one permit to residents was a way to demonstrate what the
long term benefit of RPP was because if the program were implemented long
term those residents would want to purchase the permits long term. They
also wanted to ensure that there were permits available to residents beyond
the one free permit. They recommended a cost of $50.00 for each
additional specific vehicle or every additional permit that could be hung from
a rear view mirror for guests. They recommended random enforcement to
help measure the type of compliance they received through changes in
regulatory signage as well as citation revenue for future long term operation
and sustainability. One of the unique elements of the program was that
they wanted to make sure there was a balance between the resident uses
and the existing next door commercial uses. One of the items the working
group reached consensus on was making a small portion of on-street spaces
available for neighboring uses through the sale of non-resident permits at
the same cost of $50.00 throughout the trial period. Multi-guest or day
passes were also available at the cost of $1.00 per permit. They also
discussed the length of the program and decided the trial program should be
a minimum of three months and should last up to six months. Because they
had collected strong baseline data for the program, it was simple for Staff to
measure any impact from people moving from one street onto a street that
was outside the RPP area. Once the working group built a consensus on the
boundaries and elements of the RPP program it surveyed the people that
lived within the area. They sent out approximately 103 surveys and
received back about 68 responses. Of the 68 responses, 82 percent
supported the implementation of a trial project. He showed the survey that
the residents were asked to respond to and noted that a follow up survey
was sent, which helped them get to the 68 responses they received. There
was much conversation about how to measure the success of a trial. The
first and foremost way to measure the success was the parking occupancy
on the street. They had the baseline data and they needed a measure to
determine if the program provided a benefit or caused an impact to the
Page 8 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
adjacent streets. They recommended trying to achieve a goal of a maximum
of 80 percent occupancy by implementing the RPP trial. He explained that
would create more yellow zones within the area. Yellow zones meant that a
motorist should be able to find a parking space on the street they wanted to
park on. Staff would study what happened to the adjacent streets and see if
there were adverse effects. Staff also wanted to measure demand for
permit sales not just for the residents but also for the non-residents. They
talked about making 51 permits available, but they needed to know if there
was demand by the neighboring community for those permits. With respect
to measuring parking compliance he said that many times simple regulatory
signage went a long way in implementing behavioral change. However, if
that was not followed up by enforcement the City would not realize a long
term benefit in permanent change. He said that measuring parking
compliance helped them measure whether or not they saw cars adhering to
the proposed two hour parking restriction which was available for anyone to
park in the area, and whether or not they were forced to issue citations as a
community to those who did not adhere to the rules. He said that many
residents discussed quality of life. The only way to measure that was quality
versus quantity based. Staff wanted to survey residents and invite them to
participate in community outreach meetings as they contemplated the longer
term vision of the RPP. The last thing the working group looked at was the
operations cost. There were several factors related to parking compliance
which fed into the measure, but the largest piece was the permit sales. If
the City had an RPP area but was not selling permits it was not going to be a
successful area. The objective was not to simply push people out. The RPP
program's purpose was to provide parking to residents. He said that the
community received a $250,000 contribution from the Lytton Gateway
project for downtown parking preservation projects. Staff discussed
dedicating $125,000 of the contribution for projects for the area south of
Forest Avenue. Professorville was one option. Another option was to
dedicate $125,000 towards projects in Downtown North. He said a pilot
Professorville RPP program could cost up to $50,000. That covered the cost
of signage, of Revenue Collection Staff to purchase and administer the
distribution of permits, of random enforcement by the parking compliance
Staff, and allowed the City to measure the long term cost of a RPP in the
community.
Mr. Williams said the Council was very aware that the parking zoning issues
meshed with the recent permit activity, the development downtown and the
discussions that went on over some of the projects. Some of the issues
relative to those projects were exemptions laid out in the ordinance and
parking reductions that were allowed as well as transfer development rights
which were used in several projects over the past few years. He thought
that had been a successful program in getting historic rehabilitation and
Page 9 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
seismic upgrades in the downtown area. However, they were 2,500 or
5,000 square feet buildings that did not require the parking that went along
with the square footage. He said that as Staff reported with the Lytton
Gateway project there was a development cap in the zoning code downtown
of 350,000 square feet of nonresidential space which was established in
1985 as part of the downtown study. That study also indicated that when
the City reached a total of 235,000 square feet that it should study the
appropriate total nonresidential square footage and the associated parking
issues. Staff reported during the Lytton Gateway project that the City was
at about 220,000 square feet and Staff knew there were one to two other
projects that would soon put the City beyond the 235,000 study threshold.
Staff wanted to start that analysis immediately regarding the potential and
how to better match the parking with the amount of development and the
exemptions that were allowed. He said that the zoning regulations in
general had parking ratios for office use that deserved to be reevaluated.
The City saw office occupancies that were considerably more than one
person per 250 square feet. The old model had not held up and it was
appropriate to reevaluate those ratios and how the City treated
nonconforming parking uses. Finally, Staff thought it was appropriate to look
at a downtown transportation demand management program. The City had
several downtown employers that did a good job and were on the cutting
edge. He thought Lytton Gateway was a building like that, but noted that
there were many others including smaller businesses that could not put
together their own programs. He thought it was incumbent on the City to
help coordinate that effort and provide opportunities for everyone to
participate in programs that would enhance transit use, bicycling, walking,
and bike shares. That was part of the program Staff intended to flesh out
over the next six months along with the parking garage study. Staff's
recommendation to Council was to authorize Staff to proceed with the trial
program for three to six months. They wanted to run the program for three
months and then meet with the working group and report to the Council as
to how things were going and see if another three months would be
worthwhile or if there was a reason to immediately shift gears. Staff also
wanted input and direction related to the studies. If Council was ok with
Staff looking at the zoning issues then they wanted approval for that in
order to get started on that work.
Ray Dempsey spoke on behalf of residents that participated in the study
group. He said that the RPP was not the solution but a test case for a
broader solution. There were four issues that were brought up by the
residents with respect to the RPP: 1) private parking on a public street; 2)
size and length of time of the RPP; 3) forcing parking into adjacent areas;
and 4) cost and accessibility of permits. With regard to the private parking
on a public street the United States Supreme Court ruled in Arlington vs.
Page 10 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Richards that the character and safety of neighborhoods trumped intrusive
parking. There was a right there and numerous lower courts upheld that
ruling. He said that as far as the size and length of the time of the RPP it
was determined by the City and not by the business people or residents. It
was based on available assets, including financial assets. The City would
monitor results and could modify the pilot program. He said that forcing
parkers into other areas was another major problem. As mentioned the pilot
was not a solution, it was a test for a solution. Many residents noted that
there were packed streets and wondered where the relocated cars would
park. He said it would obviously move the parked cars out somewhat, but it
was temporary and the six months was better than the six years the
residents had experienced with the problem. After the RPP, the next step
was to apply what was learned to the larger region. The cost and
accessibility of permits after the first free permit, the $50.00 charge per
permit, was a charge only to users. He said that if a person did not need the
permit, they did not have to pay for it. Many people had driveways and
garages, some did not. He said that at least the cost was borne by the users
and not by all residents of the City as would be the case if the City absorbed
the cost. The nonresident permits were negotiated to help bridge long term
solutions. He said that if residents wanted an RPP program it would not
happen without the pilot program as it was presented.
Barbara Gross said that she and Chop Keenan were representing the Palo
Alto Downtown Business Association. Chop Keenan, Russ Cohen, and herself
were seated on the City sponsored Parking Committee that discussed the
public/private parking interests of the downtown commercial district and the
neighborhood of Professorville. She said parking was a complicated issue
that had a direct influence on the success of the business district and had
overflow impacts on surrounding residential areas. She said that there was
always a parking deficit in the downtown and there was always a mixed use
of space which spilled over into the residential area. There was also always
a parking deficit in Professorville as garages were converted to other uses,
driveways were eliminated to expand gardens, and garages in the back
alleys were too small for modern vehicles or had been converted to other
uses. She said that office space changed over the past years to
accommodate more Staff. She said that families had increased the number
of cars per household and most could no longer self-park on their own
property. Representatives of the Professorville neighborhood communicated
multiple messages. They said the streets were filled with nonresidential
parked cars that remained there throughout the business day. That created
a crowding· on the streets which did not allow residents the ability to park
near their homes or re-park their cars during the day. She said that created
a safety issue with drivers behaving poorly while looking for parking spaces
and parking too close together causing vehicle damage and blocking
Page 11 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
driveways. Equally as important it had changed the feeling of the
neighborhood, making it look and feel less residential and negatively
impacting housing values. Representatives of the business community
began conversation with the fact that three public parking garages had been
built to accommodate more customers and downtown employees in the last
10 years. Parking permits for emj)loyees were oversold by a minimum of 25
percent for all garages at a cost of $420.00 annually. Employee spillover to
the surrounding neighborhoods had always been a reality and there were
ongoing parking improvements in the downtown district. She said that the
City was investigating electronic signage to direct cars to available spaces.
The parking assessment district suggested stacking cars in select areas of
the garages to further increase the number of permit spaces in each garage.
That required the use of a valet attendant. She Said that all day parking
ticket machines were being added to all garages to offer more options. She
said that there was not a way to make things perfect for everyone and there
was not going to be one single solution. Professorville was nota walled
community situated in a rural setting; it was and always had been adjacent
to the downtown. She said they were talking about public streets and who
had the rights to access them. The business community could not force
everyone working in the downtown to purchase a permit if that was their
means of transportation. The negative impacts to the viability of the
business district could change the attractive nature of the downtown as a
place to do business which could have financial ramifications. It was said
that if everyone walked away from a mediation not getting everything they
asked for the settlement was successful. She said that everyone was
moderately happy with the proposed RPP. The RPP addressed offering
residents a guarantee that not all parking spaces would be filled with parked
cars and therefore opened the congested feeling of the streets. The
proposed RPP also guaranteed that not all parking spaces would be filled
with nonresidential cars and offered the opportunity for traffic control.
Opening· the RPP door in one community was a gateway for other
communities to expect the same program and that became a vast and
complicated problem.
Chop Keenan said he wanted to fill in data pOints regarding the self-help of
the downtown parking district. The downtown parking district met once a
month for the last twelve years. It was a 90 minute meeting with a packed
agenda and did not work on autopilot. They successfully built two parking
structures with 900 spaces over that 12 year period. There were two costs
associated with the structures. One was the cost to build them, which was
financed by the property owners in the assessment district. That was $0.18
per foot per month, so a 2,000 square foot store paid $360.00 per month for
the capital cost of servicing the bond. He said those funds did not guarantee
the store a parking space. Spaces were on a first come first served basis
Page 12 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
and downtown employees paid an incremental $420.00 per year for the
operation and maintenance of the district. That was for things such as
sweeping and security and totaled $1.2 million per year. He said that it took
approximately 90 to 270 days to clear a waiting list. All the garages had
waiting lists except for Cowper/Webster. He stated that with stacked
parking they might add 300 to 400 more spaces, which was more effective
than the $65,000 per space cost of building another structure. He said that
parking equaled prosperity and that it was a fragile parking ecosystem that
could not take radical disruption. They supported the Staff report. It was a
long process and they did not know how it was going to turn out but they
anticipated knowing more in six months. He said they would probably return
to Council to discuss course correction at that time.
Ethan Atwood spoke against the RPP. He said he lived in Palo Alto for 20
years, mostly in Barron Park, but had moved to Downtown North three years
ago so he could take the train to work. He loved the vibrant downtown, but
paid for that with drunken students and a fair amount of noise and difficulty
parking. He said that was part of the deal when he moved to the area and
thought that everyone who lived in Professorville near the downtown also
understood that was part of the deal. He was annoyed and unhappy about
people who tried to keep others from parking in their neighborhood. When
he lived in Barron Park he drove to Professorville, parked, and walked
downtown. What the RPP did was take away a right from other Palo Alto
residents who lived in other neighborhoods and wanted to get downtown and
park. The permits went to people of wealth, people who were professionals
that lived downtown, and the people who were nurses at Lytton Gardens,
Webster House, and Channing House, but the stock men and women at
Whole Foods would not get permits and would be hurt by the RPP. He said
those people would simply walk four more blocks. He said that RPP hurt the
little people and to the rest of Palo Alto. He urged the Council to vote
against the RPP.
Richard Brand recommended that the Council take a serious look at how the
plan would be implemented as it dealt with longer term issues. He
supported residential parking permits but did not believe the RPP was ready.
One of the issues was that if one did the math they would see that 103
residences ended up with 101 spaces available for one permit. He asked
where he would go to purchase an additional permit. People had asked Staff
how they measured the success of the program. He did not understand that
either and believed it needed to be well delineated in writing so that
everyone understood how the RPP was judged. He supported the idea in
principle, but thought the program needed further review.
Page 13 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Beth Bunnenberg said she was speaking as an individual. She said that
there was a time when the Stanford Shopping Center had opened and the
big stores moved out there and only the banks and a few stalwarts remained
downtown. She said that there were boarded up store fronts and empty lots
that stayed that way for some time. After David Packard restored the
Stanford Theatre people went downtown to the movies and parked close to .
the theatre because deserted streets were creepy. Little by little Palo Alto
put together a mix of old and new structures and created a unique
downtown. The City's transfer of development rights was probably the·
strongest support for the historic restorations that had occurred. The
architects came in and said that transfer of development rights made it
financially possible to redo the buildings and that was how Palo Alto got its
historical buildings renovated. She said that it was a balancing act and
asked that they understand that in terms of the historic downtown buildings
transfer of development rights was very important and Professorville was a
very important district. .
Rob Steinberg said he was an Urban Designer and Architect who lived on
Bryant Street. He concurred with everyone that there was a parking
problem in Professorville that needed to be addressed and appreciated the
City's willingness to take the issue on. He was concerned that the displaced
parked cars from the RPP program would gravitate to adjacent blocks and
neighborhoods that were not part of the RPP program. He asked what
assurances the City could offer the neighbors that were not part of the RPP
program that their streets would not be the recipient of the displaced cars.
He hoped there was consensus among the Council that simply moving the
problem was not a satisfactory solution.
Dena Massar said she had heard that Palo Alto used to be a peaceful place to
live but had changed and parking permits would not stop inevitable change.
She also heard that some people wanted to park in front of their homes, but
permits would not provide that certainty. She heard that Palo Alto High
School students were a problem, but parking permits were not a substitute
for a conversation with the School District about their parking policies. She
heard that the biggest parking problem that neighbors faced was that
nonresidents carelessly blocked driveways. She suggested signage and
enforcement to solve that problem. She heard that the proposed trial area
was not large enough, but there were no stated criteria that helped her
decide where the boundaries should be. She heard that it was technology
employees or Sirius employees or developers, the City's own policies, or
even the neighbors themselves who had caused the problem. She said that
issuing parking permits did not get to the root causes. She heard that
residents should have free parking permits, Staff said that the cost of
permits in a permanent system would be based on cost recovery, but there
Page 14 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
was no information about those costs and therefore no consensus about the
worth of the parking permit. Professorville was not the only neighborhood
that wanted permits. She asked if it was the appropriate time to ask if Palo
Alto wanted to be a parking permitted community and if so then the
community dialogue should come first to establish appropriate policies and
set the-rules for implementation. She asked how they got to the place
where the area south of Forest Avenue was converted to a test tube. Staff
had asked Council to approve a program that had no specified goals, no
problem statement, no established criteria that defined success, and would
negatively affect residents that lived outside of the trial boundaries. She
said the trial had negative consequences for service employees who worked
for local retailers, restaurants, coffee shops, and markets. Those services
enhanced the livability of Professorville. She said that if the Council decided
that· parking permits were necessary she asked that they make sure to
establish a process that would ensure an open public dialogue that
represented the community's broad interests.
Mark Alguard said he opposed the proposal. He lived on Waverley Street 50
feet from Addison. He anticipated that all of the cars displaced from the
Addison and Scott blocks would find his house to be the best place to park.
He was not being provided a residential parking permit so that he could park.
around the corner on Addison, which would probably be the only parking
that was available. He suffered the consequences and did not get any of the
benefits of the trial and that had been expressed by other people as well.
He was also concerned about the survey that was done because he was not
surveyed. The only people that were surveyed were in the proposed area.
He acknowledged there were parking problems but stated that they bought
that when they bought their houses. He did not have much sympathy for
people who converted their garages or turned their driveways into gardens.
He felt that the City should not reward those people; it should have
programs that encouraged homeowners to restore their garages and
driveways and move toward off street parking. He said that Menlo Park did
not allow overnight on-street parking and asked what would happen if Palo
Alto had a program like that.
Don Barr spoke against the proposal, not because he was against permits
but because he was disappointed in the process. He said that· he spent
significant time working on Palo Alto issues. The RPP program process was
neither open nor representative. He said that he lived in a house on the
historic registry across the street from the district and the first he heard of
the RPP was a letter posted July 3, 2012, which he received on July 5, 2012.
The letter indicated the program was a done deal and that it was being
discussed at Council. He asked why there were not announced, publicized,
noticed, open meetings. He asked why it was not a representative process.
Page lSof47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
He said that the self-appointed representatives on the study group were not
representative of the community. Professorville was 15 square blocks; the
proposed area was two and a half square blocks, not all of which was in
Professorville. He said that most of the homes in the residential parking
district had garages and many of them had been converted. Parking in the
-City streets was a social good that belonged to all the people of Palo Alto,
residents and employees alike. In his opinion residents had no more right to
a parking space than a worker. He said that there also needed to be a
conversation about the difference between a $12.00 an hour worker and
someone who made $120,000 per year.
David Epstein said he lived on the one block of Emerson just beyond the
proposed trial area toward Embarcadero. One of his problems was not just
the downtown area, but the high school students that parked there during
the school year. Many high school students did not want to pay for parking
so they parked on his block. He said that the trial was a severe burden on
his block because residents could not park a street over due to the trial and
the displaced cars would park on his block. He said that it pushed both the
downtown workers and the high school students to his block. He found it
interesting that the RPP provided no solution. He asked where the cars
would go. The RPP pushing them out of one area and all that happened was
they were moving to another area. He was also disturbed by the process
and did not hear about it until several people showed him the. completed
survey which did not take into account those that were negatively affected
by the trial. He found it unfortunately caviler to say that it was simply a trial
and not to worry about it. It was dealing with people's lives over the next
six months. He suggested they use computer simulations rather than
experimenting on real people. He wanted a more global solution and urged
Council not to pass the proposal.
Steven Cohen lived on Addison and was between the pilot area and the
downtown. He would not receive any benefits from the pilot program or any
permanent program. He was against permit parking and was happy living in
a vibrant and diverse area where people from downtown could park. After
he found out by accident about the implementation of the program he did a
casual survey with his neighbors, which looked at the available spaces for
the residents. When he walked around at 1 :00 p.m. on several occasions he
noticed that out of the 66 driveways with 125 spaces there were about 37
cars parked. He said that many of the garages were repurposed and that in
that area there were only about 4 homes that had no garage or driveway.
From his perspective the City was subsidizing the bad behavior of those with
underutilized driveways and garages at the expense of the public.
Page 16 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Ben Cintz said· he lived on Kipling Street with his family. Before that for
about 15 years he lived on Alma Street in the affected area. He owned
residential property in that area as well as some commercial property What
. made Palo Alto and the downtown vibrant was that it was a changing area
with many uses for that area. There were many changes over the years. He
wasn't sure a· parking permit program in the absence-of additional parking
was going to create a solution that could be addressed in six months. He
said that 66 percent of the people surveyed responded and of that 80
percent approved. For part of the time he lived on Alma he commuted to
San Francisco and took his bike to the train station, and then rode to San
Francisco and back. He saw people doing that in the reverse direction now
and was concerned that unless the City had solutions the pilot program was
not going to give them many answers.
Alan Petersen lived in on High Street where there were 12 cars parked on
the street at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and 27 parked on .the street at
9:00 a.m. Monday morning, which was basically total capacity. On his block
the lifetime of an empty parking space was best measured in seconds. He
said that he was sure many people were familiar with that problem. He
found it surprising that his block was specifically excluded from not only the
pilot program but the entire test region. It was perhaps because there were
several duplexes on the block and therefore they were second class citizens
in a single family discussion. Nevertheless, parking was clearly a persistent
and difficult problem. He was personally ambivalent about parking permits.
He enjoyed the vibrant downtown and realized he did not own the City
streets. However, he endured aggravation daily. What bothered him most
about the RPP program was expressed very well by previous speakers and
that was the lack of transparency, fairness, and measurable objectives in the
process. He urged the Council to defer the implementation of the RPP until
there was a better plan.
Justin Birnbaum said that it was striking to him that so many people were
present so late in the game expressing concerns about the RPP. It was
painfully apparent to him that the process was flawed. People were there to
speak to Council because they had not been part of the discussion. The
group surveyed was not representative of the broader spectrum of views in
Professorville. He was not surprised that the people surveyed lived in the
pilot area. He said that the folks who were the loudest about the problem,
placed cones in front of their homes, and did not use their garages for
parking got what they wanted in part because of some bad behavior. He
looked at the data with Mr. Rodriguez and at the very worst time of day
people. only had to park a block and a half from their home. He did not feel
that was so bad.
Page 17of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Michelle Arden lived on Lincoln Avenue in Professorville. Unusually her home
was newly built. She said that many people who chose to live in the area
did so because of the proximity to downtown and downtown services. It was
because of the urban amenities, which were a huge benefit to the
neighborhoods that surrounded the core of Palo Alto. The benefit had
consequences, which were that the streets were more urban because they
needed to support the workers that provided those urban services. She
thought that the City could reward people for using their garages and their
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) space to build two car garages, as she had. She
suggested Planning could think about that while also considering some of the
other initiatives that offered a great deal of promise.
