City of Palo Alto Planning Document: Downtown Development Cap RFP Review

7/30/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning Document: Downtown Development Cap RFP Review

1/84

City of Palo Alto (ID # 3417)Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Report Type: Meeting Date: 1/9/2013

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Summary Title: Downtown Development Cap RFP Review

Title: Planning and Transportation Commission Review of Proposed Scope of

Work for the Downtown Development Cap Study

From: Aaron Aknin, Assistant Planning Director

Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission provide input on the

attached Proposed Scope of Work to be incorporated into the Downtown Development Cap

Evaluation Request for Proposal.

Background

In 1986, the City of Palo Alto conducted a Downtown Study, which examined parking, traffic

and land use conditions in the Downtown area. As the result of the Study, the Downtown Areawas rezoned to Commercial Downtown (CD). This rezoning created Floor Area Ratios (FARs)

and other zoning regulations that were generally more restrictive than the previous zoning,

especially as it related to commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In

addition to the new zoning regulations, a CD development cap policy (Downtown Development

Cap) was adopted. This policy restricted future non-residential development to a total of

350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986.

CD development regulations were to be re-evaluated when new development reached 235,000

square feet. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to

encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. There were a number of other

specific policies related to growth in the CD area as well. A list of measures that resulted from

the 1986 Downtown Study area attached to this report (Attachment B). Citywide growth limits

and growth limits in other districts were also established at that time or shortly thereafter.

The 1986 Downtown Study requires that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the

City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order

to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City Council report


2/84


(Attachment D), submitted in March 2012, provided information related to the 2010-11 time

period. This report showed that the downtown area was recovering well from the recession

and approximately 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development remained available

before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet would be reached. The economy has

continued to improve and several developments have been approved since that time, such that

the evaluation milestone has now been reached. The City Council, therefore, recentlyinstructed staff to develop a scope of work for this evaluation and for the PTC to review and

provide input on the scope of work prior to a Request for Proposals (RFP) being released. Staff

and the Council believe that transportation and planning consultant services are needed to

complete this study in a timely manner, as the work effort is substantial and well beyond staffs

work program capabilities. The study should also benefit from a consultants teams knowledge

of similar studies, issues, and solutions in other communities.

Parking

Parking Intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods and parking permit supply are bothmajor concerns of the Downtown Cap Study. These concerns are not new, but there has been

an increasing amount of attention focused on parking impacts with the improving economy.

Parking was a key focus of the 1986 study. For example, as a result of the study, a parking

policy was adopted that specified that new development should not increase the parking deficit

beyond the 1986 deficit. Since that time parking garages have been built that have reduced the

deficit, though concerns remain. These impacts may be exacerbated by zoning code

assumptions that may not be consistent with modern planning and transportation engineering

practices, such as the number of employees assumed on a per square foot basis in tech

companies, particularly start-ups. Staff has also recently initiated a study of potential parking

garage feasibility on five sites in the downtown area, which should inform the Downtown

Development Cap Study as well.

A Downtown Parking Assessment District was first formed in 1978, and has been subsequently

restructured to respond to changing downtown needs and financing options. The Downtown

Parking Assessment District, which is financially supported by downtown property owners via

bond financing assessment, paid for the construction of downtown garages. Maintenance and

operation costs of garages are funded through permit fees. Bond financing restrictions,

however, limit the way in which these garages can be utilized. After the formation of

assessment district and the 1986 Downtown Study, the zoning code was amended to allow

several exemptions to parking requirements, including a 1:1 FAR exemption, 200 square footminor parking exemption and a Transfer of Development Rights program, which allows

parking exemptions to be transferred to other properties in certain cases.

Traffic

Traffic is another concern. Several policies were adopted as a result of the 1986 Downtown


3/84


Study, and numerous transportation improvements have been implemented in the CD and

surrounding areas since that time. Transportation improvements have included enhancements

to the automobile, bicycle and pedestrian networks. In addition, the City has required

Transportation Demand Management policies for a few recent downtown developments and

businesses. The proximity of Downtown and Stanford to the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain

station and other transit services, along with the transportation initiatives of several firms andStanford have contributed to the Downtown Caltrain station having the highest ridership at any

Caltrain station other than at the San Francisco terminus. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has a

top-rated bicycle network, and continues to adopt policies and programs and to enhance

facilities to improve this network. Nonetheless, traffic congestion remains a major concern in

the area, and the attached draft scope of work for the Downtown Development Cap Study is

written with that in mind.

Planning and Zoning

In addition to parking and traffic policies, there are several planning related policies that aretied to the Downtown Development Cap. For example, a Ground Floor (GF) Combining District

was created within the CD area, which encourages pedestrian uses, and generally limits

business to retail, eating and drinking, and personal service uses on the ground floor. Office

uses, which can typically attract higher rents, are allowed on the perimeter of the CD area. CD

zoning also encourages seismic and historic upgrades to buildings by allowing property owners

who make these improvements to expand beyond normal FAR limitations and/or to add floor

area without providing parking. The property owners may also transfer (sell) those

development rights to another property in the CD area. All of these issues contribute to

downtown development potential, parking demand and supply, and traffic, and will be

reviewed as part of the proposed study.

The City is also in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation

and Land Use elements. Currently the document refers to and bases several policies on the

1986 Downtown Study. The subject study would help inform the Comprehensive Plan update

process, as well guide other planning efforts. In addition, there are several ongoing efforts

related to parking management, including the Parking Garage analysis, and consideration of

several other parking programs such as attendant parking and residential permit parking

initiatives, all of which will be under study simultaneous with the Downtown Cap Study. Finally,

some potential proposed developments would be located just outside the CD area (i.e., 27

University). Although these developments are not directly related to the original DowntownDevelopment Cap, traffic and parking related to these developments may impact the

Downtown area and should be addressed or referenced as well.

Discussion


4/84


The following section outlines the draft scope of work attached to this report (Attachment A).

The Commission is encouraged to comment and provide input on all of the proposed measures.

As currently drafted, the Scope of Work states that the City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals

from qualified and well-experienced transportation and planning firms to assist the City in

determining the appropriateness of existing Downtown Development Cap policies and related

parking strategies and development and land-use regulations. The scope proposes thattransportation consultants analyze existing and projected traffic and parking conditions, and

coordinate with planning consultants to make planning policy recommendations (zoning code,

parking strategies, etc.) based on these conditions. The selected consultant must work closely

with the Citys planning, transportation and economic development staff during the process,

and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council,

as well as various community groups as needed. The following tasks are anticipated.

1. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related DocumentsThe selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report andrelated materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies,

zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents.

2. Existing Conditions Evaluation:The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluatingexisting traffic and parking conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas.

Existing level of service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway

segments. The selected consultant should work closely with the planning and

transportation staff during the existing conditions process to ensure the correct

intersections and roadway segments are be evaluated. In addition, the selected consultant

should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown andsurrounding areas. At a minimum, studies should include:

Existing traffic counts and level of service for identified intersections. Existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, capacity and occupancy, based on

staffs continuing efforts and adjusted as needed to reflect the needs of the Downtown

Development Cap Study.

Identification of downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impactsof that development and trends over that timeframe, including the application of

parking exemptions under transfer of development rights and other code provisions.

