HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-24 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: April 24, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:01 PM 7
Chair Summa called to order the April 24 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 8
meeting. 9
10
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Summa, Vice-Chair Chang; 11
and Commissioners Akin, Hechtman (remote), Lu, Reckdahl, and Templeton were present. 12
13
Oral Communications 14
None 15
16
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 17
None 18
19
City Official Reports 20
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21
22
Chief Planning Official Amy French displayed the PTC meeting schedule and their agenda items 1
through the end of June 2024. NVCAP (North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan) and Retail 2
Strategies Draft Report were scheduled for May 8. The City Council’s May and June target dates 3
for PDS items were displayed. City Council will not meet in July. 4
5
Senior Transportation Engineer Rafael Rius addressed the PTC. On April 29, City Council’s 6
meeting includes a Transportation workshop on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 7
as well as rail grade separation alignment alternatives. To better serve riders during peak 8
commute times, Palo Alto Link’s service hours were expanded to 7 AM to 7 PM beginning 9
Monday, April 29. The Transportation Department was accepting comments related to potential 10
parking removal for the Caltrans/El Camino Real Bikeway Project. Comments could be emailed 11
to Nathan Baird at nathan.baird@cityofpaloalto.org. Correspondence and project details were 12
available on the City’s project webpage. 13
14
Commissioner Lu requested additional details on Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Assistant City Attorney 15
Albert Yang learned on Monday evening that SB 9 had been invalidated as to charter cities by a 16
trial court in Southern California. This afternoon, Albert Yang’s office received the text of that 17
decision and was in the process of reviewing it to understand the scope. The City passed 18
ordinances implementing SB 9 in late 2020 and early 2021; however, those ordinances 19
contained a clause that the ordinances were null and void if SB 9 was repealed or materially 20
amended. Albert Yang anticipated following up with the PTC on next steps. 21
22
Commissioner Lu commented on the recent mass eviction of all tenants at 531 Stanford Avenue 1
with only a few days’ notice. Commissioner Lu read news reports about the landlord facing 2
financial penalties and wondered if the City had any follow-up actions or enforcements for this 3
landlord. Albert Yang was not closely involved with this situation but he provided the following 4
explanation. Unpermitted work was done on the property and the City determined the building 5
unsafe for continued habitation; therefore, the building was red-tagged. Generally in those 6
situations, the City's tenant relocation ordinance required the payment of relocation expenses 7
to the tenants. Commissioner Lu hoped to hear an update and have discussion soon on renter 8
protections and landlord penalties. 9
10
Commissioner Templeton requested Rafael Rius to send the PTC an email with links for relevant 11
documents or letters instead of providing the URL in written format. Commissioner Templeton 12
wanted to have the ability to use electronic links to view the information as soon as possible. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton noted the Commission does not have any breaks between May and 15
Christmas Day. Commissioner Templeton asked if staff planned to address this to the PTC. Amy 16
French had not planned a discussion in the near future; however, members’ planned absences 17
could be marked on the calendar. Amy French reminded the Commission that she would no 18
longer be in control of the agenda as of August. Chair Summa questioned whether the topic of 19
Commission breaks needed to be agendized or if it could be discussed in the Commissioner 20
Comments and Discussions section. Albert Yang felt it was appropriate for the Commission to 21
discuss the topic of member breaks during Commissioner Comments and Discussions. The 1
Commission concurred to have a discussion tonight about member breaks. 2
3
Study Session 4
2. Retail Study Session Retail Strategies 5
6
Dan Wery from Michael Baker International (MBI), Vice-Chair Chang, and Commissioners Akin 7
and Reckdahl incorporated the recommendations and questions from the last two PTC ad hoc 8
working group meetings into three sets of recommendations. 9
10
Vice-Chair Chang stated these were draft recommendations. Dan Wery’s final report would be 11
available for the May 8 PTC meeting, at which time the PTC would forward their 12
recommendations to City Council. On June 10, the Council would receive the final report and 13
the PTC’s comments, and make a decision on extending the interim ordinance. If the Council 14
extended the interim ordinance, staff would review the implications and return to the PTC to 15
enact the change. 16
17
Commissioner Akin remarked that the ad hoc would discuss parking in subsequent meetings. 18
19
Dan Wery presented the following recommendations: 20
Recommendation 1: Simplify rules. 21
Recommendation 2: Reduce uncertainty. 22
Recommendation 3: Relax some restrictions. 1
2
Dan Wery’s final report was expected to be delivered to staff and the PTC in time for the ad 3
hoc’s consideration on April 30. The final report would be included in the PTC’s packets for the 4
May 8 meeting. At the May 8 PTC meeting, ideally the PTC would forward their 5
recommendations to the City Council for their June 10 hearing. 6
7
Additional recommendations beyond zoning were outside of MBI’s scope but were included as 8
part of the ongoing strategy and implementation. 9
10
Public Comment: 11
John Shenk with Thoits Bros. recalled a survey of University Avenue retailers a few years ago, 12