Michael Havern lived about six blocks down the street on Ramona and had
for 26 years. He had a garage that was not converted with a driveway and
used both every day because he could not use the spaces in front of his
.' house. He did not suffer as much as the people in his neighborhood that did
not have those things. The historic character of the neighborhood that he
bought into 26 years earlier was substantially marred and that only alluded
to the visual pollution, not to the day to day hassles of the out of control
parking situation. He did not think there was a pilot required for the permit
program; he thought it was something that should be instituted
immediately. He said the City was trying to encourage heavier development
near transit hubs, but continued to provide free all day parking. He thought
that they should go to no all-day parking anywhere close to the areas where
they were trying to encourage transit heavy development and do away with
the pilot, which causing several problems by itself.
Paul Goldstein lived on Emerson Street in the trial area. He said that the
plan before Council was developed by a few self-appointed residents and had
not been discussed with the community. He had seen more public outreach
around moving a stop sign then there was on the RPP. He was not aware of
a single community meeting about the RPP. The Staff report stated there
was a downtown community issue in March, but he did not remember
receiving a mailing and he looked back at the archives on the Palo Alto
Weekly and did not see notification there either. Most of his neighbors had
no knowledge of the meeting. In June 2012 letters announcing the trial
were sent to the trial residents only. Adjacent residents were notified first
through the July 2, 2012 mailing. Some details of the plan were first
disclosed in the Staff report. Additionally, he thought the summer was a
poor time to survey the neighborhood as many community members were
away. He understood that the City was in a difficult position because some
vocal residents demanded immediate relief and there was pressure to do
something fast, however the only solution to the problem was a
comprehensive program developed through an open and inclusive public
Page 18of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
process. Given sufficient time and community meetings the impacted
groups including businesses and employees could likely come up with a
workable solution. He recognized that would take time and City resources,
but the people of the neighborhood had lived with the issues for years and
they had the time. He urged the Council to reject the trial and if they
wished to proceed with it to they create a legitimate, inclusive process
moving forward.
Irvin Dawid said a residential parking permit was an effective tool used to
manage parking, reduce driving and car ownership, promote affordable
housing, and to reduce a city's carbon footprint. His apartment building was
a great example. They had 107 units and the parking ratio was.5, so there
were approximately 53 parking spaces for 107 people. He did not know
much about what happened when his building went in in 1993, but the
neighbors could have complained and asked what was to prevent the
residents from parking in the adjacent neighborhood. That became a reason
why one used an RPP. A previous speaker asked where the cars would go.
The way he saw it the RPP was not being presented as an effective tool to
manage parking. Another speaker used the term parking deficit, which was
a term that made no sense anymore. There was no parking deficit; the City
had mismanaged parking and parking in garages that went unused as well
as a segregated system of permitted parking and free parking. The City
needed to use the parking it had effectively, which meant pricing it. They
needed to eliminate the permit and have long and short term parking using
meters like other cities. The City had people currently buying parking
permits and not using them so the spaces went empty. He asked that they
use permit parking as a tool and not as a solution.
Sandra Martignetti said she lived on Cowper Street and everyone had
garages and driveways. Most people used those spaces to park. She said
that in the last nine months they were invaded by people who parked and
walked downtown. Her neighborhood was different. She said that if they
were wondering if cars would be displaced to adjacent streets, it had already
happened. She was ambivalent about parking permits. It was a strange
concept to her that she would have to pay to park her extra car. What she
wanted to have the City do was move forward with innovative ideas such as
the ones discussed by Mr. Keenan. She would rather see· money spent on
stacked parking, additional garages, and innovation downtown.
Adia Levin said she worked in downtown Palo Alto for six years and utilized
the permits and was painfully familiar with the permit parking garage
system that induced employees to park on the street. She currently lived in
Menlo Park and visited Palo Alto often, almost always on her bicycle. She
was glad that the Professorville residents raised the parking issue but did not
Page 19 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
believe that the proposed RPP would solve the problem. She was happy that
Staff was working on a set of comprehensive solutions for optimizing
downtown parking including allowing businesses to purchase and subsidize
permits, using permits for multiple workers, enabling online and kiosk
purchases of permits, day passes, digital signs, open data, but she thought
there was still a parking management problem. Several people said that the
reason they did not pay for parking was that on-street parking was free.
She suggested they set the prices so that there was an incentive for people
that wanted to park to park at a garage and a disincentive to park on the
street.
Doria Summa said she lived on Yale Street in College Terrace. She thanked
the Council for approving their permit parking program which had been a
huge success. She served on the committee that worked with Staff to
design that program and continued to serve on another group that worked
with Staff to keep the program running smoothly. She supported a similar
residential parking program for Downtown North and South. The program
allowed anyone to park for two hours during business days. What she did
not support about what the City proposed was a program that discriminated
against residents that lived in multiunit dwellings and their neighbors. For
example Attachment H of the Staff report had the program guidelines for the
general RPP going forward. She said that if the City attempted to apply that
in College Terrace it would literally exempt all of the parts of College Terrace
that had been formerly the most impacted by parking problems from being
in any RPP. Additionally, the experience in College Terrace showed that a
comprehensive RPP supported the needs of both businesses and residents.
Living on Yale Street at the edge of the mixed use zone she could tell the
Council that in addition to employee parking businesses needed short term
parking. When employees parked everything up, businesses did not have
the short term parking either. Residents needed parking spots sufficiently
close for themselves and their visitors to their houses. She thought that a
RPP in Downtown North and South would support the long term
transportation goals of the City, which were to get people to come to the
City through alternate modes of transportation.
Herb Borock said the main reason there was a parking problem was that the
Council kept supporting more intensified development for proposals that
exceeded the zoning. The second problem was the intensification of existing
development. He stated that for those who were concerned about how to
get residents to use their driveways and garages the way to do it was to
prohibit parking in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He
said that was how the system used to work and that back then you could get
a hardship permit, but someone would have come out to check to see how
long your driveway was and what it accommodated. He stated that the
Page 20 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
particular proposal was not Professorville; it included the 1000 block of
Emerson Street, and the other side of Addison which were not in
Professorville. He said that Ken Alsman was the main advocate of intensive
development. For example when 800 High Street was on the ballot Mr.
Alsman said it would provide enough parking to eliminate business and
customers from four or five blocks. Mr. Alsman had also supported 355
Alma. He said that Mr. Alsman thought he was going to get a permit for a
spot in front of his house. The Staff report did not say if the permit was for
individual spaces or for the whole neighborhood. He hoped they were for
the whole neighborhood. The program should not be done for the reasons
mentioned by quite a few speakers.
John Woodfill said he was a resident of Downtown North where they had a
parking issue as well. He was not as worried about the parking issue as he
was about the frantic drivers going around looking for spaces in the
neighborhood. He felt that the Professorville trial was treating a symptom,
not the overall problem. He agreed with those who proposed trying to
simultaneously control parking outside of downtown and manage the parking
structures that existed better. He understood that the Bryant Street garage
was often half full during the day, so if the garages were managed better
there would be more reason for people to park elsewhere and if they had a
RPP or meters in the outside neighborhoods then the parking might move
inward and reduce the traffic.
Martin Bernstein said he was the Chair of the Palo Alto Historic Resources
Board (HRB). He said that Ms. Gross mentioned a parking deficit in
downtown Palo Alto. They had one in 1924 and that was why the
underground parking underneath University was built when the Cardinal
Hotel was constructed. Mr. Williams mentioned historic preservation and a
very successful program of transfer development rights. He suggested that
program remain intact and unchanged as it had been very successful. The
HRB had seen many applications that benefited from that program. In
addition to historic preservation itself as a benefit, two other direct benefits
of that program were the seismic retrofitting which aided public safety, and
contributing to the economic vitality of downtown Palo Alto. The most
specific example was the historic Ramona district where there had been
several successful projects and the economics of downtown Palo Alto and
Ramona Street in particular had been very important for the vitality of the
City.
Vice Mayor Scharff thanked the people who served on the committee. He
said it was important to note that it was a very contentious committee and
there was a lot of tension and difficulty at times between the two groups and
certain members of the groups. It was one of those processes where the
Page 21 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
groups wanted to come together and finally agreed on what they wanted.
He thought the agreement was driven significantly by what each group
wanted. Downtown parking interests wanted to have parking spaces and
permits, whereas the residential group wanted not to have cars in front of
their houses. That was something for Council to keep in mind as it reviewed
the proposal. Staff had a different proposal at the time, which was to make
one side of the street RPP and the other side of the street 4 hour parking.
There were concerns amongst the residential group that the 4 hour parking
would be in front of their house. He thought that was why Staff's proposal
was defeated. He was not sure that was what should drive the discussion.
He thought the Council needed a more comprehensive view so he thought it
was important for his colleagues to get a sense of what the meetings were
like.
Council Member Burt said they were calling it a trial, but it was not clear to
him if it was· being tried whether or not they would have a permitted
program, the form of a permitted program if they were to have one, or the
area covered by a permitted program if they were to have one.
Mr. Williams said they were looking at a broader area than the trial but from
a management standpoint the pilot area was manageable and did not have
many cost issues. They were trying to determine what the balance was
between the residential component of the use of the streets and the
nonresidential component. In other words, assuming there was a restriction
on the nonresidential component, they needed to determine if residential
component was such that it would take up most of the parking spaces on the
street by itself, or would there be empty streets that could accommodate a
better balance of resident and nonresident type of parking. That was the
number one thing tested. Secondly they were testing if there was an impact
on the neighboring areas and to what dfrection it went and again, keeping
the area fairly focused they thought would minimize the impacts rather than
doing it on a larger scale. After the trial was completed Staff would return
with a program that better addressed the overall impacts.
Council Member Burt said that it sounded like the intention had some
elements of a trial and some of a pilot. The pilot being a reduced scale of
something that was anticipated would most likely ultimately be a larger
geographic area than what was piloted. The trial was both about the
formula that was used and also of spillover impacts, which intersected with
the pilot. He thought that laid out for Council what they were talking about
even if it did not provide solutions. He saw that Staff recommendation
number one in the third line said that within six months Staff would return to
Council with the recommendations for a permanent program. He asked if
Page 22 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
that was really the intention of what Council would be directing that evening
based on Staff recommendations.
Mr. Williams thought that was a better way to word it because Staff might
return with a completely different direction.
Council Member Burt said Vice Mayor Scharff mentioned that initially Staff
had a different concept of where one side of the street was permitted and
the other was not and then there was an agreement between the
neighborhood representative subgroup and the downtown business interest
to go to the formula proposed. He was interested in what would happen if
the City's trial included both forms. He thought there were enough blocks to
try separate formulas and asked if there was any reason why they could not
do a hybrid trial.
Mr. Williams said there was nothing prohibiting a hybrid trial but it might not
be advisable because the pilot was a pretty small area and they would only
get one or two streets one way and one or two the other which could be
confusing for people. What he thought would work better was for the pilot
area to take one approach and a second small area take another approach
so that they were physically distinctive from each other.
Council Member Burt said he saw the downside to having two options tried
at once and that those were tradeoffs that needed to be considered. He said
there were a number of comments about the representation of the group.
He knew the neighborhood well, and when they had the initial South of
Forrest Avenue project they had very extensive public participation and it
was very open. There were committees and subcommittees and meetings
that were neighborhood based meetings, some of which were City sponsored
and others were neighborhood sponsored in a very open, inclusive process.
He said that for a variety of reasons that did not happen in this scenario. He
asked what the thought process was for having the representation solely by
those who were in the trial area and advocating a RPP rather than a mixture
of options. It seemed from the survey that most people in the trial area
favored the trial. He noted that the people outside the trial area who would
potentially be in the spillover group were not surveyed. Those people
maybe had a moderate parking problem which could become an acute
problem as a result of the trial. He explained that those people may not
favor a permit program at all because the status quo was better for them
than the cure.
Mr. Williams said Staff had started with a much larger study area and
focused it down. He did not know that he realized as they focused it down
that everyone in the group still was within the focused area, but it did go
Page 23 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
there and Staff relied on them to get the word out to the much larger group.
There were discussions along the way about getting broader input and even
including Downtown North. However they focused it down and Staff should
have been more forceful about having broader community knowledge of
what was going on even if there was not more participation on the
committee.
Council Member Burt asked for a rough estimate of the cost of the future
program. He saw the cost for the temporary program and asked if the
future program would be comparable.
Mr~ Williams said the cost of the future program depended on how many
participants there were and how many bought permits, what the level of
enforcement was, and other factors. Assuming they did not have the
funding from the Lytton Gateway project they were estimating permit costs
of $200 to $300 per year per household.
Council Member Burt said that begged another question because they could
get one response level to the program based on pricing. One could imagine
the higher pricing, but it could skew responses. If people paid $50 or $100
per year they may favor the program while if they had to pay $200 or $300
they may not. He said that it favored the neighborhood if there were fewer
business permits bought because they were more expensive than in the
trial. Since Staff was trying to dial the parking to 80 percent occupancy that
could be skewed as well if they changed the economic forces.
Mr. Williams said they were aware of that and the major goal was to get a
sense of how the residential/nonresidential balance was and then assuming
they could better equate that then take the next step of what the price
sensitivity was.
Council Member Burt said he remained concerned that they were adopting a
broader policy on a de facto basis. He said it was not a certainty; they had a
Downtown North street closure that was repealed after a year and a half or
two years. Things were not necessarily permanent, but that was significant
wasted time and effort and he did not want to see a repeat of that. He was
not saying that he was convinced that the City should not consider a RPP but
he was worried about making a broader policy decision and convincing
themselves that they were just making a trial decision.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff believed the City had a problem, and if
so how if was defined.
Page 24of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Williams said they had defined a problem based on occupancy maps.
There were substantial areas with close to 100 percent parking occupancy
during at a good portion of the day.
Council Member Klein reframed his question and asked if the residents had a
problem. Council heard testimony both ways. Some residents said that
they did not have a problem and that they lived in the area and only had to
park a block and a half away. Others described it as intolerable. He asked if
there was a standard that defined a problem if he had to park more than a
certain number of blocks away and it took more than a certain amount of
time to find a space.
Mr. Rodriguez said that they did not use that type of a measure when they
went through the process. What Staff typically used when they looked at
transit oriented development type of standards was that a half a mile was a
comfortable radius for people to walk.
Council Member Klein asked how many blocks a half mile was.
Mr. Williams said they did not have that kind of criteria. He thought it was a
perception issue and Staff felt there was a strong perception among a
number of the residents that there was an issue. It was ultimately
subjective as to whether it was a problem. There was no traffic problem or
traffic hazard in the City. It was a personal convenience issue.
Council Member Klein said that he was torn because he heard conflicting
testimony as some people said there was a problem.
James Keene, City Manager, agreed with Mr. Williams that they did not have
any existing quantifiable standard that said if it was the distance, density, or
experience that defined it was a problem. People had different reactions.
Staff had performed counts and there were locations that were more
impacted than others and it was not just a perception issue based on
imagined changes. There certainly appeared to be more parking and more
impact in the neighborhood. Two blocks was a real problem if someone
needed to unload groceries. He said that the way the process unfolded was
that a group of neighbors came together and said they had a real problem
that they wanted to bring to the City's attention. The City responded to a
particular complaint and had a different perspective from the business
community so the Staff put those groups together. As difficult as that was
he did not know how they would have expanded it to a much larger
conversation which possibly involved people that had not expressed any
concerns. He thought it made sense for the Staff to try to keep meeting and
resolve the issue. Given the testimony that evening this was not just a
Page 25 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
neighbor to the City issue, this was a neighbor to neighbor issue, and a
neighbor to the business community issue.
Council Member Klein said that was why it was a difficult issue. He did not
understand the reference to 500 feet. He assumed that the usual block was
a tenth of a mile and therefore he was talking about a five block radius.
Mr. Rodriguez said he used 500 feet as an example.
Council Member Klein heard that neighbors had placed their own orange
cones out to indicate that people should not take a parking space in front of
their house. He asked if that was true.
Mr. Rodriguez said that happened.
Council Member Klein said that was a vigilante act and that the Police ought
to prevent people from doing that. He asked if they had any instructions to
that effect.
Mr. Williams said that he was not aware that they had reports, but they
certainly would send the Police out if they had.
Council Member Klein said that he did not want to encourage people taking
the law into their own hands. He said that there were various comments
about how everyone had equal access to the streets and he agreed with
that, but did not think that the question was one of Constitutional law. He
accepted the idea that the US Supreme Court told cities they could restrict
parking in one area of town compared to others. He said there needed to be
a compelling reason for different rules form one neighborhood to another.
That was why he asked the questions about if there was really a problem.
He asked why residents were not charged under the pilot project.
Mr. Williams said that they were charging for more than one vehicle, but
were not charging for the first vehicle. Staff wanted to see if residents had
unlimited access to the streets what kind of load that meant for the street.
Staff kept hearing comments about the nonresidential vehicles occupying all
the streets and residents not having places to park their cars. Making it
easy for the residents for at least the first vehicle in the trial was something
that allowed Staff to better visualize the potential balance between the
residential and nonresidential use of the street.
Council Member Klein said he read that, but he still did not understand. It
seemed that it would be a better test if they charged for the first car
because presumably that was what would happen if they adopted a
Page 26of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
permanent project. For example he could see someone who had a driveway
and a garage taking advantage of the permit if it was free, but if they had to
pay for it they would not. He was not persuaded by the free first vehicle at
all. He had not heard any mention of the experience of other communities
and he knew there were many residential permit programs around the
country. He asked if Staff looked at and learned from any of those
programs.
Mr. Rodriguez thought that the specific elements they recommended within
the program took advantage of the lessons learned from other communities.
That was one of the reasons they did the first two elements of the program.
They wanted to define a buffer zone to allow the transition from land use
that generated parking to a residential community. The buffer transition
was their method of ensuring that they were following a best practice
determined by other communities as well as making sure they were
protecting arterial streets which served multiple uses. One of the other
major successful elements of a RPP program within many communities was
that they pulled funds together to help reduce the long term cost of permits
for the whole city. Those were the limits or restrictions. The rest were
things that they needed to consider and discuss such as single family homes
versus multiuse homes. Those were things that they needed to look at
when they worked with the community. The attachment that was in the
Staff report that talked about the framework really was geared toward trying
to define the process that the community needed to follow but was limited to
a couple of factors to help define the pattern of a RPP.
Council Member Klein thought it was useful to see programs from several
other cities that seemed as similar as possible to the Professorville area.
Mr. Williams said he did not think they needed to look at if any other cities
had done that kind of residential and nonresidential permit combinations.
He said it was pretty standard to focus on the residential and then have two
hour parking for everyone else. They started with a discussion of that in the
group and that was a major impact on the employers so they backed off.
Mr. Keene said that Staff would conduct more research. He said that he was
previously the City Manager of Berkeley and had lived in Rockridge for quite
some time and he did not recall any neighborhood moving to secede from
RPP because it was a problem. In general people felt RPP's were essential to
living in their neighborhood. He thought Berkeley brought in about $7
million in metered parking revenue and probably about $7 million in parking
fines at the same time. So it was a fairly comprehensive program.
Page 27 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Shepherd knew there was good work on the RPP, but was
very hesitant to move forward on the pilot. She asked if Council moved
forward on the second half of the Staff recommendation would that get Staff
closer to answering Council Member Klein's question about if there was a
problem. She asked if Staff needed the information from the outcome of the
pilot.
Mr. Williams said the programs would get them closer to the answers, but
they also would take quite a bit of time to get implementation that gave a
sense of how much relief was provided. The question was if Staff should try
to do something immediately to provide relief in the residential areas or
should they hold off and wait to see how some of the things came along.
Staff already captured 50 new spaces in downtown, changed parking garage
levels from hourly to permit, and did new signage to get people to the
garage. Some of those things helped to some extent, but there was still
concern in the neighborhood.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed the pilot took them out of anecdotal
information and into real information. She asked if Staff planned to return
to Council after three months to see if there needed to be any course
correction in the pilot.
Mr. Williams said they planned to report back to the Council in three months.
Staff told the working study group that it would meet again and check in at
that pOint. If there did not seem to be major problems, they might just let
Council know that but otherwise they would report problems and suggest
changes or whether to abandon the program~
Council Member Shepherd said she knew there were apartment complexes
between the pilot area and downtown that were probably not fully parked.
She asked what happened to those cars.
Mr. Williams said right now those streets were not part of the program.
Apartment complexes were more complicated with respect to a RPP because
there was a concentration that could be from under parking or that people
used the streets because it was more convenient.
Council Member Shepherd said that either the apartment dwellers would
park in the unpiloted area or would have to park on the other side of the
piloted area. She said Staff had not checked to see if the apartments had
garages, so that could be a parking option.
Mr. Rodriguez said it could be a combination of all the things Council
Member Shepherd mentioned, but Staff did not know.
Page 28 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Shepherd was concerned about some of the comments from
the public. Her concern focused on the comments relating to circumventing
the permit area and parking somewhere else. She saw both sides of the
argument. She asked how impacted Downtown North was because the pilot
would shift employees over there. They were already fully parked and
impacted so it was the other areas that were in question. She confirmed
that was what Staff was trying to look at.
Mr. Williams said yes. He said Downtown North was already heavily
impacted. Secondly he thought the distance from the trial area to
Downtown North was such that people would find spaces closer than
Downtown North to park.
Council Member Shepherd stated people who work in downtown have to
park one way or the other. If they had to walk further they would.
Mr. Williams said the trial area was just a small part of the area south of
downtown. There were other blocks and that was what the neighbors were
talking about that people would park in some place that did not have the
RPP restriction rather than going up to the Downtown North.
Council Member Shepherd said that was already impacted, so it looked like
the only thing Staff would be able to find out was if people went one more
block closer to Embarcadero Road. If they did that and the City released the
parking permits to the residents and 20 percent of businesses, she asked if
the trial area would still be parked up with the two hour parking in front of
people's homes in addition to impacting the blocks further out. She
questioned if the information was really useful. Dividing the neighborhood
concerned her.
Mr. Keene thought Staff acknowledged from the beginning preference for the
other model, but both groups preferred the current model so Staff went with
it. Staff understood that it was imperfect. At the same time, there was a
core group of citizens that said parking was a real problem that needed
alternatives. Staff found very often in other areas that there was a
challenge getting behavior change. There was the challenge of behavior
change for businesses and their employees as to how they would have more
uptake on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) or how they would
maximize use of garages. Staff would have to deal with issues of if RPP
programs in a more expanded version if it was something that people
wanted. He said that Council Member Klein's points were valid. If they did
not price the pilot properly then they might not collect the data they needed.
