9 5
9 1
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: May 18, 2026
Report #: 2603-6113
TITLE
FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of Title 16 (Building Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Retail Vitality Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, including changes to the Zoning Map for parcels zoned CN(GF). CEQA Status: The Ordinance is Consistent with and Represents Implementation of Adopted Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, for Which an Environmental Impact Report (Comprehensive Plan EIR) was Certified on February 5, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend various sections of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) (Attachment A) to implement retail vitality measures related to Comprehensive Plan policies and the City Council's 2025 Enhance Business Vibrancy Priority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The draft ordinance in Attachment A builds on retail conditions and strategies considered in 2023 and 2024, and an interim retail ordinance adopted in December 2024. Approval of this updated ordinance is intended to:
Codify interim ordinance provisions;
Address other topics raised by the City Council in November 2024 while considering the interim ordinance (such as expanding retail-like and office uses, and considering amendments to the retail preservation ordinance);
Allow a broader range of retail and other commercial uses; Reduce confusion from overlapping/conflicting regulations; Rename the Conditional Use Permit to Administrative Use Permit to better reflect the current permit process;
Add standard conditions for specific uses and remove overly subjective findings; Streamline parking requirements and permit approvals;
9 5
9 1
Reduce ground-floor vacancies; and
Encourage vibrancy in the City’s commercial areas; including Downtown and California Avenue.
Amendments to the zoning code are shown as underlined/strikeout in Attachment A.
Annotations in the margin guide the reader to the rationale behind substantive changes. The analysis section summarizes key topics addressed in the draft ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The current ordinance is the culmination of multiple sequential efforts.
Previous Work Effort
In 2023 and 2024, the City engaged commercial retail consultants to analyze the retail market and develop a retail zoning strategy. Streetsense prepared a comprehensive economic development strategy report in June 2023. Subsequently, Michael Baker International conducted local outreach, review of peer city initiatives and other policies to identify land use regulations that would support a more robust retail environment. This work effort culminated in a retail revitalization study in May 2024 and series of zoning amendment options in August 2024.
On September 18, 2024,1 the City Council Retail Committee reviewed the final retail revitalization study and provided direction to staff on several zoning amendments that should be implemented immediately to support retail and retail-like uses in the City.
Recommendations included ways to streamline retail zoning regulations, increase flexibility in permitted land uses, and update parking policies to meet current needs. Although the PTC had held six hearings on the Retail Study (in addition to four meetings of the PTC retail ad hoc committee), the PTC had not yet considered or recommended specific zoning amendments. In the interest of time, the City Council therefore adopted an interim ordinance to adopt the following amendments identified by the City Council Retail Committee:
Modifying the formula retail definition to allow for larger enterprises; Increasing flexibility for “retail-like” uses and expanding permissible uses for ground floor spaces, including personal services, allowances for pet grooming, financial institutions, and automobile showrooms; and
Replacing the high threshold required for waivers and adjustments to meeting use regulations.
1 City Council Retail Committee September 18, 2024 agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14946; staff report and attachments:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=5833&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=11747
9 5
9 1
These amendments were adopted on November 18, 2024 (first reading) and December 16, 2024 (second reading),3 and will remain effective until December 31, 2026, or upon adoption of a replacement ordinance.
Current Work Effort
This current work effort aims to replace the interim ordinance with codified amendments and support the 2026 Council priority to Enhance Business Vibrancy. The ordinance also aims to address topics discussed by the City Council during consideration of the interim ordinance in November 2024 and identified by staff based on issues that have come up in discussions with potential tenants and as part of permit applications:
Pedestrian-Orientation: Continue to refine the definition of retail-like land uses to establish a performance-based criteria that promotes pedestrian activity in commercial areas (e.g., for medical office uses such as ophthalmologists that have a glasses sales component);
Expanded Uses: Expand the range of permitted uses allowable in the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts, and include standards to allow non-retail like uses in certain circumstances;
Retail Preservation Ordinance: Review and recommend whether to amend retail preservation ordinance and evaluate changes to the geographic extent or applicability; Allowed Office Uses in Rear: Consider allowing office or other uses in the rear portion of deep commercial suites, or locations that are accessed off of side streets or alleys; Planned Communities: Allow Director authority to interpret list of allowed uses in commercial Planned Community zones that allow "retail" to allow some of these "retail- like" uses; and
Pet-Related Uses: Consider where pet grooming, cat cafes, and pet stores should be allowed, and whether any of these uses are considered overnight "boarding" and therefore only allowed in a few zones.