which concluded that 70 to 80 percent of retailers' sales were from office workers. The City had 13
many office restrictions. To support retail, John Shenk wanted the City to encourage 14
repopulating offices with employees. John Shenk asked the PTC to focus on the RPO 15
boundaries. John Shenk opined that north of Cowper was a terrible area for retail. John Shenk 16
believed the previous zoning ordinance helped keep the overall feeling and vibrancy alive by 17
allowing spaces to be filled by non-retail or office use when retail vacancies reached a certain 18
percentage. John Shenk thought that parklets and closed streets did not support Palo Alto’s 19
overall retail vibrancy. 20
21
Chair Summa invited Commission discussion. Vice-Chair Chang suggested having the ad hoc 1
explain the draft recommendations and solicit feedback from the Commission. 2
3
Recommendation 1: Simplify Rules. Vice-Chair Chang presented the ad hoc’s ideas for 4
simplifying rules. (1) Consolidate the City’s zoning rules into an updated table. (2) Relax 5
definitions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) because many seem overly complex and 6
specific. The list of uses was outdated, such as film-developing businesses. Evaluate retail-like 7
and extensive retail categories. Vice-Chair Chang did not want to relax definitions; however, she 8
wanted to clean up the definitions and perhaps aim for results rather than defining every 9
possible retail or retail-like use. (3) No longer applicable. (4) Consider removing restrictions 10
related to take-out. Vice-Chair Chang wanted staff to explain to the PTC what the City’s 11
intention was in defining take-out. (5) Rewrite the PAMC. The ad hoc found the overlap of 12
districts and overlays confusing. To simplify, Vice-Chair Chang hoped to collapse some overlays 13
and districts or make them their own zones; however, it was a long-term project because of 14
reference to these districts in the building code and other implications. (6) Revisit Retail and 15
Ground Floor modifying districts; maybe eliminate use on side streets. Commissioner Akin 16
pointed out that Numbers 5 and 6 were multi-year projects. Vice-Chair Chang invited the 17
Commission’s feedback. 18
19
Commissioner Lu agreed with removing restrictions on take-out. The current rules constrained 20
pop-ups, a use he enjoyed in other cities such as ice cream windows next to parks or pop-ups 21
selling out of a window of another business. 22
1
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of the proposed suggestions, with the exception of 2
Number 3 that was no longer applicable. Commissioner Hechtman suggested when forwarding 3
to the Council to note that Numbers 5 and 6 were long term. 4
5
Commissioner Templeton suggested making it a bulleted list because she viewed a numbered 6
list as if they were listed in order of importance. Commissioner Akin explained it was easier to 7
refer to them by number during the ad hoc’s discussions with MBI. 8
9
Chair Summa thought Number 2 could be worded with more specificity instead of being too 10
broad and seeming overly complex. Chair Summa agreed with identifying Numbers 5 and 6 as 11
long term. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl pointed out that listing explicit uses in the code removed a lot of 14
uncertainty. Chair Summa noted some uses were not being requested, such as trade schools on 15
University Avenue. Chair Summa recommended having a way to capture uses that did not fall 16
into a category. 17
18
A list would be presented to Council to revisit definitions of commercial recreation, eating and 19
drinking services, personal services, intensive and extensive retail services, retail-like use, and 20
take-out service in Title 18. Vice-Chair Chang suggested changing the wording of Number 2 to 21
Revisit Definitions instead of Relax Definitions. 22
1
An outdated table created in 2007 was on the City’s website. MBI created a table of retail, 2
retail-like and personal service uses that Dan Wery offered to include in his draft report. 3
4
Commissioner Akin discussed Recommendation 2: Reduce Uncertainties. Eliminating CUPs 5
reduced business owners’ uncertainty about CUP requirements. Many proposed uses seem 6
practical. The ad hoc’s ideas for implementing Recommendation 2 include: (1) Eliminate CUPs 7
for uses not impacting street frontage. (2) Eliminate CUPs for combinations of otherwise 8
allowed uses. (3) Eliminate CUPs except in situations where an impact needs mitigation. (4) 9
Eliminate rules based on the types or sizes of businesses nearby, which change over time. 10
Depend on market forces to correct temporary excesses. (5) Rewrite parts of the PAMC to 11
ensure unsuccessful changes were not locked in. For example, if an office converted to retail 12
and failed, it should be possible to revert. Number 5 was likely a multiyear effort. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang added that Numbers 1, 2 and 3 were principles but the ad hoc did not have 15
CUP data. The ad hoc was relying on staff’s experience to determine if a CUP was relevant and 16
its impacts. 17
18
Regarding Number 1, Commissioner Akin noted a comparable City eliminated CUPs for a certain 19
depth from the street frontage, which was an approach the PTC might want to consider. 20
21
In reply to Commissioner Templeton’s request for clarification that eliminating CUPs referred to 1
retail, Vice-Chair Chang clarified the recommendation was solely within retail. 2
3
Chair Summa expressed less enthusiasm for Recommendation 2. Chair Summa had not seen 4
CUPs frequently and was not aware of any problem with CUPs. Chair Summa assumed the main 5
use of CUPs was to regulate businesses to avoid too many of one use or for uses that might 6
have impacts on nearby residential uses. Chair Summa did not know if an office had ever 7