From the beginning Staff understood that it was going to displace parking
Page 29 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
further down the road and require neighbors to come forward and ask for
something specific in their neighborhoods as well. He guessed that the
situation would probably improve for the six blocks in the pilot. He said that
the problem ultimately was the fact that they did not want to ruin the
vibrant downtown. The timeframe to plan for new parking or TDM programs
were long term issues. They had a dilemma and there-were always
consequences in a dilemma that were unsatisfactory. He said the Council
meeting was transparent and part of the process. Things were often
elevated and people paid more attention at the Council level than the
outreach that Staff could do. The Council was free to send Staff back, to put
qualifications on the program, or whatever they needed to do. It was not a
done deal just because Staff presented an option to the Council.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the program went away when the trial
ended or if Staff intended that it become an entitlement for that particular
configuration of Professorville. She did not mind gathering data for a time
period but she thought it was important for it to revert to see if trends went
back to the way they were before. She felt that would be informative.
Mr. Williams agreed. He said Staff was comfortable saying that the trial
ended in six months and it was incumbent on Staff to return to Council with
a recommendation to extend set parameters for how to move forward with
the community on a broader program. If that did not happen then the
program ended at that pOint.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they would put up temporary signs.
Mr. Williams said they were temporary and the sign would be removed
pending a determination of what the ultimate program was if there was one.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he wanted to follow up on what Council Member
Klein and Council Member Burt said about pricing. One of the things that
Staff continually reiterated during the meetings was that if there was a full
RPP it had to be cost neutral. He had the sense that the committee did not
listen to that part. He thought they could do a disservice to the
neighborhood because they were surveyed based on the notion of a free
permit for one car and then only $50 for a second permit. The reality of the
situation was more in the $200-300 range for a permit. He thought they
should survey people with a realistic version of the cost. If they said $250
and they received feedback from 40 percent saying they were interested
with 60 percent saying no, that was different information. People would be
angry if the cost difference was so great. He thought they should return and
complete surveys with realistic numbers. He knew there was a push to get
an RPP done as soon as possible and that Staff was under significant
Page 30 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
pressure, but people needed a sense of what would really happen or the
whole notion of a trial did not make sense. He also agreed with Council
Member Shepherd that if it was a trial then it should have a specific end
date. He thought it was better if they said that it ended no matter what and
that the City would use the information to design a broader program. He
said Staff did a good comprehensive job on the recommendation involving
additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown. He wanted
Staff to return with funding options for the public parking garage sites. One
of the things he realized when sitting on the committee was that there was
agreement that some workers should be able to park in the neighborhoods.
That was one of the worthwhile things that came from the meetings. He
thought people were saying that employees should be allowed to park in the
neighborhoods but at a level that did not make life uncomfortable. That was
what the City should strive to achieve, making life not uncomfortable.
People bought homes in that neighborhood and area knowing that there
were many impacts with downtown. They just did not want to feel that the
impacts were extreme and he believed some people felt it had gotten
extreme. That went back to Council Member Klein's question. He thought
that was what people wanted to know; how many cars could be removed
from the neighborhoods and how could the City get that done.
Mr. Keene heard a difference between Council Member Klein's point of
having a no cost first car parking permit and if the price should be closer to
what the expected the ultimate was. His understanding was that this was a
pilot that would not have the full level of enforcement. If they charged the
$200-300 fee than the City risked having residents demand the same level
of enforcement that was concomitant with that pricing. The issue of paying
for at least every car so there was truly a litmus test was different. Staff
wanted to price it in some way that people felt the trial was working into
what it would be like based upon the price if it was a permanent program.
He thought the sense was the City was not offering a program that mirrored
what it would be if it were a permanent program.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he thought they should get the trial as close as
possible to what it would be like for people and survey them. He thought
people were more price sensitive than enforcement sensitive and that Staff
would receive push back at the $200-300 mark. If the City was not going to
charge $200-300 because it was not going to have that level of enforcement
then they should price the program according to the appropriate level. If
they did not use the right information they would not receive the right data
and they would leave the wrong impression with the community.
Mr. Williams said the $200-300 figure assumed a full level of enforcement.
It also included all the upfront costs which the City had the potential to
Page 31 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
cover with the Lytton Gateway project. The figures also depended on the
level of participation. He thought that if they did a survey they ought to lay
out the options and not assume the highest case. They discussed some of
those issues in the group. He also pOinted out that if it was a three month
program, $50 equaled $200 per year. Again, they were not charging for the
first permit so that sounded like an appropriate way to go.
Council Member Holman said she used to live in the neighborhood and she
could support those who said the situation had gotten worse and the
neighborhood was more impacted. She said that it was a quality of life
issue, a neighborhood character issue, and a business vitality issue. Part of
the quality of life in the neighborhood was that it was near the business
district. That said there were property value impacts and basic disruption.
It was not as clean; the streets were not swept as well. There were all kinds
of negative impacts on the streets the way there were now. She said that
the 900 block of Ramona and the 1100 block of Emerson were full during the
midday peak period yet were not included in the study area and asked why
that was.
Mr. Rodriguez said that when they started they looked at a larger area but
worked it down to a symmetrical shape. It was a boundary that was put
together with both Staff and resident input. They looked at parking
occupancy of the street. If they were at 85 percent there was still open
parking on that street so that was another factor.
Council Member Holman said that she understood that if there was some
space on the street that meant there was available parking but it was tight
with 85 to 100 percent occupancy. She said that the pilot used $50,000 of
the $100,000 allocated from the Lytton project. She asked if the City was
better off using some of the money on the objectives for the
recommendation to proceed with additional studies. She was not 100
percent clear on what they were doing. Attachment H, page 301 said
"parking program guidelines." The word guidelines threw her because
guidelines were not really defining a program they were parameters that
could be implemented. There was also not a good description of what the
program would be in the document that was the draft proposed RPP. She
was not sure that everyone knew what was being proposed.
Mr. Rodriguez said the survey focused on the one issue of a potential RPP
pilot program. There were many good comments about additional
information that could have been included in the survey including the costs
of an ongoing long term program. He said that they were in the infancy of
developing the RPP and there was significant positive change on the permit
sales side and the distribution of permits. It would take more time to try
Page 32 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
things. Mr. Keene and Mr. Williams both asked if it was the right time to try
a RPP and if it should be done under the process Staff defined or in some
other form, or if they should accelerate the other programs first and revisit
the RPP another day.
-Mr. Williams thought Council Member Holman's questions went to the
specifics of the RPP. He agreed that the information was dispersed. The
question she had about the use of the money going toward the other
programs concerned him because he thought there was a commitment at
the time of the approval of the Lytton Gateway project that the money was
segregated and used specifically for residential protection or parking
intrusion. He was not sure it was appropriate to move the money to another
type of parking program.
Council Member Holman said it seemed to her that without answers to some
of these questions they would not have good enough information to deploy.
She shared the concerns that this was not an open process. Council could
not make changes that evening based on information it just learned. The
process could have been improved. There were some things that were
added more appropriately or more clearly described in the presentation than
were listed in the Staff report. Someone told her that Palo Alto High School
was charging for parking which was causing more parking in the
neighborhood. She asked if that was correct. She said that Council Member
Shepherd just told her that they had always charged for parking .. She said
that they might want to work with the School District and Stanford on that.
She listed off modes of transportation that were added and asked how those
items would be funded or if they could be funded.
Mr. Rodriguez thought the concept was a Staff developed toolkit of
downtown transportation management tools to be taken advantage of by
existing or future development. One of the elements they thought of was a
future expansion program participation into a shuttle program which would
allow the City to provide new service to the area and help connect it with
other residences within the community. He said that participating in a
shuttle program could be a way to provide more connections through transit
use that did not currently exist through the Santa Clara Valley Transit
Authority (VTA) or other resources.
Mr. Williams said Staff was not ready to tell Council how it planned to fund
anything listed under that option.
Council Member Holman said she would add opportunities with underutilized
and over parked buildings in the downtown area. She said that other
communities managed liability issues and that seemed to never get
Page 33 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
addressed in Palo Alto. She wanted Staff to look at that as part of the
solution. She asked why the overnight parking restriction was no longer in
effect. When she moved to the City in 1975 you could not park on the street
overnight. She wondered if it was imposed again if it would force people to
use their driveways.
Mr. Williams said he did not know the background, but he knew as far as the
RPP that was not a problem.
Council Member Holman said she understood, but it was a little piece
because people said that others had converted their driveways as well as
their garages to other uses. That was a way to perhaps make people use
their driveways again for the intended purpose. She did not have any
evidence that there was outreach to the business community to see what
the workers behavior was as a response to a RPP if the City moved forward.
That was important. She asked if Staff could return in six months with a
new and improved pilot that was better informed.
Mr. Williams said that if that was Council's -request Staff would
accommodate. He felt the recommendation would be more informed in six
months' time.
Council Member Holman was interested in moving forward with something
but what the Council had before them currently was ill defined and did not
contain broad enough input. She thought six months was a good time frame
to ask Staff to return with a plan.
Mr. Keene said that Council's directive needed to be clear about wh'at
additional information Council wanted so that Staff was able to respond.
Council Member Price was inclined to go ahead with the trial on the RPP
because she thought they needed additional information regarding the
parameters that were laid out. She thought if they said after all the months
of work that further study was needed she was not sure that would move
the City forward in addressing the stated problem. She appreciated Staff's
comments and the discourse on the additional studies and hoped that when
those came back that there was some sense of the cost and the relative
priority. She was not asking for an answerimmediately but based on what
other communities had done she wanted to know which elements could yield
information that could be used in concert with a potential RPP. She
appreciated the comments regarding best practices and asked if the draft in
Attachment H which had preliminary guidelines was based on an extension
of what was in the Staff report, or if Staff looked at guidelines or equivalents
that were used successfully in other communities.
Page 34of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Rodriguez said it was the latter.
Council Member Price was inclined to go along with the comments about how
if they proceeded with the pilot program that it should have some fee
structure associated with it. Issuing free permits was a false or inaccurate
litmus test. She said that people who did not need the permit might use it
simply because it was free. It made sense to charge some reasonable fee
for the parking permits. She said that the price could be scaled or less than
what the potential long term would be, but it needed to be recognized in
further communication with residents in the trial area about what the likely
range of costs were if the program was implemented. With the discussion of
under zoning and planning there was a reference to TDM and other options.
Within that language it said other options would be examined and she
wanted to clarify if Staff was thinking about auto restricted zones or on
street metered parking.
Mr. Williams had not thought about auto restricted zones but they would at
least look at pricing issues to see if that was something the community and
Council wanted to look at. He said that it could be brought forward as part
of the menu.
Council Member Price said there were many hybrid programs used in
different places and every community was different. She encouraged
everyone to read the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup.
Mr. Shoup made the case that free parking inflated parking demand and
played into issues related to parking requirements and the zoning code. She
clarified that on the College Terrace program there was an opt-out scenario.
Mr. Williams clarified that there were two ways. One was not buying a
permit, and the second was that whole blocks could opt out if more than 50
percent wanted to opt out. If that happened they would not have the
signage on the street.
Mr. Rodriguez said that when the College Terrace program was initiated the
blocks voted to opt in or out. Afterward they had the opportunity to vote
per block and opt out again.
Council Member Price said she concurred with all the comments made about
the noticing of the public. She thought the City needed to be very mindful of
that at every stage. If there was a trial or a post-trial or any discussion of
the strategies the public should be noticed. She knew the Staff observed
that as well but she thought it was extremely important.
Page 35 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mayor Yeh knew that there were many considerations and iterations of the
RPP. Ultimately he did not support the pilot program or really even the
development of a RPP because he thought conducting additional studies was
the smartest approach. He asked Staff to define what they meant by long
term. He discussed the amount of Staff who would have to work on the
various options.
Mr. Rodriguez said that over the next six months there were many things
Staff could move forward on. Some of the initial things were studying the
existing surface laws to determine where they could build more garages and
if attendant parking made sense in the existing garages. There were many
factors including if the structures would support the weight of additional
cars. Staff could advance those studies because of a separate contribution
from the Lytton Gateway project. Staff also committed to advancing within
the next six months the development of some sort of RFP to help them
collect data about what they could do with technology deployment within the
garages. They also wanted to share more information with the Parking
Committee. There was a strong interest within the business community and
they had formed the assessment district to help advance many of the
solutions that were already in place and the City needed to respect that
process and solicit that input before they came back and made a strong
recommendation to Council.
Mr. Williams thought that some of the things that could be implemented in
the next six months were attendant parking, or at least a trial of that
somewhere, and some technology efforts. He said that building a parking
garage took longer, but in six months Staff would have good study
information on that. Mr. Keene had also discussed a public/private garage
that would be a faster track than the City building a structure on its own.
Mayor Yeh appreciated the thought that went into the pilot, but his greatest
concern was that it moved the problem and did not really address or create
a systemic solution. He said he favored a systemic solution.
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not
move forward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to:
1. Direct Staff to proceed with additional studies and actions related to
parking in downtown, including but not limited to:
a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and
costs;
b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant
parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces;
Page 36 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space
identification systems, and parking permit processing
improvements, etc.;
d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap
on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights,
variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non
conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluate paid parking options.
Mayor Yeh said he met with residents that .were the strongest proponents of
the RPP program and shared with them that he could not support an RPP
program in isolation. He felt it was moving a problem around and his
greatest concern was that the neighbors not in the trial zone would be
negatively impacted for the duration of the pilot. He thought the energy
could be more positively channeled to maintain the urgency that was
identified in the problem and focus ona systemic and comprehensive
solution and to move forward as quickly as possible. He acknowledged that
there was a problem and he lived in the Evergreen neighborhood where they
looked to College Terrace for having created a problem across EI Camino
Real in Evergreen. That was the kind of issue that he did not like. He
wanted to focus more on a great set of solutions and evaluations.
Council Member Holman said that she was supportive of finding relief for the
neighborhood but was not comfortable with what was brought to Council.
She said that Staff's time was not a wasted effort, but the RPP was not
ready for trial.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) a
Tran~portation Demand Management Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look
at underutilized private parking garages.
Council Member Holman said that there were parking garages in the
downtown area that were underutilized during both the daytime and in the
evening. She suggested Staff speak to the property owners to see how the
garages could be better utilized.
Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Holman's additions.
Council Member Holman believed that the intention was for Staff to report
back in six months. She did not want the business community or residents
to feel that this was something that would continue for an unlimited amount
of time. She wanted a report in six months.
Page 37 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Rodriguez thought that six months was feasible. Staff started many
things and wanted to involve the downtown merchants and allow the
community to participate in what the content of the RFP would be so that
when Staff solicited cost information for projects or programs they knew
they were inquiring about things that were of interest to the community. He
thought that within six months Staff could develop the RFP's. Six months
gave Staff the opportunity to meet Council's expectations.
Mr. Keene agreed with the six month timeframe with the understanding that
Staff would return before then with more of a detailed scope of what it was
they were asked to do. He said that even though Mr. Rodriguez responded
to some of the initial requests he did not believe it gave them a good
measure of what the outcomes or percentage of the perceived problem it
addressed in whatever period of time. It could be a multiyear effort that
Staff would make progress on, but that progress would still be unseen. He
suggested returning in the fall with· a more detailed report on what Staff
thought the timeframe was on the different components and what they
thought the yield was in relation to the problem. If they had to build
multiple parking structures that was a different issue than installing some
technology to update the existing capacity. He requested that they add
something to return to Council in three months. He wanted it to say
something about an assessment report. That was very different than having
implemented everything. Then Staff would return in six months.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council
in three months with check in and return with an update before the end of
the year
Council Member Holman said that she hoped that within six months Staff
would return with a progress update and identified a better program for a
RPP.
Mayor Yeh said that his Motion was to remove the consideration of an RPP.
Council Member Holman confirmed that Mayor Yeh meant that none of the
exercises were intended to lead to a RPP.
Mayor Yeh said yes, that the Motion did not include the Staff
Recommendation to evaluate an RPP.
Council Member Holman said that related to Downtown North.
Page 38 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mayor Yeh said his Motion was to not move forward with the Professorville
RPP. Everything in the remaining Motion could reset the baseline for what
downtown parking would look like.
Council Member Holman said her hope and understanding was that gOing
through this process would lead the City toward what it should do with an
RPP.
Mayor Yeh was not open to that and asked if she did not want to second the
Motion.
Mr. Keene said that there was always the possibility that the report would
have an impact on how the Council looked at an RPP. The Motion began
with not wanting Staff to work on an RPP and supporting any RPP process,
partly because it could be in conflict with the effort invested in the
alternatives.
Council Member Holman asked Mr. Williams if the information Staff provided
in three to six months would include what advancements had been made
and what Staff anticipated to see in terms of relief for Professorville so at
that pOint in time Council could look at if they wanted to move forward with
an RPP.
Mr. Williams said Staff would provide Council with an assessment of which
components of the work they were doing that would provide or had provided
relief to Professorville. At that point Council could revisit whether to try the
RPP. He thought Staff would have a real concern trying to retool a whole
new RPP program while they were looking at the other ~hings.
Council Member Holman said she would maintain her second to the Motion
but with the intention that RPP was still on the horizon.
Mayor Yeh confirmed he was not open to that.
Vice Mayor Scharff said he would support the Motion and suggested
language additions to the Motion. He said they change the verbiage to
reflect zoning studies and revisions as a concern from the public. He
wanted the City to evaluate that issue.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options
for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies
would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages.
Page 39 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Holman was hesitant because the neighborhood was built
up and much of it was Professorville she did not believe it would have much
of an impact.
Vice Mayor Scharff said they were looking at more than Professorville. The
Council was basically doing a comprehensive for Downtown North and South.
He thought they were looking at it on a comprehensive basis and was not
suggesting that there should be an outcome, just that it be evaluated as one
of the concerns.
Council Member Holman said she was comfortable as the seconder of Motion
now that it included the Incorporation.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted
in the Lytton Gateway Project.
Vice Mayor Scharff said that the other comment that Council Member
Holman made was related to the $250,000. He was not suggesting they use
it immediately, but the Council never agreed to do an RPP so they could not
have placed the funds aside for that. He thought the question was should
that money be used and could it be used to get relief. If Staff had that
money to use, he asked if they would make faster and better progress. He
stressed that he simply wanted to evaluate how to use the money. He
thought the Council was taking a good approach and trying to solve the
problem on a comprehensive basis. Staff's efforts needed to be focused on
the comprehensive basis because they did not have time to do both. It was
not saying no to an RPP permanently, it was focusing on the comprehensive
basis for six months.
Mr. Keene said the intent of the Motion was that unless the Council
redirected Staff in the six month time frame that they were taking work on
and assessments of RPP as a part of the solution off the table and shifting
the attention to see if Staff could identify solutions that may not require an
RPP program. Staff would look at ways to solve the problem though TDM,
additional parking, and other means knowing that at the end of the six
month period Staff would have enough information presented to Council that
Council would know what it would take to move forward on that front or if it
wanted to bring back up RPP.
Council Member Holman clarified the language by addihg the phrase "at this
time." She felt that made Council's intentions more clearly stated.
Page 40of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after
"Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion.
Council Member Burt agreed with the Motion and thought that if Council
-looked at an RPP in the future that it should be more comprehensive. As
they looked at what prompted the problem he thought the most legitimate
one was that there were 11 homes in the broader study area that had no
driveways or garages. He stated that as the spillover grew the problem
became more acute. He asked if the City ever looked at simply giving relief
to those 11 homes through curb striping.
Mr. Williams said that was not evaluated.
Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Williams saw any problems if the City went
in the direction of a spot program that provided relief to homes without a
driveway. He said that those spots could be either the resident's permit or
two hour parking.
Mr. Williams said Staff had to discuss that and see if it was feasible. He
thought one of the issues was that he did not know if those were the people
that were complaining about not having spaces.
Council Member Burt offered the language to be incorporated into the
Motion. He thqught that would not be disruptive to the downtown parking
district and would address the most acute problem. He thought that was the
most legitimate complaint.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for
those homes without a driveway or garage.
Council Member Price said she would not support the Motion although she
appreciated the modifications because clearly a more aggressive
comprehensive plan was important. She thought they needed to have the
RPP trial as one element of a comprehensive approach. The other
approaches were important, but based on comments from both sides
residential parking was a concern to a sufficient number of people. She felt
that if a pilot program were done that charging a fee for it made more
sense. She said that if the Council really wanted to be comprehensive it
would retain the RPP as part of the ambitious list. She said that the RPP was
not a panacea, none of the options discussed were a panacea, but the
question was if the City was looking at the whole picture comprehensively.
Page 41 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Council Member Holman' said that they were doing this because there were
concerns from the neighborhood about spill over parking. Council indicated
that perhaps addressing some of the issues might alleviate the parking in
the neighborhoods but there were many comments that evening about the
lack of transparency. She asked about the process moving forward and if it
was going to be an open process with public input.
Mr. Williams said it depended on the item, but he thought most of them
would be put together and a community meeting would be noticed before
Staff returned to Council. That would probably not happen before Staff
returned with the programmatic information, but it would before the end of
the year session.
Council Member Holman confirmed that the community meeting would
include more than the pilot area.
Mr. Keene said that they did not know the parameters of it at that point, but _
the emergent neighborhood complaints alerted Staff that there was a large
challenge. Whatever was mitigated ten years ago when PAMF moved had
reemerged and Council was asking Staff to look at the parking challenge
accommodation of the 2010-2020 decade. There were many issues that
would touch many stakeholders. That required engagement and outreach.
Council Member Holman suggested more than one community meeting. The
reason she suggested not just the area that was included in the pilot was
because some of the people in that area were the most invested in the
dialogue. She wanted to make sure that it was not a self-selected group
again.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to
call the question.
MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent
Council Member Shepherd asked a question about the downtown cap and
the boundaries of the downtown cap. She said that the Arrillaga project
could be coming forward and she wanted to know how that was going to be
handled. She knew it was outside the boundary of the downtown cap and
asked if Staff would bring that analysis when they returned with the item.
Page 42 of 47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
MINUTES
Mr. Williams said they probably would, but that he thought Council would
see some of the Arrillaga project before that came back. He said they would
see the extent to which it was parked.
Council Member Shepherd said she was concerned about traffic and parking.
She said it was tangential and important for Council to review at the same
time.
Mr. Williams said they indicated in the Staff report that they would be
embodying that but whether it was actually part of the number on the cap
was to be determined.
14. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve a
Definition of Carbon Neutrality in Anticipation of Achieving a Carbon
Neutral Electric Supply Portfolio by 2015.
James Keene, City Manager, said the Staff was ready to answer questions
and that the Chair of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) was present.
James Cook, Chair UAC said the item was about the definition. They were
not debating the pros and cons or items about carbon neutrality, but the
definition. Staff confirmed that this was the industry standard definition, so
for the UAC it was a short item and they felt the definition was good. The
definition did not preclude a later discussion about how to achieve carbon
neutrality or when to do it. This was the framework to start with and the
UAC passed it unanimously. He urged the Council to pass the definition.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to
approve the following definition as the basis for the City's pursuit of a carbon
neutral supply portfolio: A carbon neutral electric supply portfolio will
demonstrate annual net zero greenhouse gas (GHB) emissions, measured at
the citygate, in accordance with The Climate Registry's Electric Power Sector
protocol for GHG emissions measurement and reporting.
Vice Mayor Scharff said that Staff represented that the definition was
achievable, credible, transparent and measurable as well as consistent with
current industry standards for GHB accounting and reporting protocols and
taking that representation to be true he thought it was the right definition.
Council Member Klein asked where the citygate was.
Monica Padilla, Senior Resource Planner, said citygate was where they
interconnected with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
Page 43 of47
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 7/16/12
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rademps <rademps@aol.com>
Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:47 PM
Council, City
Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Members of the City Council:
21
12 OCT 29 Mi 10: 42
I know that you are all fully aware of the parking problems plaguing residential areas north
and south of University Avenue as well as the downtown area itself, and that the Council
has instructed Staff to address the issue on a broad scale. In the meantime, I want to
suggest something that would quickly alleviate the parking problem for some of the
residents, particularly those in and near Professorville. That area has many older homes,
homes that were designed before the great automobile era, homes that have no garage
and no driveway.
There is a feeling among some in government and among some residents that it is wrong
for residents to ask for what amounts to private parking on a public street; however, those
homes that have a driveway do have the equivalent of a private parking spot on a public
street since no one can park in front of their driveway. The result is, those of us with no
driveway suffer from de facto discrimination since the city does not provide us with a
parking spot in front of our homes.
I'm sure there are a dozen reasons that will come to mind why the City cannot do it, but I
am equally sure that with a simple change of polic y the city could make it legal to have a
'virtual driveway" in front of every home that has no real driveway.
In our case, we do have access to parking via an alley in back of our home; however it is
less safe and less convenient to use than parking a few blocks away. It is very narrow
and difficult to enter the carport, more difficult to back out without damaging our back
neighbor's fence. The alley is not lit at night. Because workmen often use it to park it is
not always accessible, unlike a street space, and is sometimes littered with construction
materials such as nails and screws. Further, our sliding gate is exceptionally heavy (my
wife cannot open it) and the two motorized openers we have had installed over the years
have burned out at great cost to us. I would ask the Council members to do some
creative thinking about a policy that would allow us to drive away and have the same
access to return to our homes that residents with driveway do.
Regards,
Ray Dempsey
1036 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
10
MINUTES
Page 17 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to; 1) approve the Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project
will not result in significant environmental impacts; and (2) approve a
Record of Land Use Action approving the Preliminary Parcel Map with
exceptions for 827 Chimalus Drive, based on the stated findings and
conditions.
Council Member Espinosa said subdividing the lot was logical and fit the
neighborhood. Because of the small number of non-conforming lots in the
neighborhood, the Council did not need to worry about an increase in
density or traffic.
Council Member Klein inquired when the Council adopted the R-1 maximum
size.
Ms. French answered 2005.
Council Member Klein felt subdividing the lot would not have a significant
impact on the density of the community.
Council Member Shepherd agreed with previous comments.
Council Member Price supported the Motion. She was more concerned about
the issue of people merging parcels, and was delighted to hear about the
maximum parcel size.
Mayor Yeh supported the Motion. He appreciated the applicant speaking
with neighbors.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Burt, Holman not participating
17. Public Hearing: Consider Extending up to December 28, 2013 a
Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in
Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and
Adopt a Resolution Providing Exceptions to the Moratorium for
"Pipeline Projects" at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment wished to
discuss the moratorium on the parking exception previously adopted and
extended once. Staff asked the Council to 1) further extend the parking
moratorium for an additional year to allow for appropriate studies,
responses, and actions to address the Downtown parking issues identified
and presented in a previous report; and 2) consider exceptions to the
MINUTES
Page 18 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
moratorium for two projects currently pending in the development review
process. The structure of the Ordinance provided that the Council could
enact exceptions pursuant to Resolution adopted separately from the
Ordinance. These were technically two separate actions. The Ordinance as
an Urgency Ordinance required eight votes for adoption, and the Resolution
required a majority vote for adoption. The most significant issue was the
exceptions for the two projects in the development process. The 135
Hamilton Avenue project would be approximately 20,000 square feet of
office development with two residential units. The applicant proposed 23
on-site parking spaces. Another 20 spaces would be exempt from parking,
because of the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TAR). Forty spaces
would be exempt due to the one-to-one floor area ratio (FAR) exemption,
which was subject to the moratorium. Not providing an exemption would
require the applicant to pay in-lieu fees for 40 spaces or provide 40 on-site
parking spaces, which was not practical. The site was currently used as a
parking lot and leased to nearby businesses and contained 20-23 parking
spaces. The 636 Waverley Street project would be approximately 5,000
square feet of office space and two residential units. The Architectural
Review Board (ARB) performed a preliminary review. The applicant was
revising the plan to present to the ARB in early 2013. The one-to-one FAR
exemption accounted for 15 spaces that would be exempt from parking. The
number of parking spaces could change depending on the final project. The
applicant would provide some on-site parking with the project.
Transferrable Development Rights were not an issue for the project. The
135 Hamilton Avenue project had been to the ARB once for full review. The
ARB suggested a number of revisions. The applicant submitted a revised
project for an ARB study session, and the ARB suggested further changes.
The project was scheduled for an ARB meeting in January 2013 for further
review and possibly action. Staff outlined five options for Council
consideration. The first option was not to allow exceptions. This would
require the 135 Hamilton Avenue project be revised to provide 40 parking
spaces or in-lieu fees for 40 parking spaces. The 636 Waverley Street
project would have a similar requirement. It would be approximately
$900,000 to accomplish the 15 spaces for that project. A second option was
to allow exceptions, recognizing that the applicants were well into the
process, but require the applicants to pay into the Assessment District. Staff
suggested an equivalent assessment payment based on the amounts the
projects would have had to pay with the issuance of the 2001 bonds through
2030, including interest. Those numbers would be required in any kind of
exemption proceeding. Staff suggested funds be paid into the Downtown
Parking In-Lieu Fee Fund, to be used for construction of a parking garage.
The amount of payments to the Assessment District was estimated at
$326,000 for 135 Hamilton Avenue and $122,000 for 636 Waverley Street.
A third option, which Staff recommended, was to require the projects to pay
MINUTES
Page 19 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
the assessment equivalent and to have the two properties share the cost of
the Downtown Cap Study. Staff estimated the cost to the projects at
$150,000, and would apportion the $150,000 amount between the two
projects in the same ratio as their parking space exemptions. A fourth
option was to allow the exemptions, but to require some measure of in-lieu
parking funds. Option 4 was midway between Options 1 and 3. The fifth
option was to allow an exception for 135 Hamilton Avenue, given its length
of time in the process, but no exception for 636 Waverley Street, given it
was not as invested in the process. The Resolution was written for Option 3.
Staff recommended any option include a requirement for an aggressive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to be incorporated. Staff
recommended Option 3, because the projects had proceeded in good faith
through the process; however, Staff recognized that was a policy decision
for the Council to determine.
Council Member Burt asked Staff to compare the TDM requirement of a 20
percent mode split, as stated in Attachment B Number 6, with TDM
requirements for other programs Downtown.
Mr. Williams indicated the requirement was the same as the requirement for
the Lytton Gateway project. Around the City, the mode split was between
15 percent and 30-35 percent.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the higher percentages were achieved
through firms having their own bus services.
Mr. Williams believed firms offering bus service tended to be at the highest
range. Firms could not achieve more than 20 percent without bus service.
Council Member Burt felt development had to have minimal impact on the
roadways and have mitigation of parking impacts, and asked if the Council
should consider increasing the mode split percentage for future projects.
Mr. Williams stated Staff considered 20 percent as a standard throughout
the City. He suggested the Council consider 25-30 percent as a goal,
because the project was adjacent to transit, or 20 percent for the first few
years and then 25-30 percent at five years.
Council Member Burt had not thought of a graduated program such as that.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the projects together created a parking deficit of
approximately 98 spaces, and inquired about the overall parking deficit in
Downtown.
MINUTES
Page 20 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Mr. Williams reported the annual Downtown monitoring report indicated a
deficit of 722 spaces. He did not know the specifics of that number, but felt
it was probably understated.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated these projects made the parking deficit worse by
10-15 percent.
Mr. Williams agreed.
Vice Mayor Scharff recalled Staff recommended the Council consider ground-
floor retail if the applicant was asked for its input on how ground-floor retail
would affect project plans. The projects were not Planned Communities
(PC). He asked if the request on the exemption was addressed in fairness
and equity.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated the Council was not negotiating for public benefits,
and asked why the Council would want to know the impact of ground-floor
retail.
Mr. Williams explained Staff's intent in that response was not to suggest that
the Council require ground-floor retail. It would be informative to know if
there were implications for the project relative to a retail use. It was a
courtesy to hear the implications for a project.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the 135 Hamilton Avenue project had
been through ARB review.
Mr. Williams reported it had been to ARB twice. ARB had not recommended
the project at the current time.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the project had been designed for
ground-floor retail.
Mr. Williams replied yes. One of the major issues with the project had been
the ground-floor.
Vice Mayor Scharff requested Staff suggest impacts of requiring ground-floor
retail other than the economic aspect of retail versus office use.
James Keene, City Manager asked if Vice Mayor Scharff meant impacts
related to parking specifically.
MINUTES
Page 21 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Vice Mayor Scharff answered no. He wanted to know possible other impacts.
Mr. Williams felt economics was the primary impact and an alternative
parking solution that might work better with retail than with office.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether parking would work better with a retail
use.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted 60 parking spaces could be built for approximately
$2.4 million, yet Staff recommended the parking assessment for 135
Hamilton Avenue be $326,000. He asked Staff to explain how the parking
assessment was calculated.
Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of Administrative Services Department explained
he was asked to treat the projects as though they were buying into the
original Assessment District. The method was to use the original 9,122
spaces and add the required number of spaces (40 for the Hamilton project)
to determine a ratio to apply to both the principle and the interest of the 30-
year bonds. He applied the ratio of 40 to 9,122 plus 40 to the principle and
interest from 2001 through 2030 to derive the assessment of $326,000 for
135 Hamilton Avenue. A similar method was used for the project at 636
Waverley Street. It was one method for retroactively and prospectively
charging without an inflation factor. Basically, the amount was the projects'
prorated share of the annual debt service payments since the construction of
the garages.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether funds from the Assessment District
were used to maintain the spaces in the garages or to build the garages.
Mr. Saccio reported that money was used to build the garages. Under
Proposition 218, an assessment engineer determined an equitable allocation
of costs to each property owner within the defined Assessment District. At
that time, the formula adopted by the Council was 1 space per 250 square
feet. If a 1,000 square foot building provided only 1 space, then they were
assessed for 3 spaces. The costs of principle and interest for the bond were
allocated according to each property's proportional share of the overall
spaces.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many parking spaces were built.
MINUTES
Page 22 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Mr. Saccio did not remember the exact number of spaces in existence at the
time, because garages were built on surface lots. To the best of his
recollection, more than 700 spaces were built.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why the formula related to the full 9,000 spaces
rather than 800 spaces. Using 800 spaces would seem to provide a truer
picture of the cost of buying into the Assessment District.
Mr. Saccio explained the allocation methodology was based on need rather
than the number of spaces being constructed. The number of additional
spaces due to each property could not be determined. The methodology
was the net need in the District based on the square footage of property not
being supplied with parking spaces.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the methodology was calculated on the
need to build "X" number of parking spaces and, therefore, the need to raise
"X" amount of funds.
Mr. Saccio stated the methodology was not based on the incremental
number of spaces that could be built. It was based on the number of spaces
that were not supplied.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff could calculate an assessment amount
including inflation.
Mr. Saccio indicated Staff could certainly calculate that, but it was not
incorporated into the current assessment amount. Only the interest was
charged.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired about the interest rate used for the calculation.
Mr. Saccio believed the interest rate was 5 percent on the original bonds,
and a lower rate when the bonds were refinanced in 2012.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff used 5 percent as if it were on the bonds.
Mr. Saccio reported the amount was the interest the City was paying on the
bonds, and did not include inflation.
Council Member Schmid believed the original Urgency Ordinance concerned
the issue of parking and parking exemptions, because of the parking
shortage and parking overflow into neighborhoods. The Council did not
know the size of the shortage. He inquired whether the Urgency Ordinance
MINUTES
Page 23 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
was passed because of a perceived lack of parking spaces, and a moratorium
was affected in order to prevent exacerbation of the shortage.
Mr. Williams stated that was an interpretation of what happened. Staff
initiated the original request for an Urgency Ordinance out of concern that a
few projects were taking advantage of parking exemptions, and wanted to
ensure that additional projects were not able to do that. Staff recognized
that these projects would exacerbate the problem to some extent.
Council Member Schmid said parking was becoming increasingly expensive
and had an economic value. In granting parking exemptions, the Council
passed the cost on to someone else, whether it was retailers, employers, or
visitors. The Council should consider those property owners asking for
exemptions and those who might bear the economic cost. One of the
reasons for passing the Urgency Ordinance was to have a study to determine
the shortage. He asked how the Council should balance a new exemption
with who paid for it.
Mr. Williams reported balancing those was the Council's policy
determination. The moratorium balanced future projects against the amount
of exacerbation that occurred.
Public Hearing opened at 9:09 P.M.
Chop Keenan would not have pursued the 135 Hamilton Avenue project if
the moratorium had been in place when he first considered the project. He
expended time and funds in reliance on the Council's rules and regulations.
He would absorb the $326,000 parking assessment if it was imposed.
Ground-floor retail would be a fatal flaw if that was the only option for him.
David Kleiman proposed a small mixed-use development consisting of two
office spaces and two apartments at 636 Waverley Street. When he
submitted plans for ARB consideration, he rightly assumed that the Zoning
Ordinance in effect at that time would apply to his building program. In the
past, pipeline projects were allowed to use existing Ordinances. If this
precedent was applied, he would only have to provide parking for new
spaces. He was willing to pay the parking assessment and towards the
Downtown Cap Study. The Staff recommendation was reasonable. He
hoped the Council would consider his situation, the large dollar amounts
being requested, and approve Staff's recommendation.
Ken Alsman reported the Downtown area provided 1,700 employee parking
spaces for more than 6,000 existing employees. With the proposed
exceptions, the 135 Hamilton Avenue project would provide no new parking
MINUTES
Page 24 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
while replacing the existing 23 parking spaces with 23 underground stacking
machines and the 636 Waverley Street project provided 4 new parking
spaces and needed 16 more spaces. Granting the exceptions was contrary
to the basic precepts of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, good planning
practice, and common sense. If the Council was obligated to approve the
exceptions, it should require the developers to pay the full in-lieu fee for
parking lost and parking not provided.
Neilson Buchanan related a conversation with a developer regarding parking.
He supported the moratorium and the two exceptions with two provisions:
1) the City Council settle future requests for exceptions, and 2) Staff and the
City Council determine where employees would park.
Marion Odell indicated parking density had increased significantly despite the
construction of two large parking structures. Staff did not have a saturation
metric or standard for neighborhood parking. Metrics existed for business
parking; however, the Council probably had not adopted them. She hoped
the scope of the upcoming parking study would include definitions and
standards for saturation. She expressed concern about safety issues.
People avoided shopping and dining Downtown, because of traffic and the
lack of parking.
Karen Dreyfus disagreed with Staff's recommendation. It did not include
other equitable factors the Council should consider in exercising its discretion
in this decision. A parking shortfall of 100 spaces was significant. Parking
analyses did not mention public safety hazards. Each homeowner would
suffer a decrease in home value of at least several hundred thousand
dollars.
Herb Borock supported extending the moratorium and opposed any
exceptions. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project had not gone through the
ARB process in that the ARB had not provided a final recommendation. The
636 Waverley Street project did not satisfy Staff's draft Ordinance. The
developers of 135 Hamilton Avenue previously operated under another
moratorium. Although he opposed any exceptions, an exception should be
adopted by Ordinance not Resolution.
Robert Moss supported the moratorium. There was no justification for
considering an exception for 636 Waverley Street, because it was not a
project in terms of any Board or Commission review. The 135 Hamilton
Avenue project was entitled to something, but not total elimination of
requirements. He expressed concern that the City received funds for
parking garages rather than parking spaces. If the Council allowed
exceptions, it should limit the number of exemptions from parking; the
MINUTES
Page 25 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
owners or employers should be required to pay for parking; and there
should be penalties for employees parking in neighborhoods. He suggested
the Council adopt Option Number 1 and require payment for any exceptions.
Sally-Ann Rudd supported extending the moratorium without exceptions.
The moratorium was introduced to stop developers from putting cars into
Downtown without building parking spaces. She suggested the Downtown
Cap Study have a metric for measuring saturation of residential
neighborhoods and propose a level at which a neighborhood was
unsatisfactorily saturated with cars.
Public Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M.
Mayor Yeh recommended splitting the two Items.
MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to adopt the
extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on
the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section
18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit,
entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and
California Avenue parking issues, for a period of one year through December
28, 2013, and allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate
Council Action.
Mayor Yeh stated this was an important step to ensure other actions such as
the Downtown Cap Study and parking analysis. Like Mr. Borock, he
questioned the need for a Resolution versus an Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt this should not have been operable for the prior ten
years. There were serious parking problems in Downtown and adjacent
neighborhoods.
Council Member Klein clarified it was not a Downtown moratorium; it was a
moratorium on the applicability of the exempt floor area parking exemption,
which had been rarely used. He inquired whether most other projects could
proceed in accordance with other sections of the Code.
Mr. Williams answered yes. A few developers had explored this exemption,
but Staff informed them they could not use the exemption. Transfer
development rights and in-lieu fees were other methods for projects to
proceed on providing parking.
Council Member Klein stated projects in the past did provide parking, and
this was not an overall Downtown moratorium.
MINUTES
Page 26 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Council Member Holman wished to ensure the Motion language was
consistent with the Motion provided in the Packet. She inquired if the maker
intended to strike all language after December 28, 2013.
Mayor Yeh replied no. That language provided flexibility for the Council to
discuss the second part of the recommendation.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the language "allowing for
exceptions for certain projects by separate Council Action" meant the Council
would allow exceptions.
Molly Stump, City Attorney explained that language and the Urgency
Ordinance extension allowed the Council to provide for exceptions
separately. It did not indicate that the Council would provide exceptions,
what the exceptions would be, how exceptions would be framed, or any
conditions. The first vote required 8 votes as it was an Urgency vote. The
separate action would require a straight majority vote, or 5 members.
Council Member Holman asked if the language "allowing for exceptions for
certain projects by separate Council Action" provided latitude for the Council
to do one or the other.
Ms. Stump responded yes.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Council Member Schmid indicated exceptions were allowed at the discretion
of the Council based on rational and equitable bases. The number of
exemptions would be approximately 100 spaces. The Council had to
consider the cost of exemptions and passing the burden to others. The
rational steps were to determine the benefits of exemptions and who paid
for them.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to allow no exceptions.
Council Member Holman stated the Council's responsibility was to work in
the public's best interest. She appreciated the projects in the pipeline, but it
was not fair to impose impacts on others. The public's best interest would
be not to allow exceptions for the two pipeline projects.
Council Member Klein opposed the Motion. The Council's first obligation was
to the people, but it had a higher obligation to act ethically. This was not an
MINUTES
Page 27 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
ethical Motion. The Council was free to set different limits that did not
exceed court rulings and state law. When people relied on laws and
expended significant sums of money, the Council had an obligation to allow
them to proceed. Imposing an obligation to provide parking on projects
would not solve the parking problem. He urged the Council to vote no, and
to uphold Palo Alto's character and history of treating applicants fairly.
Council Member Burt was unsure why the Council was considering an
extension of the moratorium rather than repealing the Ordinance. He
inquired whether the projects would have a TDM requirement under the
Motion.
Mr. Williams reported Staff attempted to apply some TDM measures to all
projects, and suggested a requirement of not more than 20 percent. As far
as penalties, Staff envisioned a condition similar to the one used in the
Lytton Gateway project. Staff would require a TDM program to be
developed and to identify goals which would probably be up to 20 percent.
Council Member Burt reiterated that the Council could ask for a TDM
program, but could not require enforcement or increase it beyond current
requirements.
Mr. Williams explained the Code authorized TDM programs when parking
reductions were provided; therefore, a TDM program was justified in this
instance.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the exemption as written would apply
to the 636 Waverley Street project.
Mr. Williams believed it would. An application for preliminary review was
submitted prior to October 15, 2012, which was a normal step in the
architectural review process. Mr. Borock was correct in that a second
application was associated with a formal review. A fair amount of
information was required to apply for a preliminary review. The project did
meet that criterion.