A definition of the parking intrusion, saturation, deficit, or other term and howthat is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Projected Growth Impact Analysis: Using the existing conditions report as the foundation,the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future

level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on projected


5/84


growth. In addition, future commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should

also be evaluated based on growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for

the Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as street parking in the surrounding

residential neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on

the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. At a minimum, studies

should include:

A 5-year scenario and a 10-year scenario of potential ranges of development, assumingthe continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions.

Estimated changes to levels of service at key intersections based on potential increasedgrowth.

Estimated parking demand required by increased growth under each scenario and thelikely impact of the demand on available parking in residential neighborhoods.

The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development toCaltrain and other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of existing

employee ridership for Downtown businesses and Stanford, as well as other relevant

resources.

4. Recommended Planning Policies: Based on the existing conditions report and the projectedgrowth analysis, the consultant should recommend changes to Downtown Development

Cap related zoning and land use policies. The recommended changes would be

implemented through the Citys Municipal (Zoning) Code and Comprehensive Plan. At a

minimum, studies and recommendations should include the following tasks:

Assist staff to prepare Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments, includingrequirements for transportation demand management (TDM) measures outlined underparking strategies below, if warranted.

Address the appropriateness of or revisions to existing parking regulations to reflecthow office and other land uses have evolved, as well as updated parking demands for

expected uses proximate to transit (particularly rail transit).

Identify the benefits or adverse effects of ground floor retail requirements regardingparking needs and demands, and its need to support other development.

Address appropriateness of incentives to development of residential uses or mixed-useresidential projects in the Downtown Area.

Evaluate the transfer of development rights (TDR) program as it affects thedevelopment cap and Downtown parking impacts, including whether to maintain,

modify or eliminate the program. Other code exceptions (e.g., 1:1 FAR exemption, 200

square foot minor parking exemption, etc.) should also be considered and

recommended for retention, modification or deletion.


6/84


Suggest other possible zoning or land use approaches for consideration, based on theconsultants experience and survey of efforts in other cities.

Summarize how these recommended changes would impact LOS for key intersectionsand roadway segments, as well as Downtown permit parking, visitor parking and street

parking in nearby neighborhoods.

5. Recommended Parking Strategies: Based on the implications of the existing conditionsreport, projections of ranges of future growth, and land use and zoning adjustments

outlined above, the consultant should work with City staff to recommend parking strategies

for the City to address the issues affecting visitor, permit, or neighborhood parking issues.

At a minimum, the study and recommendations should address the following tasks:

Identify transportation demand management (TDM) measures that would beappropriate for a strong Downtown TDM program, including a leading implementation

effort by City of Palo Alto staff at City Hall and other Downtown City facilities.

Coordinate with staff to determine the benefits of potential new parking structure(s)Downtown, or other methods to expand supply in existing facilities, and define the

extent to which each approach would alleviate current parking concerns.

Define an acceptable maximum level of neighborhood intrusion or saturation thatprovides for residents to maintain some level of parking convenience while recognizing

that the streets also provide some measure of parking capacity for business employees.

Work with staff to Identify pricing options for consideration, including for ParkingAssessment District parking, commercial on-street parking, and neighborhood permit

parking.

6. Public Participation: It is expected that the Downtown Development Cap study will be thefocus of a series of public meetings over a 12-month period, with a report out to the City

Council after not more than 6 months (with prior input from the Planning and

Transportation Commission). Public outreach may include, at a minimum:

Meetings with the broad Downtown community, including business, neighbors, and others. Meetings or focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North, University

South, and Professorville neighborhoods, the Downtown Business Improvement District,

and/or the Chamber of Commerces Downtown Parking Committee.

At least quarterly reports to the Planning and Transportation Commission. At least 2-4 meetings with the City Council.

The proposal should outline a suggested proposal for public involvement and outreach, but

staff expects that a minimum of eight (8) Planning and Transportation Commission and/or


7/84


Council meetings should be included, as well as two-four (2-4) general community meetings

and early and regular consultation with the interest groups outlined above. An early scoping

meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission should be used to refine the desired

public outreach approach.

Timeline

After the PTC provides input to the RFP, staff will begin the process of finalizing the document

and preparing it for distribution. It is expected it can be distributed to consultant firms within

4-6 weeks. Staff will allow approximately 6-8 weeks for response, review and selection of the

consultant firm. The evaluation is expected to take 9-12 months. Therefore, the study should

be completed in the mid-2014 timeframe. The RFP will, however, require a report out at 6

months to include initial recommendations to pursue, particularly related to parking

exemptions and as a follow-up to the parking garage study. The PTC, the Council and

neighborhood groups will be involved throughout the process.

Resource Impact

Although the exact amount of the study cannot be determined until the scope of work is

finalized and proposals received, staff estimates the cost of the study will range from $100,00-

$150,000, not including environmental review. The consultant contract will need to be

approved by the City Council prior to work commencing. The study cost is proposed to be

funded by either a) funds submitted by the Lytton Gateway project for parking studies; or b)

developer contributions from current projects seeking exception from the parking exemption

moratorium.

Policy Implications

The requirement to conduct this evaluation is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:

Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square

feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986.

Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of

floor area.

In addition, numerous policies could be impacted as a result of this evaluation. This includes

policies related to parking, traffic and land use (zoning) in the Downtown area. The 1986 study

impacted policies in the Comprehensive Plan and text within the zoning ordinance. It is

expected that this evaluation could result in revisions to both documents as well.


8/84


Environmental Review

Environmental review is not required in order for the PTC to review and provide input on the

scope of work, nor does releasing a Request for Proposal. All proposed policy changes,

however, will need to be fully reviewed per the provisions of the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA). The exact type of review will not be determined until the policy changes

are proposed and associated impacts are identified.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Draft Downtown Development Cap RFP (PDF) Attachment B: Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF) Attachment C: Downtown Report Summary (PDF) Attachment D: Downtown Monitoring Council Report (March 5 2012) (PDF)


9/84

RequestforProposals

DowntownDevelopmentCapEvaluation

Purpose:TheCityofPaloAltoisrequestingproposalsfromqualifiedandexperiencedtransportationandplanning

firmstoevaluatetheimplicationsoftheexistingdevelopmentcap(DowntownDevelopmentCap)inthe

CommercialDowntown(CD)areaofPaloAlto,particularlywithrespecttothecapacityforgrowthin

Downtownand

associated

impacts

on

parking

and

traffic.

In

1986,

the

City

adopted

the

Downtown

DevelopmentCap,primarilybecauseoftrafficandparkingconcerns,alongwithincentivesforfuture

developmentandredevelopment. ThesepolicieswereappliedtotheCDarea,andrestrictedfuture

nonresidentialdevelopmenttoatotalof350,000squarefeetbeyondwhatwasinexistenceor

approvedinMay1986. Residentialdevelopmentwaspurposelyexcludedfromthedevelopmentto

encouragepeopleinordertoencouragefutureresidentstoliveincloseproximitytojobs. CD

developmentregulationsweretobereevaluatedwhennew,nonresidentialdevelopmentreached

235,000squarefeet. Thisevaluationmilestonehasrecentlybeenreachedwiththesubmittalofseveral

developmentapplications.AParkingAssessmentDistrict(PAD)wasalsoestablishedpriortothe1986

studyandremainsineffecttoday,thoughithasbeenexpandedduringtheinterim.Thepurposeofthis

studyistoevaluateexistingandprojectedconditions,andtomeasuretheimpactoftheseconditionson

theCD

district

and

surrounding

areas,

particularly

on

parking

and

traffic

in

Downtown

and

nearby

neighborhoods. Theselectedconsultantwillthenoffertransportationandplanning(Comprehensive

Plan,Zoning,etc.)recommendationsbasedonthesefindings. Theresultsofthisstudyand

recommendedimplementingactionswillbeusedbyCityStaff,thePlanningandTransportation

CommissionandtheCityCounciltoguidedecisionmakingduringtheDowntownDevelopmentCap

evaluationprocessandtoestablishparkingstrategiesandrevisedcriteriaandproceduresasnecessary

toaddressfuturedevelopmentanditspotentialimpactsandbenefits.

