Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-31 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: January 31, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 pm 7 Chair Summa called to order the January 31st Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 8 meeting. 9 10 Administrative Associate Ms. Veronica Dao conducted the roll call and announced all 11 commissioners were present. 12 13 Oral Communications 14 15 Chair Summa invited members of the public to share their comments with the Commission on 16 items not on the Agenda. 17 Ms. Veronica Dao announced there were no speakers in person and one speaker on zoom. 18 Bruce Arthur, Chairperson of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), spoke 19 regarding a motion PABAC passed for a request for the PTC to complete a parking survey and 20 apply due diligence regarding CalTrans’ plans for adding bicycle lanes along El Camino. It’s 21 worth investigating, despite the loss of parking should those bike lanes be added. 22 23 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 24 Chief Planning Official Amy French announced there were no changes from staff. 25 26 City Official Reports 27 1.Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments28 Senior Transportation Engineer Mr. Rafael Rius stated that staff are still waiting for a response 29 from CalTran with regards to setting up a community meeting about the El Camino Real 30 repaving and bikeways project. The Parking Manager will be bringing a comprehensive update 31 to the PTC sometime in March. 32 Commissioner Hechtman inquired about the letter received from CalTran requesting approval 1 on design aspects which prompted the City to forward questions to CalTran, and if the City 2 received answers to their questions. 3 Mr. Rius responded they had received answers from CalTrans, along with a draft set of plans. 4 Both are posted on the website; he would ensure Ms. Dao had the link available for the 5 commissioners. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the City had results yet from the survey Public Works did for 7 the Wilkey Way Bike Bridge resurface project. 8 Mr. Rius stated he had not yet seen those results; he would inquire with Public Works and 9 report back to the PTC. 10 Chief Planning Official Ms. Amy French thanked council and stated that there are a number of 11 upcoming meetings as noted in the report and staff hoped to have a study session on the 12 CalTrans El Camino bike lanes and parking project on an Agenda in the near future. 13 14 Study Session 15 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 16 17 2. Study Session: Peer Cities Comparison and Stakeholder Interviews Results 18 19 Chief Planning Official Amy French reported that Monday night Council had a retreat, and they 20 modified the priority for what used to be called Economic Recovery and Transition, now 21 referred to as Economic Development and Transition. Staff retained a consultant back in 2021, 22 but never published the report that was received the end of the summer 2022. That report took 23 a look at Redwood City and Mount View as comparable cities, then staff modified the scope to 24 expand it in the Spring of 2023, and PTC had the introduction to the current iteration of this 25 study last October 25th. The consultants are back again to talk about the outreach interviews 26 and comparisons to the peer cities. 27 Ms. Surabhi Barbhaya, consultant from Michael Baker International, introduced herself and 28 colleagues Dan Wery and Cameron Savois and provided results from the peer city interviews 29 and stakeholder outreach to compare commercial zoning codes with Palo Alto’s codes. City’s 30 chosen were Santa Monica, Los Altos, Redwood City, and Mountainview. Additionally, they 31 interviewed a mix of seven business owners and property managers to help inform the 32 consultants in recommending the needed zoning changes as related to retail recovery. Focus 33 was concentrated on downtown California Avenue, Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road in 34 east Palo Alto. Santa Monica was listed as a peer city because of their Third Street Promenade 35 as this is where their retail is concentrated, however the study will show all of the commercial 36 districts in Santa Monica included in the matrix. Similar to Santa Monica, the consultants 37 focused on the Commercial Retail Sales zones in Los Altos which is located in their downtown 1 triangle area and determined that to be relevant to the California Avenue area in Palo Alto. 2 Redwood City and Mountainview information was blended to create the matrix, the 3 information used was from their prior interviews last year, which was analyzed based on their 4 current element cycles. 