Menlo Park City Council
August 15, 2023

DRAFT FOR FIRST READING OF STREETARIES OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ORDINANCE Page L-1.60 Page ___
DRAFT FOR FIRST READING OF STREETARIES OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ORDINANCE Page L-1.61 C-3

PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN

STREET COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Combination template is designed with
flexibility for parklets that are proposed
on streets the City has permanently
closed to vehicular through-traffic to
enable pedestrian access and circulation.
• This template shall not be used where
streets are only temporarily closed.
• Expanded seating areas would not be
allowed unless the supplementary seating
is specifically reflected in plans submitted
and approved by the City.

DRAFT FOR FIRST READING OF STREETARIES OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ORDINANCE Page L-1.62 C-3 PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN STREET COMBINATION
Page ___
DRAFT FOR FIRST READING OF STREETARIES OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ORDINANCE Page L-1.63 DRAFT Streetary Fee Structure
Streetary Outdoor Dining Permit Fees: Parklet
Streetary Parklet First year Annual
renewal
Notes
Parklet Permit Fee $1,725 $250 First year permit application same as administrative permit fee for outdoor dining
on private properties. Applicants may be
subject to a surcharge for a structural
review. Renewal fee covers administration.

Use of space
(estimated at
$4.24/SF for 360 SF,
total may vary)
$1,526 $1,500 Use of space recommended cost is
$4.24/SF for an estimated average of 360
SF per 2-stalls. Total use of space may vary
depending on total area occupied by the
business. Renewal fee covers use of space.

Total Permit Fees
for Streetary parklets
$3,251 $1,750 Waive total fees until January 1, 2025, if business complies by the end of the
transitional period described below.

Streetary Outdoor Dining Permit Fees: Sidewalk Café
Streetary Sidewalk
Café
First year Annual
renewal
Notes
Sidewalk Café
Permit Fee
$810 $250 First year permit application same as a
major encroachment permit fee. Renewal
fee covers administration.

Use of space
(estimated at
$4.24/SF for 150 SF,
total may vary)
$636 $600 Use of space recommended cost is
$4.24/SF for an estimated 150 SF per
sidewalk café. Total use of space may vary
depending on total area occupied by the
business. Renewal paid annually for use of
space
Total Permit Fees
for Streetary
sidewalk cafes
$1,446 $850 Waive total fees until January 1, 2025, if
business is in compliance by the end of the
transitional period described below.

Page L-1.64 ATTACHMENT C
Outdoor Dining Fee Structures in Comparable / Nearby Cities City Permit Fee &
Parklet 1st Year
(2 stalls/360 SF)
Annual Use &
Cleaning Fees
Notes
Burlingame $431 permit fee + $1/
every SF over 200-sf over
max
$5,100 for 1st year use of
space
= $5,531.00
$1,500 use fee
$3,000 cleaning fee
= $4,500.00
Los Altos $500 permit fee $100 use fee
Morgan Hill $716.10 permit fee
$1,000 security deposit
= $1,716.10
$1,000 use fee Fees waived until January 1,
2023. Permit fee is paid every 7-
years. Annual use fee is only
charged for parklets in the public
right-of-way
Mountain
View
(Downtown
Castro St)
$769 permit fee
$2,400 for 1st year use of
space
= $3,169
$205 use fee
$180 cleaning fee
= $385
Redwood
City
$2,226 permit fee
$5,883.60 for 1st year use
fee
= $8,109.60
$4,823.60 use fee
(Annual use of
space fee =
$10.16/SF)
Annual use fee waived until
2024
San Carlos $539 permit fee
$1,289 for 1st year
= $1,828
$289 use fee
$705 cleaning fee
= $994
San Mateo $500 permit fee
$1,000 for 1st year use fee
= $1,500
$500 use fee $500 encroachment permit
application + 250/stall first year
Annual renewal of $250/stall
San Rafael $2,000 permit fee
$2,000 one-time deposit
= $4,000 (half refundable)
$3,600 use fee

Permit fee waived through 2023.

Annual Use Fee waived until
June 1, 2023. 50% fee discount
applies between June 1, 2023
and May 30, 2024. 25% fee
discount applies between June
1, 2024 and May 30, 2025. No
discounts or waivers beginning
June 1, 2025.

Page L-1.65
Page L-1.66
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 1 The following existing temporary and permanent parklets along the main artery of Santa Cruz Ave and several cross streets were reviewed according to the City of Menlo Park "Streetaries" Outdoor Dining Design Standards - REVIEW OF EXISTING PARKLETS MENLO PARK EXISTING PARKLETS Santa Cruz Street Cafe Parklets: 1. Left Bank Brasserie 2. Vacant (formerly Harvest) 3. Bistro Vida 4. Mademoiselle Colette 5. Roma Italian Restaurant 6. Camper (Santa Cruz Avenue) 7. Galata Bistro Each parklet was evaluated and non-compliant items were documented. Photos, unless noted otherwise, were taken on April 5, 2023. Recommendations have been included for each non-compliant item noted. In a few instances, we found that some of the parklets had existing conditions that were not compliant with the new guidelines, but we felt that there was a case to be made for allowing those conditions, or variations thereof. In particular, a minimum height of 10 feet over the parklet platforms for string lights would make them seem both too far away for providing useful light as well as harder to properly maintain. We suggested a minimum height of 8 feet over the parklet platform. Also, the idea that plants within planters should be a maximum of 6 inches high could be raised as long as the combination of planters and plants did not exceed a 48 inch maximum to ensure visibility and sight-line of the surrounding retail tenant establishments both into and out of the parklet. Lastly, in many areas where the spacing of the railings and planters exceeds 4 inches, if those railings and planters were not bordering the street traffic, we feel that the 4 inch requirement should not apply. Regarding permanent transparent barriers above 36 inches in height, we recommend that they be rigid. If they wish to use non-rigid plastic sheeting or vinyl, the barriers should be able to be rolled up or down as needed. Temporary Parklets: 1. Stacks 2a. Coffeebar (Chestnut Street) 2b. Coffeebar (Parking) 3. Carpaccio on the Alley 4. Camper (University Drive) 5. Cafe Zoe Page L-1.67

ATTACHMENT E
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park
2 EXISTING PARKLET LOCATIONS
NLEGENDExisting Retail Parklet Existing Restaurant Parklet Stacks Left Bank
Vacant
Bistro Vida
Mademoiselle
Colette
Roma
Galata Bistro
Amici's Capaccio On
Camper
The Alley
Camper Coffeebar Coffeebar

EL CAMINO REAL SANTA CRUZ AVE SANTA CRUZ AVE

UNIVERSITY DRIVE

CRANE ST

CRANE ST

CHESTNUT ST

CHESTNUT ST OAK GROVE AVE MENLO AVE
EVELYN ST Cafe Zoe MENALTO AVE
ELM ST

GILBERT AVE
Page L-1.68
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS - STACKS N KEYPLAN STACKS Stacks EL CAMINO REAL SANTA CRUZ AVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. The parklet base occupies more than maximum area allowed - the platform is built over 2 parallel parking spaces & an 'X'-space. Planters are blocking 2 other parallel parking spaces, so a total of 4 parallel parking spaces are blocked off. 2. The spacing between each planter exceeds 4 inches wide. 3. The gutter space at the south end of the platform is smaller than the required size. 4. Retro-reflective reflectors at corners facing the travel lane are missing at north end.

5. The square table size exceeds recommended dimension. 6. Plants exceed 6 inch maximum height. 7. Umbrellas look faded and worn. RECOMMENDATIONS Photo of non-compliant item 3. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 6 & 7.

Photo of non-compliant items 2, 5, 6 & 7.

1. To reduce the parklet to the recommended size,
eliminate the white planters covering the parallel
parking space on the left side and return the
space to parking.

2. Reduce the spacing between each planter to a maximum of 4 inches. 3. Expand the gutter space at the south end of the platform to the required size. 4. Install retro-reflective reflectors at corners facing the travel lane at the north end.

5. The existing square tables may be acceptable,
and should be permitted to remain.

6. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches.

7. Replace existing umbrellas with new ones.

Page L-1.69
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS - LEFT BANK N KEYPLAN LEFT BANK Left Bank EL CAMINO REAL SANTA CRUZ AVENON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. The platform is concrete. 2. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inches 3. Retro-reflective reflectors at corners facing travel lane are missing and feature white plastic traffic barriers. 4. Plants at planter's parklet edge exceed 6 inch maximum height.

5. Plantings on sidewalk exceed 4 feet combined
height of planters & live plants.

6. String lights are below 10 foot minimum height. RECOMMENDATIONS Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 3.

A portion of this parklet was built prior to the
pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa
Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a
concrete platform and metal railing with cables. The business made modifications to the Santa Cruz Street Cafe parklet during the pandemic.

The traffic lane adjacent to the parklet is currently
closed for additional seating.

1. Since this parklet was installed pre-pandemic,
the concrete platform may be acceptable.

2. The cable spacing of metal railing may be
acceptable as it does not face the street. 3. Place retro-reflective reflectors at corners facing the travel lane and remove white plastic traffic barriers. 4. A combination of planter plus plants should beallowed a height of up to 48 inches.

5. Existing plantings on the sidewalk should be
allowed to remain as they are mature and lookappropriate for their placement.

6. Although the string light minimum height is 10
feet, we suggest that the height limit be adjusted to 8 feet. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 4 & 6. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6.

Page L-1.70
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS - VACANT (formerly Harvest) N KEYPLAN VACANT (formerly HARVEST) Vacant EL CAMINO REAL SANTA CRUZ AVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. The platform is concrete.

2. The platform is not wheelchair accessible.

3. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inch
opening.

4. Plants at planter's parklet edge exceed 6 inch
maximum height.

5. String lights are below the 10 foot minimum
height. RECOMMENDATIONS Photo of non-compliant items 1 through 5.

A portion of this parklet was built prior to the
pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa
Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a
concrete platform and metal railing with cables. The business made modifications to the Santa Cruz Street Cafe parklet during the pandemic.

The traffic lane adjacent to the parklet is currently closed. The parklet is currently vacant.

1. As the concrete seems to be in good condition,
it may be acceptable.

2. Create an accessible ramp.

3. Since the railing faces the sidewalk, the cable
spacing is not a safety issue and is acceptable.

4. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches.

5. Although the string light minimum height is 10
feet, we suggest that the height limit be adjusted to 8 feet. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 3, 4 & 5.

Page L-1.71
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS - BISTRO VIDA N KEYPLAN BISTRO VIDA Bistro Vida EL CAMINO REAL SANTA CRUZ AVENON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. A portion of platform is concrete. 2. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inch opening. 3. The wind barrier above 36 inches is not transparent. 4. Plants at planter's parklet edge exceed 6 inch maximum height.

5. Floor to ceiling solid fabric curtains obstruct
visibility.

6. Signage on multiple planters exceeds 6 SF. RECOMMENDATIONS A portion of this parklet was built prior to the pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a concrete platform and metal railing with cables. The business made modifications to the Santa Cruz Street Cafe parklet during the pandemic. The traffic lane adjacent to the parklet is currently closed for additional seating.

1. If the concrete part of the platform is in good
condition, it may be acceptable.

2. Cable spacing of metal railings that are not a
safety issue and face the sidewalk are
acceptable. 3. The wind barrier above 36 inches must be replaced with transparent materials.

4. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches.

5. Floor to ceiling solid fabric curtains should be
removed or replaced with transparent materials.

6. Remove signage and replace with one sign not
exceeding 6 SF.

Photos of non-compliant items 4, 5 & 6.

Photo of non-compliant items 4 & 5.

