HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-24 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
Planning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if
attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media
Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and
minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)
Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and available
for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are
referencing in your subject line.
Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as
present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to
fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members
agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for
all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and
Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To
uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage
devices are not accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Retail Study Session Retail Strategies 6:10 PM – 7:10 PM
3.Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024‐25 Work Plan
7:10 PM – 8:10 PM
4.Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions 8:10 PM – 9:10 PM
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, April 24, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Retail Study Session Retail Strategies 6:10 PM – 7:10 PM
3.Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024‐25 Work Plan
7:10 PM – 8:10 PM
4.Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions 8:10 PM – 9:10 PM
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, April 24, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.
CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
STUDY SESSION
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
2.Retail Study Session Retail Strategies 6:10 PM – 7:10 PM
3.Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024‐25 Work Plan
7:10 PM – 8:10 PM
4.Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions 8:10 PM – 9:10 PM
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, April 24, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Retail Study Session Retail Strategies 6:10 PM – 7:10 PM3.Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024‐25 Work Plan 7:10 PM – 8:10 PM4.Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions 8:10 PM – 9:10 PMCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. W r i t t e n p u b l i c c o m m e n t s m a y b e s u b m i t t e d b y e m a i l t o
planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a
Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30,
Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application
onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 24, 2024
Report #: 2404-2908
TITLE
Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
This document includes the following items:
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Upcoming PTC Agenda Items
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to
notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the
availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for
quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for
the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff.
Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-
of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
UPCOMING PTC ITEMS
May 8, 2024
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) and Supplemental EIR
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
660 University Avenue
Recommend Retail Strategies Draft Report
May 29, 2024
Supplemental EIR for proposed CIP for Comprehensive Plan Consistency
Dark Skies and Bird Safe Design draft ordinance
830 Los Trancos Road
Code Amendments to Address State Law Changes Impacting Local Land Use and Zoning
June 12, 2024
Amendments to Housing Incentive Program (HIP) to Implement Housing Element 3.4
Study Session Zoning Code Changes regarding parking and retail
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule and Assignments
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2024 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
1/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
2/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled
2/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
3/13/2024 5:00 PM Hybrid Special
Joint Meeting w/ HRC
3/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman
4/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
4/15/2024 5:30 PM Hybrid Joint Meeting w/ Council
4/24/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/8/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
5/29/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/12/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
6/26/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/10/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
7/31/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
8/14/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
8/28/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
9/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/9/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
10/30/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/13/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
11/27/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/11/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular
12/25/2024 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled
2024 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Cari Templeton
Keith Reckdahl
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
Bryna Chang
George Lu
Doria Summa
Allen Akin
Keith Reckdahl
Cari Templeton
George Lu
Bryna Chang
July August September October November December
Allen Akin
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
George Lu
Bart Hechtman
Keith Reckdahl
Cari Templeton
Bryna Chang
George Lu
Bart Hechtman
Doria Summa
Cari Templeton
Item 1
Attachment A - 2024
Schedule & Assignments
Packet Pg. 7
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 3
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 24, 2024
Report #: 2404-2884
TITLE
Retail Study Session Retail Strategies
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) receive an update from
the PTC Ad Hoc Retail Committee and a presentation from the consultant regarding retail
strategies, discuss the strategies, and provide comments.
BACKGROUND
The PTC’s last study session on the Retail Study was held on March 27, 2024. Draft verbatim
minutes are provided as Attachment A. The PTC Ad Hoc Retail Committee met with staff and
the consultant on April 16, 2024 to discuss a set of proposals and questions the Ad Hoc
members prepared prior to the meeting. These are shared in the next section of this report.
The City’s consultant has been working on a parking analysis related to the passage of AB 2097
and may be able to share some of this work with the PTC on April 24th, as time allows.
DISCUSSION
The PTC Ad Hoc Retail Committee
The Ad Hoc committee prepared the following proposals and questions for the April 16, 2024
meeting with staff and the consultant.
Simplify Rules:
1. Consolidate zoning rules into a “what uses are allowed where” table for key locations. This
already exists, but is out-of-date.
2. Relax definitions in PAMC; many seem overly complex and specific.
3. Eliminate operating-hours constraints more strict than those required of restaurants.
4. Consider removing restrictions related to take-out.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 8
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 3
5. Rewrite PAMC to have fewer combinations of districts and overlays.
6. Revisit R and GF modifying districts, maybe eliminate use on side streets.
Reduce Uncertainty:
1. Eliminate CUPs for uses that don’t impact street frontage.
2. Eliminate CUPs for combinations of otherwise-allowed uses.
3. Eliminate CUPs except in situations where there is an impact that needs mitigation.
4. Eliminate rules based on the types or sizes of businesses nearby, which change over time;
depend on market forces to correct temporary excesses. (Has happened many times in
Downtown.) But see also “Beyond Zoning”.
5. Rewrite parts of PAMC to make sure unsuccessful changes aren’t locked-in. For example, if
an office converts to retail that then fails, it should be possible to revert to the previous use.
This encourages risk-free experimentation. It’s complicated, though.
Relax Restrictions:
1. RPO should apply only to customer-facing frontage portion, rather than all square footage.
2. RPO should apply to University Ave, Cal Ave, and CN zones; should not apply to, e.g., Lytton,
Hamilton, Cambridge, El Camino.