Background:Astheresultofa1986DowntownStudy,theDowntownAreawasrezonedtoCommercialDowntown

(CD). ThisrezoningcreatedFloorAreaRatios(FARs)andotherzoningregulationsthatweregenerally

morerestrictivethanthepreviouszoning,especiallyasitrelatedtocommercialpropertiesadjacentto

residentialneighborhoods.

In

addition

to

the

new

zoning

regulations,

aCD

development

cap

policy

(DowntownDevelopmentCap)wasadopted. Thispolicyrestrictedfuturenonresidentialdevelopment

toatotalof350,000squarefeetbeyondwhatwasinexistenceorapprovedintheCDareaasofMay

1986. CDdevelopmentregulationsweretobereevaluatedwhennewdevelopmentreached235,000

squarefeet.Residentialdevelopmentwaspurposelyexcludedfromthedevelopmenttoencourage

peopleinordertoencouragefutureresidents toliveincloseproximitytojobs. Therewereanumberof

otherspecificpoliciesrelatedtogrowthintheCDareaaswell. Themeasuresthatresultedfromthe

1986DowntownStudyareaattachedtothisRFP. Citywidegrowthlimits,andgrowthlimitsinother

districtswerealsoestablishedatthattime.

The1986DowntownStudyrequiresthatCityStaffmonitorandsubmitanannualreporttotheCity

Councilregarding

development

activity,

vacancy

rates

and

commercial

lease

rates

in

order

to

evaluate

theeffectivenessoftheseregulations. ThemostrecentCityCouncilreport(attached),submittedin

March2012,providedinformationrelatedtothe201011timeperiod. Thisreportshowedthatthe

downtownareawasrecoveringfromtherecessionandapproximately61,650squarefeetofnewnon

residentialdevelopmentremainedavailablebeforethereevaluationlimitof235,000squarefeetwas

reached. Theeconomyhascontinuedtoimproveandseveraldevelopmentshavebeensubmittedsince

thattime,suchthattheevaluationmilestonehasnowbeenreached.

ATTACHMENT A


10/84

RequestforProposals


ParkingIntrusionintoadjacentresidentialneighborhoodsandparkingpermitsupplyarebothmajor

concerns. Theseconcernsarenotnew,buttherehasbeenanincreasingamountofattentionfocused

onparkingimpactswiththeimprovingeconomy. Parkingwasakeyfocusofthe1986study. For

example,asaresultofthestudy,aparkingpolicywasadoptedthatspecifiedthatnewdevelopment

shouldnot

increase

the

parking

deficit

beyond

the

1986

deficit.

Since

that

time

parking

garages

have

beenbuiltwhichhavereducedthedeficit,thoughconcernsremain. Theseimpactsmaybeexacerbated

byzoningcodeassumptionswhichmaynotbeconsistentwithmodernplanningandtransportation

engineeringpractices,suchasthenumberofemployeesassumedonapersquarefootbasisintech

companies,particularlystartups. Staffhasalsorecentlyinitiatedastudyofpotentialparkinggarage

feasibilityonfivesitesinthedowntownarea,whichshouldinformtheDowntownDevelopment

Capstudyaswell.

ADowntownParkingAssessmentDistrictwasfirstformedin1978,andhasbeensubsequently

restructuredseveraltimes. TheDowntownParkingAssessmentDistrict,whichisfinanciallysupported

bydowntownpropertyownersviabondfinancing,paidfortheconstructionofseveraldowntown

garages.Maintenance

and

operation

costs

of

garages

are

funded

through

permit

fees.

Bonds

financing

restrictions,however,limitthewayinwhichthesegaragescanbeutilized. Aftertheformationof

assessmentdistrict,and1986DowntownStudy,thezoningcodewasamendedtoallowseveral

exemptionstoparkingrequirements,includinga1:1FARexemption,200squarefootminorparking

exemptionandaTransferofDevelopmentRightsprogram,whichallowsparkingexemptionstobe

transferredtootherpropertiesincertaincases.

Trafficisanotherconcern. Severalpolicieswereadoptedinthe1986plan,andnumerous

transportationimprovementshavebeenimplementedintheCDandsurroundingareassincethattime.

Transportationimprovementshaveenhancementstotheautomobile,bicycleandpedestriannetworks.

Inaddition,theCityhasrequiredTransportationDemandManagementpoliciesforafewrecent

downtowndevelopmentsandbusinesses. TheproximityofDowntownandStanfordtothe PaloAlto

DowntownCaltrain

station

and

other

transit

services,

along

with

the

transportation

initiatives

of

several

firmsandStanfordhavecontributedtotheDowntownCaltrainstationhavingthehighestridershipat

anyCaltrainstationotherthanattheSanFranciscoterminus. Inaddition,theCityofPaloAltohasatop

ratedbicyclenetwork,andcontinuestoadoptpoliciesandprogramsandtoenhancefacilities to

improvethisnetwork. Nonetheless,trafficcongestionremainsamajorconcerninthearea,andisone

oftheprimaryaspectsoftheDowntownDevelopmentCapevaluationandsubsequent

recommendations.

Inadditiontoparkingandtrafficpolicies,thereareseveralplanningrelatedpoliciesthataretiedtothe

DowntownDevelopmentCap. Forexample,aGroundFloorCombiningDistrictwascreatedwithinthe

CDarea,whichencouragespedestrianuses,andlimitsbusinesstoretaileatinganddrinkinguses. Office

uses,which

can

typically

attract

higher

rents,

are

allowed

on

the

perimeter

of

CD

area.

CD

zoning

also

encouragesseismicandhistoricupgradestobuildingsbyallowingpropertyownerswhomakethese

improvementstoexpandbeyondnormalFARlimitationsand/ortoaddfloorareawithoutproviding

parking. Thepropertyownersmayalsotransfer(sell)thosedevelopmentrightstoanotherpropertyin

theCDarea.

TheCityisintheprocessofupdatingitsComprehensivePlan,includingtheTransportationandLandUse

elements. Currentlythedocumentreferstoandbasesseveralpoliciesonthe1986DowntownStudy.

ThesubjectstudywouldhelpinformtheComprehensivePlanupdateprocess,aswellguideother


11/84

RequestforProposals


planningefforts. Inaddition,thereareseveralongoingeffortsrelatedtoparkingmanagement,

includingMasterDowntownParkingPlanandconsiderationofseveralotherparkingprogramssuchas

attendantparkingandresidentialpermitparking,allofwhichwillbeunderstudysimultaneouswiththe

DowntownCapstudy. Finally,somepotentialproposeddevelopmentswouldbelocatedjustoutsidethe

CDarea.

Although

these

developments

are

not

directly

related

to

the

original

Downtown

Development

Cap,trafficandparkingrelatedtothesedevelopmentsmayimpacttheDowntownareaandshouldbe

addressedorreferencedaswell.