Council Member Espinosa opposed the Motion and agreed with Council
Member Klein's comments. The Council had taken steps and was studying
the parking issue to determine further steps. The Palo Alto process provided
transparency and understanding of what to expect when doing business with
the City.
Council Member Price opposed the Motion and agreed with comments of
Council Members Klein and Espinosa.
MINUTES
Page 28 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to treat people fairly, but questioned who would
be treated fairly. Someone would have to pay for removing cars from
neighborhoods. He preferred to continue the Item to obtain information
from the Chief Transportation Official Jaime Rodriguez. Granting the
exceptions would increase the pressure in neighborhoods, and that
concerned him. If the Council granted the exceptions, it was compromising
the quality of life in Palo Alto. The Council should consider the effect of the
exemptions on the community.
Council Member Shepherd reported the Council was attempting to resolve
the parking issues in Downtown neighborhoods. Continuing to improve
Downtown was important. She associated her comments with those of
Council Members Klein and Espinosa. The in-lieu fees of approximately $4.5
million would be placed in the parking in-lieu fees fund, which totaled
approximately $3 million. She asked the cost to construct a new garage.
Mr. Williams believed a new garage would cost probably $7-$10 million.
Council Member Shepherd indicated the fund had almost half the amount
needed.
Mr. Williams agreed.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Council could reconfigure
the Downtown Parking District or create a new one.
Mr. Williams reported the Parking District was a legal structure created with
the Assessment District. Establishing a new structure of the District was not
possible. The Council could modify color zones and parking requirements.
The parking garage study would consider potential public-private
partnerships. There were options that could possibly fill in some gaps.
Council Member Shepherd would not support the current Motion. She would
support exceptions for the two pipeline projects which would provide in-lieu
fees as well as pay for the Downtown Cap Study. Granting exceptions would
allow the Council to utilize an aggressive TDM program.
Mayor Yeh appreciated the sensitivity of balancing interests. The Council
had to utilize existing parking resources more efficiently. He inquired
whether the Council could condition the Use and Occupancy Permits for
these projects on certain outcomes relating to the parking process. Perhaps
the developers could not be allowed to occupy the buildings until the Council
could demonstrate an offset of the 100 new vehicles that would impact
MINUTES
Page 29 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
neighbors. The applications could move forward with the clear
understanding that the applicants that could not move in until conditions
were met.
Mr. Keene explained the projects could move forward even if exceptions
were not granted. Without exceptions, the projects could proceed with the
process if they provided parking. Practically, the Council would have to limit
occupancy until the project was parked or a TDM program was in place.
Mr. Williams clarified that only 55 parking spaces were exempt without the
moratorium. The rest of the project could be built without this moratorium
in place.
Ms. Stump suggested Mayor Yeh's question suggested potential actions by
the applicants as well as work by the City or third parties. Staff would need
to consider the idea and its complexities. Staff suggested there were other
ideas worth pursuing; however, the ideas were in the early stage and the
parking study would discuss them. She expressed concern about
conditioning occupancy on ideas in early planning stages.
Mayor Yeh proposed continuing the Item to a date after the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) had its scope study around the Downtown
Cap Study.
Ms. Stump believed that was one option. This particular piece of Staff's
recommendation did not have to go forward at the current time. The
Council could take it up at a later date.
Mayor Yeh inquired whether an exception would best be codified in a
Resolution or an Ordinance. If it were an Ordinance, the Council could not
take action at the current time.
Ms. Stump explained both Ordinances and Resolutions were legislative
actions of the Council. Staff believed the language allowed the Council to
proceed. If the Council did not take action, Staff would review it. The two-
step process contained a fair amount of complexity, and she could review it
to ensure the Council acted correctly.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Scharff to continue the discussion regarding exceptions to the Moratorium to
a date uncertain, Staff to return with additional analysis of means to reduce
the parking impacts of these projects, as well as clarification of Resolution
versus Ordinance as it pertains to moratorium exception.
MINUTES
Page 30 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Mr. Keene felt the language should be changed if the Council wanted more
time to direct or request analyses related to the project and its impacts. He
wanted to ensure the Substitute Motion provided direction to Staff.
Council Member Burt suggested Staff return with additional analysis of
means to reduce the parking impacts of these projects.
Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Burt's suggestion with the
understanding that Staff would consider comments from the current
discussion.
Council Member Burt would not list the examples in the Substitute Motion.
Vice Mayor Scharff could not vote to add 10-15 percent more cars to the
neighborhoods. He preferred finding methods to reduce that impact.
Council Member Burt noted several issues as well as the City's commitment
to reduce the problem. One consideration was whether projects would
significantly worsen the problem. The projects could not be held in limbo
forever. He asked when Staff could provide a draft of possible measures for
greater utilization of parking lots.
Mr. Williams answered 90 days. He wanted to have a good basic data set to
discuss parking saturation for neighborhoods and the options for supplying
parking. In 3-6 months, Staff could return with other changes to zoning that
needed to be implemented and that would assist with future projects.
Council Member Burt requested two pieces of information: 1) whether Mr.
Rodriguez could identify additional parking spaces that could be generated
Downtown before these projects came online; and 2) ways that these
projects could reduce their parking impacts. A significant means would be a
larger TDM program with enforcement measures. The future was aggressive
programs, smart programs, and cost-effective programs to help achieve
reduced parking and traffic demand.
Council Member Holman questioned whether the Substitute Motion allowed
the Council not to grant exceptions.
Vice Mayor Scharff clarified that there could be no exceptions.
Council Member Holman felt the Substitute Motion suggested the Council
was considering methods to reduce parking impacts without addressing the
possibility of not reaching an acceptable level.
MINUTES
Page 31 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Ms. Stump explained the Council had enacted the moratorium on the one-to-
one exemption. That exemption did not exist unless the Council took an
affirmative action to create an exception.
Mr. Keene stated there was no exception. The Council could direct Staff to
return with additional analyses of means.
Council Member Holman noted the applicants could continue the application
process if the Council continued the Item, and inquired whether the
applicants continued at their own risk.
Mr. Williams reported continuing the applicant process was at the applicants'
risk, because there was a moratorium on using that particular exemption.
Unless some exception was provided, the applicants would need to comply
with the current Ordinance under the moratorium.
Council Member Holman noted the parking impact was 78 spaces. The
Council could not ignore the context and real impact.
Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to explain what work they would
undertake in the 90 days prior to returning with possible methods to reduce
parking impacts.
Mr. Williams reported Staff could produce short-term steps to provide
additional parking in Downtown. However, he was unsure whether they
could find 55 spaces or more, and how that related to other projects coming
online or in the process. Staff could determine some ways to either increase
supply or reduce demand, and would work with the applicants to determine
what they could do with regard to TDM approaches or other ideas.
Council Member Espinosa understood from Mr. Rodriguez that good
information about impacts would not be ready until the spring or summer
2013.
Mr. Williams agreed a meaningful comprehensive picture would not be
available in 90 days. The Council was directing Staff to determine short-
term methods to address most of the incremental deficiency for these
projects such that the projects could move forward.
Council Member Espinosa inquired whether there would be additional costs
for this type of analysis.
Mr. Williams explained Staff would engage in the analysis and some of the
front work to compile good data in any event, because that was part of the
MINUTES
Page 32 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
contractual process with consultants. There would be an impact on Staff in
terms of spending time on short-term steps rather than on the long-term
study or some other component of their work program.
Mr. Keene appreciated the effort to find middle ground before making a
decision. Performing this short-term work within the context of the large
scale review of Downtown was not the best design for reviewing this. It
would impact the larger study in time, work and consultant costs. This
focused analysis could be utilized in the larger work. He preferred Staff
consume as little time and effort as possible on the Substitute Motion. It
would impact how Staff framed and worked on the larger analysis.
Council Member Klein did not support the Substitute Motion, because it
made the problem worse. He wanted to make a decision tonight. Changing
the rules would harm the Council with future partnerships. The Council
should find a method to replace the shortage prior to the projects opening.
The answer was not to impose the solution on two people who had acted
fairly and honestly.
Council Member Price would not support the Substitute Motion and agreed
with Council Member Klein's comments. She expressed concern about the
public perception of the Council's ability to make decisions. Deferring a
decision was not positive. She was unsure whether Staff would have time to
provide information to address the complex problem. Staff's time would be
better spent on the scope and implementation of the parking study and the
Downtown Cap Study. A vigorous TDM component should be considered.
She supported the original Staff recommendation as it would allow the
Council and the applicants to move forward.
Council Member Schmid understood Mr. Williams' preference was to obtain
the development cap and traffic saturation study in order to understand the
context. Everyone agreed that was an essential step. He inquired whether
the maker and seconder of the Substitute Motion did not want to interfere
with generating the necessary data.
Vice Mayor Scharff explained the Substitute Motion would not interfere with
the data being generated.
Mayor Yeh wanted the Item to return for discussion after the PTC Study
Session on the scope of the Downtown Cap Study. That scope had to be
defined to create a context for these projects.
Council Member Schmid felt Staff had articulated that.
MINUTES
Page 33 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Council Member Shepherd indicated the Substitute Motion was moving this
Item past the 45 days that the Council set for its resolution. She asked
when the Council would have the information it needed to make a decision
on allowing the pipeline projects to proceed.
Mr. Williams estimated Staff would return to the Council with information in
March or April 2013. The Council would have to determine whether the
information was sufficient to take action at that time.
Council Member Shepherd could not support the Substitute Motion. The
Council needed to move forward with some certainty for the applicants.
Council Member Burt was concerned that the March or April timeframe was
too long.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to direct Staff to
return within 60 days with whatever measures they are able to come up with
at the time.
Council Member Holman was glad to have this incorporated. She asked
what would happen if one of the projects received ARB approval before Staff
returned with information in 60 days.
Ms. Stump explained developers under the law as approved had the option
to proceed without the one-to-one exemption. The moratorium was in
place. When Staff returned with additional information in 60 days, the
Council could take action and provide for some exception.
Council Member Holman wanted to ensure that a project was not vested
through the ARB process.
Ms. Stump stated a project could vest under the current law.
Mr. Keene added the project would have to meet the parking requirements
without the exemption.
Council Member Espinosa expressed concern about the pressure placed by
the 60-day timeframe on the Planning Department.
Mr. Keene felt the shorter timeframe would impact the resulting information
rather than the larger issue.
MINUTES
Page 34 of 34
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 12/10/12
Mayor Yeh noted the PTC Study Session on the Downtown Cap Study would
occur within those 60 days. That discussion would provide the context for
the Council to understand solutions related to parking.
Mr. Williams agreed the Study Session would occur prior to Staff returning
with additional information.
Mayor Yeh did not foresee much additional work being performed.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 5-4 Shepherd, Price, Klein, Espinosa no
Mayor Yeh reported Monday, December 17, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. in the
Council Chambers, the Youth Video Corps would present two videos for
different infrastructure projects for the City. The Corps was invited to
participate in the Presidential Inauguration proceedings.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 P.M.
Transportation Element – Parking Goals, Policies and Programs
GOAL T‐8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities
T45 Policy Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue
business districts to address long‐range needs.
T49 Program Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management
strategies for Downtown Palo Alto.
T50 Program
Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a
parking consultant to explore options for constructing new parking facilities or using
existing parking more efficiently.
T51 Program Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas.
T46 Policy
Minimize the need for all‐day employee parking facilities in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts and encourage short‐term
customer parking.
T47 Policy Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.
T52 Program Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas.
T53 Program Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
T48 Policy
Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the
efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible use of remote
parking lots with shuttle bus service.
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
September 25, 2013 2
VERBATIM EXCERPT MINUTES 3
4
5
6
Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and recommendation to City Council to adopt: 7
A. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading 8
Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor 9
Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) of the Palo 10
Alto Municipal Code. 11
B. Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown 12
Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain 13
Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area. 14
15
These actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 16
15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 17
18
Chair Michael: The next item on the agenda is the Parking Exemptions Code Review where the Planning 19
and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review and recommend to the City Council whether to adopt 20
two ordinances, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.52 of Title 18 to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” 21
parking exemption and secondly to adopt an interim ordinance to amend Chapters 18.18 and 18.52 22
dealing with the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and parking and loading requirement to eliminate 23
certain parking exemptions within the downtown area. And we’ll begin with a staff report. 24
25
Aaron Aknin, Interim Director – Planning: Thank you Chair and Commission. Aaron Aknin, Interim 26
Planning Director. So I’ve been with the City for a little bit over a year now and I can tell you that the 27
zoning code and particularly how it relates to parking is very complex. There are a number of provisions 28
that were adopted over the time and a lot of those provisions were adopted in the 1980’s. And what 29
happened during the 1980’s was there was a downzoning of almost all the properties within the 30
downtown area and other areas within the City. And at that time it appears that there were different 31
concessions and compromises made within the code and some of those were exemptions for parking that 32
were really there to provide incentive to property owners to develop within the downtown area. Well as 33
the Commission knows now there doesn’t, there isn’t a need for much incentive. A lot of development is 34
going on downtown and the parking issue is in the forefront of the public conversation right now. 35
36
So last year, over a year ago the Council asked staff to take a look at various parking exemptions within 37
the code and Curtis Williams who was the Director at that time pointed to one particular parking 38
exemption, which was called the 1:1 Floor Area Exemption in the downtown area and the 0.5 Floor Area 39
Exemption in the Cal Ave. area. And what that exemption allowed a property owner to do is essentially 40
park an equivalent amount of floor, a floor area amount equivalent to the lot size without providing 41
parking. So in the downtown area if you have a 10,000 square foot lot the first 10,000 square feet of 42
building would not have to provide parking. In October of last year the Council voted on a moratorium 43
on the use of that. This is now before you tonight as the first part of the code revisions where we’re 44
recommending that that just become a permanent part of the zoning ordinance, that that go away. And 45
that would impact the downtown area as well as the Cal Ave. area. So that’s the first part of the zoning 46
code amendments that are before you. 47
48
The second part is somewhat unique as we’re proposing the second part to four provisions within the 49
code as an interim ordinance that would be good for a period of two years. So the first part of the 50
interim ordinance that’s before you, the Commission has heard of Transferrable Development Rights 51
(TDR). Currently within the code if you historically rehabilitate a building within the downtown area 52
Page 2
you’re allowed to have either a 2,500 square foot bonus onsite to construct without providing parking or 1
you could take that bonus and transfer it to another site. You could also have another 2,500 square feet 2
that allows you to if you seismically retrofit a building that’s within a certain category also to build onsite 3
or to transfer off to another site. And that’s good for both, not have to provide parking as well as a 4
bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) over what’s allowed and under the base zoning. What staff is proposing 5
tonight is that TDR’s and bonuses still exist, but they only exist as they relate to Floor Area Ratio; that 6
the parking component of those go away for this interim period. So that’s the first provision. 7
8
Second provision we have something called the Minor Floor Area Bonus, which allows a 200 square foot 9
addition where the first 200 square feet of a building to not be parked. This was another one of the 10
compromise codes that was created within the 1980’s so this 200 square foot one we’re proposing that 11
that incentive is no longer needed and that go away as well. 12
13
Now the third one is one that I really think that should truly be an interim ordinance and be something 14
that we think about and that we take a look at over the next two year period. And that’s grandfathered 15
buildings and the ability to rebuild grandfathered floor area. So there are a lot as the Commission knows 16
there are a lot of buildings that are older within the downtown area and currently as it goes that they are 17
grandfathered and they’re built before 1986 and let’s say they don’t provide any parking onsite, they are 18
above the Floor Area Ratio, you could tear down that older building and rebuilding it with a modern 19
building. Now from a standard practice that is a good thing. You want the ability to be able to have 20
buildings modernized and be created for modern uses. You don’t want to be in a situation where you 21
have a dilapidated building stock 10, 20 years down the line because there’s so much value captured 22
within that existing building and you just wouldn’t be able to make it penciled to tear it down if you had 23
to meet the current zoning code standards. 24
25
However, the reason that we’re proposing this as an interim ordinance is we know that there is some 26
type of, there could be some type of impact related to modernizing buildings, in particular how it relates 27
to parking. So when you take an older retail building, tear it down and maybe make it partially retail and 28
higher end office space there could be a greater impact in terms of parking. Now the property, most of 29
these property owners have paid into an assessment, the assessment district so there are still rights 30
associated with that; however, we want to be able to quantify the impact of building modernization so 31
that there could be a proportionate impact fee associated with modernizing buildings. So that’s the third 32
one. 33
34
The fourth one is an unusual code that’s found, which says most of the buildings were assessed in the 35
mid-1980’s to create parking structures. If you had a part of your building that was vacant at that time, 36
but being used for non-residential vacant space it was not assessed. However, if that space was in 37
existence you’re still allowed to tear it down and rebuild it with this grandfathered status as if it were 38
assessed. So we’re saying that that portion of the code be done away with on an interim basis for the 39
next two years as we start a Downtown Development Cap and other studies. 40
41
So those are the main points. You will see that there are a number of projects that are in the pipeline 42
that at least take advantage of a portion of these. Staff isn’t entering a recommendation about what to 43
do with those, but what we are saying is previous, the most, the previous decision from the Council as it 44
related to the 1:1 FAR moratorium is that it applied to, the moratorium applied to projects that had not 45
been approved yet for their planning entitlements. So if they were in the pipeline, had not been 46
approved, they were not allowed to take advantage of that moratorium or that exemption anymore. 47
They did have to provide the parking. 48
49
So there’s a number of people in the audience tonight and I know we received e-mails that this isn’t 50
going far enough. I would say that this is a first step. This is the first time that we’re really taking a look 51
at the code and recommending changes to the code in several decades. So and it is a big step and 52
during the Downtown Development Cap process and perhaps even before then we’ll be able to dive 53
Page 3
deeper into the parking code, into the zoning code to see what’s appropriate. So at this point I could 1
take any questions from the Commission. 2
3
Chair Michael: So thank you Director Aknin. So at this point we’ll turn to the Commission with any 4
clarifying questions of staff; up to five minutes each. Commissioner King. 5
6
Commissioner King: I’ll ask can you, I was a little bit confused or I was confused by your tables 7
particularly so can you walk me through that and just with particular care toward Table 1. I think you’re 8
saying those have parking exemptions, we’re not arguing about those. Those projects will be under the 9
old rules or rules as they stand today. And then Table 2 what that means and particularly “not 10
applicable,” I was confused by what “not applicable” means under building permits (interrupted) 11
12
Mr. Aknin: So Table 1, 135 Hamilton is really the only one that’s in the building permit process. 611 13
Cowper that did have its planning approval so if you were to use the precedent that was set during the 14
last moratorium that would still be allowed to use the existing zoning code provisions. 240 Hamilton all 15
the way down those have not received planning approval yet. 16
17
Commissioner King: And so under staff’s recommendation they would now be under new rules and would 18
lose the exemptions? 19
20
Mr. Aknin: Well we’re not actually entering it. I think this is a larger policy discussion that we have to 21
have both with the Commission and with the Council. But what we are saying is that the most recent 22
precedent that has been set by Council on the moratorium itself is that it applied to everything that had 23
not been approved from a planning standpoint. 24
25
Commissioner King: And that would be 240 Hamilton down (interrupted) 26
27
Mr. Aknin: On down. 28
29
Commissioner King: Through your tables? 30
31
Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 32
33
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then the other question I had is regarding let’s see over here… 34
let’s see on number three, Page 5, grandfathered uses and facilities. So this remodel or improve I’m 35
curious as to how much gamesmanship can happen there. I know with single family residences people to 36
maintain typically setbacks or their property tax base will do a remodel and leave one wall up and I’ve 37
actually seen projects in Palo Alto where then that one wall gets taken down after a certain phase of 38
inspections so it’s basically completely new construction. And so how do we determine the details of who 39
determines whether it’s a remodel or a rebuild? 40
41
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: The standard practice for nonconforming structures in the residential 42
zones is that they need to leave 75 percent of the walls in place as exterior walls to be considered 43
retaining their nonconforming status. For commercial buildings the practice has been 50 percent, so 44
retaining 50 percent of the walls. That’s a practice of policy; it’s not a code provision. 45
46
Commissioner King: Ok so to me that sounds vague that people could again, you could basically rebuild 47
the thing and just go through a slight pain of leaving up those walls, the studs only, and then you rebuild 48
everything around it. So am I wrong, but it seems like it’s ripe with the capacity to not, to actually do a 49
rebuild while calling it a remodel. 50
51
Ms. French: I guess the definition of what a wall is, I mean for the residential policy that we have in place 52
we do say that you have to leave siding. It can’t be a see through wall; it can’t be just studs and be 53
Page 4
considered a wall. For commercial we could have a tight definition, a tight policy of what we consider to 1
be leaving a wall, how much of the wall that can be done as an administrative policy. 2
3
Commissioner King: Ok, that would be my concern and suggestion was that we are very tight on making 4
sure that those two things are clearly separate. And then the other question I had is regarding the 5
Transfer Development Rights. So is it, can you explain, so those can be sold to another party, a third 6
party or kept, retained by the owner for one of their other parcels? Is that correct? 7
8
Ms. French: Yeah. It’s called Bonus Floor Area. It can be used onsite unless and it can be transferred to 9
an eligible site. It cannot be a historic site that it’s transferred to. Those are not eligible for receiving 10
those bonus floor area transferred rights. Yeah, so it can be transferred to other sites owned by other 11
people and there’s a process in our code that lays out how we go through that process. 12
13
Commissioner King: Ok, and then my other question and that transfer of development right consists of 14
both entitlements for square footage, you could get more square footage on the parcel to which its 15
transferred as well as parking benefits or exceptions, correct? 16
17
Ms. French: Right. So you might be transferring more than 5,000 square feet of floor area, Bonus Floor 18
Area to a site, but you can only get up to 5,000 square feet of parking exemption of that floor area. 19
20
Commissioner King: Ok, and Chair may I finish on this question? So then my question is so it seems to 21
me if you’re saying that we’re going to, those are going to retain, they are going to be maintained exactly 22
the same that if you compare that to let’s say someone had a building site and they’ve owned that for 23
however long, now we’re going to say, “Oh, we’re actually now stripping from that the parking 24
exceptions.” So you’re going to lose those parking exceptions on an existing site that hasn’t been applied 25
for permits, it’s, I own a building. Let’s say I own a building and it currently has under our current code 26
there are exceptions for which I might be eligible for parking that 1:1 FAR. We’re now talking about 27
removing those from my, if I own that parcel. So I’m a little confused on if the TDR’s contain both 28
square footage and parking benefits why I would lose mine as the property, as a property owner of an 29
existing parcel and yet the TDR owner would not lose those parking exceptions as well. 30
31
Ms. French: So because we have a process to transfer that bonus floor area on both ends, right? So 32
there’s the process to send the transferred area and the process to receive the transferred area. When 33
we go through the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process it’s documented where, that there’s 34
transferable rights that are being placed upon that site. When there is a historic rehab or seismic rehab 35
or both in some cases that are documented through a legal document as far as how much floor area can 36
be transferred off the site. And then at such time as it’s placed onto the new site it’s documented 37
through the county recorders, it’s very formal and legal that way. 38