3. Relax RPO for resident-serving businesses.
4. Remove constraints on non-restaurant formula retail on Cal Ave.
5. Increase numerical threshold for restaurant formula retail on Cal Ave. Suggestion: At most 50
sites. (For comparison: Coupa, 9; Il Fornaio, 18; McDonald’s, 14K). Beyond this limit, require a
CUP (e.g. to enforce architectural consistency).
6. Revisit size constraints for commercial recreation (e.g. 1800 sq ft, 5000 sq ft).
Beyond Zoning:
1. Sales tax relief or other incentives to attract specific business types to particular areas.
Diversify the retail environment so that it’s more resilient and can attract a wider variety of
clients, without resorting to zoning rules that can be complex or inflexible.
2. Incentives to reduce office vacancy rates Downtown. Effective more quickly because less
physical redevelopment required than for equivalent amounts of new housing.
3. As a special case of the two previous proposals, perform a study to consider general vacancy
taxes for Downtown and Cal Ave. Do not limit to retail vacancies; that might create incentives
to eliminate retail.
4. Cleanliness, signage, pedestrian access, public safety, parking availability.
5. Proactively plan for new CN nodes on El Camino and San Antonio.
Questions
1. What types of resident-serving businesses are not currently allowed in the definition of retail
uses? Medical/Dental services, Medical retail, Resident-serving offices like legal or insurance
services? Do these need to be distinguished from generic offices that are subject to the office
cap?
2. There’s uncertainty about restrictions related to take-out. Would there be any surprising
consequences if these are removed?
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 9
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 3
3. What types of businesses are most dependent on foot traffic, and therefore should be
encouraged to locate together for synergy?
4. Does PAMC currently constrain any hours of operation?
5. Review history of nail salon constraints on Cal Ave.
6. Review history of Town & Country Medical Retail proposal. Consider Council’s direction to
PTC and PTC’s final action.
7. Does PAMC currently have any constraints on multiple uses at a single location (e.g. coffee
shop at a retailer)?
8. Does PAMC currently have any constraints on multiple independent tenants at a single
location?
9. Request more information about San Diego’s pedestrian activity rules. Can we get ped counts
for Palo Alto?
10. Would sales-tax relief (on the order of 1% of sales?) be sufficient incentive to attract a
targeted business type to a specific area?
11. PAMC uses the presence of a commercial dishwasher to define a restaurant. What are the
ramifications of that designation? Parking? Do we still need a distinction?
This material is anticipated as the main focus of the discussion on the retail study during the
April 24, 2024 PTC meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Verbatim Minutes PTC March 27, 2024
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 10
_______________________
1 Planning & Transportation Commission
2 Action Agenda: March 27, 2024
3 Council Chambers & Virtual
4 6:00 PM
5
6 Study Session
7 4. Study Session: Retail Study – Recommendations for Strategies
8
9 Chair Summa: Okay, let’s get started on our next item, I will note for the record that
10 Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair Chang] has left the meeting. Thank her for coming at all,
11 because she wasn’t feeling well. So, okay we’re on to our study session for retail. So I do not
12 know… this is a continued meeting, I do not know if there is anything additional that our
13 consultants or staff would like to add.
14
15 Ms. French: Just noting that the consultants are here, I was going to check to see if they’re… if
16 they’re floating out there in … can you see, are they there? Okay. I was messaging them that
17 we’re about to start. We did have an ad hoc meeting yesterday, that I know two of the
18 members of the ad hoc were present for, so but I don’t believe the consultants have new slides
19 from the last time… the slides are in your packet to make it easy, from the last time, to refer to
20 during tonight’s discussion.
21
22 Chair Summa: Thank you for that. Okay, so what I think we’ll do is have the ad hoc report out
23 and then we’ll open it to public… to the public for comment because we didn’t do that at the
24 last meeting, and then we’ll come back for discussion. So, ad hoc…
25
26 Commissioner Akin: Alright, I will take the lead on this, and I was hoping that Vice-Chair Chang
27 could attend because she could fill in some gaps, but I will ask Commissioner Reckdahl to take
28 that on if I’ve missed anything crucial or misunderstood something. So, Vice-Chair Chang
29 couldn’t attend the ad hoc meeting last night but did report the Council’s ad hoc desire to make
30 immediate improvements in things that were in their purview. So, things like cleanliness,
31 signage, code enforcement, and presumably Council will follow up with medium and long term
32 improvements still to be determined. I think it’s useful for us, for the PTC to recommend
33 actions that fit within that framework as well. So, we think about things being short medium,
34 and long term. But before I get into those, we did spend some time asking for explanations of
35 some of the data that the consultants had presented previously, and this included things like
36 vacancy rates in Palo Alto that didn’t match our personal observations, the vacancy rates on
37 University Avenue for example seems lower than the approximately 19% that we believe
38 currently exists. We were trying to resolve that. And there’s some really striking differences like
39 the 70% higher vacancy rate in the 3rd Street promenade in Santa Monica and so we asked
40 about what might be… what the possible explanations for that might be. Mr. Wery suggested
41 that we’re looking at pandemic related phenomena mostly, so if the businesses were on 3rd
42 Street were tilted towards in person services, then they might have been adversely affected to
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 11
_______________________
1 a greater extent than our own and then the long lead time in finding new tenants just amplified
2 that. The vacancy time in Town and Country seems quite high at forty months and I don’t think
3 we exactly understand what’s going on there other than again, the long lead time. It just seems
4 particularly acute in that space. And there was also a discussion of the total amount of retail
5 space oversupply, which is enormous. So, it’s a little unclear which areas are being counted that