converted to retail and she requested further explanation to understand that example. 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl explained that conversions from retail to office were commonly seen 10
during the dot-com boom. To encourage retail, the RPO was put in place. If a space changed 11
from office to retail, the owner lost the right to revert to office after a certain period. 12
Therefore, offices do not try retail for fear of losing the office permanently. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang stated that additional retail nodes could be a solution to protect retail in 15
concentrated areas on San Antonio and El Camino so new residents have nearby retail. 16
17
Chair Summa wondered if staff had data on CUPs. Chair Summa thought CUPs were a useful 18
tool. Chair Summa thought CUP applications were almost always granted as she did not recall 19
the PTC denying a CUP. Amy French anecdotally heard about people often leaving the counter 20
stating they do not want to pay $8,000 to come back and request a CUP. As a result, those 21
potential tenants go to a different location, which is why there were not many CUP 22
applications. Chair Summa suggested capturing data showing that CUPs were causing people to 1
not apply, making it a bigger problem to solve than the others on the list. 2
3
Vice-Chair Chang pointed out that most CUPs were approved by the director; therefore, the 4
PTC did not see the majority of CUPs. Vice-Chair Chang heard from a number of business 5
owners who have said it took a year to obtain a CUP. Meanwhile, the business has to pay 6
monthly rent while they wait. 7
8
Chair Summa inquired as to the meaning of eliminating rules based on types or sizes of 9
businesses nearby. Commissioner Akin answered that the ad hoc wanted to avoid the complex 10
rules of comparison cities. Chair Summa wanted Number 4 clarified. Commissioner Akin 11
suggested changing Eliminate to Avoid and Dan Wery agreed. 12
13
Amy French shared her research on the history of nail salon constraints on California Avenue. In 14
March of 2021, Council action prohibited street-facing nail salons, beauty shops and barber 15
shops on California Avenue. In 2022, the Planning Commission kept it in the interim ordinance. 16
17
Instead of requiring a CUP, Dan Wery suggested those uses be permitted-by-right subject to 18
special standards. If certain uses typically had conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate 19
concerns associated with that use, those conditions could become objective standards written 20
into the code to avoid requiring a CUP. 21
22
Commissioner Lu believed more data was needed to make a decision but he was generally in 1
favor of relaxing CUPs for simplicity and to avoid discouraging businesses. CUPs imposed fees 2
and increased risk for businesses. 3
4
Commissioner Lu noted most CUPs in downtown and Cal Ave was for restaurants and cafes 5
wanting to serve alcohol. Commissioner Akin stated that the ad hoc discussed alcohol but he 6
was not sure why it was not included in the list of recommendations. Vice-Chair Chang thought 7
the omission was an oversight on behalf of the ad hoc. Commissioner Akin recalled one concern 8
was open carry, which did not affect CUPs for indoor uses and maybe parklets. Commissioner 9
Lu was wary about relaxing open carry but was in support of allowing the sale of alcohol within 10
a parklet, back patio, or cafe space. Commissioner Lu remarked that Santa Monica recently 11
allowed alcohol for food businesses by right, no CUP or separate permit required, as well as to-12
go alcohol. The difference between open carry and to-go alcohol was you can pick up a bottle 13
of wine or a well-bottled and well-sealed cocktail with your to-go dinner but not consume 14
alcohol in the street. Commissioner Lu was in favor of allowing alcohol by right for food 15
businesses during normal business hours and in well-sealed to-go containers. 16
17
Chair Summa stated there were many State laws on alcohol. Chair Summa could recall one CUP 18
for alcohol when the business abutted a residence and there was a concern about noise. If 19
many CUPs were for alcohol use, Chair Summa wanted the PTC to think about a 20
recommendation. 21
22
Commissioner Lu asked if the ad hoc discussed reducing the uncertainty of temporary use 1
permits (TUPs), which cost $1600 for wanting to grill outside the front of Mollie Stone’s or for 2
Equinox to put bicycles in the parking lot for a few outdoor spin classes. Commissioner Reckdahl 3
replied that the ad hoc did not discuss TUPs but agreed with evaluating TUPs as a long-term 4
goal. Amy French explained that TUPs often involve the use of a tent, necessitating the fire 5
department to perform a safety review and the police department had requirements for 6
managing the circulation of traffic. Amy French did not have an answer for the TUP cost 7
rationale but noted that fees generally increased incrementally. 8
9
Commissioner Lu commented that Santa Monica’s default length for TUPs had been 45 days, 10
same as Palo Alto but Santa Monica recently extended the length to 180 days. Santa Monica 11
allowed ancillary entertainment in many businesses by right. Commissioner Lu believed it was 12
reasonable to consider changing TUPs to allow live music, for example. 13
14
Commissioner Hechtman asked if any of the five suggestions under Recommendation 2 could 15
be implemented in the short term. Commissioners Reckdahl and Akin agreed that the first three 16
could be implemented in the short term. Commissioner Hechtman advised to note for Council 17
the anticipated timeline for the suggestions under Recommendation 2. 18
19
Commissioner Hechtman was in support of Numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 but wanted to talk about 20
Number 3. For Numbers 1 and 2, since alcohol sales were regulated by the State’s ABC, 21
Commissioner Hechtman suggested that staff work with Albert Yang to determine if the ABC’s 22