ScopeofWork:TheCityofPaloAltoisrequestingproposalsfromqualifiedandwellexperiencedtransportationand

planningfirmstoassisttheCityindeterminingtheappropriatenessofexistingDowntownDevelopment

Cappoliciesandrelatedparkingstrategiesanddevelopmentandlanduseregulations. The

transportationconsultantsshouldanalyzeexistingandprojectedtrafficandparkingconditions,and

shouldcoordinatewithplanningconsultantstomakeplanningpolicyrecommendations(zoningcode,

etc.)basedontheseconditions. TheselectedconsultantmustworkcloselywiththeCitysplanning,

transportationand

economic

development

staff

during

the

process,

and

must

make

presentations

to

the

PlanningandTransportationCommissionandCityCouncil,aswellasvariouscommunitygroupsas

needed.

ReviewofPriorDowntownStudyandRelatedDocuments

Theselectedconsultantfortheprojectwillreviewthe1986DowntownStudyreportandrelated

materials,aswellassubsequentmonitoringreports,ComprehensivePlanpolicies,zoningregulations,

andanyotherrelevantdocuments.

ExistingConditionsEvaluation: Theselectedconsultantwillberesponsibleforevaluatingexistingtraffic

andparkingconditionsintheDowntownandimmediatelysurroundingareas. Existinglevelofservice

studies

should

be

conducted

for

key

intersections

and

roadway

segments.

The

selected

consultant

shouldworkcloselywiththeplanningandtransportationstaffduringtheexistingconditionsprocessto

ensurethecorrectintersectionsandroadwaysegmentsarebeevaluated. Inaddition,theselected

consultantshouldevaluateexistingvisitor(hourly)andpermitparkingconditionsintheDowntownand

surroundingareas.Ataminimum,studiesshouldinclude:

Existingtrafficcountsandlevelofserviceforidentifiedintersections. Existingonstreetandoffstreetparkingspaces,capacityandoccupancy,basedonstaffscontinuing

effortsandadjustedasneededtoreflecttheneedsoftheDowntownDevelopmentCapStudy.

Identificationofdowntowndevelopmentoverthepast10yearsandestimatedimpactsofthatdevelopmentandtrendsoverthattimeframe,includingtheapplicationofparkingexemptionsfor

transferofdevelopmentrightsandothercodeprovisions.

Adefinitionoftheparkingintrusion,saturation,deficit,orothertermandhowthatisbestappliedtothestudyareaandsurroundingneighborhoods.

ProjectedGrowthImpactAnalysis: Usingtheexistingconditionsreportasthefoundation,theselected

consultantshouldevaluatescenariosforpotentialdevelopment,andfuturelevelofservice(LOS)ofkey

intersectionsandroadwaysegmentsbasedonprojectedgrowth. Inaddition,futurecommercialand

nearbyresidentialparkingconditionsshouldalsobeevaluatedbasedongrowthscenarios. Theparking

analysisshouldbecompletedfortheDowntownvisitorandpermitparking,aswellasstreetparkingin

thesurroundingresidentialneighborhoods. Theprojectedtrafficandparkingconditionsshouldbe


12/84

RequestforProposals


basedontheexistingdevelopmentcappoliciesandzoningcoderegulations. Ataminimum,studies

shouldinclude:

Afiveyearandtenyearscenarioofpotentialrangesofdevelopment,assumingthecontinueduseof

transfer

of

development

rights

and

other

existing

provisions.

Estimatedchangestolevelsofserviceatkeyintersectionsbasedonpotentialincreasedgrowth. Estimatedparkingdemandrequiredbyincreasedgrowthundereachscenarioandthelikelyimpact

ofthedemandonavailableparkinginresidentialneighborhoods.

ThelikelyimpactofparkingreductionsbasedontheproximityofnewdevelopmenttoCaltrainandothertransit,bicyclingandwalkingfacilities,basedonsurveysofexistingemployeeridershipfor

DowntownbusinessesandStanford.

RecommendedPlanningPolicies: Basedonexistingconditionsreportandtheprojectedgrowthanalysis,

theconsultantshouldrecommendchangestoDowntownDevelopmentCaprelatedzoningandlanduse

policies. TherecommendedchangeswouldbeimplementedthroughtheCitysMunicipal(Zoning)Code

andComprehensive

Plan.

At

aminimum,

studies

and

recommendations

should

include

the

following

tasks:

AssiststafftoprepareZoningCodeandComprehensivePlanamendments,includingrequirementsfor transportationdemandmanagement(TDM)measuresoutlinedunderparkingstrategiesbelow,

ifwarranted.

Addresstheappropriatenessoforrevisionstoexistingparkingregulationstoreflecthowofficeandotherlanduseshaveevolvedandexpectedusesrelatedtoproximitytotransit,

Identifythebenefitsoradverseeffectsofgroundfloorretailrequirementsregardingparkingneedsanddemands,anditsneedtosupportotherdevelopment.

Addressappropriatenessofincentivestodevelopmentofresidentialusesormixeduseresidentialprojects

in

the

Downtown

Area

Evaluationofthetransferofdevelopmentrights(TDR)programasitaffectsthedevelopmentcap

andDowntownparkingimpacts,includingwhethertomaintain,modifyoreliminatetheprogram.

Othercodeexceptions(e.g.,1:1FARexemption,200sfminorparkingexemption,etc.)shouldalso

beconsideredandrecommendedforretention,modificationordeletion.

Suggestotherpossiblezoningorlanduseapproachesforconsideration,basedontheconsultantsexperienceandsurveyofeffortsinothercities.

SummarizehowtheserecommendedchangeswouldimpactLOSforkeyintersectionsandroadwaysegments,aswellasDowntownpermitparking,visitorparkingandstreetparkinginnearby

neighborhoods.

RecommendedParkingStrategies: Basedontheimplicationsoftheexistingconditionsreport,

projectionsofrangesoffuturegrowth,andlanduseandzoningadjustmentsoutlinedabove,the

consultantshouldworkwithCitystafftorecommendparkingstrategiesfortheCitytoaddressthe

issuesaffectingvisitor,permit,orneighborhoodparkingissues.Ataminimum,thestudyand

recommendationsshouldaddressthefollowingtasks:

Identifytransportationdemandmanagement(TDM)measuresthatwouldbeappropriateforastrongDowntownTDMprogram,includingaleadingimplementationeffortbyCityofPaloAltostaff

atCityHallandotherDowntownCityfacilities.


13/84

RequestforProposals


Coordinatewithstafftodeterminethebenefitsofpotentialnewparkingstructure(s)Downtown,orothermethodstoexpandsupplyinexistingfacilities,anddefinetheextenttowhicheachapproach

wouldalleviatecurrentparkingconcerns.

Defineanacceptablemaximumlevelofneighborhoodintrusionorsaturationthatprovidesforresidents

to

maintain

some

level

of

parking

convenience

while

recognizing

that

the

streets

also

providesomemeasureofparkingcapacityforbusinessemployees.

WorkwithstafftoIdentifypricingoptionsforconsideration,includingforParkingAssessmentDistrictparking,commercialonstreetparking,andneighborhoodpermitparking.

PublicParticipation: ItisexpectedthattheDowntownDevelopmentCapstudywillbethefocusofa

seriesofpublicmeetingsovera12monthperiod,withareportouttoCityCouncilafternotmorethan6

months. Publicoutreachmayinclude,ataminimum:

MeetingswiththebroadDowntowncommunity,includingbusiness,neighbors,andothers. Meetingsorfocusgroupswithspecificinterests,suchastheDowntownNorth,UniversitySouth,

andProfessorville

neighborhoods,

the

Downtown

Business

Improvement

District,

and/or

the

ChamberofCommercesDowntownParkingCommittee.