6 lead to that estimation of oversupply in Palo Alto. There are still some mysteries about
7 downtown, we don’t understand whether there might be floor area counted as retail that’s not
8 at… that’s not first floor frontage. So, there’s things we might want to look into later. But
9 they’re not consequential for the rest of the discussion. We heard a lot about stakeholder
10 requests, but there were consistent themes, and I tried to boil them down to just three, one is
11 simplifying the rules, two is reducing uncertainty, and three is relaxing restrictions. So, you
12 might think those things are interrelated, but they really are pretty independent. You can have
13 simples rules that are not implementable, so, keeping restrictions relaxes and simple rules and
14 then reducing the uncertainty, each is important. The consultants presentation offers many
15 proposals that address these things. But I believe there was good consensus for at least three of
16 them. One is removing some of, or even all constraints on formula retail on Cal Ave, another is
17 limiting the areas to which the retail preservation ordinance applies, and third is making code
18 changes to ensure that changes in use are not locked in if market conditions change. And this is
19 worth a little more discussion because it came up in stakeholder requests multiple times. You
20 might say, well, we’d like to encourage conversion of office to retail, but if the retail
21 preservation ordinance, then prevents it from being changed back if it’s not successful, then
22 that’s a deterrent for people who might otherwise be willing to experiment with conversion to
23 retail. And Ms. French enlightened us on the complexities involved in that issue by explaining
24 that not all of the locked in provisions are limited to the retail preservation ordinance. You
25 might convert something from office to retail but then be tripped up by the office space
26 limitations if you attempt to convert it from retail back to office; and those are not in the retail
27 preservation ordinance, those are elsewhere in the code. So…
28
29 Commissioner Reckdahl: There’s kind of two generations of retail preservation, and this was
30 the first one.
31
32 Commissioner Akin: Right, so we have … we would have to look a little more broadly to make
33 sure that we’re not accidentally locking in changes and the goal there would be to encourage
34 experimentation to fill vacancies regardless of what the type of retail or retail-like application
35 might be. So, we’ll need to do a little further review on that. When I spoke to Vice-Chair Chang
36 earlier today, she also raised the issue that we will… we the PTC, at least the ad hoc… perhaps
37 the whole commission, will want to look at the code again to make more concrete and specific
38 proposals for Council to consider. So for example, if we elect to retail some constraints on some
39 formula retail on Cal Ave, there are constraints on the number of similar businesses that
40 constitute formula retail. We might change those numbers and that requires scanning the code
41 to come up with more specific proposals. So, that’s something that Vice-Chair Chang argues
42 pretty strongly belongs in our court, so we have yet to do that work. There was some interest in
43 making sure new rules, whatever they are, are fully predictable and not context dependent. For
44 example, you might want to avoid rules that depend on fluctuating things like vacancy rates, or
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 12
_______________________
1 the other nearby retail uses, because those conditions might change between the application
2 and the entitlement. So, given that there’s a window of opportunity for those conditions to be
3 violated, you’ve introduced uncertainty that is then a deterrent for people exploring new retail
4 uses. So, keeping things predictable, consistent, not context dependent, has some value. In the
5 long term, it makes good sense to scrub the municipal code and either simplify it or at least
6 make it feasible to document which uses are allowed in which areas. We had versions of that
7 that existed for …. What did we decide… seventeen years ago, but nothing that is recent
8 enough to resolve the uncertainty that plagues potential applicants today. And finally, I wanted
9 to comment on a side discussion which was about incentives Council might implement in
10 conjunction with zoning changes that we propose. And there are many that seem promising.
11 They are outside the scope of what we’re discussing tonight, but they include things like what
12 incentive programs could Council implement in order to ensure a desirable mix of retail types
13 within an area. It could be done flexibly, and we could react quickly to changes in market
14 conditions, so they don’t have to be baked under the code. So, once again, that’s beyond the
15 scope of what we discuss tonight, but it is something that Council should take a look at and at
16 some point, we may want to recommend that formally. Alright, I think that’s all that I have for
17 the summary. Keith…
18
19 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, no, that was a really good summary. One of the things is that
20 RPO gets … some people love it, some people hate it. And … but with …. Commissioner Chang
21 [Vice-Chair Chang] sent a summary … she listened to the ad hoc for the Council and there they
22 were saying that it wasn’t so much RPO issue, it was that people were leaving downtown to go
23 to the Stanford shopping center… paying more rent because they had more certainty… for
24 example they’re not going to have tents blocking their signs and stuff like that. And some of
25 that uncertainty… is the issue… is an issue. The uncertainty of how is retail on Cal Ave and
26 University going to… what requirements are we going to have on it. The propane haters in front
27 of your store, and some of the signage and some of the garbage collection... was a complaint
28 and that would be one way of fixing things without changing zoning. And that was a major
29 complaint, it wasn’t just a hypothetical guess … but then the second thing, like Allen said, we
30 really want… we don’t want to micromanage and, in the meeting, he brought up the case with
31 five bagel stores on University Avenue and is it the market’s job to determine that or is it the
32 City’s job. And we kept our nose out of it and it all kind of shake-d out. Now some of those
33 bagel stores went out of business and switched over, so there’s always this transition, but that’s
34 probably the easier thing to do than micromanage by zoning what you can have down there.