conditions were sufficient. Number 3 eliminated CUPs except if an impact needed mitigation, 1
which Commissioner Hechtman believed was the definition of a CUP. The City Council decided 2
which uses they want but that had has the potential for undesirable impacts, necessitating 3
review to possibly condition the use, which was when a conditional use permit was required. 4
Commissioner Hechtman believed there should never be uncertainty over whether a business 5
would get their CUP. The only uncertainty was what conditions would be imposed and if the 6
applicant was willing to accept those conditions. A business should not be turned down 7
because too many of the same businesses exist on the street. An entertainment venue was 8
possibly allowed on Cal Ave but if somebody proposed a 6000-seat arena, you might turn it 9
down because the impacts could not be conditioned sufficiently to protect the rest of the 10
neighborhood. 11
12
Besides the application fee, for example, applicants spend about $20,000 to design the interior 13
of a clothing store to demonstrate to the City, or about $50,000 to $100,000 for paperwork to 14
support an application to open a restaurant with a kitchen, which was a waste of money if the 15
CUP was declined. Commissioner Hechtman believed in eliminating CUPs when an impact was 16
not reasonably expected to need conditioning. Commissioner Hechtman agreed with Dan 17
Wery’s suggestion of replacing CUPs with objective standards so it is a matter of right. If 18
applicants do not accept the objective standards, they will not rent that space. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Lu’s statements about looking for best 21
practices in other cities. 22
1
Vice-Chair Chang agreed with many of Commissioner Lu’s ideas, including investigation into City 2
requirements for alcohol permitting versus State law. Although TUPs were not discussed by the 3
ad hoc, Vice-Chair Chang thought TUPs should fall under the same recommendation category as 4
CUPs, so it was not just reducing uncertainty but reducing barriers to the applicant and 5
increasing vibrancy. Commissioners have heard from residents that they wanted retail areas to 6
be livelier and have more music. Vice-Chair Chang thought the process should be evaluated to 7
make it less costly for a business to apply for a permit in order to make things livelier. Vice-8
Chair Chang wanted to consider extending the 45-day default permit length. 9
10
Chair Summa agreed with Vice-Chair Chang’s suggestions on TUPs, especially if it was a vacant 11
retail space. Chair Summa stated it was undesirable to charge another $1600 to continue a use 12
after 45 days. 13
14
Amy French displayed the fee list for CUPs, ranging from $1,700 to $8,600, and the fee for a PTC 15
hearing. Many times, staff sees TUPs for pumpkin patches and Christmas trees. The CUP fee for 16
alcohol service was $4536. A late-night permit (after 10 PM, no alcohol service) was $8600. The 17
applicant had to pay $14,418 for a PTC hearing, regardless who requested the hearing. 18
19
Commissioner Templeton questioned how frivolous calls were prevented. Amy French 20
remarked that staff did not determine if something was frivolous. Albert Yang explained that 21
the appellant paid a fee of several hundred dollars because of Council’s policy decision to avoid 22
an aggrieved resident paying thousands of dollars to have a hearing on an issue. Albert Yang 1
explained that the cost of TUP fees were based on studies of how much staff time in various 2
departments was required to process an application. It was not allowed to charge more than 3
costs for staff time. 4
5
The ad hoc made the following suggestions for implementing Recommendation 3: Relax 6
Restrictions. (1) Retail Preservation Ordinance (RPO) should apply only to the customer-facing 7
frontage portion. (2) The RPO should apply to University Avenue, California Avenue, and 8
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones. The RPO should not apply to areas such as Lytton, 9
Hamilton, Cambridge, and El Camino Real. (3) Relax the RPO for resident-serving businesses. (4) 10
Remove constraints on non-restaurant formula retail on California Avenue. (5) Increase the 11
numerical threshold for restaurant formula retail on California Avenue, perhaps 50 sites at 12
most. Beyond this limit, require a CUP. (6) Revisit size constraints for commercial recreation. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl stated that the consultants believed retail demand in Palo Alto had 15
decreased since people were working from home and shopping online. One possibility to fill 16
retail space vacancies was by allowing non-retail, resident-serving businesses that currently did 17
not qualify in those areas. It was understood there were some pedestrian-dominated 18
businesses. The suggestion was to keep the RPO unchanged in a primary area such as University 19
Avenue, Cal Ave and the neighborhood areas such as Midtown but loosen the RPO in secondary 20
areas such as Lytton and Hamilton to allow those vacancies to fill and provide businesses that 21
residents need and want. Niche businesses may not need a full retail space but the RPO 22
required businesses be wholly filled with retail. This proposal would maintain retail in the front 1
half of the space but allow another type of business in the back half. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl added that the boundaries of the primary and secondary areas needed 4
to be worked out in detail, as well as the types of businesses that would be allowed in the 5
secondary area. Vibrant retail areas such as Emerson, Ramona and Bryant may be included. For 6
example, if a dental office goes in a vibrant area that required a lot of pedestrians, foot traffic 7
would drastically change from hundreds of customers per hour to a dozen customers per hour. 8
9
In regard to Number 5, the current threshold for formula retail was 10. Increasing the numerical 10