5 Mr. Dan Wery explained that the peer city’s zoning comparison considered twelve different 6 criteria with focus on seven for the purpose of the study results. Ground floor restrictions 7 compared the Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO), the ground floor (GF) and the residential (R) 8 combining districts to Santa Monica’s BC zone and in Los Altos, their CRS zone. Palo Alto was 9 found to be far more restrictive with more levels of complication and some overlapping base 10 zones. Santa Monica has a limitation on formula or franchise restaurants and their definition for 11 that is 150 locations nationwide. Palo Alto uses formula retail. Santa Monica allows more uses 12 than is allowed in Palo Alto, “by rights” uses that are not subject to a conditional use permit or 13 other restrictions. City of Los Altos uses retail, restaurants, kind of cocktail lounges, personal 14 services, like Palo Alto. Santa Monica allows a greater variety of uses on those ground floors. All 15 three cities were comparable regarding conditional uses. Palo Alto and Santa Monica both have 16 size limits that trigger conditional use permits when reached. Palo Alto’s RPO does not allow a 17 change of existing retail use to anything other than retail or retail like, which again makes Palo 18 Alto more restrictive. They prohibit changes from retail city wide, so it’s very comprehensive, to 19 all retail areas. And the relief values, if you want relief from that provision, it’s the highest 20 standard you can get. In the non-ground floor in R combining districts, which is a lot like El 21 Camino Real and some of the other zones, then there is an easier standard which is the 22 alternative active use. In the non-ground floor and R combining district areas, that’s a much 23 easier hurdle, noting that takes out the ground floor and the R combining districts which cover 24 all of University and all of California Avenues. 25 Commissioner Reckdahl inquired how often Palo Alto uses the alternative active use for the 26 retail preservation. 27 Ms. French answered not often. 28 Chair Summa noted that some of the slides in the presentation were not accurate in terms of 29 what Palo Alto allows as retail use, providing it’s not office space, on the ground floor. 30 Vice-Chair Chang noted the comparison matrix seemed that in the Bayside Conservation Area 31 there was a problem if you changed from a retail use. It’s actually no different than the 32 downtown, maybe with the exception of a different square foot threshold based on size. 33 Mr. Wery continued with the comparisons and moved on to the parking minimum standards. 34 Santa Monica has no minimum standards any more, they eliminated those in 2017 or 2019. 35 They’ve now established parking maximum ratios and for example, would be like maximum of 36 two or 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail, which is very low. Most minimums in most 37 cities would be around 3.5 or four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Los Altos has a parking district, 38 parking requirements are exempt for the first 1.0 floor area ratio; they can make any change 39 they want, and don’t need to provide any additional parking and they’ve got six acres of 1 parking that they’ve provided. 2 Chair Summer inquired if the same data was used for all three situations, as it didn’t seem as if 3 they did, which makes the comparison between the three cities difficult. 4 Mr. Wery agreed, and stated that’s because all three cities handle parking differently, and the 5 other reason we’re looking at this is because particularly University and California are almost all 6 within one half mile of the stations, the State has not prohibited the use of minimum parking 7 requirements in those areas. In Palo Alto the formula retail applies to all businesses with ten or 8 more locations nationwide. It’s a pretty low standard for all franchises. That restriction comes 9 in the R retail district which applies on California Avenue, so this is really applicable to California 10 Avenue. If you have any sort of franchise really with ten or more nationwide, then you need to 11 get a Conditional Use permit (CUP). That does not apply downtown, midtown or on El Camino 12 Real. By contrast, Santa Monica has a similar formula definition, but it’s limited to restaurants 13 with more than 150 locations nationwide. So, a much higher standard in terms of the number 14 on a nationwide basis and it’s limited to just restaurants. Those would be limited to upper 15 floors, they are not allowed on the ground floor, they’d be allowed on a second floor or upper 16 floor, so if it were in kind of a mall, food court type arrangement, that might work. The other 17 criteria there is also if you’re placing orders at a walk up window or counter or machines. It’s 18 really narrowly targeted towards fast foods. In Los Altos, there is no limit, there is no restriction 19 on formula retail, in fact they don’t have any chain stores in terms of retail, and they’re actually 20 looking to maybe get some and bring a little new activity into their downtown. 21 Cameron Savois, Michael Baker International, presented the stakeholder interviews information 22 which included a standard series of questions focused on retail, ground floor regulations, 23 permitting processes, parking, strategies to improve retail, among other recommendations. 