This ordinance is still a focused effort to address major issues and commonly occurring uses.
Additional amendments may be warranted in the longer term through the comprehensive zoning code update.
3 City Council December 16, 2024 agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14537; staff report and attachments:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6659&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=12596
9 5
9 1
PTC & Council Retail Committee Review
On October 29, 2025, the PTC held a Study Session to review options and recommendations for a permanent retail ordinance and to provide feedback to staff on preparing a permanent ordinance to replace the interim ordinance.
On January 22, 2026, the Council Retail Committee—composed of Keith Reckdahl, Pat Burt, and Julie Lythcott-Haims)—held a Study Session to review recommendations for a permanent ordinance, including the PTC’s feedback. The Retail Committee supported many of the recommendations put forward by City staff and supported by the PTC and had the following additional comments:
Consider allowing bars (without food), but with limitations or conditions, and an entertainment zone on California Avenue.
Enforce transparency and other design standards to ensure that all ground-floor uses are activated, including medical offices or personal services uses. Add ground-floor flexibility by allowing offices in certain locations if they are neighborhood-serving.
Consider more blended parking rates.
Avoid merging of retail and retail-like use categories. Limit changes to the Retail Preservation regulations to potential exemptions for multifamily residential and office/manufacturing zones.
Staff and consultants addressed these comments and integrated these ideas into the draft ordinance in Attachment A.
On March 25, 2026, the PTC considered a draft retail vibrancy ordinance, and recommended unanimously that the City Council adopt the ordinance. A summary of the discussion, areas of concern, and topics deferred to the City Council are as follows. The PTC was generally supportive of the draft regulations including expanded uses, such as bars; and permit streamlining, such as allowing certain uses by right and replacing subjective findings with objective regulations and standard conditions. The PTC discussed at length the ways that medical office, including hybrid medical/retail/personal service uses, could be regulated on University and California Avenues. The PTC ultimately deferred to the City Council to make this determination, asking the Council to clarify which types of medical office uses are appropriate on these key retail corridors. See Analysis section below for further details. The PTC suggested modifications that could be addressed by the staff in the revision of the ordinance prepared for the City Council, herein, regarding topics such as parking, fees, PC zones, and retail preservation regulations. These comments, staff responses, and changes to the draft ordinance in response to these comments are summarized in Attachment F.
9 5
9 1
ANALYSIS
The draft ordinance, including amendments to the zoning code shown as underlined/strikeout is provided as Attachment A. A summary of the draft ordinance is provided in Attachment B.
The discussion below analyzes the key themes addressed in the ordinance.
Eating and Drinking Services
The draft ordinance modifies how eating and drinking uses are regulated to reflect contemporary uses, expand potential revenue sources, and streamline review and approvals.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes one explicit eating and drinking classification. In practice, staff interpret food service uses with limited seating (e.g., ice cream shop) as “intensive retail service.” Because this is not an intuitive use classification for potential retailers, it results in confusion and uncertainty. However, this use classification allows for a lower and more appropriate parking ratio compared to the eating and drinking service classification that regulates restaurants with seating and full kitchens. Additionally, the current Zoning Ordinance does not contemplate stand-alone bars—such uses must include food service that generates at least 50% of its sales.
The draft ordinance creates three use classifications to reflect the different levels of potential impact of each use and a parking standard that better aligns supply and demand. Table 1 summarizes the three definitions. To address potential noise and other impacts associated with the new bar use classification (or other uses with alcohol sales or service), the draft ordinance expands operational conditional regulations and requires a CUP to regulate hours and other site-specific conditions.
Table 1: Proposed Eating and Drinking Use Classifications Use
Classification Description Examples Locations
Eating and
drinking, full
service
Refine existing definition to capture
restaurants with table service and
seating.
Sit-down
restaurant
All
commercial
districts
Eating and
drinking,
limited service
Create new definition to capture quick
service food that's ready to eat within 15
minutes. Currently, such uses are
interpreted as “intensive retail service”
which is not an intuitive use classification
for potential retailers.