39
Commissioner King: Ok and all, oh, Aaron. 40
41
Mr. Aknin: Can you just repeat your, was she able to answer your question there or can you repeat it? 42
43
Commissioner King: Well, mine’s about the parking exception portion and it seems like we’re saying that 44
there’s a reference in here that that would be takings if we stripped the parking from somebody’s TDR, if 45
we stripped out the parking exceptions. 46
47
Mr. Aknin: So if you, so I think what I should have said in my presentation if someone’s historically 48
rehabilitated their building and earned and recorded that right to that, they still get that. That’s not 49
being taken away as part of this proposal. What we’re saying is that we suspend the ability to create the 50
bonus associated with not having to park square footage in the future whether you historically rehab your 51
building and try to add on to your building un-parked or you try to transfer that off of your site to 52
Page 5
another site. So it’s the same whether or not you’re trying to keep it onsite or trying to sell it to another 1
property owner. 2
3
Commissioner King: Ok. 4
5
Mr. Aknin: And it’s looking forward not (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner King: It seems inconsistent. It seems that we’re penalizing, it seems inconsistent that the 8
same parking wouldn’t be stripped from an existing parcel or from a TDR, but that’s we’ll continue the 9
discussion later. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 12
13
Commissioner Alcheck: One of the components of the temporary interim ordinance would be to study or 14
quantify the effects of this concern about locking property owners into older buildings. How do, I’m 15
curious to know like what’s our strategy of quantifying that in the interim? Is it just a matter of how 16
many fewer remodels we get compared to a typical year or? 17
18
Mr. Aknin: No I think it’s just taking a look historically when we’ve seen older buildings turn into newer 19
buildings what has the impact of that been. So when we’ve seen older retail buildings turn into newer 20
office buildings how many more occupants are associated with this newer office building than previous 21
buildings in the parking impact associated with that. 22
23
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I need to think about that for a minute. 24
25
Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli did you have any questions of the… Vice-Chair Keller? 26
27
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So the first question is what is the downtown FAR that’s allowed if you 28
don’t get any bonuses or whatever? 29
30
Ms. French: So if you for a mixed-use project you can get a 2:1 FAR for a brand new building parked. 31
With transferred floor area you can get up to 3:1. If you have an existing building that’s already at 2:1 32
let’s say it’s commercial you can still transfer because it exists, you can still transfer development rights 33
to that building to get it up to 3:1. 34
35
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. 36
37
Ms. French: Over 1:1 above what exists in the downtown, above what exists or what is allowed. 38
39
Vice-Chair Keller: Right. Thank you. So one of the things that’s interesting is that in some sense we 40
need to, I, we can think about separating the idea of what people can build from what people have to 41
pay for parking. In other words right now we’ve linked those together, but it might make sense to think 42
about possibly separating them. And towards that regard in terms of the buildings with vacant space, 43
the old buildings with vacant space, that space was never assessed. Is that right? 44
45
Mr. Aknin: Correct. In that particular provision that space was never assessed. 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: But for a grandfathered building that was larger than zoning allowed that space was 48
assessed? 49
50
Mr. Aknin: Yes. 51
52
Page 6
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So and the assessments are an annual assessment to pay for the bonds. Is that 1
right? 2
3
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: It’s an annual assessment unless the owners are permitted to 4
prepay. And so if they don’t elect to prepay at the beginning of the assessment then it goes to an annual 5
assessment over I think it’s a 30 year cycle, but we’re well into that cycle. 6
7
Vice-Chair Keller: So they either pay annually or they pay at the beginning, but essentially that’s an 8
ongoing payment? Ok. And this… such a payment to create a new bond for a new garage requires a 9
two-thirds vote? Is that right? 10
11
Ms. Silver: Of the assessment district property owners. Yes. 12
13
Vice-Chair Keller: And does each one get one vote or how does it work? Is it by parcel? Is it by dollar 14
amount? How do they, how do you actually calculate the votes? 15
16
Ms. Silver: You know I’m not sure. I think it is by property owner. 17
18
Vice-Chair Keller: So by parcel? 19
20
Ms. Silver: Each parcel gets one vote I believe. 21
22
Vice-Chair Keller: Each parcel? Thank you. And that’s only the commercial properties, not residential 23
properties that are voting. Is that right? 24
25
Ms. Silver: It depends on how you set up the assessment district. There are a number of different ways 26
to do that, but in downtown we only have a commercial property owner assessment district. 27
28
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. And is it possible to create a Mello-Roos district for downtown parking assessment? 29
30
Ms. Silver: Yes it is. 31
32
Vice-Chair Keller: And would that require a majority vote and a majority vote of whom? 33
34
Ms. Silver: I believe that Mello-Roos is also two-thirds now, but I would have to check on that. And again 35
it would be a two-thirds vote of whoever is in the district. The one benefit of the Mello-Roos is that you 36
don’t have to have a completely congruous district, you can have little pockets and they don’t have to be 37
congruous. 38
39
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. So the interesting thing is the, for the grandfathered property they’ve 40
paid into the assessment district already so what are we allowing and not allowing? Explain how the 41
grandfather works in this environment. 42
43
Mr. Aknin: Currently or proposed? 44
45
Vice-Chair Keller: Proposed. Currently and proposed. Explain the difference to me what’s happening? 46
47
Mr. Aknin: So currently if you have a building and it’s above the allowed FAR it’s grandfathered in so let’s 48
say currently you’re allowed to have a 5,000 square foot building and you have a 10,000 square foot 49
building with no parking. You’re allowed to tear down that building and build the exact same amount of 50
square footage without providing parking. As we’re proposing it now during this two year period you 51
could renovate your building, you could remodel your building, you could continue to use your building as 52
is and continue to receive the same parking benefit by being paid into the assessment district, but you 53
Page 7
wouldn’t be allowed just during this two year period tear down your building and still keep your 1
grandfathered status to be, go up and beyond FAR that’s allowed right now and parking that’s allowed 2
right now. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: So when you say, could I finish this? 5
6
Chair Michael: Yeah. 7
8
Vice-Chair Keller: So when you’re exceeding the FAR that’s allowed could you give me an example? Are 9
you saying that the FAR is above 2.0 is that the idea? 10
11
Mr. Aknin: There’s some cases, but it’s mostly the situations where maybe you have 7,000, 8,000 square 12
feet of building without parking onsite or you have an 8,000 square foot building where 5,000 square feet 13
of FAR is allowed onsite. 14
15
Vice-Chair Keller: So for example if it’s not mixed-use if it’s all commercial (interrupted) 16
17
Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 18
19
Vice-Chair Keller: Then what’s the maximum FAR if you have all commercial? 20
21
Mr. Aknin: One. 22
23
Vice-Chair Keller: 1:1? 24
25
Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 26
27
Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no retail, you only have, is retail and commercial considered a mixed-28
use? 29
30
Mr. Aknin: No. When we say mixed-use the housing component allows you to have 1.0 and then the 31
commercial component would be also 1.0 so that’s how you get to your 2.0. 32
33
Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no housing then what’s the maximum? 34
35
Mr. Aknin: 1.0. 36
37
Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no housing it’s 1.0 and if you have housing then it’s 2.0? 38
39
Mr. Aknin: Yeah and then you’re allowed to transfer up to another 1.0 using TRD’s onto your site. So 40
that’s how you get up to the 3.0 max. 41
42
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So then what happens is that you, if you have no housing the maximum is 2.0 43
FAR, you can’t go to 3.0? Is that right? 44
45
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. And if you already had 2.0 and you’re grandfathered could you go to 3.0 without 48
adding housing? 49
50
Mr. Aknin: Yes with the TDR. 51
52
Vice-Chair Keller: With the TDR. Alright, thank you. 53
Page 8
1
Chair Michael: So we’re going to open the public hearing now and we have a number of speaker cards. 2
Vice-Chair Keller will announce the speakers and you will each have three minutes. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first speaker is Ken Alsman to be followed by David Kleiman. 5
6
Ken Alsman: Did you guys really read this whole thing? It’s amazing. It took me quite a while to get 7
through most of it. I have questions; I think one of the things that needs to be changed is the California 8
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. It’s used in a sense as a mitigation for CEQA on this. The 9
way the CEQA is currently handled every project in town downtown has been approved with no 10
significant impact. It doesn’t make any sense to me that we got to this place with no significant impact. 11
12
A clarification on who gets excluded, these projects that are in this list can all be included in a 13
moratorium or in the code including 135. They will add another perhaps 400 or more cars parking in the 14
neighborhood. This is not an issue about the code and the commercial as much as it really is inherent in 15
the need to address serious problems with the destruction of our neighborhoods by commercial parking. 16
17
On the assessment district Mr. Keller mentioned I just want to indicate that the square foot assessment 18
on commercial is less than ten cents per square foot per month, again $7.00 a month rents and that is 19
generally paid by the tenant as a part of the triple net rents. When the assessment district was formed it 20
was formed on the basis of one parking space per every 250 square feet, but they only built, that would 21
have required 9,000 parking spaces. They only built 900. So they’re 10 percent, they built 10 percent. 22
That’s what they’re paying for with their 10 cents. 23
24
As a resident of Professorville and in light of your initial discussion for the first hour and a half about the 25
historic preservation I think that a major Environmental Impact Report (EIR) needs to be done because 26
you are in the process, you, the City Council, the downtown businesses of destroying a National Register 27
Historic District, which is referred to as Professorville. That has never been mentioned in a single CEQA 28
document related to any development downtown. Please excuse me for being so upset about this. I’ve 29
been at this for 10 years. It’s amazing. 30
31
I really think you need to stop all approvals of all projects that have not received, have not begun 32
construction. If they got a permit, good for them, they can hold it for the next three or four years until 33
they can solve the parking problem. The only way you’re going to get these developers to the table to 34
talk about real solutions is to stop giving them these subsidies. 35
36
Chair Michael: So thank you Mr. Alsman. Next speaker? 37
38
Vice-Chair Keller: Next speaker is David Kleiman to be followed by Neilson Buchanan. 39
40
David Kleiman: Good evening. I have, I agree with many of Ken’s points on the fact that we have a 41
parking issue. On the other hand I have a slightly different viewpoint being the owner of some 42
downtown office buildings that will be redeveloped. One of them is one of the buildings on the list that is 43
in progress 636 Waverly and I will be very directly and very negatively impacted by the adoption of these 44
moratoria. Specifically I was told when I lost the, there’s the first moratorium that’s in effect, which is 45
the 5,000 square foot exemption I went from a building that had five or six parking spaces to 21. I’ve 46
been able to accommodate those via engineering and design onsite. I don’t have approval for that yet 47
and I’m very concerned that there might be a permanent moratorium that will turn into or something that 48
will become permanent before I’m able to get that project finally approved. 49
50
I think that we have a parking problem, but I don’t think we should start limiting property rights, which is 51
really what people who are upset about parking are asking you to do. I think that we should solve the 52
parking problem by building more parking in the downtown area, more parking garages and I think that 53
Page 9
there should be permit parking so that people that are upset stop turning up the volume and perhaps 1
asking you and the City Council to limit property owner’s rights in the name of solving the parking issue. 2
So I’m in favor of more garages, I’m in favor of developers who are building new developments parking 3
onsite, but I don’t think that when people like me spend millions of dollars to buy property and then 4
hundreds of thousands to millions engineering developments go through that process, have certain 5
realistic I think expectations, and then lose those rates midstream I think it’s bad planning. I think you 6
want certainty. I think the reason Palo Alto’s so great is because certainty was there up until very 7
recently and I think we’ll all lose if we lose that certainty. Thank you. 8
9
Chair Michael: I believe Vice-Chair Keller has a question for you if you would like to stay up for a 10
moment. 11
12
Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, I’m just wondering if the project you’re proposing to build is fully self-parked or if 13
you’re relying at all on parking exemptions or things like that? 14
15
Mr. Kleiman: No, it’s fully self-parked. I am relying on something that hasn’t been brought up and hasn’t 16
been lost yet, which is some shared parking. It’s a mixed-use building. There is a provision in Palo Alto’s 17
code like virtually every municipality around the country where you can, there’s a shared parking benefit 18
because exactly our situation, we’re going to live in one of the two residential units. Whoever we sell or 19
rent the other unit to typically would drive outside the building to work and people that work in the 20
commercial portion can use those spaces and there’s a formula that’s widely accepted, same one used, 21
and we will take advantage of that. And that does reduce our total required parking from I don’t know, 22
24 to 21 or 25 to 23, I forget the exact numbers right now. But otherwise through the use of parking 23
lifts we will be fully parked and I think we’re one of the few projects in Palo Alto where that would have 24
ever occurred. In a lot that’s half the size of this area we have 5 parking lifts, four cars high. So it’s 25
pretty extreme. 26
27
Vice-Chair Keller: So if there were a moratorium and I’m not saying there should be or would be it 28
sounds to me like you would suggest that fully parked projects be exempted from such a moratorium. Is 29
that what you’re, that make sense to you? 30
31
Mr. Kleiman: Yes and I would say that as another example I’m in the 200 square foot bonus where we 32
are taking advantage of that. We would need to redesign our building after having spent literally almost 33
a million dollars on design fees and engineering to get it to work at the point where we’re going to apply 34
for a building permit while we’re still going through the process of approvals. Let’s say we lose that 200 35
square foot exemption. All of a sudden we’re one parking space short. It doesn’t seem like much, but 36
it’s a big deal reengineering a building when you’re midstream. So I would say if you’re going to pass 37
that at least allow some period of time that’s at least one to two years, because that’s really how long it 38
takes to plan and get a building approved in Palo Alto before it goes into effect. So the people who are 39
in the planning process now like me don’t go through the process and tell their engineers and architects 40
hey, assume we can use the 200 square feet. They’ll know hey, we can’t. They’ll design buildings, those 41
will get approved. It’s a level playing field. People go in with a reasonable set of expectations. 42
43
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 44
45
Mr. Kleiman: Thank you. 46
47
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Neilson Buchanan followed by Jeff Levinsky. 48
49
Neilson Buchanan: I know you’re tired from hearing from some of us so frequently, but I am not against 50
development. I don’t mind if you use imminent domain and build proper parking garages 70 feet tall and 51
do it right. I don’t mind if you build a new Channing House that’s 10 stories tall. There are a number of 52
Page 10
things that are going to have to change in Palo Alto and I’m, I, it needs to be planned for my 1
grandchildren, not for me. 2
3
It seems to me that the wheels of progress are beginning to turn in terms of the Council and the 4
leadership throughout the City recognizing we’ve got some severe traffic and parking problems. And 5
we’re severely overcommitted development versus the impact of parking and traffic. I don’t need to go 6
into all that. Pat Burt waxed on quite nicely about the need to have cumulative traffic studies that just 7
project by project wasn’t working out any more than parking negative impact brought by project by 8
project has dug a great big hole. 9
10
So what are we doing about it? Fortunately I do see the wheels of progress turning. There’s a foot’s on 11
the break trying to slow things down on certain things. There’s remedies being offered to the 12
neighborhoods for permit parking, but when I look back at it and I’m the one that’s been trying to 13
quantify well what impact will this have? Just stayed up last night just thinking about what is the 14
Downtown North impact? Is that 400 workers being displaced and going to have to park somewhere 15
else? I think this is a great chance to really quit digging the hole deeper. It’s a great time to put a 16
moratorium; moratorium will bring everybody to the table, as it should. And why don’t we really 17
understand how much of the foot’s on the break, how many feet are on the accelerators? Because 18
traffic, parking is simply an imbalance and for the life of me I can’t figure out what is it going to get 19
better or worse? The things that could make it worse take a long time. The things can make parking 20
worse take a very short period of time to make things to get fixed take a long time. Thank you. 21
22
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Jeff Levinsky. 23
24
Jeff Levinsky: Good evening Commissioners and staff. It’s great that you are reviewing this item tonight 25
because as you’ve heard the parking situation is already a crisis and it’s just getting worse month by 26
month. However, the staff report chose to focus on some of the exemptions that cause under parking, 27
but unfortunately the moment that those are cut off the developers will just switch to the many other 28
exemptions that litter the code. So I and others are concerned that any piecemeal approach is not going 29
to work. 30
31
For example, the staff declined to propose a moratorium on the in lieu fees that many developers 32
downtown can take advantage of. The in lieu fees do not turn into parking spaces. In fact the City’s 33
own analysis for building a garage on Lot P from just a few months ago shows it costs over $90,000 for 34
each new space and that’s before you factor in land costs and taxes, which are immense, yet the City 35
currently collects less than $70,000 for each in lieu space. So if the staff proposal is adopted as is expect 36
developers just to switch to paying in lieu fees and consequently we’ll have an even greater shortage of 37
parking with yet more cars clogging the neighborhoods. If the City ever decides to build the garages 38
guess who will have to pay the difference? It’s not going to be the developers, it’s going to be the 39
taxpayers. That’s right, we’re going to end up subsidizing the developers and that’s what the staff 40
proposal leaves in place. 41
42
That’s just one of the loopholes. You could sit here all night tonight and be here for years and argue 43
over how to plug every exemption in turn. Every few months the staff will come back and say “Surprise! 44
Developers just switched to a different one” and now we have to plug that one. And all the time the 45
parking problem will grow and grow and become even harder to solve. Enough. Do not lead the City 46
down that hopeless path. The only situation that, the only solution that makes sense is a moratorium on 47
all under parked projects across Palo Alto and all the exemptions, all the special rules, all the waivers, all 48
the giveaways, if you want to build it you need to park it. Thank you. 49
50
Chair Michael: So now we close the public hearing and come back to the Commission. In the first round 51
of comments Commissioners please use up to five minutes. Who would like to start? Commissioner 52
Panelli. 53
Page 11
1
Commissioner Panelli: I’d like staff to comment directly on a couple of the items that were actually in Mr. 2
Levinsky’s e-mail and assigned on by several of the other members of the community, specifically the 3
item about in lieu fees and number two the mixed-use allowance. Can you provide a little bit more color 4
about how the in lieu fee is calculated in the past and maybe how the thought is, how that’s going to be 5
in the future? 6
7
Mr. Aknin: So regarding the in lieu fee, the in lieu fee was established awhile back and it was basically 8
just an estimate through engineering of how much it would cost if you had a sizable parking garage built 9
on a per space basis. And I think it was our, I think it was based on our most recent construction of 10
garages and then escalated by a certain amount. So that’s how we came, and it’s still a pretty accurate 11
number overall. The Lot P did come in at a little higher per space; it actually came in lower per space 12
when you considered the subsidy that would be given by the private/public partnership because of the lot 13
size. When you get a bigger lot there is less space dedicated to ramps so it goes down. So that wasn’t 14
the most optimal space if it wasn’t a space where a lot of it wasn’t a public/private partnership. 15
16
Commissioner Panelli: But I want to just be clear because what I’m hearing is that there is no inclusion of 17
any amortization of land cost as part of that. It’s just the cost of construction of an average space. 18
19
Mr. Aknin: Of an average incremental space above what is already on that, above that parking lot. So if 20
you replaced a 100, if that, if you had a base of land that provided 100 spaces and you did a 600 space 21
parking lot you’d only get credit for that 500 space delta. So it doesn’t consider the land cost itself, but it 22
does consider the base amount of parking in that land. 23
24
Commissioner Panelli: But ostensibly shouldn’t it consider some land cost if we’re basically saying here’s a 25
fee you can pay to build a space somewhere else? 26
27
Mr. Aknin: I mean it could, but I mean that, I’d honestly want to come back with you since that wasn’t 28
really the subject of tonight, but that’s something we could bring back to you. There was a lot of work 29
that was done in the past even before I was here. 30
31
Commissioner Panelli: And let me give you an explanation of what’s going on in my head and this is 32
something since I’ve joined the Commission I’ve been harping on, which is one-time costs for 33
permanently entitled benefits. And I’ve got to think that we’re not capturing the full cost with these in 34
lieu fees. We’re not capturing land cost and we’re not capturing ongoing maintenance costs. So if a 35
parking garage is dilapidated in 100 years that property owner already has that fully entitled right to what 36
they got 100 years before, but somebody’s got to pay for replacing that parking garage at some point, 37
right? Or at least maintaining it, repairing it. So I think there’s a problem, there’s an inherent problem in 38
the in lieu fee process and it I think if you really want to solve the problem make the in lieu fees more 39
expensive than just providing the parking spot and voilà I think you’ll start seeing all of a sudden 40
property owners building their or parking their own buildings. So that’s on that. 41
42
The mixed-use allowance and I am sympathetic to Mr. Kleiman about you want certainty. I absolutely 43
am, and I understand there are plenty of government bodies that have adopted this mixed-use 44
allowance, but that is an old paradigm when people actually left their homes and went to work 45
somewhere. I’d venture to guess that many people on this Commission here actually work out of their 46
homes. And so I’m not sure that this concept of shared parking based on this assumption that some 47
people are going to be gone during the day and others are going to be gone during the evening I’m just 48
not sure that’s really reality anymore. I mean some of these folks at startups who occupy some of this 49
office space are working 16, 18 hour days so they’re there or they’ll stay the night because they’re doing 50
an all-nighter. So I just, I think those two items I think the e-mail from Mr. Levinsky really needs some 51
attention paid to it. But in general I’m pretty supportive of what has been proposed in the staff report 52
and I would like to see, I see it as a very good first step. 53
Page 12
1
Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair, can I just respond to one thing? I do agree we need to quantify the in lieu 2
fee and make sure that it’s the right amount so that we do pay for the maintenance cost that may not 3
be, I mean typically what you do is you charge permit fees to cover the maintenance costs within these 4
garages, so that’s how maintenance is taken care of. But in terms of capturing the value over a longer 5
period of time I do agree. 6
7
What I would say is the general planning practice widely accepted and something I personally agree with 8
too is you don’t always want all spaces provided on each site in a downtown area where there is a lot of 9
pedestrian activity. If you have 50 spaces under each commercial building you’re having a lot of cars 10
going over the sidewalk to access that in an area that you have a lot of pedestrian activity. So it does 11
make sense in some cases to be able to take in lieu fees that do capture the whole amount if you’re 12
actually able to provide that parking within an area where people could park once and walk to multiple 13
locations. So it’s a balance of both, but I do agree on capturing the costs part. 14
15
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 16
17
Commissioner King: Thank you. So I am, it does resonate the fairness of people at some point in the 18
process and now having to incur additional fees. I’m curious and maybe the Senior Assistant City 19
Attorney can advise me if we’re getting somewhere we shouldn’t be discussing this, but if possible could 20
staff walk through sort of a timeline? It looks like, what was the date? 2012, October or 2012 was when 21
Council enacted the moratorium. So I’m curious at 636 Waverly and if you know the timing where were 22
they in the process, did we switch things up on them, and how will this vote or if this goes though how 23
will this impact that project? 24
25
Mr. Aknin: So there were two projects that were caught up in the moratorium, which was 636 Waverly 26
and 135 Hamilton had applied and drawn plan ups relying on the 1:1 floor area exemption that they were 27
no longer able to take advantage of. 28
29
Commissioner King: So at the time, just to sort of interrupt so as of October of last year they were in, 30
they were moving forward with incurring costs for planning the project? 31
32
Mr. Aknin: Yes. Yes, so in Mr. Kleiman’s he’s further along the line than a lot of people further down on 33
the list, so I mean he has gone through a lot within this last year and has worked closely with staff on 34
this and has made a ton of modifications based on he, I mean I agree with him, he’s one of the few 35
projects that’s been innovative, used lifts to try to do it. We weren’t actually aware that he was still using 36
the 200 square foot minor floor area exemption. We’ll have to double check that. What he would do in 37
that case if he wasn’t able to do that he could one of two things: reduce his building by 200 square feet 38
or pay an in lieu fee for an equivalent amount. 39
40
Commissioner King: Ok so that, so those were, if this were to go forward those would be, that would be 41
you’re saying the only impact to him would be potential loss or payment incurring an in lieu fee for that 42
200 square foot exception? 43
44
Mr. Aknin: Correct, if he is in fact still applying for that one. 45
46
Commissioner King: Ok. And can you clarify in lieu fee? So that’s an in lieu parking fee, so that will be 47
the impact? 48
49
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 50
51
Commissioner King: And do you know what that would be? 52
53
Page 13
Mr. Aknin: It’s about $60,000. 1
2
Commissioner King: So it would be one space for that 200 square feet because that’s roughly to the 250 3
square foot per space? 4
5
Mr. Aknin: You round up so it would be one space. 6
7
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, thank you. 8
9
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: I think that the fact that the staff is recommending these modifications is a good 12
sign. I would support them on that basis alone, but I want to comment on this notion a few people have 13
mentioned tonight we’ve got to get everyone to the table; we’ve got to force the developers to deal with 14
this issue. I want to suggest that this, these modifications will affect future property developers and I 15
think we really want to force all commercial parcel owners: developing, developed, not developing to the 16
table to help solve this problem whether it’s just to support the solution financially or to help participate 17
in coming up with the right solution. And I think many of us agree that the solution in some respects is 18
to build more parking downtown and we need to figure out a way to fund that or make it happen. 19
20
I still believe very strongly that restricting commercial users from using the residential neighborhood 21