24 Santa Monica loosened use restrictions to allow for creative and temporary uses that provide 25 entertainment to address high vacancy rates, they also don’t have minimum parking 26 requirements and they removed them prior to the implementation of Assembly Bill 2097, but 27 they do have a parking cap in their downtown. In Los Altos, they allow for a change of use by 28 right, and they do not use Conditional Use permits, the use is either permitted or it’s not 29 permitted. Mountain View and Redwood City also allow change of use, including retail, by right 30 with no discretionary approval required. In Redwood City, similarly there are no restrictions on 31 change of ground floor uses, they also provide incentives for retail mixed use and technical 32 assistance in the form of a retail task force to attract and facilitate new business. Also, in 33 Redwood City they allowed change of use of existing space without the requirement for 34 additional parking. Seven business stakeholders were also interviewed that included the 35 Chamber of Commerce, Premier Property management, Freud Bothers, Ellis Partners, 36 Performance Gains, Italico and [TIMESTAMP 49:01 Unintelligible] Kitchen. One of the key 37 recommendations we received related specifically to the City Code, first one being rescinding 38 the ground floor retail protection ordinance. Secondly, rescind formula retail on California 39 Avenue. Some other comments included leave it to the market, don’t force retail, and the code 40 is too rigid and narrowly defined. The standards are too complex. 41 Ms. Barbhaya went over the next steps which included two more appearances before the PTC, 1 zoning recommendations in February and the parking study recommendations in March. Also in 2 March the consultants will provide a summary of the parking study recommendations that has 3 most to do with the impact of AB 2097; basically you don’t need to provide parking for 4 multifamily mixed use and any commercial areas that are within half a mile of transit and 5 [TIMESTAMP 51:15 Unintelligible] California Avenue and University, and the downtown area. 6 The final presentation will be in May or June in front of City Council. 7 8 Chair Summa opened public comments. 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS 10 There were no public comments. 11 Commissioner Templeton expressed concerns about the content and how it’s presented and 12 asked if all of the future meetings with the consultants are for study sessions. 13 Ms. French stated that any zoning changes would have to be reviewed and recommended 14 through the PTC, particularly any changes to Title 18. 15 Commissioner Templeton commented that this presentation is not currently in a form that the 16 community can respond to. It is inaccurate and some of the comparisons are incomplete, and 17 her hope was that her colleagues could be more articulate given the disturbances out front. The 18 point is that the feedback from the PTC would likely be about improving the accuracy and 19 making sure that this is something that the Commission can see Palo Alto’s community 20 reflected in. It’s really important. There’s a lot of work here still to be done. 21 The PTC took a brief break and returned with all members present. 22 Commissioner Hechtman commented that the presentation lacked comparisons but 23 appreciated that Santa Monica has taken a comparatively aggressive approach to dealing with 24 parts of their downtown where they felt it was not living up to its potential. He would have 25 liked to have seen more information on Redwood City and Mountain View and noted that the 26 business stakeholder comment number ten was “need to be flexible and work with the market” 27 and really, that’s where he hoped this process takes Palo Alto. Not a gutting of the RPO, but 28 rather a refinement so that we have the flexibility to react to changing market conditions and 29 keep the downtown and California Ave and other retail areas vibrant. 30 Vice-Chair Chang agreed with the previous two Commissioner’s comments and noted that they 31 really haven’t seen information that clearly outlines the current problems. To make ordinance 32 changes there not only needs to be an accurate understanding of what the baseline is and a 33 clear understanding of specific problems. There isn’t an adequate problem definition unless 34 there is and it hasn’t been presented. She’s concerned with the gathering of the data and if 35 there is enough data to provide apples to apples comparisons. Seven data points is not enough 36 when three of them are landlords, one Chamber of Commerce, and three tenants. None of 1 which are traditional retail. None of which are in downtown Palo Alto, or restaurants from each 2 area. There’s Italico who has several locations throughout town and serves particular clientele. 3 So, for problem identification, Santa Monica focused on the Third Street Prominade downtown 4 area, but that’s not at all really analogous to Cal Ave or anything but our downtown. In terms of 5 the scope, if we’re looking at adjusting the retail preservation ordinance, we need to 6 understand what the implications would be citywide. As part of the Housing Element, maybe 7 we relax the Retail Preservation Ordinance in other areas, other than our retail corridors right 8 now, like Cal Ave and downtown Palo Alto, but there was no benchmarking about that with 9 respect to other cities and how they’re thinking about it. We also know that coming down the 10 pike we’ve got some really big change happening in Palo Alto in areas that aren’t at all 11 analogous to both the triangle in Los Altos, as well as downtown Santa Monica and may be 12 much more analogous to say Pico, or Montana in Santa Monica, or on El Camino in Los Altos 13 because they’re going to see a ton of housing development on El Camino. We’re going to see a 14 ton of housing development on San Antonio, and the City needs to be cognizant of if retail will 15 be needed to serve those many residents that will be coming into those areas, the PTC needs to 16 think about whether to relax our retail preservation in those areas, or what is needed instead to 17 make sure people have that fifteen minute radius type thing that the PTC keeps hearing about. 