35 Let’s see, there was also… oh yea… RPO… now if we change the RPO you don’t have to
36 necessarily get rid of it altogether. You can change and say instead… if you have retail in some
37 areas, we might be happy to have that retail replaced by a dental office. That still brings in
38 people and so you may not want a dental office on University itself, but on Hamilton that may
39 be fine. And that would bring people downtown, they’d go to the dentist office, or go get their
40 nails done over on Hamilton and then they walk over and have food on University. So we may
41 want to have different regulations for University and the side streets or Cal Ave and Cambridge
42 for example. And so if there are concerns about what you have on that main street, that
43 doesn’t necessarily… you shouldn’t have those same concerns elsewhere. Because you want to
44 bring people into the area and if they’re nearby, they’ll go to the other businesses. And so,
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 13
_______________________
1 when we loosen RPO, we aren’t necessarily allowing tech offices we may just be expanding
2 what is considered resident serving business.
3
4 Chair Summa: Well, I think Council already changed that downtown, I think they allow medical
5 retail as we called it… I believe this is right, maybe they just had a discussion and didn’t do it.
6 But on the side streets they now allow retail like medical downtown, I think. So those kinds of
7 changes have been made in some places.
8
9 Commissioner Akin: If Commissioner Reckdahl is finished, or when Commissioner Reckdahl is
10 finished, we should probably ask our consultants if they would like to speak to the discussion
11 from last night as well.
12
13 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I’m ready.
14
15 Chair Summa: Okay. I see that Mr. Wery is here now and also …
16
17 Consultant Dan Wery: Surabhi
18
19 Consultant Surabhi Barbhaya: Surabhi.
20
21 Consultant Dan Wery: Excellent presentation, [TIMESTAMP 3:03 Unintelligible] So thanks again
22 for the summary, I think we had a pretty productive discussion yesterday with the ad hoc
23 committee and I think those were really excellent points that were brought up. Our objective
24 tonight was to try to facilitate the discussion of those zoning strategies and see if there are
25 recommendations that the full PTC could make. One of the points that I was starting to think
26 about when we had our discussion yesterday is the importance of… and I think that Keith or
27 Allen might have mentioned you know the idea of experimentation and just action… taking
28 some action. Don’t let the perfect prevent the good. And so there may be somethings that you
29 can do now that you feel confident with, there may be some things that you want to study
30 further. And there may be certain things that are priorities, certain changes… one that we
31 talked about as an example… you know, comprehensive code revisions. That’s a long term
32 complex, expensive you know, resource intensive effort. There’s other things that we could do
33 on the interim you know, slight amendments, target amendments and so the idea would be to
34 think about maybe a gradation or a spectrum of recommendations. Some you may feel very
35 strongly about and can be very specific and sy sync, others you might be a little more general
36 on and provide guidance to the City Council. I think some of the examples were you know, keep
37 it simple, make sure that it’s certain, it’s clear, you know even… some things may be phased in…
38 for instance the … in terms of the comprehensive revisions and simplifying the broader code,
39 trying to make it more understandable, the recommendation I had mentioned I think two
40 weeks ago and certainly yesterday was… start with those Use tables. Because those are a
41 relatively simple task to put them together, create the comparison and that’s when you start to
42 see the gaps, the overlaps, the conflicts and in the end you end up with a useful tool, a
43 comprehensive table, like the … what uses where from 2007, that works for staff, it works for
44 applicants and property owners and people thinking about coming to Palo Alto. So. The long
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 14
_______________________
1 way of saying, we’re trying to get you some recommendations to City Council and the idea is
2 that I don’t think you need… not all of them have to be you know, perfected. I think some of
3 them you can be pretty specific, I think you’ve got some good ones that are coming out of ad
4 hoc committee and what you heard tonight. Other ones may need some more work. Others
5 may be more you know kind of thematic and that would be okay. But I would encourage you to
6 do what Allen just did and with Keith as well, collect those thoughts and forward those on to
7 the City Council, if you can sharpen the recommendations that’s great. The one thing that we
8 were hoping to help facilitate with you is you know, if we look back at those strategies, if
9 there’s certain ones that do sound worthwhile, then we want to talk about more specifically to
10 the extent that you’re comfortable and can, where they would apply. So, we talked about some
11 revisions perhaps reducing or eliminating RPO in certain areas, or the R modifying district, or
12 the ground floor modifying district. Maybe those ground floor retail spaces on side streets are
13 allowed and it’s converted. And then you preserve the focus and the retail attention along Cal
14 Ave and University Avenue. So, I think that was something that seemed to be pretty strong
15 consensus as an example of being a specific recommendation. So, with that, I guess I’ll try not
16 to speak too much and try to answer some questions and facilitate any recommendations you
17 guys might be willing to elaborate on.
18
19 Chair Summa: Alright, well thank you for the Ad hocs work and your summary and also our
20 consultants but I think now we’re going to go to the public and I know I saw one speaker on
21 zoom, but…
22
23 PUBLIC COMMENTS
24
25 Ms. Dao: Correct, just the one speaker on zoom from Winter Dellenbach.
26
27 Winter Dellenbach: Yes, high Commissioners, so, I have my recommendations and you don’t
28 have to pay me as a consultant so that’s really good. For God sakes, keep ground floor retail
29 protections on Cal Ave, on University Ave and I don’t know if you consultants have taken time
30 to go into the … along El Camino, to the Baron Park and Venture neighborhoods, but we are a
31 walkable neighborhood and there’s not a lot of those in Palo Alto. And what makes them
32 walkable is that we have protected ground floor retail, we have a lot of mom and pops, some of
33 them are a little shaggy looking but most of them are very vital businesses. And those have
34 protection and should continue strong protection and the same goes for the Cal Avenue
35 shopping district and University because people want services. They don’t want…. Here… here’s
36 a story. Quite a few years ago University Avenue loaded up on financial institutions and so the
37 City stepped in and said and put a limit on how many financial institutions because it was
38 suppressing other types of businesses and retail and the whole health of University Avenue.