AtleastquarterlyreportstothePlanningandTransportationCommission. Atleast24meetingswiththeCityCouncil.Theproposalshouldoutlineasuggestedproposalforpublicinvolvementandoutreach,butstaffexpects

thataminimumofeight(8)PlanningandTransportationCommissionand/orCouncilmeetingsshouldbe

included,aswellastwofour(24)generalcommunitymeetingsandearlyandregularconsultationwith

theinterestgroupsoutlinedabove. AnearlyscopingmeetingwiththePlanningandTransportation

Commissionshouldbeusedtorefinethedesiredpublicoutreachapproach.

ProposalSubmittal

Requirements:

Interestedconsultingteamsshallsubmitaprogramthatincludesthefollowingelements,limitedtoa

totalof12pagesperproposal:

StatementofQualifications: ProvideaStatementOfQualificationsthathighlightstheteams

experienceinthetransportation(traffic)andparkinganalyses,andin

planninganalysisrelatedtotheseissues. Thisexperienceshould

includecompletedworkrelatedtoevaluatingtheimpactsofexisting

andprojecteddevelopmentconditions.Specialattentionshouldbe

giventothefirmsexperienceinbalancingcommercialdistrictneeds

withqualityoflifeissuesinadjacentresidentialneighborhoods. In

addition,the

teams

experience

related

to

zoning

code

review,

and

preparationorrevisionstocomprehensiveplans,aswellasitsgeneral

planningexperienceshouldalsobedetailed. Finally,anyexperiencein

analyzingdevelopmentthresholdsshouldbeincluded. Includerecent

projectreferenceandprojectcostinformation.(3PageMax)

TeamOrganizationStructure: Includeaflowchartthathighlightstheinternalteamsreporting

structureandtherelationofteammembersandsubconsultants.

HighlighttheProjectManagersexperienceandqualificationsand


14/84

RequestforProposals


QualityAssuranceprogramstobeusedaspartoftheproject.(2Page

Max)

UnderstandingofWorkScope: Detailtheapproach(taskbytask)andstepsyourteamwouldtaketo

completethe

scope

of

work

discussed

within

this

request

for

proposals.

Highlightsuccessfullycompletedoractiveprojectswithsimilarwork

scopesanddemonstrateyourteamsunderstandingofthePaloAlto

communityandDowntownbusinessoperations.(5PageMax)

Resumes: IncludetheresumesoftheProjectPrincipalandProjectManager(2

PageMax)

RFPandProjectSchedule: RFPReleaseDate: RFPRequestforInformation(RFI)Deadline: RFPCityResponsetoRFI: ProposalDueDate: TeamInterviews(IfNeeded):

PricingonProposalsshouldbehonoredforupto5monthstoallowthecityanopportunitytocomplete

theawardofaconsultantagreementthroughtheCityCouncil. Inadditiontotheconsultantteam

interviewsaspartoftheproposalevaluationprocess,therecommendedconsultantteammayalsobe

askedtomakeapresentationontheirteamsqualificationsandprojectapproachtothePaloAlto

PlanningandTransportationCommissionand/orcommunityrepresentatives.

Attachments:1. MapofDowntownCommercial(CD)DistrictandSurroundingArea2. DowntownMonitoringReportfor2010113. 1986DowntownStudyResultsSummary4. ListofApprovedNonResidentialProjects(19862012)5. DowntownMapwithParkingGarageLocations


15/84


16/84

major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of grounother than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.

7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy ratescommercial 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 parkingDowntown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore

purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.

9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parunderground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of sub

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 Ma direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were a

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 UDowntown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition

which cross pedestrian walkways.

13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an ince

increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities

14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.


17/84

ATTACHMENT


18/84


19/84


20/84


21/84


22/84


23/84


24/84


25/84


26/84


27/84


28/84


29/84


30/84


31/84


32/84


33/84


34/84


35/84


36/84


37/84


38/84


39/84


40/84


41/84


42/84


43/84


44/84


45/84


46/84


47/84


48/84


49/84


50/84


51/84


52/84


53/84


54/84


55/84

City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424)City Council Informational Report

Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012

M arch 05, 2012 Page 1 o f 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

RecommendationThis is an inform at ional repo rt and no Counci l act ion is requ ired.

Execut ive Sum maryThe annual Com m erc ia l Downt ow n (CD) M oni tor ing Repor t t racks to t a l non-resident ia l grow thin th e com m erc ial dow nt ow n area (CD-C zones) and of f ice and retai l vacancy rates in CD-C andCD-C (GF)(P) zones. Thro ugh m id-January o f 2012, th ere w as a 4.8 percent vacancy rate w i thinth e Ground Floor Overlay Dist r ict and a 2.0 percent o veral l vacancy rate in t he Com m erc ialDow nt ow n (CD) zoning dis t r ic t . In th is m oni t or ing cycle, appro x imately 13,500 square feet ofspace was approved or added to t he to t a l dow ntow n non -resident ia l square footage. Anaddi t iona l 61,650 square feet o f new non-resident ia l developm ent can be accom m odatedbefore t he re-evaluat ion l im i t o f 235,000 square feet grow th l im i t i s reached.

BackgroundAnnu al mon i tor ing of avai lable space in Com m erc ial Down to w n (CD) zonin g area wasestabl ished in 1998 by Comp rehen sive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These program s requirerepor t ing of no n-resident ia l developm ent act iv i t y and t rend s w i th in t he CD zone d ist r i c t .

Staf f regular ly t r acks vacancy rat es, changes in f loo r area and park ing in th e CD dist r ict resul t ingf rom approved development to com ply w i th Com prehens ive Plan program s and to det erm ineth e groun d f loo r vacancy rate in t he CD zone dist r ic t . The zonin g code, un t i l 2009, inc luded anexcept ion p rocess to a l low of f i ce developm ent o n t he f i rst f loor i f the groun d f loor vacancy ra teexceeds 5%.

In 2009, the Ci ty Counc i l adopt ed zoning ord inance am endm ents to enhance protec t ion o f re t a iluses in dow nt ow n com m erc ial dist r ic ts to en sure t hat ret ai l uses are retained and v iabi l i tyenhanced dur ing the econom ic dow ntur n and beyond. A map of th e d ist r i c ts sub jec t to theam endm ent s w as inc luded in t he 2009 Ci ty Coun cil repo rt (CM R 20:09), avai lable on t he Ci ty sw ebsi te . The or d inance am endm ent e l im inated th e pro v ision for an except ion process if th e GFvacancy ra te i s found to be greater than 5% dur ing the annual m oni tor ing per iod.

ATTACHMENT D


56/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 2 o f 7( ID # 2424)

Staf f com pleted f ie ld v isi ts for t his 2010/ 2011 m oni t or ing per io d in ear ly January 2012.Telepho ne int erv iew s and em ai l exchanges w i th lo cal real estate leasing agents were alsocom pi led at the sam e t im e to deter m ine curr ent vacancy rates and prevai l ing rent s. This repo rta lso inc ludes cumulat ive data on d evelopm ents in the Com m erc ia l Dow nto w n (CD) zone f r om

January 1987 t hro ugh August 31, 2011 and speci f ic data on vacancy info rm at ion and rent alrates thro ugh January 2012.