Deli, coffee
shop, ice
cream shop,
fast casual
salads
All
commercial
districts
Bars Create new definition to capture bars
with no or limited food service
Wine bar,
cocktail bar,
beer garden
CD(C), CC,
CC(2), CS, -R,
-GF, NV-MXH
9 5
9 1
The draft ordinance also removes “take out” as a separate use classification acknowledging that most eating and drinking uses include take out.
Medical Offices and Medical-Related Personal and Retail Services Currently, Palo Alto’s zoning ordinance allows medical office in most commercial zones, but prohibits it in the most desirable retail areas on California and University Avenues, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Ground-Floor Medical Office Permitted Uses, by District (Current Zoning Regulations) Zoning District/Location <5,000 sq. ft. 5,000+ sq. ft.
Midtown CUP* XCN Elsewhere P CUP
-R Combining District
(California Ave.) X XCC, CC(2)
Elsewhere P CUP
-GF Combining District
(University Ave.) X XCD(C), CD(N), CD(S)
Elsewhere P X
CS P CUP
NV-MXL, NV-MXM, NV-MXH P X
Legend: P = Permitted; CUP = Conditional Use Permit; X = Not Permitted * Midtown has conflicting regulations. While the CN regulations allow medical office with a CUP up to 2,500 sq. ft., the applicable -GF regulations prohibit medical office uses in Midtown.
As the health and wellness industry expands regionally and nation-wide, there has been an increase in hybrid uses, such as medical spas, botox providers, body scans, and IV lounges, that do not fit neatly into the City’s definition for medical office5 or personal services.6 However, 5 PAMC 18.04.030(95): “Medical office” means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California. Incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of the office use, where it supports the on-site patient services...
6 PAMC 18.04.030(114) “Personal service” means a use providing services of a personal convenience nature, and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto, including:
(A) Beauty shops, nail salons, day spas, and barbershops; (B) Self-service laundry and cleaning services....
(C) Repair and fitting of clothes, shoes, and personal accessories; (D) Quick printing and copying services where printing or copying for the particular service is done on site, so long as no quick printing or copying for any off-site printing or copying service is done on the same site; (E) Internet and other consumer electronics services; (F) Film, data and video processing shops, including shops where processing for the particular shop is done on site, so long as no processing for any other shop is done on the same site; (G) Art, dance or music studios intended for an individual or small group of persons in a class (see “commercial recreation” for other activities); and
9 5
9 1
(H) Fitness and exercise studios, or similar uses, in a space having 5,000 square feet or fewer of gross floor area (see “commercial recreation” for uses exceeding 5,000 square feet). (I) Learning centers intended for individual or small group settings, including tutoring, standardized test preparation, language classes, after-school programs, cooking classes, and similar uses. 9 5
9 1
generally, most of these uses are likely to fall under the category of “medical office” if they require a license by the State.
Both the PTC and Council Retail Committee have expressed interest in allowing these types of hybrid uses on California and University Avenues — to the extent that they look and feel like retail (e.g., have transparency into windows, allow some walk-in clientele, incorporate retail sales) and do not proliferate to the point that they overtake other retail, services, and restaurants, and change the character of a district.
Table 3 explores different ways that the City could regulate medical offices, and their relative benefits and drawbacks, such as staff resources, tenant attraction, code enforcement, and revenue generation.
The draft ordinance proposes to expand locations where medical office is permitted to include the R and GF Combining Districts (i.e., California and University Avenues), regulate design, and require a retail component. This would allow certain uses, such as optometrists with eye glass sales, but not traditional doctors’ offices.
Table 3: Options for Regulating Medical Office Uses, Benefits and Drawbacks Potential
Regulation Benefit Drawback In Draft Ordinance?
Allow medical
office by right.
Streamlines review and
approval
May lead to less
desirable uses that
could detract from
retail vibrancy
Yes, in certain
locations (see Table 2)
Allow medical
office with CUP.
Provides opportunity to
apply specific
conditions (e.g., design,
hours)
Adds time for
tenants and staff
resources
Yes, in certain
locations (e.g.,
Charleston, Midtown,
Town & Country,
Downtown)
Define specific
desired medical-
related uses.