39 The same thing happened on Cal Avenue, with nail salons and hair salons. Because they were
40 proliferating like rabbits. And it’s not good. It wasn’t a good healthy environment, and we can’t
41 just not have regulation. The market is a dumb beast. And of course, instead of leaving it to the
42 supposed market, the City of course has to be involved. You know, you’re call… it’s called
43 Planning for a reason. This has to be planned, it has to be… and the City’s involvement has to be
44 strong. One of the things that’s happening is we’re losing retail along Baron Park, Ventura
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 15
_______________________
1 neighborhoods on ECR, I’d be interested if you folks have gone there. And have you now gone
2 to Midtown? And have you now… this is the consultants… have you gone to Charleston Center?
3 Where our very very important shopping areas and retails areas and other services. And I sure
4 as heck hope you are because if you’re earning your money as a consultant, you’ll be… should
5 be looking at the whole range of retail areas and not just one or two. So… and that’s what I
6 want to say. Thanks.
7
8 Chair Summa: Thank you. I think that’s our only speaker.
9
10 Ms. Dao: Correct.
11
12 Chair Summa: Okay thanks, so I’ll bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Would anyone
13 like to start us off?
14
15 Commissioner Akin: Sure, I’ll say just a few more words. Since Vice-Chair Chang isn’t here I
16 wanted to reinforce some of the points that were of concern to her and perhaps the top one is
17 that we need to go through the code. The books is… perhaps we don’t understand well enough
18 how all of the constraints are interacting right now. And that’s the way we’ll get workable
19 proposals is to look at some of the details. During the ad hoc discussion last night, I proposed
20 just cutting the Gordian knot on Cal Ave and allowing formula retail of all kinds and I’ll thrown
21 that out there and just say, what’s you’re immediate reaction to that?
22
23 Chair Summa: Are you asking me?
24
25 Commissioner Akin: The Commission as a whole, all of us.
26
27 Chair Summa: I… the thing about formula retail is I think many people would find you know,
28 things like that… they’re useful. I mis… we even had a doofy-little pharmacy on Cambridge… it
29 was this little tiny independent pharmacy. I think having a pharmacy and I think pharmacies are
30 by and large now … you know… a drugstore… not that I’m suggesting this specific thing, but I
31 think that having formula on retail is not something that we should take of the plate
32 completely. Andi think the reason is…. And I know that won’t be popular with everyone who
33 are perhaps listening out there in zoom land but I think particularly if you’re going to allow
34 formula retail with a CUP to any formula retain applicant that has only has 10 or fewer sites
35 across the nation. To me that doesn’t seem to make any sense. It just feels arbitrary. That being
36 said, I don’t know… I think that any formula retail on Cal Ave would have to fit in with the
37 rhythm and size of the existing store fronts. Just like McDonalds when they go in the Vatican or
38 Paris or Rome, they don’t look like a McDonalds on El Camino. So, I think they would have to fit
39 in. I’m not sure how attractive any of those places are. I feel very strongly about bike/ped…
40 goals for bike/ped, getting more people on those. We acknowledge that many of those will be
41 short trips. I just think if we don’t preserve walkable retail we’re going to have a very
42 unbalanced city with more car trips because more people are going to drive to do errands than
43 are going to bike. And so, I don’t feel that removing the ground floor retail protection is a wise
44 thing to do, I think we need a whole new ground floor retail ordinance for San Antonio that’s
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 16
_______________________
1 going to be built out, but I’m afraid it’s a little too late for that. But, many of the… the
2 comments about the ways in which the code could be fixed were so broad and I think Mr. Wery
3 just said rewriting the code actually is a huge project and I don’t think we can do that tonight,
4 but I think there’s some strategies we can discuss. But doing away with somebody’s ground
5 floor retail to reduce the overall vacancy rate in retail in Palo Alto does not seem wise to me. I
6 was hoping for an approach that was more proactively positively suggesting how to get some
7 more retail. So, I mean it’s… it’s really a problem and I do think the biggest problem is … I mean,
8 when you have retail… Gallery house left California Avenue and they went to Santa Cruz…
9 they’re on Santa Cruz in Menlo Park. That is a … that is a cost of rental decision. And we had
10 sort of an impromptu list of businesses and we never followed up and made it more official …
11 that had moved to Menlo Park or Mountain View or Los Altos because it was less expensive.
12 And I understand that the problems I think that Commissioner Reckdahl was referring to… it … I
13 think what you meant was … like the parklets are obstructing the storefronts. So, yeah these
14 are big trade offs and their pretty hard. But I… the formula retail one, not getting rid of it, but
15 adjusting it a little… that being said I don’t think we’re getting a lot of applicants of that type
16 because of the size of the storefronts. So that’s kind of my opinion on that one. And I see lights
17 from Templeton and Lu.