DiscussionEconom ic condi t io ns in Palo Alto d ow nt ow n area are im pro v ing gradual ly . There is current ly a4.8 percent vacancy rate w i thin t he Groun d Floor Overlay Dist r ic t and a 2.0 percent overal lvacancy rate in t he Comm erc ial Dow nt ow n (CD) zoning d ist r ict . This is a not iceable dro p o f 2.1percent vacancy in t he Groun d Floor Overlay Dist r ic t f r om last year. This num ber is close to th e2007-2008 per iod vacancy ra te , just befo re the s tar t o f t he econom ic dow ntu rn. In th e 2010-2011 m oni tor ing per iod, the rent a l rates for re ta i l var ied f rom $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot

based o n t he locat ion, and the average of f i ce rent a l ra te w as betw een $4.50 and $7.00 persquare f oot . Of f ice rent al rates have increased in t he last year and a hal f and ret ai l rental rateshave remained steady thro ughout the 2010-2011 m oni tor ing per iod. The fo l low ing tab le show sth e appro x imate t ot al vacant area and per centage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006 -2007m on i t o r i ng per iod .

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 -Resident ial Developm ent Act iv i tyThe Dow nto w n Stud y , approved in 1986, incorpor ated a grow th l im i t o f 350,000 square feet o faddi t iona l f loor area above the to t a l f loor area ex ist ing in 1986, and pr ov ided for a re-evaluat ion of the CD regulat ions wh en net new development reaches 235,000 square feet .Since 1986, a total of 1 73,356 square feet of n on-res ident ial uses has been ad ded (or appro ved)in the Dow ntow n CD-C zoned area. In t he past t w o m oni tor ing cycles f rom 2008-2010,


57/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 3 o f 7( ID # 2424)

approx imate ly 46,500 square feet o f n et new comm erc ia l f loor area w as added w i th a fewm ajor cont r ibut ing projects such as: 317-323 Univers ity Avenue, 325 Lyt t on Avenu e, 564Univers ity Avenu e, 310 Univers ity Avenu e, 278 Universi ty Avenue, and 26 5 Lyt t on Aven ue. Inth is current cycle (2010-2011) appro x imately 13,499 square feet o f net new com m erc ial f loorarea has been add ed. Thou gh signi f icant constru ct ion act iv i t ies cont in ue in th e dow nt ow n CD-C

zone area, m ost of t he construct io n inc ludes redevelopm ent of ex ist ing s ites since the ex ist ingdow nto w n is c lose to be ing bu i lt -out . In t he current cycle there w ere approx imate ly f i ve si testhat w ere redeveloped but on ly one p ro jec t , a t 524 Ham i lton Avenue, added s ign i f icant squarefootage.

Based on th is recent m oni t or ing, an addi t ion al 61,650 square feet o f new n on-res ident ialdevelopment rem ains avai lab le for d evelopm ent b efore th e re-evaluat ion l im i t o f 235,000square feet growt h l im i t i s reached.Dem onstrat ing Special Publ ic Benef i tsThe Dow nto w n Study reserved 100,000 square feet o f t he 350,000 square foot grow th l im i t to

be used for p rojects dem onstrat ing special pub l ic benef i ts . Since 1986, ten pro jects in th eDown tow n area have been developed under t he Planned Com m uni ty zoning that requ i res af inding of pu bl ic benef i t . Five of the pro jects exceeded t he no n-res ident ial f loor area that w ouldot herw ise be al lowed und er zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet . The tot al changes in squarefoot age of t hese pro jec ts are shown in the four t h co lum n of A t tachment E. The rem ain ing f i vepro jects w ere m ixed-use projects th at did not exceed al low able non-res ident ial f loor areas. Al lo f t he pr o jects e i ther pro v ided park ing or pa id a fee in l ieu of prov id ing park ing.

Projects Qual i fy ing for Seism ic, Histo r ic or M inor Expansion Exemp t ion sThe Dow nto w n Stud y designated 75,000 square feet o f th e 350,000 square foot cap for pro jec tsth at qual i fy for seism ic, histo r ic or min or expansion exempt ions in ord er to en courage these

upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet h ave been add ed in th is categor y. Tw o p rojects , 524Hami l to n Avenue and 668 Ram ona Street , have used close to 5,000 square feet o f TransferDevelopm ent Rights (TDR) square f oot age in t his evaluat ion p er iod. These pro jects are show nin the f i f th co lum n of A t tachmen t E.

Park ing Invent oryAt th e t im e of t he Dow nto w n Stud y , per form ance m easures were estab l i shed t hat speci fy thatnew development in the Dow ntow n should no t inc rease the to t a l park ing def ici t beyond thatexpected f r om developm ent t hat w as ex ist ing or appr oved th rough M ay 1986, or 1 ,601 spaces.In 2003, the Ci ty opened t w o new park ing st ruc tur es: one located o n 528 H igh St reet and the

ot her at 44 5 Bryant Str eet , adding a tot al of 899 park ing spaces. These park ing st ru cturepro jec ts, in addi t ion to o th er pro jects that p rov ide a park ing com ponent , decreased t he or igina l1986 def ici t to approx imate ly 628 spaces. A t th e end of t he 2003 m oni tor ing per iod, the Ci tydeterm ined that a re-evaluat ion of the park ing exem pt ion regula t ions w ould be un der takenw hen the un m et park ing dem and resu l t ing f rom exemp t ions (t rans fer o f developmen t r ightsand FAR bon uses) reaches a cumu lat ive 450 spaces. Curr ent ly , th e un m et p ark ing dem andresul t ing f rom exemp t ion s is 323 park ing spaces. Thro ugh var ious pro jects, the to tal cum ulat ivepark ing def ic i t has been s igni f icant ly reduced f rom 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main


58/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 4 o f 7( ID # 2424)

reasons for the red uc t ion are: 1) the t w o- f loor addi t ion to the Cowper / W ebster Garage; 2)signi f icant rest r ip ing o f o n-st reet park ing spaces by th e Ci ty s Transport at ion Div ision, resul t ingin 96 addi t iona l spaces; and 3) the const ruc t ion o f the t w o prev iously ment ioned park ingstru ctures located o n 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street . At t achmen t F is a chart of t he CD(Com m erc ia l Downt ow n) park ing def ici t . Sta f f no tes, how ever , that th e ef fec ts o f t he park ing

def ic i t , part icular ly on adjacent n eighborh ood s, appear to h ave been exacerbated by theincreased em ployee densi ty o f o f f i ce uses in the dow ntow n.

Vacancy Rate fo r Grou nd Floor (GF) Com bin ing Distr ictThe Ground Floor Com bining Dist r ic t (GF) w as created t o en courage act ive pedestr ian u ses inth e Dow nt ow n area such as ret ai l , eat ing and d r ink ing and p ersonal serv ices. In Octob er 2011,th ere w as appro x imately 548 ,675 square feet of t ot al Grou nd Floor area in th e CD-C(GF)(P)zoning d ist r i c t fo l low ing the adop t ion of the am ended ord inance in Decem ber 2009 to enhanceprot ect ion o f re ta i l uses in the hear t (Universi t y Avenue and side st reets ) o f the d ow nto w ncom m erc ial dist r ic t . At tachm ent C pro v ides th e l ist of p arcels af fected by adop t ion o f the

ord inance. A m ap show ing the locat ion o f th ese parcels is pro v ided as At t achm ent D. The resul tw as an approx imate net 75,660 square feet reduc t ion in the to t a l square foo tage of GF d ist r i c t .