NOTE: Photos are from June & August 2022.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Page L-1.72
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS - MADEMOISELLE COLETTE N KEYPLAN MADEMOISELLE COLETTE SANTA CRUZ AVE Mademoiselle Colette CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. The platform is concrete. 2. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inch opening. 3. Retro-reflective reflector at south corner is missing. 4. Plants at planter's parklet edge exceed 6 inch maximum height. 5. String lights are below the 10 foot minimum height. RECOMMENDATIONS Photo of non-compliant items 3, 4 & 5.

This parklet was built prior to the pandemic as part
of the City of Menlo Park's Santa Cruz Street Cafe
Pilot Program and features a concrete platform and
metal railing with cables.

1. If the concrete platform is in good condition, it
may be acceptable.

2. Cable spacing of metal railings that are not a
safety issue and face the sidewalk are
acceptable. 3. Place the retro-reflective reflector at the south corner. 4. A combination of planter plus plants should beallowed a height of up to 48 inches.

5. Although the string light minimum height is 10
feet, we suggest that the height limit be adjusted to 8 feet. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 4 & 5.

Page L-1.73
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS - ROMA N KEYPLAN ROMA SANTA CRUZ AVE Roma CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. Portion of platform is concrete. 2. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inch opening. 3. Plants exceed 6 inch maximum height. 4. Multiple signage exceeds 6 SF. 5. Plastic orange traffic barrier adjacent to travel lane. 6. No retro-reflective reflector at south corner. 7. Portion of gutter not covered.

8. Transparent wind barrier above 36" is plastic.* RECOMMENDATIONS A portion of this parklet was built prior to the pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a concrete platform and metal railing with cables. The business made modifications to the Santa Cruz Street Cafe parklet during the pandemic.

1. As long as the concrete platform is in good
condition, it may be acceptable. 2. Since the cables face the sidewalk, the cable spacing is not a safety issue and is acceptable.

3. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches.

4. Remove all signage and replace with one sign no more that 6 SF. 5. Plastic orange traffic barrier adjacent to travel lane should be removed. 6. Place a retro-reflective reflector at the south corner. 7. Provide a continuous cover for the entire gutter. 8. * We recommend that the transparent, permanent wind barriers above 36” be rigid, orif film, should be able to be rolled up or down.

Photo of non-compliant items 4 & 8.

Photo of non-compliant item 7. Photo of non-compliant items 3, 4 & 5. Photo of non-compliant items 3, 6 & 8.

Page L-1.74
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS - GALATA BISTRO N KEYPLAN GALATA BISTRO SANTA CRUZ AVE Galata Bistro CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. Portion of platform is concrete. 2. The platform is not flush with the sidewalk and is not wheelchair accessible. 3. A planter box projects into travel lane setback and is not maintained (no plant material). 4. No retro-reflective reflectors at corners. 5. The solid enclosure needs maintenance and painting.

6. Floor to ceiling solid fabric curtains may
obstruct visibility.

7. Transparent wind barrier is plastic. RECOMMENDATIONS A portion of this parklet was built prior to the pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a concrete platform and metal railing with cables. The business made modifications to the Santa Cruz Street Cafe parklet during the pandemic.

1. If the concrete platform is in good condition, it
may be acceptable.

2. Create an accessible ramp.

3. Remove the planter box that projects into the travel lane setback. 4. Add retro-reflective reflectors to corners. 5. Solid enclosure needs maintenance and painting.

6. Floor to ceiling solid fabric curtains should
either be removed or replaced with transparent materials. 7. We recommend that the transparent, permanent wind barriers above 36” be rigid, orif film, should be able to be rolled up or down.

Photo of non-compliant items 3 & 7.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 6. Photo of non-compliant items 4, 5, 6 & 7.

Page L-1.75
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 10 EXISTING CONDITIONS - AMICI'S N KEYPLAN AMICI'S SANTA CRUZ AVE Amici's CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. No platform - enclosed area is on parking space asphalt. 2. Planters poorly maintained - plants exceed 6 inch maximum height or are empty. 3. Gap between planters exceeds 4 inches. 4. No retro-reflective reflectors at corners - white plastic traffic barrier at north end. 5. Pedestrian path between sidewalk furnishings and landscape pocket has less than 5 foot clearance. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Create a level wood platform to slightly lift the enclosed area off the parking space asphalt.

2. A combination of planters plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches

3. Position planters so that the distance between them is 4 inches or less. 4. Place retro-reflective reflectors at corners and remove white plastic traffic barrier at the north end. 5. Clear the pedestrian path between sidewalk furnishings and landscape pocket so that the
pathway is at least 5 feet wide.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 3.

Photo of non-compliant items 2 & 4. Photo of non-compliant item 5. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 3.

Page L-1.76
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 11 EXISTING CONDITIONS - CAMPER - SANTA CRUZ AVENUE N KEYPLAN CAMPER - SANTA CRUZ AVE

SANTA CRUZ AVE
Camper CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. Platform is concrete. 2. The cable spacing of metal railing exceeds 4 inch opening. 3. Plants exceed 6 inch maximum height. 4. Banner sign exceeds 6 SF. 5. No retro-reflective reflector at south corner. 6. String lights below 10 foot minimum. RECOMMENDATIONS This parklet was built prior to the pandemic as part of the City of Menlo Park's Santa Cruz Street Cafe Pilot Program and features a concrete platform and metal railing with cables.

1. As long as the concrete platform is in good
condition, it may be acceptable.

2. Cable spacing of metal railings that are not a
safety issue and face the sidewalk are acceptable.

3. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches. 4. Place a retro-reflective reflector at the south corner. 5. Although the string light minimum height is 10 feet, we suggest that the height limit be adjusted to 8 feet. Photo of non-compliant items 1 through 6. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3 & 6.

Page L-1.77
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS - CAMPER - UNIVERSITY DRIVE N KEYPLAN CAMPER - UNIVERSITY DRIVE

SANTA CRUZ AVE
Camper CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. Occupies more than maximum area allowed - platform is built over 2 parallel spaces and additional spaces are blocked off with orange plastic traffic barriers. 2. Solid enclosure height exceeds maximum 36 inches. 3. Orange plastic traffic barriers are adjacent to travel lane. 4. No retro-reflective reflectors at corners. 5. Platform openings are not covered. 6. Platform is not flush with sidewalk and not wheelchair accessible. 7. Wind barrier is not transparent. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reduce size to allowable area and remove orange plastic traffic barriers. 2. Lower solid enclosure to no more than 36 inches high.

3. Remove orange plastic traffic barriers adjacent to travel lane. 4. Install retro-reflective reflectors at corners. 5. Cover all platform openings.

6. Make platform flush with sidewalk and wheelchair accessible. 7. Replace non-conforming wind barrier with transparent material.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3 & 7.

Photo of non-compliant item 5. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3 & 7.

Page L-1.78
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS - CARPACCIO ON THE ALLEY N KEYPLAN CARPACCIO ON THE ALLEY

SANTA CRUZ AVE
Carpaccio CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. No platform - outdoor seating area is asphalt. 2. Wind barrier is wood lattice and not transparent. 3. Planter enclosure exceeds 36 inches maximum height allowed. 4. Plants exceeds 6 inch maximum height. 5. Signage exceeds 6 SF. 6. Plastic orange traffic barriers used to deter traffic. RECOMMENDATIONS This outdoor seating is located in an alleyway adjacent to the restaurant and the area is defined by buildings.

1. Since this parklet is on a temporarily closed
alleyway, we recommend a removable floor
covering over the asphalt street.

2. Replace the existing wood lattice wind barrier
with a transparent material, perhaps moving the
signage to the lower portion of the planter

3. The height of the planter separating the
sidewalk & seating area may be acceptable.Since the planter enclosure is up against a solid wall and not obstructing the street view of the
parklet, it may remain

4. Plantings in the planter enclosure at the wall
may be acceptable.

5. Reduce signage to a maximum of 6 SF.

6. Remove plastic orange traffic barriers.

Photo of non-compliant items 2, 3, 5 & 6. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Page L-1.79
14 EXISTING CONDITIONS - COFFEEBAR - PARKING LOT 5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park N KEYPLAN COFFEEBAR - PARKING LOT SANTA CRUZ AVE Coffeebar CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 4. Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 3. NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. No platform - enclosed area is in a private parking lot on asphalt. 2. Plastic white traffic barriers are the enclosure. 3. Space between plastic barriers exceeds 4-inches. 4. Setback from adjacent parking space does not meet minimum. 5. Seating area is not wheelchair accessible. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Create a raised wooden platform to lift parklet over asphalt. 2. Construct enclosure walls with wood, planters, or other allowable material and remove white traffic barriers. 3. Spaces between planters or other wall / border materials should not exceed 4 inches. 4. Create a setback from adjacent parking space of at least 3 feet, minimum. 5. Create a wheelchair-accessible seating area.

Page L-1.80
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 15 EXISTING CONDITIONS - COFFEEBAR - CHESTNUT AVENUE N KEYPLAN COFFEEBAR-CHESTNUT AVENUE SANTA CRUZ AVE Coffeebar CHESTNUT ST. CRANE ST. EVELYN ST. UNIVERSITY DRIVE Photo of non-compliant items 1 through 5. NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. No platform - enclosed area is on parking space asphalt. 2. Plastic white traffic barriers are the enclosure. 3. Space between plastic barriers exceeds 4-inches. 4. Setback from adjacent parking space does not meet minimum. 5. Seating area is not wheelchair accessible. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Create a raised wooden platform to lift parklet over asphalt. 2. Construct enclosure walls with wood, planters, or other allowable material and remove white traffic barriers. 3. Spaces between planters or other wall / border materials should not exceed 4 inches. 4. Create a setback from adjacent parking space of at least 3 feet, minimum. 5. Create a wheelchair-accessible seating area. Photo of non-compliant items 1 through 5.

Page L-1.81
5/1/23 Menlo Park Parklets - Downtown Menlo Park 16 EXISTING CONDITIONS - CAFE ZOE N KEYPLAN CAFE ZOE CENTRAL AVE MENALTO AVE

GILBERT AVE
ELM ST. Cafe Zoe NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS 1. No platform - enclosed area is on parking space asphalt. 2. Plants exceed 6 inch maximum height. 3. No retro-reflective reflectors at corners. 4. Plastic orange traffic barriers adjacent to travel lane. 5. Setback from adjacent parking space does not meet minimum. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Create a raised wooden platform to lift parklet over asphalt.

2. A combination of planter plus plants should be
allowed a height of up to 48 inches. 3. Place retro-reflective traffic barriers at corners. 4. Remove plastic orange traffic barriers adjacent to the traffic lane. Replace with solid decorative
bollards or heavy concrete planters to protect
the parklet from traffic 5. Create a minimum setback of at least 3 feet from adjacent parking space.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2, 3 & 4. Photo of non-compliant items 1 & 2.

Photo of non-compliant items 1, 2 & 5.

Photo of non-compliant items 1 & 2.

Page L-1.82

STREETARIES OUTDOOR DINING AREAS
Aug. 15, 2023 – First Ordinance Reading
L1-PRESENTATION
AGENDA
 Background Existing Eligible Outdoor Uses Summary of Business Feedback Proposed Streetary Outdoor Dining Areas Program
 Design Standards & Fee Structure
 June 2020: City Council approved a Temporary Outdoor
Use Permits (TOUP) Program to allow outdoor dining in the public right-of-way  January 2022: City Council asked staff to research a
longer-term outdoor dining program
 January 10, 2023: Staff presented a draft outdoor dining design standard packet as an informational item
 February 28, 2023: The TOUP Program expired and City
Council held a study session and provided direction for the Streetary Outdoor Dining program (a long-term policy for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way)

BACKGROUND
3 4

EXISTING ELIGIBLE OUTDOOR USES
Food Service Establishment name Address Outdoor use descriptionAmici's 880 Santa Cruz Ave. Sidewalk café and seating in on-street parkingBistro Vida 639-641 Santa Cruz Ave. Expanded Santa Cruz Street Café parklet and seating in closed travel laneCafe Zoe 1929 Menalto Ave. Outdoor dining in public/private parking spacesCamper 898 Santa Cruz Ave Santa Cruz Street café parkletCamper University Ave Parklet in on-street parkingCarpaccio 1122 Crane St Outdoor dining on closed section of Ryans LaneCoffeebar 1149 Chestnut St Outdoor dining on Chestnut Ave and parking plazaGalata 827 Santa Cruz Ave. Expanded Santa Cruz Street Café parklet and sidewalk caféLeft Bank 635 Santa Cruz Ave. Expanded Santa Cruz Street Café and seating in closed travel laneMademoiselle Colette 812-816 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parkletRoma 820 Santa Cruz Ave. Expanded Santa Cruz Street CaféStacks 600 Santa Cruz Ave. Parklet in on-street parking BUSINESS FEEDBACK ON A LONGERTERM OUDOOR DINING PROGRAM 5 Restaurants are not fully recovered from the pandemic and outdoor dining has helped them stay open.