18 Chair Summa noted that Commissioner Templeton left the meeting. 19 Commissioner Lu inquired if the feedback provided at this meeting would be incorporated into 20 the current slides or if they planned to create new slides in the presentation. 21 Mr. Wery stated likely both which would give them an opportunity to see how the data has 22 evolved as they work it in. 23 Commissioner Lu commented that he agreed with Commissioner Hechtman in that the 24 direction that he would at least like to go would be more like Santa Monica where Palo Alto 25 becomes moderate and make some things more flexible, and less like Los Altos, where they get 26 rid of formula retail restrictions all together or be too laissez faire. 27 Mr. Wery added that some of the data had been hard to get. They had hoped to interview a lot 28 more of the business owners. Several different meetings and appointments were set up and 29 invitations were sent, they just had a hard time getting anybody really to participate. What was 30 being reported is what they’re able to collect over several months. 31 Chair Summa inquired if they walked into business or attempted contact through the phone or 32 email. Ms. Barbhaya answered mostly through emails and the phone. Chair Summa stated that 33 if they were to walk into businesses, they would likely find that all business owners would 34 happily talk about the problems to someone they can see is listening. 35 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that he had the same reaction that Commissioner [Vice 36 Chair] Chang had, in that slide 17 lists the business stakeholder comments and that was really 37 good information, but it wasn’t actual information. For example, code is too restrictive and 38 complex, or the City is not known as business friendly, that doesn’t set the Commission up to 1 do any specific actions. It would be really nice to have concrete examples of why… where it’s 2 too restrictive or why is it not business friendly and… eventually the City is going to have to 3 change the laws and we want to know what aspects we should be changing. More data is 4 needed and that data needs to be in a form that is actionable and lead the PTC to specific things 5 as opposed to generalities. 6 Commissioner Akin asked if the consultants had reached out to any of the list of business that 7 the PTC shared in October who had relocated out of Palo Alto. Ms. Barbhaya stated they had 8 not talked to them and were unsuccessful in reaching out to them. 9 Commissioner Akin stated that echoes Commissioner Reckdahl’s comments about 10 understanding the fundamental causes of the problems. Regarding Santa Monica and parking, 11 one might argue that Santa Monica eliminated parking minimums and established maximums 12 early because they had a glut of parking and structures and another factor that suggests that is 13 that they’re actually eliminating entire floors of parking structures and turning them into 14 outdoor cinemas. How this translates to the task at hand is they need to come up with 15 commensurate descriptions of the amount of parking that are available in these cities so that 16 staff can guess what kind of zoning changes would be needed to provide adequate parking in 17 Palo Alto without having an access. This is a hard problem that should be considered at the 18 subsequent meeting, but at the very least something like parking space per square foot of 19 retail, something that makes a measurement that can be compared between cities. 101 Alma, 20 the Mark, Mio over on Everett and more than a dozen decent sized medium density 21 developments, including all of those that came about as part of the SOFA realignment, and 22 these are all within a short walk of the downtown business area. Show a graph that says how 23 much more retail space is expected per unit of living space, housing space added. There is a 24 study that did an analysis of how retail changes with densification in an area, and it says 25 unsurprisingly that retail space does go up as density increases. Perhaps a little more 26 surprisingly it says that the amount of retail space per resident goes down and the reason for 27 this is fairly obvious… that this is what increasing density means. There is less space for 28 everything per person, less space for retail, less space for housing. Less living space. That’s what 29 increasing density means. Palo Alto needs to understand where they are on that spectrum in 30 order to make a reasonable decision about rezoning for additional amounts of housing, where 31 it goes and for how much. 32 Chair Summa stated most of her comments had already been covered by her colleagues. 