threshold for chain restaurants allowed on Cal Ave. would be considered but a larger chain 11
would require a CUP to ensure it fit into the look and feel desired on Cal Ave. 12
13
Vice-Chair Chang addressed Number 6. The threshold for a CUP was 5000 sq. ft. The consultant 14
suggested 3000 sq. ft. but the PTC could consider the appropriate threshold. 15
16
Any suggested changes to the RPO were long term. The PTC could make a specific 17
recommendation to the Council to remove constraints on formula retail as suggested in 18
Numbers 4 and 5. Implementation could immediately make some of the vacant retail spaces 19
more attractive. Numbers 4 and 5 were easy to immediately implement because it affected one 20
definition in a limited section of the PAMC. 21
22
Commissioner Akin remarked that there was a belief that non-restaurant formula retail was 1
trending toward smaller, more differentiated versions of large formula retailers such as Target. 2
A Cushman & Wakefield study suggested this was the result of increased density. When the 3
space per retail business decreased, it is filled with smaller, more specialized retailers. If this 4
analysis was correct, that outcome would likely be seen on Cal Ave. if restraints were relaxed 5
on formula retail. 6
7
Chair Summa was in favor of considering relaxing constraints on formula retail on Cal Ave. Chair 8
Summa pointed out that the Council allowed retail-like medical on side streets but not on 9
University, so that might be one way to change the RPO areas. Chair Summa noted many 10
vacancies in office buildings where neighborhood-serving businesses could locate, so that 11
suggestion was not as attractive to her. 12
13
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of all of the proposed concepts to relax restrictions. 14
Commissioner Hechtman suggested reordering the list to express to the Council the PTC’s 15
expectation of what could be done soon and what would take more time. 16
17
Commissioner Hechtman commented on Number 3. Hotels and gyms were examples of retail-18
like. Commissioner Hechtman was staying in a hotel and he walked a half-block down the street 19
to buy dinner from a Chinese restaurant. Retail-like uses can deliver foot traffic to the rest of 20
the street. Vice-Chair Chang clarified that most retail-like services were allowed in the RPO but 21
a few may require a CUP. 22
1
Commissioner Lu was generally in support of all the suggestions under Recommendation 3 but 2
he wanted the details determined for Numbers 2 and 3. Commissioner Lu said he was a retail 3
maximalist, so he was cautious about relaxing the RPO along Lytton and Hamilton but it may 4
make sense to relax the RPO along Cambridge or El Camino. 5
6
Commissioner Lu commented that Santa Monica published some of their retail ordinances in 7
December of 2023. Santa Monica allowed nonconforming vacancies that had been vacant for 8
more than a year to have a streamlined return to their previous use. Commissioner Lu 9
wondered if Palo Alto could do something similar. Commissioner Lu surmised that many 10
buildings were nonconforming on Cal Ave and buildings in other areas of Palo Alto might be 11
nonconforming due to parking or other grandfathered-in reasons. Commissioner Lu asked if a 12
business had to spend thousands of dollars to add parking and correct deficiencies to fill a 13
vacant nonconforming building. Amy French explained a section of the code she referred to as 14
the Against Office Ordinance that was established during the dot-com boom. The code allowed 15
office indefinitely if you prove there was an office during a certain date in 2001. 16
17
Commissioner Lu queried if the former ZombieRunner or Varsity Theatre space could be filled if 18
it was vacant for a year. Chair Summa answered yes, those spaces could be filled because there 19
was a Parking Assessment District for Cal Ave. Amy French agreed but added that after the 20
Assessment District ended, there was a restriction because the code had different parking 21
ratios for uses. Downtown had a blended parking ratio of 1:250. On Cal Ave, you need 1 space 22
for every 60 sq. ft. of restaurant area, so you could not go from retail to restaurant because you 1
did not have enough parking. Chair Summa stated there was a law you could not continue the 2
office use if you had a nonconforming ground-floor office vacant for a year but Chair Summa 3
thought it did not happen often. 4
5
Vice-Chair Chang believed food halls were allowed, since multiple tenants were allowed within 6
one large space. It was difficult to fill large retail spaces. The RPO was a citywide ordinance. The 7
PTC might not want to change the RPO for Cal Ave or University. Food halls required big spaces. 8
If there was a large space on El Camino or San Antonio, food halls could be a new vibrant use. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl wondered about any unanticipated consequences of implementing 11
these proposals. Chair Summa worried that faux-tail would return, referring to businesses that 12
wanted to be located in an RPO having goods in the window to appear as if they were selling 13
inventory but it was a front for an office. Commissioner Reckdahl remarked that if you relax the 14
RPO to allow a business to locate in the back of another business and the back business was 15
lucrative enough, things like that would happen. 16
17
Commissioner Lu had given food halls more thought. Food halls was a use he loved to frequent 18
whenever he traveled; however, it might not be a good practice to include it as a specific use in 19
zoning or incentivize a use that nobody was asking for and that did not exist in Palo Alto. Since a 20
food hall had many different uses, it was unclear how to calculate the square footage required 21
for parking. 22
1
Chair Summa recalled a food hall on Cal Ave went out of business. Commissioner Akin said it 2
was Liddicoat’s on University Avenue. Commissioner Reckdahl stated people loved Liddicoat’s 3