Existing outdoor dining facility owners are interested in a cost sharing aspect as part of a longer term outdoor dining program (such as help with improvements to meet new regulations).

Retailers generally agree that outdoor dining should continue.

Businesses say customers continue to choose outdoor dining over indoor.  “Streetary” or “Streetaries” are
outdoor eating areas that operate within and uses the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage and/or operates within public right-of-way on streets or portions of streets that have been closed to vehicular access.  The program is intended to:

1. Activate the public realm 2. Maintain physical and visual access to businesses

3. Provide safe, attractive, and
accessible spaces

4. Provide accessible amenity
areas

5. Support local economic
vitality
6 STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREAS ORDINANCE
 Additional location criteria:
– Streets that have speed limits less than 25 mph.– Not allowed in parking spaces with peak hour parking restrictions, ADA designated spots, no parking color zones, cannot block public safety infrastructure, utility asset access, or bicycle facilities. – Cannot be located in parking spots that provide bicycle parking unless the bicycle parking can be relocated within 300-feet.
– Must meet required travel lane and other setback requirements.– Must provide clearance from utility access.

STREETARY LOCATION CRITERIA
7  Hours of operation must coincide with the business’s hours of operation, though additional limitations apply to streetaries within 150-feet from residences.  Maintenance of the streetary area, utilities, and drainage is clearly laid out.
 The permittee will be required to ensure their space is safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti.
 Landscaping or plants must be maintained and in good health. Permits are non-transferable.OTHER KEY FEATURES OF THE STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM 8  The Streetary ordinance requires design standards and fees to be set by separate resolutions of the City Council.
 Resolutions for Streetary design standards and a Streetary program fee structure will be brought to the City Council for further consideration at the second reading of the Streetaryoutdoor dining ordinance, on Aug. 29, 2023.  The following slides outline some key aspects of the design standards and fee structure.

DESIGN STANDARDS & FEE STRUCTURE
 Safety standards:
– Force impact rating of 250-lbs.– Maintenance of visibility of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle traffic, as well as traffic signs, signals and other traffic warning devices. – Reflectors required on corners facing
the travel lane.
 Aesthetic standards:
– Materials may include wood, concrete,
or steel planters, and perforated steel railings.
– Wood and concrete planters must be
finished or painted.
– Colors and materials should be
compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant. 10 BARRIER STANDARDIZATION
Ex. Retroreflector on Camper's parklet
Ex. Steel perforated
railings, wood planters,
concrete planters
To streamline the review process for new Streetary applications, the proposed guidelines include parklet site plan and design templates that applicants can choose from. 11 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES
(1) Parallel Parklet (1‐space) (2) Parallel Parklet (2‐space) (3) Diagonal Parklet Note: Resolution for Streetary Design Standards to be considered at second reading of the Streetaries Ordinance
12 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES CONTINUED
(4) Parklet
/ Sidewalk Café
Streetary
(5) Parklet/Sidewalk Café CurbExtension
(6) Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Streetary*
*Parklet/Pedestrian Street Streetary only applicable for street closures Note: Resolution for Streetary Design Standards to be considered at second reading of the Streetaries Ordinance
Note: Resolution for fees to be considered at second reading of the Streetaries Ordinance

STREETARY PERMIT TERM & FEES
13  Initial permit fee:
– Streetaries parklet: based on cost of administrative permit due to similarities for review
– Streetaries sidewalk café: based on cost of major encroachment permit  First year use of space:
– Based on average monthly retail rent per square foot– Discounted rate  Annual renewals for both permits and use of space
– Discounted rate
 Proposed 3-year fee waiver: total City subsidy of $82,000

STREETARY PERMIT TERM & FEES
14 Streetary Parklet Initial Permit Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Parklet Permit $1,725 $250Use of Space $1,526 $1,500Recommended Cost $3,251 $1,750Streetary Sidewalk Café 1st year Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Sidewalk Café Permit $810 $250
Use of Space $636 $600Recommended Cost $1,446 $850
Note: Resolution for fees to be considered at second reading of the Streetaries Ordinance

STREETARY PERMIT TERM & FEES
(COMPARISONS)
15 City Initial Permit & Use Fees Annual Use Fees Fee purpose Redwood City $8,109.60 $4,823 Permit and use fees (annual waived through 2023).Burlingame $5,531 $4,500 Permit, use and cleaning fees.Menlo Park $3,251 $1,750 Permit + Use fees. Annual (after 3-year term) Renewal + Use.Mountain View $3,169 $385 Permit, use and cleaning fees.San Rafael $2,000 (+$2,000 deposit) $3,600 Permit fee (part refundable) and annual use fee (with discounts through May 31, 2025).San Carlos $1,828 $994 Permit, use and cleaning fees.San Mateo $1,500 $500 Permit and use fees.Morgan Hill $716.10 (+$1,000 deposit) $1,000 Permit fee (part refundable) and annual use fee.Los Altos $500 $100 Permit and use fees.Average $2,954 $1,988 (does not include proposed Menlo Park fees) Median $1,914 $997  SZFM Design Studio
reviewed existing parklets for compliance with Streetarydesign standards and recommended improvements to aid transition.

BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FOR STREETARYPROGRAM
16  Proposed waiver of Streetary permit fees until January 1, 2025 for businesses that meet transitional period deadline
– For up to 12 applicants, City would be subsidizing $82,000, or about $6,800 per applicant (initial permit = $40,000 total, or $3,251.40 per applicant; second and third year renewal = $21,000 in renewal fees per year) One-month from adoption for Streetary program to
become effective, staff to create application, notify existing permit holders

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FOR EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES 17 Oct-Dec 2023
Through Sept 2023Through June 2024:

Starting from the adoption date of the Streetary program, staff propose the following transitional period:

Open application period through Dec. 31, 2023
Final inspection approval by June 30, 2024
Through 2023:

Sept 2023
Jan-June 2024
 Provide feedback on design standards and fees
 Recommend the City Council introduce the Ordinance
adding Chapter 13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) and amending Sections 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (Use of Public Right of Way)  Upcoming Streetary items on August 29
– Second reading of Streetary Ordinance– Resolution approving Streetary design standards– Resolution approving Streetary fee structure

CITY COUNCIL NEXT STEPS
18 THANK YOU
Community Development
4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/15/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-182-CC
Regular Business: Consider and adopt a resolution approving (1) Appraisal Instructions for Determining the Value of
Community Amenities and (2) Community Amenity
Implementing Regulations to determine the
appraised value of bonus level developments
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution approving the following:
• Appraisal Instructions To Determine the Value of Community Amenities Under Bonus Level Zoning (“appraisal instructions”) in the O, L-S and R-MU zoning districts in the Bayfront Area to clarify definitions and appraisal criteria (e.g., comparable sales, conformance with standards and valuation of amenity requirement); and
• Community Amenity Implementing Regulations (“implementing regulations”) that standardize the application procedures, appraisal review process and determination of the value of the bonus level development, and identify the process and timing for screening of the applicant’s community amenities proposal (“screening meeting”) with the City Council.

The resolution adopting the proposed appraisal instructions and implementing regulations is included as Attachment A and the proposed appraisal instructions are Exhibit A and the proposed implementing regulations are Exhibit B.

Policy Issues
Pursuant to Menlo Park Municipal Code sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and 16.45.070 Bonus level development projects are permitted in the O (Office), L-S (Life Sciences), and R-MU (Residential, MixedUse) zoning districts in exchange for the provision of community amenities. Bonus level development projects may be entitled to exceed base allowable floor area ratio (FAR), density and/or and height standards in exchange for enumerated community amenities. In order to obtain such bonus level development benefits, an applicant for a bonus level development project must obtain an appraisal of the value of the bonus level development (i.e., an appraisal of the increased value based on the additional allowable FAR and/or height). The proposed appraisal instructions direct the standards for such appraisals and provide applicants with an objective appraisal review process, defined timelines and steps for the review, and allow the City Council to review the initial community amenities proposal early in the development review process.

The ConnectMenlo General Plan update included a guiding principal for Corporate Contribution. This principal identified that in exchange for added development potential, development projects will provide community benefits to serve the adjacent neighborhoods (e.g., Belle Haven and the area north of US 101).

Policy LU-4.4 (Community amenities) and Program LU-4.C (Community amenity requirements) of the AGENDA ITEM L-2 Page L-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-182-CC

4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov General Plan implement this guiding principal by requiring developments at the bonus level to contribute to programs that benefit the community (e.g., education, transportation infrastructure, neighborhood-serving amenities/services, housing, and job training and employment). These contributions are ensured through zoning ordinance and current appraisal instructions and memorialized in a list that may be modified over time to reflect changes in community priorities and desired amenities. The City Council approved an updated community amenity list at its meeting July 11, 2023, and introduced ordinance amendments, identifying that the City would develop implementing regulations.

Background
Community amenities overview
As a part of the approval of the ConnectMenlo General Plan update, the City created the following zoning districts: Office (O), Life Sciences (LS) and Residential Mixed-Use (R-MU.) Regulations for bonus level development and community amenities were established in these zoning districts. In exchange for bonus level development (increased floor area ratio, density (dwelling units per acre) and/or height), an applicant is required to provide community amenities from a City Council-adopted list of community amenities in the area between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay. The required community amenity value is 50% of the fair market value of the additional (bonus) gross floor area above the base allowable gross floor area for a parcel or project site. In lieu of providing and constructing a community amenity from the adopted list of community amenities, applicants may choose to provide a payment in the amount of 110% of the community amenities value.

The initial list of community amenities were identified and prioritized through public outreach and input during the general plan update process, and adopted by the City Council in December 2016. The zoning ordinance allows the City Council to update the adopted community amenities list to reflect evolving community needs and priorities. The recently adopted community amenity list is included in Attachment B.

The method for determining the required value of the community amenities begins with an appraisal. The applicant provides, at their expense, an appraisal performed by a licensed appraisal firm consistent with the City’s current appraisal instructions. The zoning ordinance requires the form and content of the appraisal to be approved by the community development director. The proposed community amenity implementing regulations would modify this process and include detailed steps for the review of the form and content and determination of the appraised value.

Following determination of the required community amenity value, the applicant submits an initial community amenities proposal and associated valuation to demonstrate it meets the minimum required value for the City’s review. The proposal may include payment of the in-lieu payment, creation of physical amenities, and non-physical amenities (e.g., job training, educational opportunities, etc.), or a combination.

When an applicant is proposing physical amenities on or off-site of the development project, the City obtains a consultant to evaluate the value of the proposed community amenities. This analysis is typically based on the cost to the applicant to deliver the amenities. For physical amenities, the cost is based on an incremental cost approach (when contained within a larger building/site). The City also evaluates additional costs incurred by the applicant to deliver the proposed amenities (e.g., rent subsidies and operations and maintenance). If the applicant proposes to pay the in-lieu payment, then no evaluation if performed.