33 Regarding the parking that Commissioner Akin mentioned, Palo Alto has Traffic Demand 34 Management (TDM’s) that provide automatic reductions of parking that the Planning Director 35 can use at his discretion and there is in Lieu parking downtown. Pre-pandemic was noted in the 36 data however, Palo Alto still had a huge shortage of parking spots downtown with no way of 37 knowing how much of that will change. It created a horrible undesirable impact on 38 neighborhood streets, so there are already mechanisms in place. Action 9, to consider 39 amending section 1876.2, it’s actually .020, architectural review of the municipal code to enable 40 more over the counter approvals for minor changes… we already have that in our code. It’s 41 1876.020 b1B, and that gives the Director, one person of planning and development services, 1 the ability to designate what are minor enough projects so they don’t have to have any review 2 whatsoever. The PTC is finding it difficult to actually get the level of data that we need from 3 your report, there are also mistakes. Los Altos in the report was considering introducing CUPs 4 specifically for nail salons and some other personal services, but it was nail salons because they 5 have too many of them in their downtown area, and that’s the way Palo Alto uses CUPs. To 6 have some control over the mix of businesses, which is very important for a healthy retail area. 7 At a higher level, it’s not either explained in the report or identified the cause of either 8 vacancies or lack of attractiveness of our retail spaces and at the last PTC meeting the 9 Commissioners anecdotally provided a list of businesses that had relocated to outside of Palo 10 Alto and are still in business. That’s the kind of specific information the PTC needs to make 11 changes to zoning codes that are meaningful in terms of achieving retail goals; and not just sort 12 of ideology based assumptions. Seven stakeholders aren’t enough when there isn’t a difference 13 in variety. It was the Chamber of Commerce downtown and three large property holders, no 14 business operators, and we have legacy businesses that have been here for generations in 15 some cases, and they would love to information on what they thought about what the 16 problems were. The Commissions intuition is that the problems are the high rents, and the 17 change in patterns of purchasing things with the internet. But the PTC can’t affect those things 18 at all by changing zoning codes. If zoning codes are going to change, let’s do it in a meaningful 19 way that means something, not just gives us the impression that we’re streamlining and 20 relaxing things when it’s not going to help at all. City Council motions from their August 21 meeting emphasized getting information from all the retail areas across the city and one 22 member emphasized El Camino south of Paige Mill Road because that is the downtown for a 23 huge portion of Palo Alto. A lot of hard work has gone into this report, but much more rich 24 information is needed before the PTC can address making zoning code changes. 25 Commissioner Hechtman added that the purpose of this project was for economic 26 development, to make the retail component of the city more vibrant. His fear is that this report 27 will be rushed and move past the PTC and go on to City Council for zoning changes that don’t 28 actually help the business community. It’s important to make sure the business community is 29 involved in these discussions. It’s a critical component that is being overlooked. If it’s a budget 30 constraint, they should consider finding a way to make it happen. 31 The Commission thanked the consultants and staff for their work. 32 33 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 34 Commissioner Hechtman shared some plumbing issues he had over the New Year holiday and 35 found out that in order to fix a broken pipe a permit is required. He used the online portal for 36 making an appointment, he was able to get one within 15 minutes and within the hour he had 37 his permit. Many thanks to Ariella Yendler. The process for that worked great. He called a few 38 other plumbers for additional estimates and found it was a clog not a broken pipe. He called 39 Ms. Yendler who referred him to the process for unused permits. Many thanks to all those who 40 helped him in such a fast manner, and the organization that built the mechanism that worked 1 so well. 2 Commissioner Reckdahl shared his water heater break story and the Palo Alto process that 3 worked well for him. The permit is scheduled for Friday, so he reserved the finality of it. 4 5 ADJOURNMENT 6 7:51 pm 7 Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendasand Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Doria Summa 5 Vice-Chair Bryna Chang 6 Commissioner Allen Akin 7 Commissioner Bart Hechtman 8 Commissioner George Lu 9 Commissioner Keith Reckdahl 10 Commissioner Carolyn Templeton 11 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 12 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 13 14 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 15 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 16 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 17 18 Write to us. Email the PTC at:Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 19 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 20 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 21 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 22 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 23 24 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 25 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 26 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 27 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, servicesand meetings in a 28 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 29 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 30 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 31 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodation must be submitted at least 32 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 33 34