Creates more clarity in
the code
May quickly become
out of date as new
uses and
unanticipated uses
arise
No
Establish quotas. Prevents one use from
overtaking a location
Requires staff
resources to track
Creates uncertainty
for retailers
No
9 5
9 1
Potential
Regulation Benefit Drawback In Draft Ordinance?
Regulate design. Ensures that tenant
space looks like retail
(e.g., require customer-
facing counter or retail
facing street; waiting
areas and treatment
areas in rear)
May require
monitoring/code
enforcement
Yes
Require retail
sales component.
Creates visual interest
and revenue
generation
Attracts potential walk-
in customers
May generate token
retail uses
May require
monitoring/code
enforcement
Yes, when fronting
University and
California Avenues
Require personal
services
component.
Allows flexibility to
expand medical office
to more hybrid use
types (e.g., body scans)
May lead to less
desirable uses that
could detract from
retail vibrancy
No
Expanding Permitted Uses
The draft ordinance expands permitted and conditionally permitted uses across commercial districts to reduce vacancies, improve retail vitality, and increase revenue generation.
Specifically, this includes the following changes to the draft ordinance:
Neighborhood-Serving Offices. Allow neighborhood-serving offices9 in Downtown and the California Avenue areas, but only fronting side streets or in the rear of retail spaces. Offices would not be permitted within the first 40 to 50 feet of the building frontage on California and University Avenues, respectively. Allowing non-retail uses in the rear of buildings and on side and parallel streets adds flexibility in the broader commercial districts and could help reduce vacancies in larger tenant spaces, older buildings, and historic buildings. The public comment in Attachment E highlights how historic buildings Downtown with unique architectural features that provide identity to Palo Alto are not always conducive to 100% ground-floor retail. At the 9 PAMC 18.14.040(e) "Neighborhood-serving offices" are medical offices, professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use. (f) A "Neighborhood Serving Use" is a use that primarily serves individual consumers and households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a local customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services traveling off- site.
9 5
9 1
same time, this provision aims to narrow office prohibitions to focus on California and University Avenues only where retail and retail-like uses are preferred.
Animal Care. Split the current “animal care” definition into two use classifications, based on impact (e.g., noise, odors), to acknowledge that use regulations already distinguish between “animal care, excluding boarding and kennels” and “boarding and kennels” and allow these uses in appropriate locations with appropriate permit levels (i.e., permitted by right vs conditionally permitted). The draft ordinance also creates new standards in PAMC Section
18.42.130 (Animal Care) to prevent potential negative impacts.
Permit Levels. Modify permit levels (i.e., Permitted by right vs. CUP) to streamline review and approval of uses that do not generate substantial impacts. For example, the draft ordinance allows fitness studios by right up to 5,000 sq. ft. in the GF district (vs. up to 3,000 sq. ft. currently), but requires a CUP for spaces 5,000 sq. ft. or more. This modest shift would allow more flexibility for fitness uses in the mid-size range of tenant sizes, reserving the expanded CUP process for larger tenants.
Similar Uses in PC Zones. Allow Planning and Development Services Director authority to interpret list of allowed uses in commercial PCs and allow "similar" uses, defined as uses that have:
Similar impacts on the neighborhood such as traffic generation, deliveries, noise, and lighting as listed uses; and
Similar characteristics such as building type, site arrangement, floor area, number of employees, indoor and/or outdoor uses, customer traffic, equipment use, hours of operation, parking, vehicle trips and signage as listed uses.
Uses that are identified as part of the community benefit in a PC (e.g., grocery store) would not be subject to this provision.
Waivers, Exceptions, Findings. Given these more expanded use allowances, conditions, and design criteria, the draft ordinance proposes to remove waivers, adjustments, and overly subjective findings from the -GF and -R combining district regulations, that create uncertainty for potential tenants and require more staff resources.
Streamline Use Regulations (Example: Midtown and Charleston Shopping Centers) Regulations pertaining to the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers exemplify some of the complexity of the Zoning Ordinance. Commercial use regulations are located in many sections of the code, which can create confusion for brokers and retailers trying to understand the rules.