and a number of people told him Liddicoat’s was amazing. 4
5
Recommendations Beyond Zoning: (1) Sales tax relief or other incentives to attract specific 6
business types to particular areas. Diversify the retail environment so it is more resilient and 7
can attract a wider variety of clients, without resorting to complex or inflexible zoning rules. (2) 8
Incentives to reduce office vacancy rates downtown, which could be effective more quickly 9
because it required less physical redevelopment than for equivalent amounts of new housing. 10
(3) As a special case of the two previous proposals, perform a study to consider general vacancy 11
taxes for downtown and Cal Ave but do not limit it to retail vacancies because it might creative 12
incentives to eliminate retail. (4) Cleanliness, signage, pedestrian access, public safety, and 13
parking availability. (5) Proactively plan for new CN nodes on El Camino and San Antonio. 14
15
Chair Summa asked for an explanation of Number 5. Vice-Chair Chang did not know if CN was 16
the right zone because the ad hoc was thinking of retail nodes. Vice-Chair Chang explained that 17
retail on El Camino was spread out and interrupted. The thought was to ensure there were 18
services for new and current residents. Without a plan in place, the area would end up with 19
podium parking along El Camino or housing. The surrounding cities of Menlo Park, Redwood 20
City, Cupertino and Sunnyvale had housing developments with ground-floor retail, making it an 21
attractive place to live. Specifying block(s) for retail was desirable. Rather than the RPO stating 22
retail along El Camino must remain retail, maybe retail could concentrate in certain areas so 1
there is a node making it a desirable place to visit. Chair Summa suggested changing the 2
wording to retail nodes instead of CN nodes, to which Vice-Chair Chang agreed. Chair Summa 3
did not think the City required retail in the new zoning on El Camino and Matadero. Chair 4
Summa thought it was important to require that new developments have retail, especially on 5
San Antonio. 6
7
Although it was outside the PTC’s scope, Commissioner Akin opined that incentives needed to 8
be captured on the list for Council to consider. One idea was offering sales tax relief to a certain 9
business type to encourage them to establish on University Avenue. New housing downtown 10
provided more customers for retail but a better result could be achieved more quickly by 11
encouraging occupancy of existing offices because it required less physical redevelopment. 12
Commissioner Akin thought the Council should direct staff to further evaluate the information 13
provided by the MBI consultants on vacancy taxes. 14
15
Since these ideas were outside of the PTC purview, Commissioner Hechtman suggested 16
changing the title from PTC Recommendations Beyond Zoning to Considerations for Council 17
Beyond Zoning or something similar to acknowledge that the PTC understood this was outside 18
of our realm but the PTC thought the Council should think about these ideas. 19
20
Amy French stated that the ad hoc would address parking and the effects of AB 2097. 21
22
Dan Wery remarked that the details could be included in draft amendments following the 1
principles and objectives outlined in the three sections of recommendations. Ad hoc discussions 2
would continue. Often when you have a long corridor, corners were the best retail locations 3
and midblock areas were more suitable for residential uses. If ground-floor retail was required 4
in a mixed-use development, Dan Wery suggested requiring it in nodes but allowing retail-ready 5
in other areas, meaning the space had a flexible design that could change with the market. 6
7
The PTC took a break at 8:14 PM and resumed at 8:22 PM with all Commissioners present. 8
9
3. Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024-25 Work Plan 10
11
Amy French addressed the Commission. The packet contained some recommendations and 12
goals. There were 13 goals last year and 8 goals for the coming year. Four goals were being 13
carried forward with revisions (Goals 3, 6, 7 and 13). A number of goals were met or would be 14
fulfilled during the 2023-2024 work plan term. 15
16
Amy French displayed the eight work plan goals for 2024-2025. Goal 1: Road Safety. Goal 2: 17
Retail Ordinance Updates. Goal 3: Area Planning. Goal 4: Housing Element Implementation. 18
Goal 5: State Legislation Implementation. Goal 6: Parking Programs. Goal 7: Bike and Pedestrian 19
Plan Update. Goal 8: Comprehensive Plan Policy/Program Implementation. 20
21
City Council priorities/objectives that had related PTC tasks included Economic Development 1
and Transition, Climate Change and National Environment, Housing for Social and Economic 2
Balance, Implement Housing Production Policies and Renter Protection Policies. 3
4
There was no public comment. Chair Summa invited Commission discussion. Amy French 5
invited Transportation Planning Manager Nathan Baird to address parking questions. 6
7
Commissioner Akin noted Packet Page 31 listed Goal 1 as Road Safety but Packet Page 35 listed 8
Goal 1 as Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan. Commissioner Akin preferred Road Safety. On 9
Packet Page 34, Commissioner Akin thought Retail Ordinance Updates might be interpreted as 10
referring to the RPO when the PTC would address retail more generally. Commissioner Akin 11
suggested changing it from Retail Ordinance Updates to Retail Development or Retail Support. 12
Several times in the past year, Commissioner Akin heard the public ask questions about tree 13
canopy improvement particularly in South Palo Alto, so he wondered if it should be included in 14
Goal 8 for the Comp Plan or the San Antonio Area Plan. Being behind on the goal of open space 15
per resident, Commissioner Akin wondered if Goal 8 should specifically include the Open Space 16