During th e staf f survey of Dow nt ow n vacancies in f i rst w eek of January 2012, th ere w ere sevenproper t ies, to ta l ing 26,290 square feet , w hich m et t he requi rem ents for vacant and avai lab leground f loor area.

TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in

CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District.

(As of Janua ry 4, 2012 )

Address Vacant Square Feet

541 Bryan t 2,556

248 Ham ilt on 3,000

174 Un iversit y 2,300*

180 Un iversit y 12,459

435 Un iversit y 1,450

429-447 Un iversit y 1,800

522 W aver ley 2,725

Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290


59/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 5 o f 7( ID # 2424)

* Vacant since last year

This resul ts in a GF vacancy rate of app rox im ately 4.8 percent , a reduct io n of 2.1 percent f romth e vacancy rate of last year.

Vacancy Rate fo r Entir e CD Distr ictThe ent i re Dow nt ow n Com m erc ial (CD) area inc ludes appr ox im ately 3,850,000 gross squarefeet of f loor area, inc luding appr ox imat ely 330,000 square feet w i thin t he SOFA CAP Phase 2area. About 525,000 square feet is used for rel ig ious or res ident ial purpo ses or is vacant an dnot available for occupancy. Thus, the net square fo ot age of avai lable com m erc ial space isappro x imat ely 3,325,000 square feet .

Staf f cond ucted a f ie ld survey in ear ly January 2012 and com m unicated w i th lo cal real estateagents dur ing sam e t im e to assess overal l vacancies in the d ow nt ow n area. In t his m oni t or ingcycle ther e w as a tot al vacancy of 66,226 square fee t . This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent ,

som ew hat less th an the 2.6 percent vacancy not ed in last year s m oni t or ing repo rt . The overal lCD-C vacancy rate h as redu ced considerably s ince the 2 008-2009 per iod , c lose to a dro p o f 4percent .

Table 3 w as com pi led based on staf f cond ucted f ie ldw ork, research of real estat e w ebsites andresponses received f rom local dow nt ow n real estat e agent s.

TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD)

(As of Janua ry 4, 201 2)

Include s Uppe r Floo r Of f ice Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Com bin ing District and al l f loo rs of CD-C (P)District

Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet

635 Bryan t CD-C (P) 545

644 Em erson CD-C (P) 2,238

418 Flo rence CD-C (P) 2,515

155 Fo rest CD-S (P); CD-C (P) 550

120-122 Ham ilt on CD-C (P) 2,260

209 Ham ilt on CD-C (GF)(P) 9,000

261 Ham ilt on CD-C (GF)(P) 783

400 Ham ilt on CD-C (P) 3,320

245 Lyt t o n CD-C (P) 13,433


60/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 6 o f 7( ID # 2424)

550 Lyt t o n CD-C (P) 2,892

552 W aver ley CD-C (GF)(P) 2,400

Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936

CD Com m ercia l Down tow n, (C) Com m ercia l , (S) Serv ice,GF Ground Floor Com bining Distr ict, P - Pedestr ian Overlay

Trends in Use Com posi t ionThe pr imary ob servat ion of change in th e use com pos it ion of Dow nto w n w as, in th is cycle , areduc t ion o f appro x im ate ly 12,860 square feet o f r e l ig ious / inst i tu t iona l use t hat w as conver tedto o f f ice use at th e 661 Bryant Str eet pr oject . Since the enactm ent of new CD zonin gregulat ion s in 1986, the to tal f loor area devot ed to h igher- intensi ty com m erc ial uses such asof f ice, retai l , eat ing/ dr ink ing and h ousing has increased, wh i le the to tal f loor area in low er-inten si ty comm erc ial uses l ike m anufactur ing and w arehou sing has decreased (see At tachm ent

G).

Ret ai l Rent sRetai l rent al rates have m arginal ly increased s ince last year s mon i tor ing repor t . Accord ing toth e data gathered f r om th e January 2011 staf f survey of com m erc ial real estate agent s of fer ingproper t ies for lease in Dow nto w n, rents for r e ta i l space genera ll y range f rom $2.75 to $4.00 persquare f oot t r ip le net ( i .e. rent plus tenant assum pt ion o f insurance, jani tor ial serv ices andtaxes). The low er end of t his range is general ly for spaces in o lder b ui ld ings and away f r omUniversi t y Avenue. Reta i l renta l ra tes in th e core dow nto w n Un iversi t y Avenue som et im esincrease to h ighs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foo t . For som e vacant p rop ert ies outs ide thedow nto w n core, renta l ra tes have been l i sted as negot iab le.

Off ice Rent sBased on the in form at ion gathered f r om the comm erc ia l rea l esta te agents l ist ing prop er t ies forlease in Down to w n, rents for Class A Down to w n of f ice space (i .e. newer and / or larger bui ldingson Univers ity Avenu e and Lyt t on Avenues) and Class B of f ice space ( i .e. older and/ or sm al lerbu i ld ings fur ther f ro m Universi t y Avenue) range f rom $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot t r ip le net ,compared t o $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot t r ip le net in last year s m oni tor ing repor t .

TimelineThis is an annu al repor t .

Resource I mpactThis repo rt h as no im pact on r esour ces, thou gh th e imp l icat ions of redu ced vacancy rates haveposi t ive imp acts on t he Ci ty s pot ent ial sour ce of pro pert y and sales taxes.

Policy I mpli cati onsThis repo rt o n th e Com m erc ial Dow nt ow n (CD) zonin g area is m andated b y Com preh ensive


61/84

M arch 05, 2012 Page 7 o f 7( ID # 2424)

Plan Program s L-8 and L-9 and b y the Do w nt ow n Stu dy appr oved b y the Ci ty Coun ci l on July 14,1986.

Envir onm ental ReviewThis is an inform at ional repo rt o nly and is exemp ted f r om CEQA rev iew.

Cour tesy CopiesPlanning and Transportat ion Comm issionArchi tectur al Review BoardPalo Alto Chamber o f Com m erceDown tow n Palo A l toPalo Al to Board of Realto rsDown tow n Nor th Neighborho od Assoc ia t ionProfessorv i l le Neighborh oodUnivers ity Park Neighbo rho od Associat ion

Attachments:

At t ach m e nt A: 1 98 6 Do w n t ow n St u dy Re su lt s Su m m a ry (PDF)

At tachment B: Com m erc ia l Dow nto w n (CD) Zone D ist r i c t M ap (PDF)

Att achmen t C: List of Parcels Added and Rem oved From CD-C(GF) P Dist r ic t (PDF)

A t t ach m e n t D: D o w n t o w n M a p Sh o w i n g t h e Zo n e Ch an ge s ( PD F)

At tachm ent E: CD Non-Residen t ia l Change in SQ FT 09 /01 / 86 t o 08 /31 / 11 (PDF)

Att achm ent F: CD Parking Defici t(PDF)

Att achmen t G: Com m erc ialDow nt ow n (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category(PDF)

Prepared By: Ch it ra M o it ra, Plan ner

Depar t m ent Head : Cur t is W ill iam s, Direct o r

Ci ty M anager Appr oval : Jam es Keene, Ci ty M anager


62/84


63/84

major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of grounother than retail, eating and drinking or personal service.

7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy ratescommercial 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 parkingDowntown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore

purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites.