18
19 Commissioner Templeton: Okay, so I guess my thoughts here are a little bit … mine won’t
20 directly answer your question, a little bit more abstract but what I would say is… the places
21 we’ve listed as competition for us are destinations right… going to the Stanford Mall is a
22 destination, going to University Avenue has been a destination in the past and those are things
23 we have to think about and I think what that means is a place that’s vibrant during the work
24 day, after school and at nights and weekends, they have something on those locations that’s
25 interesting to do at all of those times and that’s a process or approach that has been studied in
26 planning for many years. They know that’s what makes a place vibrant and attractive … you can
27 just go and hang out; you don’t even have to be necessarily with a shopping goal in mind. You
28 want to go there, and you spend money. So, those are something that we can think about, and
29 it involves a mix of things to do right. We have the ground floor retail I think is the key
30 attractive factor, right? Those are something to do, something that you can always do. But we
31 have to have a proper mix. One thing is happening on California right now… Winter said that it
32 was nail salons and hair salons and we have moved… that was certainly my experience ten
33 years ago when I was doing those things, but now I feel like it’s all gymnasiums and smoke
34 shops. It’s like things that I just don’t interest me… maybe I should be more interested in the
35 gymnasiums, but you know, because California Avenue still has a mix of things I enjoy going
36 there. Because they have other op… like a variety of options. But, you know, I worry that every
37 time a shop closes that it’s going to become a gym. Like, it’s a thing that’s happening, I don’t
38 know if there’s a way for us to manage that… like think about Town and County, another great
39 destination, they have a management company … the mall has a management company … is
40 there a way for us to say this is …. This is a group of people that are going to manage this. I
41 think that’s a possibility, but it’s complicated right? Because of the duration of these leases and
42 commitments. So, I know it’s not a solution, but you wanted to know I think… that’s what I
43 think. Thanks.
44
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 17
_______________________
1 Commissioner Lu: I’ll make a few specific comments and maybe ask just a general question at
2 the end. So, I was speaking with a local retailer on Cal Ave, a pretty small business, they said
3 that their perspective on this has changed over time, that they favor relaxing formula retail,
4 also favor just like more development in general along that corridor. For them, the most
5 important thing was just getting people on the street, with any purpose in mind so that they
6 can swing by and meander into other shops, or kind of fill other shopping needs while they’re
7 there. And I think that makes a lot of sense. Relaxing formula retail … like a 100% in context of
8 pharmacies, and potentially some similar kinds of stores, and I’d have to think it’s true that like
9 many other uses too, would make sense for me. I think increasing the threshold from 10 would
10 certainly be a start. I think like Santa Monica, like how they exclude restaurants from their… or
11 only exclude restaurants from formula retail … like something like that would also be a start. I
12 do agree that you know, people aren’t applying for Conditional use permits now, but I think
13 there is a perception that going through the effort to actually propose a plan and have a
14 concrete plan and go through conditional use permit is too risky, and I think if we can just relax
15 this up front, like that would make a lot of sense to me. Like our public commenter noted, I am
16 a little bit skeptical in loosening ground floor retail restrictions, I think one benefit that’s not
17 mentioned is that a medical office or a dental office can pay pretty good rent and we know that
18 supply and demand is somehow broken here, but adding a lot of demand that can pay pretty
19 high rent may displace mom and pops and I’d be really concerned about that, even on the side
20 streets. Even on the Hamiltons’ and other streets that like … yeah medical office will
21 cannibalize… some of the retail we really do want to preserve. And so, okay sorry, going
22 through my notes. I do support loosening ground floor retail restrictions in theory … like there
23 were things mentioned of like dog grooming businesses or other kind of uses that weren’t
24 permitted and I think things like that don’t make sense to me. Yeah, so I guess my kind of more
25 general question is … where do staff and consultants want us to be at this point. I see we have
26 one more meeting with the whole commission before we actually recommend this to Council …
27 should we actually be workshopping specific zoning changes… like now… are we on schedule,
28 are we going to arrive at May 8th and be a bit lost in terms of what actually to recommend.
29
30 Consultant Dan Wery: I’ll take a shot at that and thank you those are good thoughts. In terms
31 of where to be, I was a little verbose but I think you should feel comfortable with having a
32 spectrum of recommendations, I think if you can make specific ones that you have a majority or
33 consensus on, make those. But don’t feel limited to just the things you’ve got consensus on, I
34 think we’re getting a lot of good discussion and ideas here tonight and I think with those, even
35 if you stopped right there, you can record those and forward those on to City Council and that’s
36 good direction to use. So, I think you’ve actually provided a lot of good thought here tonight
37 and I think that’s all valuable to City Council. Just a reminder, the idea is not to have specific
38 zoning amendments at this end of this, in this period, the idea is these are the strategies that
39 are going to lead to specific amendments or other actions. And, so you’re looking at… think of it
40 like a menu… hey these are the things that make… have the highest promise, or here’s an
41 approach and if you can be specific, that’s great. If you can agree on changing the threshold as a
42 formula business, great, if you can agree on limiting the formula to certain types of businesses
43 such as restaurants, all the better. And if you can agree on some of the recommendations
44 maybe allowing or repealing the ground floor restrictions on certain side streets, that’s great.