At the time of adoption in 2016, the preferred approach to implementation of community amenities, was the establishment of an amenities list versus a case-by-case review, to provide greater consistency and predictability. On Oct. 6, 2020, the City Council voted to form an ad hoc subcommittee, comprised of Vice Page L-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-182-CC

4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Mayor Taylor (mayor at the time) and City Councilmember Nash, to review the ConnectMenlo community amenities list and suggest revisions for consideration by the City Council.

Community amenities process updates
On April 20, 2021, the City Council conducted a study session on community amenities for the Bayfront Area. The City Council subcommittee presented its recommendations, including:

1. Adopt a revised community amenities list,

2. Adopt an in-lieu payment,

3. Adopt a “gatekeeper” application process, and

4. Establish a community amenities working group.

The City Council provided direction to staff to amend the zoning ordinance to establish the in-lieu payment and to allow for negotiated community amenities not identified on the community amenities list through a development agreement (DA) (Item 2). The City Council adopted an ordinance establishing an in-lieu payment option and allowing greater flexibility for providing community amenities through a DA at its meeting on June 22, 2021. Separately, the City Council subcommittee led the effort on developing an updated community amenities list and on July 11, 2023, the City Council approved an updated community amenities list (Item 1). Along with its approval of the updated community amenity list, the City Council also introduced ordinance amendments to clarify the appraisal review process, including the requirement to develop implementing regulations. At the Aug. 15, 2023 meeting, the City Council will consider adopting the ordinance amendments. If adopted the City Council may review and consider the proposed updated appraisal instructions and implementing regulations. The proposed implementing regulations, outlined in this staff report, include a “gatekeeper” or screening process (Item 3).

Analysis
Appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations The introduction of the ordinance amendments to Title 16 on July 11, 2023, allows staff to bring forward the proposed appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations.

Updated appraisal instructions
The proposed modifications to the appraisal process are intended to create uniformly identifiable criteria for determining the value of the bonus level development and the resulting community amenities value. The majority of the proposed updates to the appraisal instructions are focused on clarifying specific definitions and criteria to be included in appraisals. The proposed updated appraisal instructions are included in Attachment A, Exhibit A and a redlined version of the current appraisal instructions is included in Attachment C for reference. Key revisions to the current appraisal instructions are outlined below:
• Clarify definition of an “entitled” base and bonus level project for purposes of determining the value of the increased development;
• Clarify the criteria for comparable sales;
• Reference that appraisals must adhere to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; • Clarify that the bonus level development is the proposed project’s development above the base level (e.g., increase in gross floor area, height, density) and not the maximum development potential; and • The requirement to provide a community amenity shall not be factored into the appraised value; The updated appraisal instructions will be used by appraisers to ensure that the bonus level development Page L-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-182-CC

4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov appraisals comply with the required form and content. The revisions provide additional clarity for appraisers and would not materially alter the appraisal requirements that have been used since development of the current appraisal instructions.

Community amenity implementing regulations
The proposed community amenity implementing regulations are intended to create a uniform appraisal review and screening process consistent with the previous guidance from the City Council. The implementing regulations would ensure that the value of the bonus level development and resulting community amenity value are identified in advance of the release of the notice of preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report (EIR). Further, the implementing regulations would require the City Council to hold a community amenities proposal screening meeting to provide feedback on the applicant’s community amenities proposal before the release of the NOP, unless the proposed project is a housing development project. Due to the limit on the number of public meetings under SB 330, housing development projects are proposed to be exempt from the screening meeting. The release of the NOP is a key milestone in development projects and modifications to development project proposals after the NOP date are typically limited. Staff believes holding the community amenities screening meeting before the release of the NOP allows for the City Council to provide input that would be able to be considered by the applicant and evaluated, as applicable, in the environmental review for the proposed project.

Attachment D includes a flow chart that provides a visual overview of the appraisal review and community amenities review process set forth in the proposed implementing regulations.

The proposed implementing regulations include the following key components:
• Procedures that identify when an appraisal is required and the timing for review; • Detailed outline of the review process and steps;
• Procedures for City review of an applicant appraisal and determination of the required community amenities value;
• Requirement for applicants to submit a community amenities proposal for City Council review; and • Incorporation of a community amenities proposal meeting (screening meeting) with the City Council before release of a notice of preparation (NOP) for the proposed project.

The proposed implementing regulations require the City to prepare a separate appraisal with the final appraised value being determined based on an average of the applicant and City appraisals or if necessary, a third party appraisal. If a third party appraisal is prepared, then the final appraised value would be determined as follows:
• If the third party appraisal is greater than the City’s appraisal, then the City’s appraisal would become the final appraised value;
• If the third party appraisal is lower than the applicant’s appraisal, then the applicant’s appraisal would become the final appraised value; and
• If the third party appraisal is between the City and applicant’s appraisals, then the average of the two closest appraisals would become the final appraised value.

Staff believes the proposed regulations will provide uniform and clear process for applicants and eliminate much back and forth between appraisers on the appropriateness of the comparable sales and adjustments.

Community amenities screening meeting
Page L-2.4
Staff Report #: 23-182-CC

4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Another main goal of the proposed community regulations is to implement the community amenities screening process (Item 3 from the City Council April 2021 study session). This process would allow for the City Council to provide meaningful feedback on the proposed community amenity(ies) early in the development review process after the value of the bonus level of development has been determined. The proposed implementing regulations identify that following the determination of the final appraised value, the applicant will be required to submit a community amenities proposal that the City Council will review at a public meeting. The implementing regulations outline the submittal requirements for an “initial community amenities proposal.” The applicant’s community amenities proposal could be modified through the screening review process. As part of its review and consideration of the proposed community amenities, the City Council will adopt a resolution stating whether some, all or none of the community amenities and/or inlieu payment proposal bear a reasonable relationship to the increased intensity of development and increased effects on the surrounding community. Through its review the City Council may identify changes to the community amenities proposal that the City Council believes would ensure the amenities proposed meet the intent and requirements of the community amenity General Plan policies and ordinances. The resolution is intended to memorialize the City Council’s determination that the applicant’s community amenities proposal is appropriate for the proposed bonus level development project and does not indicate the City Council’s approval of or intent to approve or deny the proposed project.

The community amenities screening meeting is intended to allow the City Council and community to provide early input on the applicant’s community amenities proposal. After the community amenities screening meeting, the applicant may submit an updated proposal to respond to any requested modifications from the City Council, if applicable. At that time the City would review the community amenities proposal to ensure that the proposal meets the minimum required community amenity value. If the proposal does not meet the minimum required value, then the applicant would be required to modify its proposal, which could include adding additional amenities, modifying the currently proposed amenities, or by paying the in-lieu payment for the difference between the value of the applicant’s community amenity proposal and the required community amenity value.

Correspondence
Staff has not received any correspondence on the proposed updated appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations.

Conclusion
The proposed updates to the appraisal instructions would clarify the required form and content of appraisals for bonus level development projects. The proposed community amenity implementing regulations would provide an objective appraisal review process to determine the community amenities value for bonus level development projects. Further, the implementing regulations would incorporate a community amenities screening process before the release of the NOP for the EIR, which is a key milestone in the development review process. The screening process would implement Item 3 from the City Council’s April 2021 community amenities study session. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the updated appraisal instructions and the community amenity implementing regulations.

Impact on City Resources
Staff and city attorney time spent on preparing the proposed updated appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations are not reimbursable and are being accommodated within the existing budgets of the planning division and city attorney. Community amenity in-lieu payments are considered a special fund and segregated from the General Fund, and can only be used to support community amenities in the Bayfront Area at the discretion of the City Council. The In-lieu payments are generally made before Page L-2.5
Staff Report #: 23-182-CC

4895-2508-8886 v1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov building permit issuance for a development project.

Environmental Review
The proposed updated appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption of the updated instructions or implementing regulations may have a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183 (consistent with the general plan and zoning). Further, project specific environmental analyses would be prepared for each proposed bonus level development project.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Draft resolution of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park adopting the proposed updated appraisal instructions and the proposed community amenity implementing regulations Exhibits to Attachment A
A. Proposed updated bonus level development appraisal instructions B. Proposed community amenity implementing regulations
B. Hyperlink – Bayfront Area community amenities list (Approved July 11, 2023):
https://menlopark.gov//files/sharedassets/public/library-and-community-services/documents/6849- community-amenities-list.pdf
C. Redlined bonus level development appraisal instructions D. Flowchart of proposed appraisal and community amenities review process Report prepared by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Report reviewed by:

Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page L-2.6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

APPROVING APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR BONUS LEVEL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND APPROVING COMMUNITY AMENITY

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR BONUS LEVEL DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS IN THE O (OFFICE), L-S (LIFE SCIENCES), AND R-MU (RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE) ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, Sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and 16.45.070 of Title 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code permit applicants for a development project to seek an increase in the floor area ratio, density, and/or height (“bonus level development”) subject to obtaining a use permit or conditional development permit and providing certain community amenities; and WHEREAS, Sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and 16.45.070 of Title 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code set forth the community amenities required for bonus level development; and WHEREAS, an applicant that applies for bonus level development may choose the form in which they provide the community amenity; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update the previously implemented appraisal instructions (Exhibit A) to clarify definitions and appraisal criteria and for consistency with the ordinance amendments to Sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and 16.45.070 of Title 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code introduced by the City Council on July 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City also desires to develop community amenity implementing regulations (Exhibit B), as required by the ordinance amendments to Sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and

16.45.070 of Title 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code introduced by the City Council on July 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the community amenity implementing regulations would standardize the application procedures, appraisal review process and determination of the value of the bonus level development, and identify the process and timing for the initial community amenities proposal and community amenities proposal hearing (“screening meeting”) with the City Council; and WHEREAS, at its study session on community amenities on April 20, 2021, the City Council identified the need to create a gatekeeper application or screening process for community amenity proposals; and
WHEREAS, the community amenity implementing regulations create objective criteria for reviewing and determining the bonus level development value and associated community amenity value; and
WHEREAS, the community amenity implementing regulations also implement the screening process identified by the City Council at its meeting on April 20, 2021; and WHEREAS, the updated appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations provide applicants with consistent and objective criteria for preparing appraisals for bonus level development and for the review process for determining the bonus level development value; and Page L-2.7 ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, the proposed update to the appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the update to the community amenities list would have a significant effect on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183 (consistent with the general plan and zoning) as the updated appraisal instructions and community amenity implementing regulations would be consistent with the zoning ordinance and general plan; and WHEREAS, future development projects proposed at the bonus level and any proposed physical community amenities would be evaluated for consistency with the ConnectMenlo Program Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Housing Element Subsequent EIR (SEIR), as applicable, and the City, as the lead agency, would undertake the required level of environmental analysis for each individual project; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Appraisal Instructions to Determine the Value of Community Amenities Under Bonus Level Zoning clarifies definitions and appraisal criteria and provides applicants with clear guidance on preparation of appraisal for bonus level development projects; WHEREAS. the City finds that the Community Amenity Implementing Regulations outline the objective criteria the City will utilize to review the applicant’s appraisal to determine the bonus level development value and required community amenity value, include a screening process for the City Council to provide direction on the initial community amenity(ies) proposal in advance of the release of the notice of preparation for the project-level environmental impact report, and provide applicants with clear guidance on the process for determining the bonus level development value and the initial review of the community amenity(ies) proposal.

WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, at a duly and properly noticed public meeting held on August 15, 2023, the City Council fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the whole of the record including all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents, the updated appraisal instructions, and community amenity implementing regulations, prior to taking action.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MENLO PARK CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, public testimony, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided, and finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby approve the Appraisal Instructions to Determine the Value of Community Amenities Under Bonus Level Zoning, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby approve the Community Amenity Implementing Regulations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit B.

Section 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE Page L-2.8
The City Council finds the proposed appraisal instructions statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to §§15061(b)(3) and 15183. The City Council does further find the proposed community amenity implementing regulations statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to §§15061(b)(3) and 15183.