9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parunderground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of sub

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 Ma direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were a

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 UDowntown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition

which cross pedestrian walkways.

13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an ince

increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities

14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as minimum lot sizes in the new CD district.


64/84

COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP


65/84

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 120-27-010412 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 120-26-039124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043

125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138

525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110

535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111

440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019


66/84

DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES


67/84

CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08

Project Address Zoning Date Approved

Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor BonuSquare Foota

520 Ramona StreetA

CDCGFP 11/20/84 - 400

220 University Avenue CDCGFP 2/5/87 - 65

151 Homer Avenue CDSP 3/17/88 - -

314 Lytton Avenue CDCP 5/5/88 - -

247-275 Alma Street CDNP 8/4/88 - -

700 Emerson Street CDSP 9/15/88 - -

431 Florence Street CDCP 9/15/88 - 2,500

156 University Avenue CDCGFP 12/15/88 - 4,958

401 Florence Street CDCP 3/2/89 - 2,407

619 Cowper Street CDCP 5/6/89 - -

250 University Avenue PC-3872 5/15/89 11,000B

300


68/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota

550 University Avenue CDCP 6/1/89 - -

529 Bryant Street PC-3974 5/3/90 2,491C 2,491

305 Lytton Avenue CDCP 9/28/90 - 200

550 Lytton AvenueDE CDCP 10/22/90 - -

531 Cowper Street PC-4052 5/21/91 9,000 475

540 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/24/92 - 404

530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP 4/15/93 - 432

555 Waverley Street/425

Hamilton AvenueECDCP 9/21/93 - -


69/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota


518 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/3/94 - 180

245 Lytton Avenue CDCP 7/21/94 - -

400 Emerson StreetEF PC-4238 9/19/94-

200

443 Emerson Street CDCGFP 1/5/95 - 26

420 Emerson Street CDCP 3/16/95 - 125

340 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/6/95- -

281 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/20/95- -


536 Ramona Street CDCGFP 7/11/95 - 134

725/753 Alma Street PC-4283 7/17/95 --


70/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota

552 Emerson Street CDCGFP 7/18/95 - 177

483 University Avenue G PC-4296 10/2/95 3,467C 2,789


901/909 Alma Street E,F PC-4389 8/1/96 - -

171 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 9/19/96 - 1,853

401 High Street CD-C(P) 10/3/96 - 350

430 Kipling Street D,H CD-C(P) 10/22/96 - 200

460-476 University

AvenueCD-C(GF)(P) 3/20/97 - 1,775

400 Emerson StreetD

PC-4238 3/21/97 - -

275 Alma Street CD-N(P) 7/8/97 - 200

390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 7/14/97 8,420C 689

411 High Street H CDCP 12/18/97 - 2,771


71/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota

530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852

705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814

200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913

550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - -

437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - -

701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - -

723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - -

880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - -

539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500

270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642

901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - -

800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - -


72/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota

164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - -

335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J

382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194

102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - -

325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - -

310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481

317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500

564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500

278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - -

265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712

340 University CDCP 12/2010 - -

524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200


73/84


Public Benefit

Bonus Non

Residential Square

Footage

Seismic, Histor

Minor Bonu

Square Foota

630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437

668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940

661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906

Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931

A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIRs pipeline projects. Athe CD Districts 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

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 spuse 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 f


74/84

CD PARKING DEFICIT

PROJECT

ADDRESS

ZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIALFLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKINGSPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060OF PAMC

1986 deficit

520 Ramona

StreetACDCGFP +400 2 0 0

220 University

AvenueCDCGFP +65 0 0 0

151 Homer

AvenueCDSP -9,750 0 11 0

314 Lytton

AvenueCDCP -713 0 0 0

247-275 Alma

StreetCDNP +1,150 5 5 0

700 EmersonStreet

CDSP +4,000 16 16 0

431 Florence St CDCP +2,500 10 0 10


75/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

156 UniversityAvenue

CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20

401 Florence

StreetCDCP +2,407 10 0 10

619 Cowper

StreetCDCP +2,208 9 9 0

250 University

AvenuePC-3872 +20,300 103 131

B0

550 University

AvenueCDCP

-3710 0 0

529 Bryant

StreetPC-3974 +2,491 10 0 10

520 Webster

StreetCPC-3499 0 0 163 0

305 Lytton Ave CDCP +200 1 0 1

550 Lytton

AvenueCDCP +4,845 19 19 0


76/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking

531 Cowper

StreetPC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2

540 Bryant

StreetCDCGFP +404 2 0 2

530/534 Bryant


555 WaverleyStreet/425

Hamilton

AvenueD

CDCP +2,064 8 0 0

201 University

AvenueCDCGFP +2,450 10 0 10

518 Bryant


245 Lytton Ave CDCP -21,320 90 149 0

400 Emerson

StreetPC-4238 +4,715 18 5 1


77/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

443 Emerson

Street

CDCGFP +26 0 0 0

420 Emerson

StreetCDCP +125 1 0 1

340 University

AvenueCDCGFP -402 0 0 0

281 University

AvenueCDCGFP

-2,500 0 0 0

456 University

AvenueCDCGFP

+7,486 30 0 30

536 Ramona

StreetCDCGFP

+134 1 0 1

725-753 Alma

StreetPC-4283 -1,038 7 7 0

552 EmersonStreet

CDCGFP +177 1 0 1

483 University

AvenuePC-4296 +7,289 29 -2

E11


78/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

424 University

Avenue

CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11

901/909 Alma

StreetDPC-4389 +4,425 18 18 0

171 University

AvenueCDCGFP +1,853 7 0 7

401 High Street CDCP +350 1 0 1

430 KiplingStreet

CDCP +1,412 5 -4E 1

460/476

University

Avenue

CDCGFP +1,775 7 0 7

400 Emerson

StreetPC-4238 +2,227 9 0 0

275 AlmaStreet

F

CDNP +3,207 0 0 1

390 Lytton

AvenuePC-4436 +17,815 74 50 3


79/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

411 High Street CDCP +2,7710

-4E 11

530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11

705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11

200 HamiltonAve

CDCP 10,913 44 3E

35

550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0

528 High St PF 0 0 211G

0

445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G

0

437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2

701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1

723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0


80/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

880 / 884

Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0

539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10

270 UniversityAve

CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11

SUBTOTAL

86-02106,930 672 1483 236

901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0

800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0

164 Hamilton

AveCDCP -2499 0 0 0

335 UniversityAveI

CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0


81/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

382 University

Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1

102 University

AveCDCGFP 8 0 0 0

310 UniversityAve

CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30

317-323

University AveCDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0

564 UniversityAve CDCP 4,475 10 0 10

325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0

265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0

278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1

340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0

524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23


82/84

PROJECT

ADDRESSZONING

NET CHANGE

IN NON/

RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA

ADDED

PARKING

REQUIRED

NET

ADDED

PARKING

SPACES

PARKING

EXEMPTIONS

PER 18.52.060

OF PAMC

630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2

668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20

661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323

A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIRs pipeline

is counted among the CD Districts nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Polici

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 requi

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 r


83/84


84/84

ATTACHMENT G

Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category

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 &

Distribution50,000 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

Residential50,000 25,000

-50.00%

19. Vacant & UnderConstruction

150,000 50,000 -66.66%

20. Vacant & For Sale 0 021. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33%

Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52%

ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deductid i l li i i i i 3 125 000 3 350 000