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 18
_______________________
1 Those alone, those would be three really good concrete recommendations, and again, maybe
2 there’s some other ones that might need a little more time and effort, and that’s fine. I think
3 that’s your roll and the value of your recommendations, and then City Council and staff can
4 come up with a plan to prioritize and you know, implement those, or develop those further. So I
5 would say, what you’re doing now is exactly the right thing.
6
7 Ms. French: I would echo that and I could also say that I can upload the presentation that’s in
8 the packet if it would help to have something to stare at and yea, nay; if that’s of value I can do
9 that right now.
10
11 Commissioner Reckdahl: I want to get feedback for… Allen asked a specific question and I
12 wanted to get your opinions on that. Formula retail on Cal Ave… on one hand Cal Ave always
13 had this kind of unique vibe about it and if you bring in formula retail now, it just becomes
14 another boring retail spot, or on the other hand, would you rather have a subway next to you,
15 or an empty store. And so that’s the tradeoff. What are you willing to give up and would brining
16 in some formula retail enhance Cal Ave, or ruin it?
17
18 Commissioner Templeton: Well, let me use University as an example instead of Cal Ave. When
19 I used to go to University as a destination like a place to hang out and shop and buy things or
20 whatever, you guys remember when the Border’s was there? And that little theater? I loved it,
21 right? That’s a form… a big nationwide chain. But we had all these other really cool places
22 around it. You know, we had a couple of those restaurants were also nationwide chains…
23 Cheesecake Factory used to be there, but that wasn’t my vibe. Maybe some people visiting
24 from out of town or people who love cheesecake, I’m looking at you George (laughter)… You
25 know, so maybe it had a variety of options, but for me, that was a hub… I loved to go to the
26 bookstore and then walk around and buy ice cream or go out to dinner or whatever … this was
27 probably pre-kids so maybe that was a different vibe… and I go to California Avenue now
28 because they can play in the street, but you know, anyway… I think there’s some value in
29 having them there, but also their tolerance for competing with the online retailers … you know,
30 had them leave too early. I think if they were there now, they would be popular again. Right?
31 So we were kind of subject to our corporate overlords deciding those things instead of the mom
32 and pop owners, right, that we’ve been talking about. It has its pluses; it has its minuses. It can
33 be a draw, but they’re not invested in the community the same way some of the smaller
34 companies might be. So I go to Town and County now and I shop at Booksy.
35
36 Commissioner Reckdahl: So, if we came with a proposal to allow formula retail on Cal Ave,
37 you’re saying you don’t know, right now. You see the pros, you see the cons and you’re not
38 sure which side of the coin you’re going to end up on?
39
40 Commissioner Templeton: In the end, I really prefer the model of Town and County, which has
41 at least as they’ve discussed with us, that their approach is to find really quirky people to rent
42 to and if it is a chain it’ll be a special chain that fits in somehow nicely with their other retail
43 shops that they’re renting to. So, it’s a conditional yes, it’s like you know… your question…
44 subway / McDonalds / CVS are probably not the vibe we’re looking for in this City for long term
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 19
_______________________
1 investment. I don’t know how, you know, how long term their investments are. The McDonalds
2 on El Camino has been here since I’ve been here… a long time but you know, that doesn’t mean
3 that others would be. So, it’s… I would probably prefer … I have gotten used to the fun locally
4 owned businesses that we have, and I want them to be successful and I hear what I think both
5 of you have said that that … if we have more of the larger chains that it will change the rental
6 pricing and drive out local businesses. I think that would be touch to swallow. But, then again, I
7 can’t deny that I liked shopping at the big bookstore.
8
9 Commissioner Reckdahl: But there’s a lot of vacancies on Cal Ave. So, one of the points that we
10 made in the ad hoc is that it doesn’t seem like formula retail has ruined University so if we have
11 the same …
12
13 Commissioner Templeton: Well, to you… like I don’t go there anymore.
14
15 Commissioner Reckdahl: Because of…
16
17 Commissioner Templeton: I don’t know why. I mean I’d have to really take some introspection
18 like I said, it was different phases of my life as well. But, you know, do I miss the bookstore
19 that’s not there anymore on Cal Ave? I do. So. Sorry that is not a definitive answer for you, I’m
20 just demonstrating the struggle is real.
21
22 Commissioner Reckdahl: Doria [Chair Summa], what do you think? Formula retail.
23
24 Chair Summa: So, what I think is that I don’t see what the magic number of 10, that that makes
25 it evil, you know, or undesirable, evil is the wrong word, but I do think … I do worry about small
26 mom and pop businesses leaving, I think that’s … they’re leaving anyway.
27
28 Commissioner Reckdahl: But if you had some chain like subway come in… is that going to bring
29 more people in and help those mom and pops or (crosstalk) be more competition and drive
30 mom and pops out more?