Section 5. SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
//
//
//
//
//
//
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the fifteenth of August, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of _____, 2023.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits
A. Appraisal Instructions to Determine the Value of Community Amenities Under Bonus Level Zoning
B. Community Amenities Implementing Regulations

Page L-2.9
4855-2945-8544 v1 1
CITY OF MENLO PARK – APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES

UNDER BONUS LEVEL ZONING
I. Required Appraiser Qualifications

1. California State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser.

2. Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) designation.

3. At least five years’ experience appraising commercial and multi-family development land in the San Francisco Bay Area.

II. Methodology for Life Science (LS) and Office (O) Districts A. Base Level Value

1. The subject of the appraisal is the parcel or parcels of land identified in the project application for the proposed project, which is also generally referred to as the project site. The subject of the appraisal is hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property.”

2. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the “Base Level” of development permitted on the Subject Property in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that information to the appraiser.

3. The Base Level of development permitted on the Subject Property shall be stated on a Gross Floor Area basis.

4. Gross Floor Area (”GFA”) is defined as the sum of the horizontal areas of all habitable floors including basements and mechanical areas within the surrounding exterior walls of a building covered by a roof measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls or portions thereof on the Subject Property, excluding parking structures. For purposes of these instructions, City staff shall determine GFA based on this definition.

5. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property, assuming it is fully entitled for the Base Level of development. “Market Value” is the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

6. For the Base Level, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decisionmaking body..

7. The “GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value” is defined as the sale price of the comparable divided by the GFA of the buildings proposed to be constructed on the property, or if there is no proposal, then the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning.

The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

8. The appraisal report shall include a “Date of Value” that is no more than 90 days from the date of the submission of the appraisal report to the City of Menlo Park.

9. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

Page L-2.10 EXHIBIT A
4855-2945-8544 v1 2

10.The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property should be located in or as close to Menlo Park as reasonably available data allows.

11.The comparable sales should be as close to the Date of Value as reasonably available data allows.

12.The comparable sales should be as physically similar to the Subject Property as reasonably available data allows.

13.The intended use of the comparable sales by the buyer should be as similar to the Subject Property as reasonably available data allows.

14.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

15.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Base Level of development.

16.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

17.All appraisals shall be consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

18.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Base Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the maximum GFA allowed at the Base Level.

19.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). With respect to the Subject Property, the City of Menlo Park has determined that the Subject Property at the Base Level has an allowed maximum GFA of 100,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property GFA results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $20,000,000 ($200 x 100,000).

20.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals, the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

B. Bonus Level Value

1. The Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be identical to the Subject Property at the Base Level. The Subject Property must remain identical.

Page L-2.11
4855-2945-8544 v1 3

2. The Bonus Level of development is the gross floor area contemplated by the project proposed on the Subject Property that exceeds the level of intensity, including floor area ratio, density, and/or height that would otherwise be permitted on the Subject Property. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the Bonus Level of development in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that information to the appraiser. The Bonus Level of development for the Subject Property shall be stated on a GFA basis.

3. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property assuming it is fully entitled for the Bonus Level Development.

4. For the Bonus Level Development, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decision-making body.

5. The Date of Value for the Bonus Level must be the same as the Date of Value for the Base Level.

6. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

7. The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be the same comparable sales previously used in valuing the Subject Property at the Base Level. Different comparable sales are not allowed. The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

8. The appraiser shall not include the impacts of the City’s or any other jurisdiction’s community amenities requirement in determining the Market Value of the Subject Property under the Bonus Level of development.

9. Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

10.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Bonus Level of development.

11.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

12.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Bonus Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the GFA of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

13.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). The proposed project on the Subject Property at the Bonus Level has a GFA of 150,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $30,000,000 ($200 x 150,000).

Page L-2.12
4855-2945-8544 v1 4

14.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

C. Value of the Amenity Conclusion

1. The Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level of development is calculated based on the Subject Property values as determined through the process outlined above.

2. The value conclusion at the Base Level is subtracted from the value conclusion at the Bonus Level. The result is the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level. The “Value of the Amenity” is 50 percent of the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level.

3. Using the above examples, the Value of Amenity calculation would be as follows:

Value conclusion at the Bonus Level $30,000,000
Value conclusion at the Base Level -$20,000,000
Value of the Additional GFA Proposed $10,000,000
Value of the Amenity $5,000,000
III. Methodology for Residential Mixed-Use (R-MU) District A. Base Level Value for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The subject of the appraisal is the parcel or parcels of land identified in the project application for the proposed project, which is also generally referred to as the project site. The subject of the appraisal is hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property.”

2. The appraiser identifies the proposed project as either a for sale condominium or a rental project or a combination thereof. This determination needs to be consistent with the application for the proposed project.

3. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the “Base Level” of development permitted on the Subject Property in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that information to the appraiser. This determination will include identification of both the percentage and the number and the income level of required Below Market Rate (“BMR”) dwelling units required for the Subject Property at the Base Level pursuant to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

Page L-2.13
4855-2945-8544 v1 5

4. The Base Level of development permitted on the Subject Property shall be stated on a Gross Floor Area basis.

5. Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) is defined as the sum of the horizontal areas of all habitable floors including basements and mechanical areas within the surrounding exterior walls of a building covered by a roof measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls or portions thereof on the Subject Property, excluding parking structures. For purposes of these instructions, City staff shall determine GFA based on this definition.

6. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property, assuming it is fully entitled for the Base Level of development. “Market Value” is the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

7. For the Base Level, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decisionmaking body.

8. The “GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value” is defined as the sale price of the comparable divided by the GFA of the buildings proposed to be constructed on the property, or if there is no proposal, then the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning.

The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

9. The appraisal report shall include a “Date of Value” that is no more than 90 days from the date of the submission of the appraisal report to the City of Menlo Park.

10.The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

11.The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property should be located in or as close to Menlo Park as reasonably available data allows.

12.The comparable sales should be as close to the Date of Value as reasonably available data allows.

13.The comparable land sales should be as physically similar as reasonably available data allows.

14.The intended use of the comparable sales by the buyer should be as similar to the Subject Property as reasonably available data allows..

15.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

16.Additional analysis of the comparable sales on a per dwelling unit basis is also acceptable. The final conclusion shall be stated on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

17.The BMR requirement at the Base Level for the Subject Property versus the comparable sales may be a basis for adjustment.

18.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Base Level of development.

19.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving Page L-2.14
4855-2945-8544 v1 6
at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

20.All appraisals shall be consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

21.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Base Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the maximum GFA allowed at the Base Level.

22.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square foot of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). With respect to the Subject Property, the City of Menlo Park has determined that the Subject Property at the Base Level has an allowed maximum GFA of 100,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $20,000,000 ($200 x 100,000).

23.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate Subject Property GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

B. Bonus Level Value for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be identical to the Subject Property at the Base Level. The Subject Property must remain identical.

2. The Bonus Level of development is the gross floor area contemplated by the project proposed on the Subject Property that exceeds the level of intensity, including floor area ratio, density, and/or height that would otherwise be permitted on the Subject Property. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the Bonus Level of development in accordance with the City’s zoning and provides that information to the appraiser. The BMR requirement, stated in both percentage and number and income level, at the Bonus Level shall be determined pursuant to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

3. The Bonus Level of development for the Subject Property shall be stated on a GFA basis.

4. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property assuming it is fully entitled for the Bonus Level of Development.

5. For the Bonus Level Development, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decision-making body.

Page L-2.15
4855-2945-8544 v1 7

6. The Date of Value for the Bonus Level must be the same as the Date of Value for the Base Level.

7. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

8. The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property for the Bonus Level must be the same comparable sales previously used in valuing the Subject Property at the Base Level. Different comparable sales are not allowed. The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

9. Additional analysis of the comparable sales on a per dwelling unit basis is also acceptable. The final conclusion shall be stated on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

10.The appraiser shall not include the impacts of the City’s or any other jurisdiction’s community amenities requirement in determining the Market Value of the Subject Property at the Bonus Level of development.

11.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

12.After reasonable adjustments for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for the proposed project at the Bonus Level, including the required percentage/number of BMR units pursuant to the to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

13.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

14.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property under the Bonus Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the GFA of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

15.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). The proposed project on the Subject Property at the Bonus Level has a GFA of 150,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $30,000,000 ($200 x 150,000).

16.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approval the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Page L-2.16
4855-2945-8544 v1 8
Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

C. Value of Amenity Conclusion for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level of development is calculated based on the Subject Property values as determined through the process outlined above.

2. The value conclusion at the Base Level is subtracted from the value conclusion at the Bonus Level. The result is the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level. The “Value of the Amenity” is 50 percent of the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level.

3. Using the above examples, the Value of Amenity calculation would be as follows:

Value conclusion at the Bonus Level $30,000,000
Value conclusion at the Base Level -$20,000,000
Value of the Additional GFA Proposed $10,000,000
Value of the Amenity $5,000,000
D. For Non-Residential Component of Mixed-Use Project

1. This step is not applicable to Residential Developments.

2. For the non-residential portion of a mixed-use project in the R-MU District, the appraiser shall follow the methodology above for the Office (O) District in reaching a Value of the Amenity conclusion.

E. Value of Amenity Conclusion R-MU District Combined Residential and Non-Residential Component of Mixed-Use Project

1. The resulting Value of the Amenity conclusion for the non-residential component of a mixed-use project shall be added to the Value of the Amenity conclusion for the residential portion of the mixed-use project, without discount to either value conclusions, to determine the total Value of the Amenity to be provided.

IV. Methodology for Projects That Include Multiple Zoning Districts

1. For master planned projects that include multiple zonings of R-MU, LS and/or O Districts the appraiser shall follow the methodology above for each separate component. The resulting value conclusions shall be added together without discount resulting in the defined Market Value for the entire Subject Property.

Page L-2.17

COMMUITY AMENITY IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND APPRAISAL, OF

PROPOSED COMMUNITY AMENITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR BONUS LEVEL DEVELOPMENT IN

R-MU, O, AND L-S ZONING DISTRICTS
Page L-2.18 EXHIBIT B
I. Background and Scope
These regulations implement the policies and laws governing the entitlement of bonus level development projects and the provision of associated community amenities within the City of Menlo Park as established by Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapters 16.43, 16.44, and 16.45, and the City of Menlo Park General Plan Land Use Element Policies LU-4.4 (Community Amenities) and Program LU-4.C (Community Amenity Requirement).

II. Definitions
A. “Applicant” shall mean the original applicant for any development project within the City of Menlo Park and any subsequent applicants for the same development project within the City of Menlo Park.

B. “Applicant’s Appraisal” shall mean the appraisal submitted by the Applicant, on or after the date the Applicant submitted their Development Application, by a licensed appraisal firm, that sets a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development as set forth more fully in sections 16.43.070(3), 16.44.070(3), and 16.45.070(3), and as more specifically calculated pursuant to the Appraisal Instructions. The Applicant’s Appraisal shall be based on a date of value that is within 90 days of the date of the appraisal, but in no event shall the date of value be earlier than the date the Applicant submits its Development Application.

C. "Application Date” means the date that the Applicant submits their Development Application.

D. "Appraisal Instructions” means the instructions for conducting appraisals approved by the City Council through Resolution No. _. An Applicant may elect whether to apply the Appraisal Instructions in effect on the Applicant’s project Application Date or any subsequently amended Appraisal Instructions to all appraisals of the Bonus Level Development Value for its project.

E. "Bonus Level Development” means the gross floor area of the Bonus Level Development Project that exceeds the level of intensity, including floor area ratio, density, and/or height that would otherwise be permissible within the underlying zoning district.

F. “Bonus Level Development Project” means those development projects that, pursuant to MPMC sections 16.43.070, 16.44.070, and 16.45.070, provide Community Amenities in exchange for the benefit of developing at a greater level of intensity with an increased floor area ratio, density, and/or increased height than otherwise permissible within the underlying zoning district.