streets to park is the best way to do that because that’s not just going to incentivize the people who are 22
developing right now or wishing to develop, that will make every business downtown go right to their 23
landlord and say “We’re not going to make your rent payment next month if I can’t get my employees 24
into the store, I can’t get my employees into the store unless there’s a parking solution.” If you don’t 25
become part of this solution then you’re going to kiss these seven dollar, eight dollar rents goodbye. We 26
want to create an incentive for the small number of multiple parcel owners to become the leadership of 27
this initiative and if they’ve already developed their parcels this moratorium will in fact only make their 28
parcels even more valuable because they will have benefited from Transfer of Development Rights, from 29
space that they were able to develop without proper, I don’t want to say without proper, without 30
facilitating a positive impact on parking that new developers will be struggling to meet that sort of same 31
result. And so I’m not suggesting that I don’t think we should try this out, but I want to reiterate that if 32
you stop letting somebody park in front of Mr. Buchanan’s home that person will go right up their chain 33
to the person who can make it happen. 34
35
And I would prefer, and this is going to sound funny, but I would prefer that sort of market driven 36
approach where we say, we’re not going to tell you how many spaces you have to put on your property 37
per se, how many more spaces you want to put on your property, but if you don’t participate in this 38
acquisition of property, if we don’t look at this notion of parcel owners I think Commissioner Keller in his 39
line of questions was sort of alluding to this notion that the very people that we’d like to participate in the 40
solution here need to sort of bring it on themselves to some extent if it’s going to be the best format. 41
And the only incentive they’ll have to do that is if they get pressure up the chain. 42
43
So, again I’m curious to know if we’re just going to put all existing and future applicants at a 44
disadvantage compared to the applicants of the last few years like in terms of what they’re capable of 45
doing with their land, that expectation of what current applicants or potential current applicants have and 46
their realization that they weren’t able to do what maybe their neighbor has been able to do, but really 47
what we want to do is put their neighbor and them in the same boat. And we want to put the business 48
owners in the same boat. And we want everybody to appreciate that we’ve got a parking problem and 49
we’re taking advantage of some of these residential streets to too great an extent. 50
51
So if they all get together and volunteer and lead the process for what I feel like again is this parking 52
garage solution and I just want to say for the record I completely agree with you. I’m in no way opposed 53
Page 14
to a 15 story parking garage in downtown Palo Alto if that’s what we need. And I think Mr. Buchanan’s 1
comment that we need to plan for our grandchildren’s Palo Alto is incredibly insightful. Our height limits 2
our self-imposed. If the parking garage that needs to get built needs to be bigger and taller than it 3
should be and I think we need to encourage every parcel owner, not just those who are interested in 4
developing from 2013 on to be a part of this process. So. 5
6
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 7
8
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So first I have a question. When a developer pays the in lieu parking fee 9
do they also pay the annual or whatever parking assessment for all that land as well? For all that square 10
footage? 11
12
Mr. Aknin: So currently they’ve paid a certain square footage so let’s say they paid 5,000 square feet of 13
assessment into it. If they were to propose a new building that was 8,000 square feet they would have 14
to pay for that in lieu fees for that additional 3,000 square feet. 15
16
Vice-Chair Keller: No what I’m saying is suppose they paid the in lieu fees. Do they also pay the annual 17
assessment on that square footage as well? 18
19
Mr. Aknin: No. 20
21
Vice-Chair Keller: So it’s one or the other? 22
23
Mr. Aknin: Yeah or both. I mean if they have an 8,000 square foot building they could be paying 5,000 24
worth of assessments from a previous building that’s carried forward into their new building and then 25
have to pay the delta amount in in lieu fees. 26
27
Vice-Chair Keller: What I meant is for any given foot, square foot of (interrupted) 28
29
Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 30
31
Vice-Chair Keller: You either pay the assessment or you pay the in lieu fee? 32
33
Mr. Aknin: Right. 34
35
Vice-Chair Keller: But not both? 36
37
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 38
39
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. Thank you. So a couple of comments; first of all there’s a concept in economics 40
called the tragedy of the commons and essentially this came about because people would graze their 41
sheep I guess in the commons. And it was beneficial for people to go and graze their sheep in the 42
commons because you didn’t care, you just put as many sheep as you could do there and to graze their 43
sheep, but unfortunately the commons became uninhabitable and you couldn’t put any more sheep there 44
so the benefit to each individual person of putting more sheep in the commons to the individual it’s a 45
benefit, but to the community it’s not a benefit. And essentially what we have here is that Downtown 46
North and Downtown South are essentially the commons in that regard. 47
48
So firstly I agree entirely with the proposals that are done here. Some of these exemptions, a lot of 49
these exemptions were put into place as far as I understand in the 1980’s. Now I moved to Palo Alto not 50
as long as maybe Mr. Alsman was or other people, but I moved here in 1977 and I remember when I 51
was a grad student here that you could roll up the sidewalks in Palo Alto in the evening because it was 52
very dead. And one of the reasons it was kind of dead is because in some sense a lot of commercial 53
Page 15
usage had gone to the Stanford Shopping Center. And so incentives were put into effect to try to 1
incentivize development in downtown Palo Alto, but the conditions for which those incentives were put 2
into place are no longer needed and haven’t been needed for some time. 3
4
So therefore what we need to do and in particular when I became Vice-Chair I talked about the potential 5
that we should look at things that are there because of older conditions when those conditions no longer 6
exist we need to change the code to remove the incentives that are no longer needed, like for example 7
housing was you couldn’t force, you couldn’t get people to build housing in the Eighties and early Nineties 8
and then suddenly economics change and now you can’t stop them from building housing. So when 9
economics change you need to change. When conditions change you need to change the rules 10
accordingly and the City is remiss in not having made these changes earlier when they were, when the 11
effects that caused these changes were no longer the case. 12
13
A couple of things, firstly the in lieu fees not only need to take into account the cost of building a space 14
now, they need to take into account the cost of building a space when. In other words if we’re not going 15
to build those parking garages for 10 years you take into account the escalated cost of building that 16
parking space 10 years from now based on construction costs and then escalate that back down based 17
on the cost, the value you can get from interest in putting that money in the bank for 10 years. And 18
that’s the cost you have to charge for parking space plus any maintenance and whatever that goes in 19
there. So in that case if $60,000 is the cost of building a parking space it’s not going to be that 10 years 20
from now when we finally get around to building the parking garages if it’s 10 years or whatever the time 21
period it is. 22
23
The issue is that for existing land I mean there’s a limited amount of land in which we can build parking 24
garages and so I am sympathetic with Commissioner Panelli’s comment about considering land costs. 25
I’m also sympathetic with the idea of thinking about what we do with under parked projects. But it 26
seems to me the extent that we, that if there were a moratorium certainly a project like one that Mr. 27
Kleiman is suggesting, which is basically virtually self-parked would make, does make sense to proceed 28
on. May I continue? Or should we go on for another round? 29
30
Chair Michael: We’ll try and wrap it up. 31
32
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So I like the principle of the mixed-use allowance in the large. If you have a large 33
commercial property with a large residential component to it then statistically it makes sense to have a 34
mixed-use reduction. But when you have one or two parking spaces the mixed-use reduction effectively 35
means that you don’t have any space for the residential because you don’t have a statistical, the statistics 36
helping you and you wind up essentially eliminating parking for residential, which doesn’t make sense 37
particularly for people who keep their cars in their houses and take public transit. Some people use their 38
cars only for the weekend and take public transit. That’s what we expect to happen downtown. So 39
therefore we need to think about whether the mixed-use allowance makes sense for onsies, twosies, 40
threesies in terms of housing units. I think not. 41
42
The next thing is in terms of the requirement that parking be provided one space per every 250 square 43
foot of and I think that needs to be updated. And in terms of the Transportation Element we’ve got that 44
suggestion and that’s coming forward as another thing that’s going to happen and come back to us in the 45
next meeting will be a proposal to evaluate that and figure out what it should be. And obviously we don’t 46
put a number in there because it requires an analysis to put a number in there and the Comp Plan is, 47
when you put the Comp Plan in there you say we want the, we want to change this number, you don’t 48
actually say what you’d change it to. So that’s what’s going on there. 49
50
Next is that there’s a proposal that’s being pushed forward by the City Council that I think is very 51
interesting and useful, unfortunately there was some sort of disagreement as to what the wording of the 52
Motion should be, but there’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) moving forward. And when 53
Page 16
Transportation Demand Management that is going to deal with also not only adding parking, but in terms 1
of what Commissioner Alcheck refers to as needing to deal with this with the property owners and in 2
some sense the extent that you can deal with parking by, parking shortage by adding more parking you 3
could also deal with the parking shortage by bringing in fewer cars. And companies like Google and 4
Apple and other companies have shuttles coming from San Francisco, but the small companies in 5
downtown Palo Alto and some of the other companies elsewhere in the City can’t afford their own 6
shuttles coming from different places. So TDM measures can involve bringing in shuttles from San 7
Francisco and other places like that or East Bay in order to provide reduction of the amount of cars that 8
are coming here. So I think that that’s also worthwhile part of the mix. 9
10
Finally, one important part of the problem is that we don’t have good data in terms of what the 11
businesses in Palo Alto have in terms of residents, I mean in terms of employees, where they live, how 12
they get here, things, all kinds of things like that. We don’t have any data on that. Now some cities get 13
that data through a business license tax. However, for some reason business license tax is very 14
controversial in Palo Alto, but there’s no reason why we need a business license tax in order to have a 15
business registry. We could nonetheless have a business registry that gathers all the information we 16
want in a self-serve capacity where you go up, where all the business owners in Palo Alto have to go to a 17
site, register at that site with the information they need, that the City needs about them. If they register 18
you get a free downloaded signed secure .pdf that says you’ve registered as a business registry in Palo 19
Alto free. And if you don’t register then there will be fines saying you didn’t register, you didn’t give the 20
right information and there are penalties for doing that and that there’s penalties for doing lots of things 21
like that. And that will allow us to get the data we need because after all it’s going to be hard to enforce 22
TDM measures in downtown Palo Alto or any of our businesses if you don’t have the data and a business 23
registry is one way to get that data. Thank you. 24
25
Chair Michael: So it’s very clear to the Commission and to the Council and to others that parking is a 26
major concern in the community. And it’s a big problem. I think that the effort of the code review is 27
tangible, but a small step in the right direction. I would like to align some of my comments with 28
Commissioner Alcheck in terms of trying to identify the substance of what the larger problem is and it’s 29
apparent that this targeted effort at cleaning up some archaic parking exemptions in the code isn’t 30
addressing the big picture although it is a, it’s taken very much in good faith as a step forward. 31
32
I think that the notion of the problem of the tragedy of the commons was also referred to by Vice-Mayor 33
Shepard recently and she was referring to the height limit essentially as the commons as a form of the 34
commons in Palo Alto. If we allow up zoning to go into the, above 50 feet we’re really taking something 35
which is an asset of the community. It’s part of the commons and likewise I think the use of the public 36
streets including for parking is part of the commons. And I don’t think that as a community and as a City 37
government we really have a clear sense of what are the implications of that. 38
39
I’ve been really struck by the comments from Mr. Alsman and others who in a very rational way put forth 40
requests that the City impose some sort of a moratorium on going ahead with individual projects and on 41
one hand I think that that’s not particularly feasible. It doesn’t seem to me to be, it seems coercive and 42
unlikely to achieve the desired effect of bringing people together in a rational effort to collective problem 43
solving. On the other hand as a Member of the Planning Commission I’ve been struck by the difficulty of 44
engaging and completing the long range planning efforts mainly the Comprehensive Plan, working on the 45
Downtown Development Cap, the California Avenue Area Concept Plan or even putting together the 46
Residential Neighborhood Parking Permit Program that might well be part of the long term solution. And 47
I see both the Planning Commission and the Council spending and the staff spending a significant 48
amount of time and energy working on individual projects while the long term planning languishes. 49
50
And so I feel very embarrassed by the responsibility that the Planning Commission has as being part of 51
the problem in terms of this inertia in this delay. It definitely complicates our role and certainly I feel 52
personally the problem of not being able to point to an updated Comprehensive Plan as a source of the 53
Page 17
division, the policy and the programs that guide our decisions and I can see that this would erode public 1
trust in how those decisions are made and kind of the quality of life in the community as we try to 2
evaluate what we like to do into the future and how to impact some of these planning decisions and 3
approvals. So and just as a question for the Council I wonder what it would take to increase the urgency 4
of finalizing these very, very important long term planning efforts, which are in the home stretch in many 5
respects. And also the question of how the Planning Commission might work with staff, work with, 6
provide a forum for community input, which I think happens on a continual basis, but we could possibly 7
improve in that regard and working with Council in terms of coming up with I think solutions to the what 8
are the real problems. 9
10
So I don’t for a minute think that what we’re considering tonight is going to address the urgency and 11
intensity and the magnitude and the reality of the concerns that we’re hearing from the community. I 12
think it is with some implementation questions it’s a step in the right direction and I would support it, but 13
I don’t want to leave any impression that this is going to alleviate what I think is a lack of urgency in 14
doing the heavy lifting on completing the overall planning, which is not addressing the substance of the 15
real problem. So let me go back to my colleagues on the Commission for any further comments and/or a 16
Motion. 17
18
Mr. Alsman: Mr. Chairman I recognize this is out of order and I would appreciate if I could just have 19
thirty seconds to, for a little clarification? 20
21
Chair Michael: I’ll give you two minutes. 22
23
Mr. Alsman: First of all with respect to the in lieu fees that has been on the books I believe for around 10 24
years. Up until the latest building over on Lytton and Alma the total amount in it was about $100,000. 25
That’s how much was collected. I don’t believe that there has been much collected since that except for 26
the new building that’s under construction and that was only because the neighbors started to raise a lot 27
of ruckus about how much parking was going to be there and an in lieu fee was attached to it. 28
29
With respect to the assessment district Art’s arguments about paying the full boar effectively the 30
assessment district, the assessment pays for $6,000 out of the $60,000. It pays for 10 percent of the 31
real parking need. I mean I just once you get into the numbers it gets really strange to me. With 32
respect to Mr. Alcheck’s comments I don’t disagree with you, but we’ve been fighting for residential 33
parking for 10 or more years. We need every weapon that you can employ to help get these developers 34
to understand the problems they’re creating, to get the good developers, and there are good developers 35
around, not greedy, but good developers who want the City to be successful, who want their tenants to 36
be successful, who don’t want to put all of the costs on their employees or on the residents, but want to 37
have a profitable good project in town. So you need all the weapons. You need a moratorium, you need 38
the parking permits, and you need everything you can muster because you’ve got one hell of a force to 39
fight. Thank you. 40
41
Chair Michael: So for the record that was, those comments were from Ken Alsman. Thank you very 42
much. Ok, so coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Alcheck would you like to begin? 43
44
Commissioner Alcheck: So I just want to throw out two things that we can sort of chew on, which is I 45
just reviewed in a non-formal capacity I had an opportunity to view a project that’s getting built in San 46
Jose adjacent to their City Hall where there’s 130 plus units with a mix of two, three, and four bedrooms 47
and only one parking space per bedroom, per unit. So dramatic potential for four hundred and 48
something occupants in this residential building and there’s going to be 100 parking spaces. And I 49
mention that because there are different visions for what urban areas are supposed to be. 50
51
You mentioned this notion of we can provide more parking or we can have less cars and the second 52
comment, which is going to be very farfetched is that I believe in our lifetime and there’s some degree of 53
Page 18
range there, but I believe in all of our lifetimes we will be at a place where transportation is very 1
different. We are already seeing cars that are driving themselves. I love that movie Minority Report and 2
cars latching onto… people movers latching onto each other and moving along. I mention that only 3
because the population of this City is going to continue to grow, but the number of cars may not or cars 4
as we know it or the amount of space we need for such modes of transportation is not a necessary 5
increase or riser. I’m not really sure what term to use there, but my point only is that I’d like to believe 6
that in our lifetimes we will see a very different type of transportation evolve in a way that cars have and 7
personal transportation has not evolved in the last 50 years. And other cities are choosing to create 8
situations of direct conflict where you can absolutely see that this building is going to be under parked 9
and the city is saying “Yeah, use the bus.” And that’s a standard of life question for some people and for 10
other people it’s a city, it’s an urban vision. 11
12
I would just like to suggest that there’s this third view which in time transportation solutions may improve 13
to such a great extent that the parking that we have provided may be perfectly adequate for 2050. And I 14
mention that only because in my previous comment I said we have to plan for the City of our 15
grandchildren and as I sort of thought about that some more I thought well the city for our grandchildren 16
may not need anywhere close to the number of parking spaces we have. So I know they’re farfetched. I 17
just wanted to throw that out there that this notion of providing, your comment where we could either 18
provide more parking spaces or reduce the number of cars that have to come downtown is an interesting 19
one and that’s it. 20
21
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 22
23
MOTION 24
25
Vice-Chair Keller: So actually what I meant to say is that you could do, you could actually add more 26
parking or reduce the amount of cars that come in or some combination of the two. I didn’t mean it was 27
exclusively either or. Just to be clear. 28
29
So one of the things in terms of your futurism things one of the ideas of self-driving cars is I think it will 30
deal with traffic, but it won’t deal with parking. Because self-driving cars will allow you to pack more cars 31
on a given roadway segment because they’ll move, the turbulent flow that happens with human driven 32
cars won’t occur, but reducing the turbulent flow will allow more cars to flow and that means we’ll have 33
more cars in that regard, which is unfortunately the opposite of what we would like. 34
35
The second thing is that we should not expect the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to 36
provide more transit. The only thing we can expect is maybe the 522 bus will run more often and the 22 37
bus I’m not sure, but the issue is especially Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that may occur, I don’t, light rail 38
doesn’t seem to work as well in Santa Clara Valley. It’s more expensive and ridership is never achieved 39
what it promised. We’ll probably have more Caltrains going on here, but essentially other than that the 40
only way we’ll get more transit in Palo Alto is providing it ourselves. And that’s either through increases 41
in the Palo Alto Shuttle or increases through Transportation Demand Management where their own 42
shuttles like Google has done for the employers here. 43
44
And essentially the way to reduce both cars and traffic is through these Transportation Demand 45
Management features on employers because we really can’t provide them on our residents because 46
there’s no mechanism for providing on residents. Obviously you could take away parking, but when you 47
do that you basically get Arbor Real which has parking imposed, separating into the neighborhood and 48
I’m not sure that that’s any better than, they have night impacted parking as opposed to day impact for 49
north and south, north of downtown and south of downtown. 50
51
So I think we have a hard problem and maybe things will be great and then there’ll be enough transit 52
and people won’t have to have as many cars in 2050, but that’s 37 years away and I’m worried about 53
Page 19
how we get from point A to point B and in terms of what we have now we have too many cars parking in 1
places around the neighborhoods where we don’t want them. And the residents don’t want them. And 2
so we have a bunch of things we need to push levers all the time, at the same time to try to squeeze the 3
worms back in the can so to speak. So I’m going to take the opportunity to move staff recommendation 4
and I think I’ve given a lot of comments already on thoughts that I had so I’m just going to simply say 5
that. 6
7
SECOND 8
9
Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 10
11
Chair Michael: Thank you. So we have a Motion by Vice-Chair Keller seconded by Commissioner Alcheck. 12
Let me just comment at this point. So I was, I had in the last few days I had the chance to do one of 13
those items on your bucket list. I hiked to the top of Half Dome and I got up at 3:00 in the morning and 14
we started hiking at 4:30 in the morning with flashlights and took, was hiking for 11 hours up and down. 15
And it was incredible. So I got back and I was in my room, had a couple of Advil, took a shower, took 16
out my tablet, logged into the Wi-Fi and there was an unusual article in the New York Times that was by 17
a philosopher professor and he was talking about the afterlife not in the traditional religious sense, but he 18
said there are a lot of things that go on that you do simply because you assume that there will be 19
generations to follow and like Neilson Buchanan’s grandchildren I think if we really reject the notion of 20
apocalypse, which I’m not sure we can be confident in that rejection, but if we assume that there’s going 21
to be a continued Palo Alto with continued character of the community then there’s going to continue to 22
be traffic and parking problems. We’re going to have to grapple with some of these problems and so I’m 23
willing to go so far as to endorse that notion of an afterlife and I think we have a big responsibly towards 24
some urgency about tackling the problem. 25
26
I also think that there’s a little bit of a confusion perhaps only in my mind. Palo Alto thinks of itself as a 27
city. I think many years ago it was a suburb. Now it in some discussions it’s like a little big city or a big 28
little suburb, I’m not sure exactly what it is, but some of these programs that are applicable and are well 29
proven best practices are hard to implement in Palo Alto because of this sort of this hybrid aspect of what 30
makes this place so special. I know in some cities the cities have stopped having any parking 31
requirements whatsoever of developers. They are just saying “Hey, you build a building with no parking 32
it’s going to be less valuable than a building that has parking. So if that’s what you want to do go for it. 33
You’ll eventually learn your lesson and collectively the community will be better off for just letting the 34
market forces work.” But we seem to have the notion that we can do some planning, which I think is an 35
interesting maybe a bit of hubris. 36
37
Maybe if you have sort of the relationship between development requirements, parking, transportation 38
you have to assume that if you constrain parking with adjacency to mass transit that there actually is 39
mass transit that’s usable and that’s maybe applicable in some cases to people who are commuting to 40
work, but what about people like Commissioner Panelli pointed out who are very engaged, very 41
productive professionals, business people, whatever, but they don’t commute? And the driving that they 42
do and the parking that they take up is in a completely different pattern of usage. So with all that I think 43
that the effort that the staff has made to comb through the code and eliminate archaic exemptions is 44
worth our voting on and approving, but I think that the message to the Council is to really, really, really 45
ratchet up the effort on finalizing the long term planning much of which is completely out of date and 46
that puts the Planning Commission and me in a bind with respect to what rules we apply to address the 47
concerns of the community. 48
49
So before we turn it over to the Commission for a vote I’d like to say that we use a committee, a 50
subcommittee structure on the Commission and we have recently appointed two Commissioners to work 51
on a parking subcommittee. I’m asking those two Commissioners, Vice-Chair Keller and Commissioner 52
Panelli to come back to the PTC with a specific written proposed charter for the, what the Parking 53
Page 20
Committee will actually do. I think this is probably the most significant undertaking in front of us with 1
the possible exception of the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and I think this proposed charter of 2
our Parking Subcommittee should be something we should welcome public input and Council direction as 3
to what our Parking Subcommittee should be working on and that we should tee up urgently a study 4
session on parking issues informed in part by the work of our committee along with the staff. 5
6
So with that you’ve made a Motion. It’s been seconded. Does anybody want to comment on the Motion 7
before we vote? Commissioner King. 8
9
Commissioner King: Thank you. Yeah, I won’t attempt an amendment, but I would just like to clarify 10
with staff on my comment regarding the Item 2D regarding the remodel versus demolish that in my 11
opinion ideally you want clear guidelines that support the intent of the policy and that if a person reading 12
the ordinance were to look at photos of various projects they would be able to clearly say “Oh yes, this 13
one’s a remodel and this one’s a demolish.” Thank you. I’m good. 14
15
VOTE 16
17
Chair Michael: Any other comments? So we have a Motion. It’s been seconded. All in favor say aye 18
(Aye). Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent. Ok 19
and that closes the public hearing. 20
21
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2, Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 22
23
Commission Action: Approved staff recommendation for City Council to adopt the Parking 24
Exemptions Code. Motion by Vice-chair Keller second by Commissioner Alcheck (5-0-2, 25
Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 26
27
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4021)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/25/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Code Review
Title: Review and Recommendation to City Council of Two Ordinances to
Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: 1. Ordinance to amend the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c)
related to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area”
parking exemption which allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown
Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district. 2.