As shown in Attachment C, in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers, potential tenants must review four separate code sections (CN district use regulations, CN district tenant size regulations, Charleston and Midtown use regulations, and Ground Floor (GF) use regulations) to identify which uses are permitted and at what sizes, only to find out that the GF use regulations supersede the other regulations. This results in extensive and inconsistent regulations, creating confusion and frustration for applicants, staff, community members and decision-makers. 9 5
9 1
The draft ordinance proposes to remove the GF combining district and use the base district use regulations for the CN district (Table 1 in Chapter 18.16) to regulate these neighborhood shopping centers. The addition of footnotes allows for modified standards specific to these locations.
Administrative Use Permits (AUP) vs. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) In many communities, CUPs are required to be reviewed at a public hearing by a decision-body such as a planning commission. Administrative Use Permits (AUPs) are the term of art for permits that are reviewed and approved by the City staff. In Palo Alto, however, CUPs are a Director decision that may only be heard by the PTC (and subsequently the City Council) upon appeal or as elevated by the Director. In practice, most CUPs in Palo Alto do not rise to the level of public hearing by the PTC. This CUP term may be unnecessarily warding off potential tenants who are not familiar with the City’s processes.
The draft ordinance proposes to change all references of Conditional Use Permit or CUP, to Administrative Use Permit or AUP to better reflect the administrative nature of this permit process and send a signal to potential tenants that the permitting process is not necessarily onerous or lengthy. The discussion above and draft ordinance continue to use the term CUP, consistent with current usage, but all references are proposed to be replaced with the new term through Section 2 of the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A).
Retail Preservation Ordinance
The Retail Preservation Ordinance currently applies to all zoning districts that allow retail as a permitted or conditional use, as shown in Attachment D. Therefore, to the extent that any retail is located in a RM-30 or RM-40 zoning district or an office/industrial district (e.g., GM, ROLM), it would need to be replaced following redevelopment of a site.
Attachment D also illustrates zones where ground-floor retail is required, separate from Retail Preservation requirements. To proactively plan for retail where it is most desired, the City may want to consider strengthening retail requirements where retail can be most successful and allowing more flexibility outside these locations.
As an interim strategy, the draft ordinance proposes to exempt the following locations from the retail preservation ordinance:
1. Residential zones: RM-30, RM-40, NV-R3, and NV-R4
a. There are at least two sites where retail preservation regulations would need to be enforced in the event of a redevelopment project. In order to develop multifamily housing, a project would need to trigger an exemption from retail preservation regulations. Exempting multifamily districts would support Housing Element policies and programs to reduce constraints to housing development for existing and future projects.
9 5
9 1
b. Notably, a project proposed under State Density Bonus Law could request a waiver from ground-floor retail requirements related to the retail preservation ordinance. A project proposed under the City’s housing incentive program would not have that option.
2. Office/manufacturing zones (except within the San Antonio Road Area Plan area): ROLM ROLM(E), RP RP(5), and GM.
a. There are at least 21 sites with office/manufacturing designations where retail preservation regulations would need to be enforced in the event of a redevelopment project. Parcels located within the San Antonio Road Area Plan, an ongoing project by the City to guide redevelopment in a 275.3-acre portion of Palo Alto adjacent to the Mountain View border, would be excluded from this exemption. This exclusion allows the City to complete the San Antonio Road Area Plan process before deciding how to apply retail preservation in the GM zone.
Transportation and Parking
The draft ordinance proposes to streamline transportation demand management (TDM) requirements and streamline parking regulations in light of changes in State law and concerns from some retailers that they cannot meet parking requirements when proposing a change of use to a classification with a higher parking standard.
California Avenue Parking Assessment District: The existing zoning ordinance identifies a blended rate of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. for sites in the Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District. The draft ordinance proposes the same blended rate for California Avenue Parking Assessment District, which would acknowledge that:
City parking ratios are generally unenforceable for most uses on California Avenue because of the applicability of AB 2097 (Gov. Code Section 65863.2); Visitors to California Avenue likely park once and walk between uses whether parking on the street or within garages; and
Existing buildings and tenant spaces typically do not provide on-site parking and cannot physically provide additional parking in the event of a change of use application that triggers additional parking spaces.