G. "Bonus Level Development Value” means the appraised value of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development as set forth more fully in sections 16.43.070(3), 16.44.070(3), and 16.45.070(3), and as more specifically calculated pursuant to the Appraisal Instructions.

H. “City’s Appraisal” means the appraisal commissioned by the Community Development Director by a licensed appraisal firm that sets a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development as set forth more fully in sections 16.43.070(3),

16.44.070(3), and 16.45.070(3), and as more specifically calculated pursuant to the Appraisal Instructions. The City’s Appraisal shall be based on the same date of value as the Applicant’s Appraisal.

I. “Community Amenities Valuation” means the estimated financial value of a community amenity, which value shall equal at least fifty percent (50%) of the Bonus Level Development Value.

J. “Community Amenities List” shall mean the list of approved community amenities adopted and approved by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 6849, and any resolutions amending Resolution 6849.

Page L-2.19
K. “Development Application” means an application to the City for discretionary review for development of a project, or portion thereof, including but not limited to an architectural control permit, use permit, conditional development permit, development agreement, and/or tentative subdivision maps from the City required to carry out the development of the project.

L. “Existing Applicant” shall mean any applicant for a development project that has submitted a Development Application within the City of Menlo Park or any subsequent applicant for the same development project within the City of Menlo Park, where such applicant has submitted a Development Application on or before August 15, 2023.

M. "Final Appraised Value” means the value determined through the Bonus Level Development Value Appraisal Process provided for in Section 3 of these regulations and shall constitute the City’s final determination of the Bonus Level Development Value, which shall be binding on the City and the Applicant. The Final Appraised Value must be based on the same date of value as the Applicant’s Appraisal.

N. “Housing Development Project” shall have that meaning set forth in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2).

O. “Preliminary Application” shall have that meaning set forth in Government Code section 65941.1.

P. “Qualified Appraiser” means an appraiser (i) that is licensed in the State of California as a “Certified General Real Estate Appraiser” and holds the MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute, (ii) has been practicing or working as an appraiser for at least five (5) years in California, (iii) is not an affiliate of the City or Applicant and has no equity investment in Applicant or its affiliates, (iv) who has particular experience with Northern California real property transactions involving commercial and residential developments, and (v) who has no conflict of interest as evidenced by not favoring and/or being adverse to either the City or the Applicant in any other appraisal proceeding.

Q. “Third Party Appraisal” means the appraisal performed by a third party licensed appraisal firm, agreed upon by the City’s appraiser and the Applicant’s appraiser, that sets a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development as set forth more fully in sections 16.43.070(3), 16.44.070(3), and 16.45.070(3), and as more specifically calculated pursuant to the Appraisal Instructions.

III. Community Amenity Application Procedures
A. Applicability. These application procedures shall be limited as follows:

1. Housing Developments Projects shall not be subject to the Community Amenities Hearing requirements of subsection III.B.3.

2. Existing Applicants that have submitted a Community Amenities proposal on or before August 15, 2023 need not submit an initial or final Community Amenities Proposal pursuant to subsections III.B.2.

B. Procedures

1. Bonus Level Development Value Appraisal Process. Applicants shall submit an Applicant’s Appraisal as required for a Bonus Level Development Project. The appraisal review process set forth in this section shall not begin until the Applicant submits the Applicant Appraisal.
a) The Applicant’s Appraisal shall be an appraisal of Bonus Level Development Value which, pursuant to the Community Amenity Ordinances, shall set forth a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development. The Applicant’s Appraisal shall adhere to the City’s Community Amenity Appraisal Instructions and shall be prepared by a Qualified Appraiser.

Page L-2.20
b) Review of Applicant’s Appraisal.
(1) Within 30 days of receipt of an Applicant’s Appraisal, the Community Development Director or their designee shall review the Applicant’s Appraisal and either (1) approve the form and content of the appraisal or (2) reject the form and content of the appraisal. The Community Development Director’s review for form and content shall be limited to determining that the Applicant’s Appraisal was (i) performed by a Qualified Appraiser; (ii) is based on an appropriate date of value; and (iii) is based on a comparable sales approach.
(2) Return of Applicant’s Appraisal. If the Community Development Director rejects the form and content of the Applicant’s Appraisal, the Applicant’s Appraisal shall be returned to the Applicant with directions regarding the required modifications to the form and/or content of the Applicant’s Appraisal. The Applicant shall resubmit an Applicant’s Appraisal that complies with the Community Development Director’s directions. The resubmitted Applicant’s Appraisal shall be based on the same date of value as the initially submitted Applicant’s Appraisal. (3) Appraisal Review Process.
(a) If the Community Development Director approves the form and content of the Applicant’s Appraisal, the Community Development Director shall obtain the City’s own appraisal of the Bonus Level Development Value, which shall constitute the City’s Appraisal. The City’s Appraisal shall be completed, to the extent possible, within 75 days of the Community Development Director’s approval of the form and content of the Applicant’s Appraisal and shall be authored by a Qualified Appraiser. If the City’s Appraisal cannot be completed within 75 days, the City will provide notice to the Applicant of the reason for the delay and the expected date of completion.
(b) The City’s Appraisal shall be an appraisal of Bonus Level Development Value which, pursuant to the Community Amenity Ordinances, shall set forth a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development. The City’s Appraisal shall adhere to the City’s Community Amenity Appraisal
Instructions and shall be prepared by a Qualified Appraiser. (c) If the Applicant’s Appraisal and the City’s Appraisal differ in the determination of the Bonus Level Development Value, the following procedures shall be utilized to determine the Final Appraised Value. If the Applicant’s Appraisal and the City’s Appraisal differ by:
(i) Less than ten (10) percent of the lower of the two
appraisals, the Community Development Director shall
approve a Final Appraised Value of the midpoint between the two appraisals. Said midpoint shall be rounded to the nearest $1,000.

Page L-2.21
(ii) Ten (10) percent or greater than the value of the
lower of the two appraisals, the Applicant shall have the option of revising the Applicant’s Appraisal to state a value that is within ten (10) percent of the value of the lower of the two appraisals and accepting a Final Appraised Value that is the midpoint between the two appraisals as set forth in Section III-B-1-(b)-(3)-(c)-(i). If the Applicant chooses not to revise the Applicant’s Appraisal, then the Applicant may submit a written request to the City that the Applicant’s appraiser and the City’s appraiser agree upon and appoint a third appraiser, who shall be a Qualified Appraiser. The Applicant’s appraiser and the City’s appraiser must agree upon and select a third appraiser within 30 days of the Applicant’s written request. If the Applicant’s appraiser and City’s appraiser fail to agree on the appointment of a third party appraiser, then each party may submit the names of two appraisers, within 10 days after the deadline for the parties’ appraisers to select a third appraiser, and a third party appraiser will be selected, at random, by the City Manager, from the names of the submitted appraisers. The Applicant will be notified of the date, time, and place where the selection will occur and will have the opportunity to be present and observe the selection process.
(d) The third appraiser shall review the Applicant’s Appraisal and the City’s Appraisal and develop an independent Third Party Appraisal. In doing so, the third appraiser may confer with the Applicant’s appraiser and the City’s appraiser. The Third Party Appraisal shall be an appraisal of Bonus Level Development Value which, pursuant to the Community Amenity Ordinances, shall set forth a fair market value in cash of the gross floor area of the bonus level of development. The Third Party Appraisal shall adhere to the City’s Community Amenity Appraisal Instructions and shall be prepared by a Qualified Appraiser.
(e) If the Third Party Appraisal is greater than City’s Appraisal, then the City’s Appraisal of the Bonus Level Development Value shall become the Final Appraised Value. If the Third Party Appraisal is less than the Applicant’s Appraisal, then the Applicant’s Appraisal of the Bonus Level Development Value shall become the Final Appraised Value. If the Third Party Appraisal's determination of the Bonus Level Development Value is between the values determined by the City’s Appraisal and the Applicant’s Appraisal, then the Final Appraised Value shall be average of the two appraisals that are closest in value to each other.
c) Applicant shall bear all costs and expenses incurred by the City in reviewing the Applicant’s Appraisal and determining Bonus Level Development Value, including but not limited to staff time, costs and expenses associated with preparing the City’s Appraisal and Third Party Appraisal.

Page L-2.22

2. Initial Community Amenities Proposal. Following the determination of the Final Appraised Value, Applicant shall submit an initial community amenities proposal which shall include a statement that the Applicant is proposing (1) a community amenity(ies) from the list of community amenities adopted by City Council Resolution No. 6849, as that Resolution may be amended, (2) a community amenity in-lieu payment, or (3) community amenity(ies) not on the list of community amenities adopted by City Council Resolution No. 6849, as that Resolution may be amended, and instead proposed to be provided through a development agreement, or (4) any combination of the above. The Applicant may propose multiple community amenities as alternatives in its initial community amenities proposal. Applicant need not, but may provide any other plans, specifications and/or details in the initial community amenities proposal, which will enable the City Council to consider the merits of the proposed community amenity(ies).

3. Community Amenities Proposal Hearing.
a) To the extent feasible, within 45 days of submittal of the initial community amenities proposal, but no later than 75 days from submittal of the initial community amenities proposal, the City Council shall hold a Community Amenities Proposal Hearing to consider the community amenities proposed by the Bonus Level Development Project.
b) Hearing Procedures. The following procedures shall apply to Community Amenities Proposal Hearings:
(1) Staff Report. Staff shall provide a staff report in advance of the Hearing which includes (1) a brief summary of the proposed project, (2) a summary of the proposed community amenities and/or in-lieu payment, and (3) an analysis as to whether the proposed community amenities are on the Community Amenities List, not on the Community Amenities List and therefore subject to approval through a development agreement, and/or required by existing City laws or regulations, and (2) Hearing. At the hearing, the applicant and staff may present their evaluations to the City Council. Because no CEQA action on the project will have been taken, the hearing will provide an opportunity for the City Council to hear, consider and/or provide feedback on conceptual community amenities proposals, but no final approval on community amenities shall take place.
(3) Community Amenities Proposal Resolution. After hearing testimony, taking public comment, and deliberating, the City Council shall adopt a resolution which includes the following:
(a) A statement that the Council has considered the proposed community amenities and/or in-lieu payment proposal and finds that some, all or none of the community amenities and/or in-lieu payment proposal bear a reasonable relationship to the increased intensity of development and increased effects on the surrounding community, and that the community amenities and/or in-lieu fee address identified community needs.
(b) A statement affirming or recommending modifications to applicant’s initial community amenity proposal.
(c) The Community Amenities Proposal Resolution
memorializes the City Council’s determination that the Initial Community Amenities Proposal is appropriate for the Bonus Level Development Project and does not indicate the City Council’s approval of or intent to approve the proposed project.

Page L-2.23

4. NOP Release. Where a Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to be prepared for the Bonus Level Development project, the NOP shall be released following the Community Amenities Proposal Hearing.

5. Final Community Amenities Proposal.
a) Following the Community Amenities Proposal Hearing, Applicants shall submit a Final Community Amenities Proposal. The Final Community Amenities Proposal shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Response to feedback from the Community Amenities Proposal Hearing, if any.
(2) A statement that the Applicant is proposing (1) the community amenity(ies) and/or in-lieu payment recommended by the City Council in the Community Amenities Proposal Hearing (if applicable), or (2) a statement and description of any other community amenity(ies) and/or in lieu payment being proposed which were not recommended by the City Council.
(3) An evaluation of the proposed community amenity(ies) value, documenting that the proposed value, at a minimum, meets the minimum required Community Amenities Valuation, subject to review and determination by the City.