Interim Ordinance to amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD)
District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to make the
following changes to be effective for a period of two years: a. Delete Sections
18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the
200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking exemption for
buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections
18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate
the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c.
Amend Section 18.18.080(g) remove the parking exemption for on-site use of
historic and seismic FAR bonus; and elimination of the parking exemption for
transfer of development rights of 5,000 SF FAR to a receiver site in the CD
zoning district. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) related to Grandfathered
Uses and Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use may be remodeled and
improved, but may not be replaced and maintain its grandfathered status.
e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) related to remove the sentence
allowing square footage to qualify for exemption that was developed or used
previously for nonresidential purposes but was vacant at the time of the
engineer's These actions are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines.
From: ŵLJ&ƌĞŶĐŚ͕ŚŝĞĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐŝĂů
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Lead Department: PlanningΘŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend
Council’s adoption of:
1. An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently delete
Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to
eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the
Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be
exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district; and
2. An Interim Ordinance to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD)
District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the following changes,
to be effective for a period of two years:
a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to
eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking
exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus.
b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and
18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of
Historic and Seismic Bonus.
c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for
floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the
transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet
(SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the
CD or downtown PC zoning districts).
d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
to clarify that a grandfathered use/facility may be remodeled and improved
while maintaining ‘grandfather’ status, but that the floor area may not be
demolished and replaced onsite while maintaining such ‘grandfathered’
status.
e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor
area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at
the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment.
Background
On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for the
Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address the concerns of
businesses and neighbors. Council requested an evaluation of existing zoning regulations, and
an assessment of realistic parking ratios and the desirability and viability of parking exemptions.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Following that meeting, staff identified one particular parking exemption, applicable to the
Downtown and California Avenue assessment districts likely to exacerbate the parking problems
without providing a public purpose. This provision had allowed exemptions from parking
requirements for any property within the two parking assessment districts; specifically, up to a
1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown Assessment District and up to a 0.5:1 ratio in the
California Avenue Assessment District (see Attachment C, October 15, 2012 Council Report).
On October 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance that established a
45-day moratorium on the use of this “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption pending further
study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (refer to Attachment C, October 15th
Council Staff Report and Attachment D, October 15, 2012 Council Minutes). On December 10,
2012, the City Council adopted another Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend this moratorium
for a period of one year through December 28, 2013 (refer to Attachment E, December 15, 2012
Council Staff Report and Attachment F, December 15, 2012 Council Minutes).
On March 18, 2013, the Council gave additional direction on several items related to parking
policy. This included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code
parking exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Since that
time, staff has examined the Municipal Code, and is recommending the subject changes. It is
important to note that this is the first step. Staff will most likely have additional
recommendations in the coming year. While the staff recommended interim suspension of the
subject parking exemptions is narrowly focused in the Downtown area, future
recommendations may be citywide and/or more comprehensive in nature. Furthermore, the
subject “interim” changes may or may not be recommended for permanent inclusions after
additional analysis is conducted during the two-year, interim stage.
Description of Proposed Ordinances:
There are two types of ordinances under review. The first is a standard ordinance revision
permanently eliminating the “Exempt Floor Area” ordinance as described below. There is
currently a moratorium on the use of this ordinance. The proposed ordinance revision would
permanently eliminate the use of this exemption. This affects the Downtown and California
Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. The second ordinance focuses on several parking
exemptions found within the code that only affect downtown properties zoned CD. This is an
interim ordinance which would be in effect for a trial 2-year period.
Ordinance to Eliminate the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions: The first ordinance would
make permanent the elimination of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. There is currently a one year
moratorium on the use of this exemption that expires on December 28, 2013. In the Downtown
Assessment District Area, this zoning code section allows floor area equal to the lot size to be
City of Palo Alto Page 4
“un-parked”. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft property, the first 10,000 sq. ft. of building would
have to provide zero parking spaces. This provision was originally included in the zoning code in
the 1980s to encourage downtown development by providing a benefit to offset the parking
assessments enacted at that time. This was also done at the same time when properties were
downzoned within the downtown area. This strategy was successful in its time, but the
downtown area is now thriving and the exemption is no longer needed to encourage
development. In the California Avenue Assessment District Area, this code section allows floor
area equal to half the lot size to be un-parked. For example, on a 10,000 square foot lot in the
California Avenue area, the first 5,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking.
Given that there is no longer a need to incent development in the Downtown and California
Avenue areas and parking shortages are prevalent, the permanent elimination of this
unnecessary parking exemption is recommended.
Interim Ordinance to Eliminate other Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area: Since the
Council diretion given in March, staff has identified four (4) key areas where additional code
changes could be made to eliminate future use of parking exemptions for properties in the
Downtown area zoned CD. The second ordinance would be an interim ordinance for a period of
two years to eliminate the following four code provisions related to floor area and parking only
within the CD zone district.
1. Parking Exemptions Associated with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program:
The TDR program encourages seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings within the
CD district by allowing for the transfer of certain development rights to eligible CD-zoned
sites that are not historic properties. These provisions include both transfer of bonus
floor area to another site, and provisions for exempting some of the bonus floor area
from parking requirements. The program has been successful and has resulted in
seismic and historic restoration of many older buildings in the Downtown area.
However, staff believes an incentive can still be provided through bonus FAR area,
without increasing nearby parking issues. The Interim Ordinance, therefore, would
prohibit the creation of new TDRs as they relate to parking. Specifically, 5,000 SF of
transferred bonus floor area to be exempt from on-site parking requirements. This
exemption has been applied to floor area transferred to a receiver site within a CD or PC
district from another CD-zoned site or even from an RT zoned site within the SOFA
district. TDRs that have already been approved and earned under existing zoning code
provisions would still be allowed to be utilized. Eliminating the use of already approved
and earned TDRs would likely be subject to judicial challenge under a “takings” or
“vested rights” legal theory. Staff is expecting to address the provision of parking related
to already earned TDRs during future recommendations.
2. Minor Exemptions for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus: The CD zone
district regulations also contain an exemption that allows a 200 square foot floor area
City of Palo Alto Page 5
bonus for any building that does not qualify for the seismic or historic bonuses. This
increase, which has been used to increase floor area in both new buildings and existing
buildings, does not count towards the site’s gross floor area (GFA) and floor area ratio
(FAR), and is exempt from on-site parking requirements. Although it is minor, any CD
zoned property not eligible for the other bonuses may request it and the impacts have
been and will continue to be cumulative. The Interim Ordinance proposes to eliminate
this 200 square foot minor floor area bonus.
3. Grandfathered Uses and Facilities: The CD Zone District contains provisions for
“grandfathered uses and facilities” that allow continuation of uses and rebuilding of
facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986 but which are no longer conforming
to the standards of the district. One of the provisions allows that the grandfathered
uses/facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site as long as it is within the same footprint and does not result in an increase in
floor area, height, building envelope or building footprint. Because the existing code
language allows replacement of a grandfathered facility’s “site improvements”, this
provision has been used to completely rebuild a structure with the same amount of floor
area that exceeds current standards, and the new structure is not required to provide
parking for the replacement floor area that is considered “grandfathered”. The Interim
Ordinance proposes to clarify that one may remodel or improve the grandfathered floor
area and keep the parking exemption, but the floor area may not be demolished and
rebuilt into a replacement structure. Staff believes that this exemption will not be
proposed for permanent elimination in entirety after the interim ordinance as it could
“lock” property owners into older buildings that do not function well for modern
businesses. However, during this interim period, staff would like to quantify the impact
of building modernization, particularly in terms of parking, so that suitable impact fees,
conditions and/or municipal code provisions can be incorporated.
4. Vacant Floor Area Exemption: This portion of the interim ordinance would eliminate,
with respect to properties within the CD assessment district, a sentence in Section
18.52.070(a)( 3) allowing exemption for existing floor area developed or used previously
for nonresidential purposes but vacant at the time of the engineer’s report at the time of
the parking district assessment. In other words, as currently written, the Municipal Code
allows for floor area that was vacant at the time Downtown Assessment district was
created, and therefore not assessed, to still be “grandfathered” for rebuilding purposes.
Properties owners are not responsible for providing or paying for additional parking
when a building is razed and rebuilt, even though payments were not made to the
assessment district for the previously vacant squared footage. The interim ordinance
will eliminate this existing inequity in the Code.
Commission Purview
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 sets forth the process for amendments to the
City’s zoning regulations. Section 18.80.080 (a)(2) allows the Planning and Transportation
Commission, on its own initiative, to initiate changes to provisions of Title 18, the Zoning Code.
Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the PTC is to set forth the findings and determinations of the PTC
with respect to the proposed changes initiated by the Commission in a written recommendation
to City Council. Council would consider the PTC recommendations in a public hearing. The PTC’s
determination for its recommendation should include why the public interest or general welfare
require these amendments.
The Planning and Transportation Commission is requested to review the two attached
ordinances relating to parking requirements in the zoning code. In each case, the P&TC’s action
is a recommendation to City Council for consideration in a public hearing. Both of these
ordinances would become effective 31 days following Council adoption. The Exempt Floor Area
ordinance would need to be acted on by the City Council by mid-November to become effective
before the end of the moratorium on December 28, 2013. The Interim Ordinance to address
exemptions related to bonuses is proposed to expire in two years (sunset) from the date of
Council action unless it is replaced by a permanent code change or otherwise modified.
Additional Issues
Under State law, projects that have obtained their entitlements and building permits and have
begun work in reliance on the building permit are largely exempt from new zoning provisions.
(This is sometimes referred to as the “vested rights doctrine.”) A key issue raised when the
moratorium on use of the “exempt floor area” parking was adopted in 2012 was the
applicability of the ordinance to projects that were in process (on file, pending decisions by the
Director, Council or building permit issuance). At that time, Council elected not only to exempt
projects that had received building permits, but also to exempt those projects that had received
Planning Permit approval, including the granting of parking exemptions, from the moratorium.
While Council is required to exempt projects receiving building permits, it is a policy call
whether to exempt projects that are in earlier phases of entitlement review. As noted in the
table below, there are a number of projects that have received recent planning approval or
under currently under planning review. Please also note, that as stated previously in this report,
the interim oridance would only impact TDRs on a prospective basis. Therefore, all previous
approved TDRs would still be able to be ulitilized for the purposes of parking and floor area.
A recommendation should be made to Council regarding at what point filed applications would
be subject to the provisions of the ordinances under consideration.
Table 1 – Summary of Approved Planning Entitlements with Parking Exemptions
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Address Description Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building
Permit
Status
135 Hamilton A four-story 28,085 square foot mixed-use building
(19,998 square feet commercial and two residential
units) and below grade parking on a vacant lot. Zone:
CD-C(P) (exemption using 5000 Sf TDR and 200 SF
exemption)
Approval
Effective
2/7/13
Building
Permit
under
review. It is
expected
that this
permit will
be issued
prior to
ordinance
adoption.
611 Cowper A 34,703 square foot four-story mixed use building
(three floors commercial and one floor residential)
with below grade parking, replacing two buildings
totalling 7,191 SF commercial floor area and 1,270 SF
residential floor area. Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using
grandfathered spaces, 10,000 SF TDR exemption and
400 SF exemptions for two parcels)
Approval
Effective
8/16/13
No Permit
Application
submitted
to date
240 Hamilton A 15,000 square foot mixed use building, replacing an
(approx.) 7,000 SF building (building plus mezzanine).
Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using 4,327 SF TDR
exemption, 200 SF bonus, and “grandfathered” floor
area, including 2,000 that was not assessed)
Approved
7/23/13 but
Appealed to
Council.
Hearing to be
scheduled.
Not
Applicable
Table 2 – Summary of Pending Applications Requesting Exemptions
Address Request Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building
Permit
Status
636 Waverley 10,328 square foot, four-story mixed use building
with commercial uses on the first and second floors
and two residential units on the third and fourth
floors, replacing a one-story 1,406 SF commercially
used building. Zone: CD-C(P). (No subject parking
exemptions applied)
Formal ARB
submitted
6/14/13
Going to ARB
9/19/13
(second
formal
hearing)
Not
Applicable
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Address Request Planning
Entitlement
Status
Building
Permit
Status
429 University 22,750 SF building with below grade parking for 29
cars, replacing “grandfathered” building. Zone: CD-
C(GF)(P).(exemption using 5,000 SF TDR, 200 SF bonus
and grandfathered building).
Prelim ARB
submitted
9/12/13
Not
applicable
261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF in retail
storage use to third story office atop an historic
category III, “grandfathered” commercial building
(over 3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF assessed
for parking); 37,800 SF retail/office at end. Zone: CD-
C(GF)(P). (requesting creation of 15,000 SF TDR via
rehabilitation).
Formal ARB
submitted
6/18/13
Not
applicable
640 Waverley ARB application for a new 10,463 SF mixed use
building with 2 dwelling units and 5,185 SF
commercial area (replacing 1,829 SF of
“grandfathered” floor area) providing 17 spaces.
Zone: CD-C(P). (exemptions grandfathered, mixed-use
parking reduction and 200 SF bonus).
Prelim ARB
submitted
9/16/13
Not
applicable
500 University Three-story 26,806 SF commercial building replacing
15,899 SF previously assessed for 64 spaces not
provided on site; includes 24 parking spaces below
grade. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (Exemption using
grandfathered building, TDR and 200 SF bonus).
Prelim ARB
reviewed. No
formal
submittal.
Not
applicable
301 High Addition and remodel of existing building. Proposes
6,706 SF (including existing 6,255 SF plus bonus an
ADA area). Zone: CD-N(P). (requests 200 SF bonus).
Formal ARB
Submitted
5/20/13
Not
applicable
Next Steps
The Interim Ordinance is proposed to be in place for a period of two years, during which time
staff will study the impacts on development of permanently removing these floor area bonuses
and parking exemptions. Much of this will be done during the policy recommendation phases
of the Downtown Development Cap Study. The following are some of the items that have been
identified for further analysis and consideration: residential parking program, in-lieu parking
provisions, adjustments to parking requirements, SOFA 2 parking exemptions (additional details
below), and other, city-wide parking exemptions. Other adjustments to the Municipal Code may
also be considered. Furthermore, historically made interpretations of the Municipal Code may
be taken to the PTC for consideration and recommendation.
SOFA 2 Plan Area Policies and Programs:
Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are several sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The
City of Palo Alto Page 9
sites are located north of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Code
allows for parking reductions and exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the
SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR program, to transfer bonus floor area
achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver sites as well as within the
SOFA 2 area and the same parking exemptions are currently available for bonus floor area
generated in the SOFA 2 area. The SOFA 2 regulations and policies related to incentives for
bonus floor area may need to be reviewed in light of the proposed ordinances, following Council
action on the proposed ordinances.
Policy Implications
The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal
regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To
implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The
proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing
parking requirements improve parking availability in these areas and be would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to
Attachment G, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking).
The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and
programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage
seismic retrofits.
Land Use Element:
Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the
preservation of significant historic buildings.
Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be
maintained.
Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights
from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to
non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints
to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas.
Natural And Urban Environment Element:
Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the
University Avenue/Downtown area.
Staff believes the proposed changes remain consistent with the policies above, as historic
rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor area
associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow
historic buildings to be renovated and restored and retain their “grandfathered” status.
Resource Impact
The zoning evaluation work would be done within the currently approved work program of the
Planning and Community Environment Department.
Timeline
The Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013.
In order for these provisions to stay in effect the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted
by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration. City Council action on an Ordinance requires
two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading. It is proposed that the
council hearings be scheduled in October and November, 2013.
Environmental Review
The proposed Ordinances eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the
Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that
will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its
own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on
the environment and Section 15301 in that these proposed ordinances will have a minor impact
on existing facilities.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance for Elimination of 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (DOCX)
Attachment B - Interim Ordinance to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the
Downtown Area (DOCX)
Attachment C - 10.15.12.Council Report Downtown Parking (PDF)
Attachment D - 10.15.12 Council Minutes (PDF)
Attachment E - 12.10.12 Council Report Downtown Parking (PDF)
Attachment F - 12.10.12 Council Minutes (PDF)
Attachment G - Transportation Element Parking Goals & Policies (PDF)