Eating and Drinking Services’ Parking Ratios: The draft ordinance modifies parking ratios for existing and new proposed new eating and drinking services definitions to acknowledge that full service restaurants generate higher parking requirements than limited service establishments, which have greater turnover.
Transportation Demand Management: The existing zoning ordinance requires TDM programs in cases where uses request parking reductions of just 1 or 2 spaces. This requirement has been burdensome for small retailers in particular. The draft ordinance modifies TDM thresholds, 9 5
9 1
exempting retail and retail-like tenants who are proposing small retail additions (less than 1,500 sq. ft.) or changes in use to other retail or retail-like use.
Shared Parking Reduction: The draft ordinance proposes increasing the discretionary shared parking reduction from 30% to 60% if an applicant can demonstrate that it is warranted. For example, this would allow an applicant to combine a reduction based on the “Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities” standard and the “Transportation and Parking Alternatives" or other categories.
Summary
In summary, this draft ordinance aims to boost retail vibrancy in Palo Alto's commercial areas, including University and California Avenue, through a package of regulatory reforms. It expands the range of permitted commercial uses (e.g., bars, hybrid medical/retail uses, pet-related uses, and other personal services), creates clearer and more intuitive use classifications for eating and drinking establishments, and reduces perceived friction by renaming Conditional Use Permits to Administrative Use Permits. It streamlines and consolidates overlapping parking and zoning regulations, allows neighborhood-serving offices in rear or side-street portions of buildings to reduce vacancies, and exempts certain residential and office/manufacturing zones from the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Together, these changes implement many of the zoning reforms highlighted in the previous Streetsense and Michael Baker International reports in an effort to reduce ground-floor vacancies, attract a wider variety of tenants, and encourage active, pedestrian-oriented street frontages in the City's key commercial corridors.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
City Council adoption of the draft ordinance, which proposes to increase permitted uses, allow more uses by right, and reduce regulatory hurdles may reduce permitting timelines, staff and decision-maker time, and commercial vacancy rates, is anticipated to increase sales tax revenues. Staff will continue to monitor sales tax revenues closely and report out on a quarterly basis to the City Council.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
As part of the larger economic development initiative, the project team conducted stakeholder interviews with landowners, businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and interviewed peer cities in 2022 and 2023. The PTC and PTC ad hoc held over a dozen study sessions and hearings to discuss these initiatives leading up to a recommendation on the interim ordinance in 2024.
These meetings have informed this current work effort. As part of this specific task in 2025, the project team interviewed local retailers and brokers to confirm key issues and seek feedback on recommended changes.
The City has received one public comment letter (Attachment E), which highlights the need for flexibility for older and historic buildings, which may not be conducive to 100% retail uses. In 9 5
9 1
these locations, allowing office or other non-retail uses could increase occupancy without detracting from the vitality of the street frontage.
Additionally, two major property owners with retail tenants provided feedback on preliminary ideas for the ordinance at the January 22, 2026, City Council Retail Committee meeting. These property owners agreed with many of the comments expressed in the previous staff reports and emphasized the following:
That the perception of a Conditional Use Permit as a hurdle is a legitimate concern. An Administrative Use Permit is perceived as a more manageable permit to obtain. Terms like “revitalization” and “interim ordinance” create uncertainty and the sense that conditions are in flux; consider better messaging about proposed changes and liaisons that support retail, such as a retail ambassador. Retail needs are getting smaller and the deep retail space, especially Downtown, can benefit from more flexible use allowances.
The City will continue to engage stakeholders as part of its priority to enhance business vibrancy. Staff will partner with stakeholders including businesses, brokers, property owners, and partners like the Chamber of Commerce to leverage their expertise and further advance this important work.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIR which was certified on February 5, 2016 (State Clearinghouse #2014052101). No new or unanticipated levels of development or adverse impacts could be anticipated that were not previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIR. Consistency findings are identified in the attached adopting ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2026 Retail Vitality Ordinance (Annotated) Attachment B: Summary of Draft Ordinance
Attachment C: Midtown & Charleston Shopping Centers Overlapping Use Regulations Attachment D: Retail Preservation and Businesses in Residential Multi-family, Office, and Industrial Zones
Attachment E: Public Comment
Attachment F: March 25, 2026 PTC Comments on the Draft Ordinance and Staff Responses APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director