IV. Community Amenities In-lieu Payments
A. Pursuant to MPMC sections 16.43.070(4)(b), 16.44.070(4)(b), and 16.45.070(4)(b), applicants may propose a community amenities in-lieu payment, instead of proceeding with the provision of a community amenity or amenities on the Community Amenities List. For nonhousing development projects, Community Amenity in-lieu payments are subject to Planning Commission and City Council (on appeal) approval pursuant to the review procedures set forth in sections III.B.1 through III.B.5, herein
B. Expenditure of Community Amenities In-lieu payments. The in-lieu fee revenues shall be deposited in a restricted community amenities fund to be used to implement the community amenities identified in the list adopted by city council resolution.

Page L-2.24
4887-2514-3666 v1 1
CITY OF MENLO PARK – APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES

UNDER BONUS LEVEL ZONING
I. Required Appraiser Qualifications

1. California State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser.

2. Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) designation.

3. At least five years’ experience appraising commercial and multi-family development land in the San Francisco Bay Area.

II. Methodology for Life Science (LS) and Office (O) Districts A. Base Level Value

1. The subject of the appraisal is the parcel or parcels of land identified in the project application for the proposed project, which is also generally referred to as the project site. The subject of the appraisal is hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property.”

2. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the “Base Level” of development permitted on the Subject Property in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that information to the appraiser.

3. The Base Level of development permitted on the Subject Property shall be stated on a Gross Floor Area basis.

4. Gross Floor Area ('”GFA”) is defined as the sum of the horizontal areas of all habitable floors including basements and mechanical areas within the surrounding exterior walls of a building covered by a roof measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls or portions thereof on the Subject Property, excluding parking structures. For purposes of these instructions, City staff shall determine GFA based on this definition.

5. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property, assuming it is fully entitled for the Base Level of development. “Market Value” is the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

6. For the Base Level, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decisionmaking body.all of the approvals necessary to immediately proceed with construction of the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning at the Base Level.

7. The “'GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value” is defined as the sale price of the comparable divided by the GFA of the buildings proposed to be constructed on the property, or if there is no proposal, then the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning.

The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

8. The appraisal report shall include a “Date of Value” that is no more than 90 days from the date of the submission of the appraisal report to the City of Menlo Park.

Page L-2.25 ATTACHMENT C
4887-2514-3666 v1 2

9. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

10.The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property should be located in or as close to Menlo Park as reasonably available data allows.

11.The comparable sales should be as close to the Date of Value as reasonably available data allows.

12.The comparable sales should be as physically similar to the Subject Property as reasonably available data allows.

13.The intended use of the comparable sales by the buyer should be for mixed-use, commercial, office, life science or other similar non-residential usesas similar to the Subject Property as reasonably available data allows..

14.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

15.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Base Level of development.

16.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

16.All appraisals shall be consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

17.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Base Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the maximum GFA allowed at the Base Level.

18.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). With respect to the Subject Property, the City of Menlo Park has determined that the Subject Property at the Base Level has an allowed maximum GFA of 100,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property GFA results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $20,000,000 ($200 x 100,000).

19.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals, the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

B. Bonus Level Value
Page L-2.26
4887-2514-3666 v1 3

1. The Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be identical to the Subject Property at the Base Level. The Subject Property must remain identical.

2. The City of Menlo Park determines the “Bonus Level” of developmentThe Bonus Level of development is the gross floor area contemplated by the project proposed on the Subject Property that exceeds the level of intensity, including floor area ratio, density, and/or height that would otherwise be permitted on the Subject Property. permitted on the Subject PropertyThe City of Menlo Park shall determine the Bonus Level of development in accordance with the City’s zoning and provides that information to the appraiser. The Bonus Level of development permitted foron the Subject Property shall be stated on a GFA basis.

3. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property assuming it is fully entitled for the Bonus Level of dDevelopment.

4. For the Bonus Level Development, “entitled” means the Subject Property has received a discretionary approval for a project from the governing jurisdiction’s decision-making bodyall of the approvals necessary to immediately proceed with construction of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

5. The Date of Value for the Bonus Level must be the same as the Date of Value for the Base Level.

6. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

7. The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be the same comparable sales previously used in valuing the Subject Property at the Base Level. Different comparable sales are not allowed. The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

8. The appraiser shall not consider include the impacts of the City’s or any other jurisdiction’s community amenities requirement established under Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 16.43.070 or Section 16.44.070, as applicable, in determining the Market Value of the Subject Property under the Bonus Level of development.

9. Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

10.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Bonus Level of development.

11.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

12.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Bonus Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the GFA of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

13.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of Page L-2.27
4887-2514-3666 v1 4
GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). The proposed project on the Subject Property at the Bonus Level has a GFA of 150,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $30,000,000 ($200 x 150,000).

14.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

C. Value of the Amenity Conclusion

1. The Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level of development is calculated based on the Subject Property values as determined through the process outlined above.

2. The value conclusion at the Base Level is subtracted from the value conclusion at the Bonus Level. The result is the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level. The “Value of the Amenity” is 50 percent of the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level.

3. Using the above examples, the Value of Amenity calculation would be as follows:

Value conclusion at the Bonus Level $30,000,000
Value conclusion at the Base Level -$20,000,000
Value of the Additional GFA Proposed $10,000,000
Value of the Amenity $5,000,000
III. Methodology for Residential Mixed-Use (R-MU) District A. Base Level Value for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The subject of the appraisal is the parcel or parcels of land identified in the project application for the proposed project, which is also generally referred to as the project site. The subject of the appraisal is hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property.”

2. The appraiser identifies the proposed project as either a for sale condominium or a rental project or a combination thereof. This determination needs to be consistent with the application for the proposed project.

3. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the “Base Level” of development permitted on the Subject Property in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that Page L-2.28
4887-2514-3666 v1 5
information to the appraiser. This determination will include identification of both the percentage and the number and the income level of required Below Market Rate (“BMR”) dwelling units required for the Subject Property at the Base Level pursuant to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

4. The Base Level of development permitted on the Subject Property shall be stated on a Gross Floor Area basis.

5. Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) is defined as the sum of the horizontal areas of all habitable floors including basements and mechanical areas within the surrounding exterior walls of a building covered by a roof measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls or portions thereof on the Subject Property, excluding parking structures. For purposes of these instructions, City staff shall determine GFA based on this definition.

6. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property, assuming it is fully entitled for the Base Level of development. “Market Value” is the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

7. For the Base Level, “entitled” means the Subject Property has all of the approvals necessary to immediately proceed with construction of the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning at the Base Level.

8. The “GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value” is defined as the sale price of the comparable divided by the GFA of the buildings proposed to be constructed on the property, or if there is no proposal, then the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning.

The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

9. The appraisal report shall include a “Date of Value” that is no more than 90 days from the date of the submission of the appraisal report to the City of Menlo Park.

10.The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

11.The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property should be located in or as close to Menlo Park as reasonably available data allows.

12.The comparable sales should be as close to the Date of Value as reasonably available data allows.

13.The comparable land sales should be as physically similar as reasonably available data allows.

14.The intended use of the comparable sales by the buyer should be the same as the proposed project, for use as a multi-family residential development.

15.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

16.Additional analysis of the comparable sales on a per dwelling unit basis is also acceptable. The final conclusion shall be stated on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

17.The BMR requirement at the Base Level for the Subject Property versus the comparable sales may be a basis for adjustment.

18.After reasonable adjustment for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value Page L-2.29
4887-2514-3666 v1 6
most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for a building or buildings at the Base Level of development.

19.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

20.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property at the Base Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the maximum GFA allowed at the Base Level.

21.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square foot of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). With respect to the Subject Property, the City of Menlo Park has determined that the Subject Property at the Base Level has an allowed maximum GFA of 100,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $20,000,000 ($200 x 100,000).

22.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approvals the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate Subject Property GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

B. Bonus Level Value for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The Subject Property at the Bonus Level must be identical to the Subject Property at the Base Level. The Subject Property must remain identical.

2. The City of Menlo Park shall determine the “Bonus Level” of development permitted on the Subject Property in accordance with the City’s zoning and provide that information to the appraiser. The BMR requirement, stated in both percentage and number and income level, at the Bonus Level shall be determined pursuant to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

3. The Bonus Level of development permitted on the Subject Property shall be stated on a GFA basis.

4. The appraiser shall determine the Market Value of the Subject Property assuming it is fully entitled for the Bonus Level of development.

5. For the Bonus Level, “entitled” means the Subject Property has all of the approvals necessary to immediately proceed with construction of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

6. The Date of Value for the Bonus Level is to be the same as the Date of Value for the Base Level.

Page L-2.30
4887-2514-3666 v1 7

7. The only allowed methodology is the sales comparison approach. A land residual analysis is not acceptable.

8. The selected comparable sales used in valuing the Subject Property for the Bonus Level must be the same comparable sales previously used in valuing the Subject Property at the Base Level. Different comparable sales are not allowed. The comparable sale prices shall be measured on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

9. Additional analysis of the comparable sales on a per dwelling unit basis is also acceptable. The final conclusion shall be stated on a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value basis.

10.The appraiser shall not consider the community amenities requirement established under Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 16.45.070 in determining the Market Value of the Subject Property at the Bonus Level of development.

11.Where a comparable sale is not fully entitled, the appraiser may make an upward adjustment to the comparable sale’s GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value.

12.After reasonable adjustments for differences between the comparable sales and the Subject Property, the appraiser shall conclude a GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value most reflective of the Subject Property assuming the Subject Property is fully entitled for the proposed project at the Bonus Level, including the required percentage/number of BMR units pursuant to the to the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

13.The appraiser shall include sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments made to the comparable sales such that the reader can follow the logic in arriving at the appraiser’s conclusion regarding the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property.

14.The resulting value conclusion for the Subject Property under the Bonus Level is the GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value times the GFA of the proposed project at the Bonus Level.

15.For example, assume Comparable Sale 1 sold for $40,000,000 and it has approvals (or if no approvals, then the GFA identified in an existing application or the maximum GFA zoning would allow) for a building with 200,000 square feet of GFA. The GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the comparable is thus $200 ($40,000,000 ÷ 200,000). The proposed project on the Subject Property at the Bonus Level has a GFA of 150,000 square feet. Applying the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value to the Subject Property results in a Market Value of the Subject Property of $30,000,000 ($200 x 150,000).

16.The above is a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the required methodology.

It is not intended to imply the appraiser should rely on a single comparable. Also, if a comparable sale does not yet have a proposed project application or approval the GFA should be based on the maximum GFA allowed by the zoning. Further, the appraiser is allowed to make reasonable adjustments to the comparable sale GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value data in comparison to the Subject Property in arriving at the appropriate GFA Per Square Foot Unit Value of the Subject Property, provided the appraiser provides sufficient analysis and explanation of any adjustments.

Page L-2.31
4887-2514-3666 v1 8
C. Value of Amenity Conclusion for a Residential Development or the Residential Component of a Mixed-Use Project

1. The Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level of development is calculated based on the Subject Property values as determined through the process outlined above.

2. The value conclusion at the Base Level is subtracted from the value conclusion at the Bonus Level. The result is the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level. The “Value of the Amenity” is 50 percent of the Market Value of the additional GFA proposed at the Bonus Level.

3. Using the above examples, the Value of Amenity calculation would be as follows:

Value conclusion at the Bonus Level $30,000,000
Value conclusion at the Base Level -$20,000,000
Value of the Additional GFA Proposed $10,000,000
Value of the Amenity $5,000,000
D. For Non-Residential Component of Mixed-Use Project

1. This step is not applicable to Residential Developments.

2. For the non-residential portion of a mixed-use project in the R-MU District, the appraiser shall follow the methodology above for the Office (O) District in reaching a Value of the Amenity conclusion.

E. Value of Amenity Conclusion R-MU District Combined Residential and Non-Residential Component of Mixed-Use Project

1. The resulting Value of the Amenity conclusion for the non-residential component of a mixed-use project shall be added to the Value of the Amenity conclusion for the residential portion of the mixed-use project, without discount to either value conclusions, to determine the total Value of the Amenity to be provided.