Development Plan. 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman asked staff to confirm that the mission statement at the beginning of 19
the new work plan was unchanged from the current work plan. Amy French replied that Packet 20
Page 34 was about the Commission and she had not changed it from the prior year’s work plan. 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang queried if San Antonio Road area planning included the ROLM and GM area. 1
Amy French responded that staff would send out a scope of work for an RFP. Today, staff would 2
look at the maps to determine the boundaries. There were two recent exercises regarding San 3
Antonio and boundaries. The BASA (Bayshore, Alma, San Antonio) PDA was approved, which 4
goes along Alma where it touches San Antonio and past 101 to capture the Homekey area. Staff 5
was looking to use the BASA boundary in the RFP to include Alma along San Antonio, the GM 6
and ROLM area south of San Antonio, as well as crossing over Fabian. 7
8
Vice-Chair Chang recalled a presentation to the PTC with a Gantt chart on various parking 9
efforts. Regarding Packet Page 36, improving parking operations, Vice-Chair Chang asked for 10
additional details on parking programs and efforts anticipated to come before the PTC. Nathan 11
Baird stated that staff was working on the downtown parking effort this year. A parking vendor 12
and some adjustment to the City’s enforcement teams were needed to make some of the 13
proposals possible. The main customer issue with parking downtown is the inability to stay 14
beyond two or three hours without paying for a full day. Transportation wanted to offer mobile 15
payment options or the ability to extend parking beyond two or three hours. Staff will evaluate 16
if better curb management options could be introduced downtown. Revenue Collections in the 17
Administrative Services Department provided permits for downtown. A vendor was needed to 18
provide more permit options and the PAMC needed adjustments to provide more flexible 19
permit options, so staff would bring those to the PTC as a package. A customer survey will be 20
sent in the next couple weeks to downtown visitors and business employees on preferred 21
mobile payment options, and to ask vendors what customers could do during an extended day 22
in downtown. Successful efforts could potentially be implemented in the rest of the city or 1
other commercial areas. License plate recognition was brought into the RPPs and staff will 2
evaluate bringing similar enforcement technology into the downtown. 3
4
On Goal 8, Vice-Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Akin’s suggestions about the tree 5
canopy for South Palo and open space development. 6
7
The PTC heard an item this past year on Crescent Park traffic calming, which Commissioner Lu 8
believed was an important part of overall road safety. Commissioner Lu wondered if there were 9
plans for the PTC to hear similar items on Lincoln, Middlefield, or other intersections, which 10
could be included in the scope of Goal 1. Amy French realized that Crescent Park could be listed 11
as a PTC accomplishment. Amy French stated it was up to the Office of Transportation to add an 12
item to their work plan. Nathan Baird was not equipped to address the question. 13
14
Amy French met with Sylvia Star-Lack, Philip Kamhi and Nathan Baird from the Transportation 15
Department to mostly work on PTC goals. Sylvia Star-Lack suggested the title change from Road 16
Safety to Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan. Amy French could add any missed PTC 17
accomplishments. Commissioner Templeton wanted the Transportation Department to feel 18
welcomed and invited because their presence at PTC meetings was important. 19
20
Commissioner Lu wanted the PTC to regularly address traffic calming measures and safety 21
improvements. As the current goal seemed entirely scoped around the plan, Commissioner Lu 22
wondered why the goal did not include other budgeted items. Amy French understood from 1
her meeting that the upcoming effort was focused on the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton voiced her concern on the use of and/or in Goal 1, reducing and/or 4
eliminating injury and death resulting from collisions. Commissioner Templeton wanted it to 5
read as eliminate death and severe injury. Commissioner Templeton asked why certain items 6
were determined to be of low priority. Amy French explained that staff was provided a chart 7
template with sections for high priorities and lower priorities. Amy French interpreted lower 8
priorities as items handled on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Templeton suggested the work 9
plan specifically state what would be done to accomplish the goals. For the lower priority, 10
Commissioner Templeton suggested listing some projects in progress for this year that the PTC 11
would see. Amy French will have the necessary conversations and will return with refinements 12
to Goal 1 for the next PTC meeting. 13
14
Chair Summa was in agreement with comments made by her colleagues on adding tree and 15
open space development as well as more detail on parking. As there were no further 16
comments, Chair Summa asked for a motion. 17
18
Motion 19
Vice-Chair Chang moved to approve the PTC 2024-2025 Work Plan with the following 20
modifications: Addition of tree and open space development, more detail on parking, as well as 21
more detail in Goal 1. 22
1
Commissioner Reckdahl seconded the motion. 2
3
Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. The motion passed 7-0 with Chair Summa, Vice-Chair 4
Chang; and Commissioners Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl and Templeton voting yes. 5
6
4. Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions 7
8
Amy French displayed a list of new housing laws. With the recent passage of the City’s Housing 9
Element, the work plan included implementation of many programs. Staff intended to present 10