IV. Methodology for Projects That Include Multiple Zoning Districts

1. For master planned projects that include multiple zonings of R-MU, LS and/or O Districts the appraiser shall follow the methodology above for each separate component. The resulting value conclusions shall be added together without discount resulting in the defined Market Value for the entire Subject Property.

Page L-2.32
*Initial application is the first submittal. For SB 330 projects could be a preliminary application or full application; for commercial projects this first submittal is a formal application that may have limited materials. **Appraised value of bonus level development must be determined prior to applicant submitting community amenities proposal to allow for informed discussion of proposal through the study session ***Applicants typically continue to refine and modify projects in the early stages of entitlement and environmental review; Most project details, such as land uses, number of dwelling units, and overall site design can be modified until the release of the NOP for the EIR, with limited modifications after release of the NOP. This process would not work for a project that does not prepare an initial study and instead prepares a full EIR.
****Changes to the community amenity to address any deficiencies in value would need to be determined prior to release of the Draft EIR to ensure proper CEQA clearance for the proposed community amenities.

Proposed Community Amenities Review Process
Applicant submits initial application*
Staff reviews application materials to confirm if enough information provided to begin reviewing project in detail and to determine review process and next steps
City provides 30-day application confirmation notice
incorporating comments from step 2
Applicant resubmits updated project materials (appraisal for bonus level development required with this submittal)
Yes
No
Community Amenities Study Session with City Council
Applicant considers feedback, makes potential changes to amenity proposal prior to release of the notice of
preparation (NOP)
City continues to review
application materials, begins initial
stages of environmental analysis
concurrent with appraisal review
Release Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, incorporating any changes to the proposed amenity into the project description for the environmental analysis*** Staff evaluates community amenity
proposal to determine if the proposal meets
the minimum value required and works with
applicant to modify or augment proposal if
deficient****
Community Development Director
reviews and determines if Applicant Appraisal meets
the form and content
City sends appraisal back to
applicant with comments
City prepares City Appraisal** Applicant resubmits
Final Appraised Value determined via the appraisal
instructions**
Applicant submits initial community amenities proposal
Complies
Page L-2.33 ATTACHMENT D
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date:

Staff Report Number:

Informational Item:
8/15/2023
23-183-CC
City Council agenda topics: August 22 – September
12 Recommendation
The purpose of this informational item is to provide the City Council and members of the public access to the anticipated agenda items that will be presented to the City Council. The Mayor and city manager set the City Council agenda so there is no action required of the City Council as a result of this informational item.

Policy Issues
In accordance with the City Council procedures manual, the Mayor and city manager set the agenda for City Council meetings.

Analysis
In an effort to provide greater access to the City Council’s future agenda items, staff has compiled a listing of anticipated agenda items, Attachment A, through September 12. The topics are arranged by department to help identify the work group most impacted by the agenda item.

Specific dates are not provided in the attachment due to a number of factors that influence the City Council agenda preparation process. In their agenda management, the Mayor and city manager strive to compile an agenda that is most responsive to the City Council’s adopted priorities and work plan while also balancing the business needs of the organization. Certain agenda items, such as appeals or State mandated reporting, must be scheduled by a certain date to ensure compliance. In addition, the meeting agendas are managed to allow the greatest opportunity for public input while also allowing the meeting to conclude around 11 p.m. Every effort is made to avoid scheduling two matters that may be contentious to allow the City Council sufficient time to fully discuss the matter before the City Council.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. City Council agenda topics: August 22 – September 12 Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk AGENDA ITEM M-1 Page M-1.1
Through September 12
ASD-Administrative Services
CMO- City Manager's Office
CDD-Community Development
LCS-Library and Community Services
PD-Police
PW-Public Works
Tentative City Council Agenda
# Title Department Item type City Council action
1 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to Housing Element implementation CDD Study Session Direction to staff 2 Approve response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report on Accessory Dwelling Units CDD Consent Approve 3 Consider Planning Commission's recommendation on a vesting tentative map and below market rate housing agreement for 123 Independence Drive project CDD Public Hearing Adopt resolution, Approve 4 Agree to appropriate housing below market rate funds related to notice of funding availability proposals CDD Consent Contract award or amend 5 Parks and Recreation Commission appointment CMO Appointments Decide 6 Communitywide electrification program with California Energy Commission (CEC) funding CMO Study Session Direction to staff 7 Waive second reading and adopt Streetaries outdoor dining ordinance CMO Consent Second read/adopt ordinance 8 Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council to San Mateo County regarding Flood School and Flood Park CMO Regular Approve
9 Confirm voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference CMO City Councilmember Report Decide 10 City Council procedures CMO Informational No action
11 City Council workplan update CMO Informational No action 12 Proclamation: Suicide Prevention Month CMO Proclamation No action 13 Finance and Audit Commission appointment CMO Appointments Decide 14 Annual conflict of interest code update (2023) CMO Consent Adopt resolution 15 Transmittal of city attorney billing (July 2023) CMO Informational No action 16 Adopt a resolution approving Menlo Park Community Campus service level restoration LCS Regular Adopt resolution 17 Aquatics operator agreement LCS Regular Contract award or amend 18 Police department quarterly update – Q2 April 2023 - June 2023 PD Informational Receive and file 19 Flock Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR), gunshot detection, and video camera PD Study Session Direction to staff 20 Adopt a resolution designating public works director and assist public works director as authorized agents for Cal OES and FEMA PW Consent Adopt resolution 21 Approve revised concept design for Middle Avenue pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing PW Consent Approve 22 Approve a memorandum of understanding with San Mateo County Transit Authority (SMCTA) for Willow/101 landscaping project PW Consent Approve
23 Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with WC3 for Willow Village Engineering reviews PW Consent Approve 24 Adopt a resolution approving long-term street closures for Santa Cruz Ave. and Ryans Lane PW Regular Adopt resolution 25 Restarting the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) PW Study Session Direction to staff 26 Approve an agreement with Caltrain for pre-design services for the grade separation project PW Consent Approve 27 Adopt a resolution to abandon a stormwater easement at 1585 Bay Laurel Dr. PW Consent Adopt resolution 28 Approve an agreement for the Menlo Park Community Campus furniture procurement PW Consent Contract award or amend 29 Award a contract for railroad gate design services PW Consent Contract award or amend 30 Adopt a resolution establishing turn restrictions from Oak Grove Avenue to Garwood Way and Merrill Street PW Consent Adopt resolution
31 Approve the Complete Streets Commission work plan PW Regular Approve Page M-1.2 ATTACHMENT A
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date:

Staff Report Number:

Informational Item:
8/15/2023
23-184-CC
Transmittal of city attorney billing
Recommendation
This is an informational item and does not require City Council action.

Policy Issues
In accordance with the City Council informational requests, this staff report transmits information to the public.

Background
On Feb. 23, 2021, the City Council approved an agreement with Burke Williams Sorenson, LLP (BWS) for city attorney services.

Analysis
As requested by the City Council, the city attorney has prepared monthly summaries of billing activity (costs/fees) for legal services that could be shared with the public. This staff report transmits the summary for the month of June 2023.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Billing summary – June 2023
Report prepared by:

Justin I.C. Murphy, City Manager
AGENDA ITEM M-2 Page M-2.1
Description Fees Costs Total Billed
GENERAL MUNICIPAL MATTERS $57,780.00 $2.14 $57,782.14
REAL ESTATE, COMPLEX HOUSING, CEQA, NEPA $5,230.50 $0.00 $5,230.50 HOUSING ELEMENT $2,387.00 $0.00 $2,387.00
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLEX PUBLIC WORKS $5,143.00 $89.50 $5,232.50 123 INDEPENDENCE $3,696.00 $0.00 $3,696.00
WILLOW VILLAGE $10,997.00 $0.00 $10,997.00
1350 ADAMS COURT $20,160.00 $0.00 $20,160.00
1075 O'BRIEN/CS BIO $432.00 $0.00 $432.00
162-164 JEFFERSON $10,320.00 $0.00 $10,320.00
1105-1165 O'BRIEN DRIVE $9,456.00 $0.00 $9,456.00
MPMW AND FEES ADVICE $3,648.00 $0.00 $3,648.00
CODE ENFORCEMENT/ PITCHESS / NUISANCE PR $3,472.00 $0.00 $3,472.00 SRI CAMPUS $13,200.00 $0.00 $13,200.00
MPCC PG&E EMINENT DOMAIN $310.00 $0.00 $310.00
1005 O'BRIEN $1,872.00 $0.00 $1,872.00
UUT CLAIM/LITIGATION $12,648.00 $311.09 $12,959.09
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT $3,321.00 $274.36 $3,595.36
CITY COUNCIL $783.00 $0.00 $783.00
3705 HAVEN $768.00 $0.00 $768.00
KUNZE DOG LAWSUIT $527.00 $0.00 $527.00
CITY LEGAL EXPENSES PAID BY CITY $95,616.59
CITY LEGAL EXPENSES PAID BY DEVELOPERS $71,211.00
TOTAL $166,827.59
JUNE 2023 CITY LEGAL SERVICES - Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Page M-2.2 ATTACHMENT A
Administrative Services

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/15/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-185-CC
Informational Item: Short term rental compliance update Recommendation
This is an informational item and does not require City Council action.

Policy Issues
Short-term rentals (STR) are subject to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 3.16.

Background
TOT administration, STR compliance, and related audit services are provided to the City through HdL Companies. In the summer of 2021, HdL initiated a detailed analysis of STR listings on a variety of online published methods, including AirBnB, VRBO, Home Away, etc. This process resulted in the creation of a full inventory of STR’s within the city limits of Menlo Park. The information gathered included the full name of the owner and the physical address of the unit. Each STR is tracked and updated nightly with valuable data that can include items such as number of nights rented, average occupancy rates, room rates, as well as trend and usage reporting.

Following identification, HdL conducted a targeted education and compliance campaign designed to inform STR Hosts of their obligations to file and remit the tax. Each lodging provider was provided a full overview of the requirements and how to best comply both in the present and the future. During the registration process, HdL offers a variety of support options to the Host including online filing, file-by-phone, email, and registration via standard mail. HdL tax specialists are available throughout the process to provide support to the STR community and assist in the registration process.

Once registered, the account is moved into a standard administration process. HdL manages the filing of tax returns on a monthly basis. This includes mailing of tax returns, processing of payments, customer support, delinquency follow up, and management of the online portal for registration, filing, payments, and other support related needs.

The City Council received the first short term rental compliance update at its regular meeting on April 26, 2022 (Attachment A), which showed 26 of 67 total registered properties had confirmed stays and remitted tax, interest, and penalties totaling $30,798.

Analysis
For the fiscal year 2021-22, 44 of the 68 registered properties had confirmed stays and remitted tax, interest, and penalties totaling $230,279.

AGENDA ITEM M-3 Page M-3.1
Staff Report #: 23-185-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org For fiscal year 2022-23, 82 of the 89 registered properties had confirmed stays and remitted tax, interest, and penalties totaling $353,753. Of the 82 properties with confirmed stays, 46 are new property locations added in fiscal year 2022-23.

Impact on City Resources
STR program revenue in fiscal year 2021-22 totaled $230,279. HdL contract service fee for fiscal year 2021-22 was 35% for a total fee of $80,598. STR program revenue in fiscal year 2022-23 totaled $353,753.

HdL contract service fee for fiscal year 2022-23 was 25% for a total fee of $88,435. The contract service fee has been reduced to 20% in fiscal year 2023-24 and continues at 20% until contract termination.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b) (3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Hyperlink – April 26, 2022 City Council agenda packet:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2022- meetings/agendas/20220426-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf Report prepared by:

John McGirr, Retired Annuitant – Finance and Budget Manager Report reviewed by:

Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
Page M-3.2