more information to the PTC at the end of May. 11
12
SB 4, known as YIGBY or Yes in God’s Backyard, was effective January 1, 2024. SB 4 provided 13
faster approval for low-income housing on land owned by colleges or religious organizations. 14
No additional parking requirements could be imposed if the development was within a ½ mile 15
of high-quality public transit. Ministerial criteria would be used for streamlined design review. 16
Many religious sites were zoned R-1. Objective standards passed by the PTC and ARB focused 17
on zones other than R-1. 18
19
SB 684 becomes effective July 1, 2024. SB 684 provided faster approval of projects with 10 or 20
fewer parcels and 10 or fewer residential units in zones allowing multifamily residential on no 21
larger than 5 acres. 22
1
The PTC recently saw ordinance revisions to Chapter 18.15 related to AB 323 (density bonus 2
law) and SB 713. On May 6, the ordinance revisions will be presented to Council for approval. 3
4
AB 2097 was a 2022 State law on parking that became effective in 2023. Per AB 2097, the City 5
cannot require parking for a certain radius around train stations, except for hotels and event 6
centers. The City Zoning Code had parking requirements, so staff will propose updates to the 7
zoning code related to AB 2097. Staff implemented AB 2097 by providing information and 8
education using handouts to provide an overview and maps showing the impacted areas. 9
10
SB 712, AB 894 and AB 1308 were 2023 laws that became effective in January 2024. AB 1317 11
becomes effective January 1, 2025. 12
13
Staff wanted to have preapproved ADU floorplans by 2025. Palo Alto is part of Santa Clara 14
County Cities Association. The website citiesassociation.org had a calculator, recommendations, 15
and a gallery of ADU plans coming soon. Pre-reviewed plans for code compliance could make 16
the ADU process easier. 17
18
Albert Yang would be coming to the Commission soon to present minor changes to the code to 19
implement some of these ordinances. 20
21
Public Comment 22
Leland Wiesner commented on his experience with leasing to business owners on California 1
Avenue. Smaller prospective retail tenants were dissuaded by the $8,000 price tag and 2
uncertainty. Formula big or small box retailers could afford it but were not allowed on 3
California Avenue. The economy changed after COVID, so Leland Wiesner thought the rules 4
needed to adjust to fit the economy. To attract new people when the economy is not doing 5
well, Leland Wiesner suggested removing or relaxing, streamlining and simplifying restrictions. 6
7
Chair Summa invited comments and questions from the Commission. Commissioner Hechtman 8
wondered if it was time efficient for staff to have brought this slide presentation tonight. 9
Commissioner Hechtman thought this agenda item was not critical and it would have been 10
sufficient to address it in the staff report so staff could save time and focus on critical items. The 11
staff report could state that staff was working on ordinance changes to comply with new State 12
laws that will be presented to the PTC at a future date. In the future, Commissioner Hechtman 13
suggested that staff not deliver a presentation until it was packaged with the ordinance change. 14
15
Commissioner Akin asked if there was a status update on SB 834, which prohibited the use of 16
parking permit programs in AB 2097 areas. Albert Yang replied that the bill was pending but 17
would be tracked as it goes through the process; however, its chances were unknown. 18
19
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements, or Future Meetings and 20
Agendas 21
22
The Commission discussed time off during the summer. Vice-Chair Chang will not attend the 1
July 31 PTC meeting. Commissioner Templeton wanted to be off for the last July meeting and 2
the first August meeting. Commissioners Akin and Hechtman did not have plans but were in 3
support of taking a break. Amy French stated if the PTC cancelled the July 31 meeting, there 4
would be a four-week gap between meetings from July 10 to August 14. Commissioner 5
Templeton wanted to be off August 14 for the first week of school. Vice-Chair Chang stated she 6
would take a break when needed but was indifferent as to whether the Commission scheduled 7
a break. For quorum purposes, Vice-Chair Chang advised members to notify colleagues if they 8
planned to be off. Chair Summa was indifferent but had a slight preference for Vice-Chair 9
Chang’s suggestion. Commissioner Reckdahl thought it was reasonable to take off the first week 10
of school, August 14. 11
12
Vice-Chair Chang asked for a straw poll for July 31. The Commission agreed to take their 13
vacation day on July 31. Commissioner Reckdahl suggested that the PTC discuss summer 14
vacation planning in March to avoid conflicting vacations. 15
16
For a future meeting when the agenda allowed, Commissioner Hechtman wondered if there 17
was a need for a study session with Philip Kamhi and other members of the Transportation 18
Department to set expectations. Chair Summa agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. Chair 19
Summa asked Amy French to see if Transportation was available when there was a light PTC 20
agenda. Amy French will notify the Transportation Department of the PTC’s request. Amy 21
French remarked that Transportation was in the same department as Planning; however, 22
Transportation was now a different department. Commissioner Templeton wanted to invite 1
Transportation and show the PTC’s interest in discussing items, giving feedback, and giving an 2
opportunity for public comment. This would give Transportation an opportunity to showcase 3
some of their major projects, which shapes a lot of the planning discussion and would generate 4
a lot of public interest and comments. Vice-Chair Chang invited a more complete information 5
exchange because the PTC was very interested. 6
7
Chair Summa adjourned the meeting. 8
9
Adjournment 10
9:22 PM 11