31
32 Chair Summa: Well I will say that I would not have formula dining because I think the one really
33 successful draw on California Avenue besides the market, are the restaurants and I don’t want
34 to compete with those. And the only … the two … Cal Ave… there’s a Pizza Hut or something on
35 Cambridge, and there was a Subway on Cal Ave, those are the only restaurants… those both
36 went out of business. They weren’t a draw… as did the luxury hotdog business…
37
38 Commissioner Akin: Starbucks. There was also Starbucks.
39
40 Chair Summa: Yeah… and Starbucks. So those don’t… I would not want to compete with the
41 local … and I think of the success of Backyard Brew… and it’s packed all the time because it’s a
42 quirky adorable lovable place that provides a great service. I’m glad Starbucks left more than
43 would be if Backyard Brew failed, but they’re not going to fail because they’re so busy. I mean
44 something could happen, but I do think that … I think the problem… I don’t see formula dining
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 20
_______________________
1 on Cal Ave. You know, and this came up sort of for a little reminiscence about every body’s
2 favorite project… NVCAP, the North Ventura … there was a time before COVID when they
3 thought they were going to get a specialty Target there, and the representative from the… he
4 was almost … from… Sobrato was almost kind of sheepish saying ‘you wouldn’t want that in
5 Palo Alto’ and I’m like… are you kidding?? They have boutique Targets … they’re called
6 Boutique’s in Manhattan, they fit in like what I was saying like a McDonald’s in the Vatican or
7 Paris, they fit in to the street’s rhythm and storefront structure, they’re much smaller than big
8 Target’s and even the signage is appropriate and I thought people would love having that there,
9 to walk to… but that didn’t happen… but that’s why… that was 60,000 or 80,000 square feet,
10 right, so that’s different… (interrupted)
11
12 Commissioner Reckdahl: No, it was going to be actually much smaller than that.
13
14 Chair Summa: I forget.
15
16 Commissioner Reckdahl: The building was 60 or 80 but I think Target only wanted (interrupted)
17
18 Chair Summa: No… Fry’s… Fry’s…
19
20 Commissioner Reckdahl: Fry’s was 60 or 80, but Target didn’t want that whole thing.
21
22 Chair Summa: Yeah. But anyway… I’m just saying that I don’t think that was… that would be a
23 disaster, I actually think it would be a practical place that people would go to. I do not want to
24 do things that hurt our existing businesses, but half the people that have businesses on Cal Ave,
25 didn’t want the street closed and half did. And… I don’t know… I’m glad … I hope everything
26 works out for the best, but I think people are leaving because of the cost of rentals. And I know
27 that the guy who opened not too long ago now, the hardware shop, on California Ave, which I
28 desperately try to go to as often as possible, he told me, the owner of that store, that worked
29 out for him finally… they wanted a location there because the property owner or manager
30 dropped the price. That’s why they were able to move in… yeah. So, that being said, I’m willing
31 to believe that some of the way we structure our zoning code and regulation might be a turn
32 off… I continue to think that conditional use permits are a very good tool to control a mix.
33 Because if you have to have a conditional use permit for something, it can be turned down
34 because your discretionary view, there’s already too much of that type of thing. And it does
35 control gyms, which I think is good because gyms don’t really draw the public, they draw the
36 members of the gym in. So, I just can’t think of many of these zoning strategies that were
37 recommended that really seemed like a good idea to me. And I don’t want to take away any
38 body’s walking area, I am more open to sort of expanding uses on side streets. As for animal
39 services … pet grooming is already allowed as a retail use, so… one thing we could go through…
40 what we could do is go through the allowed retail uses and see if something is missing. I would
41 prefer to approach it as adding a clause that was like ‘or any other business that is open to or
42 for the public’. You know, that’s really what retail is, its something that anybody can choose to
43 go to. So, because I don’t know what we’re missing in those definitions so I think a broad
44 discretionary clause like that could be useful. We no longer… and as to… somebody mentioned
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 21
_______________________
1 something, I forget who about … if there’s not the ground floor retail requirement, I don’t
2 understand what’s going to go on the ground floor. There’s also a huge vacancy in office space.
3 And… so what would go there…
4
5 Commissioner Reckdahl: Like over in Ramona… off Hamilton… there’s tech offices ground floor.
6
7 Chair Summa: And I’d like to know how much… because there was some sort of… you know the
8 bigger buildings downtown on Hamilton is a … what we called back in the day… Faux-tail… it’s
9 actually an office parading as retail. I would want to know how many of those were counted as
10 vacancy… and do they count as retail vacancy or office vacancy… you know, it’s funny the way
11 the numbers are kind of counted too. And we did have some conversions to non-ground floor
12 retail uses that may have been errors and then they were allowed to continue so there’s that
13 also. I wanted to see ideas about… I wonder… I mean I went to … there’s… I want to see ideas
14 that positively go and court the kind of businesses that we want here.
15
16 Commissioner Reckdahl: They City’s doing that. This is a zoning issue. It’s already occurring,
17 one of the complaints they have is the uncertainties of … well I have to go up and apply for a
18 CPM and I’m not sure if I’m going to get it and so… and so that’s one of the things the
19 applicants are pushing back to the City on and saying the uncertainty is making me less likely to
20 jump in and rent the place.
21
22 Chair Summa: But I think… well I don’t know I’ve never tried to apply for a CUP, but I think that
23 if there is … I think staff has dealt with it often enough that if there are reasons why you’re not
24 going to get it, they’ll tell you and then you should leave… but I think the CUP’s for larger gyms
25 is a good way of not having too much of that on Cal Ave and some people already think there is
26 too much in the way of work out spaces on Cal Ave. So…
27
28 Commissioner Reckdahl: Gyms are personal service, right? They’re not retail.
29
30 Chair Summa: They’re Retail-like, they’re allowed in ground floor.
31
32 Commissioner Reckdahl: Ok.
33
34 Commissioner Templeton: Have we thought about … I mean… I going back to the … what
35 we’re all saying is we wish there was somebody curating and cultivating and courting these
36 people and that already have a set level of expectation of permission already granted. What
37 we’re talking about is a management company or a management service … is that something
38 that we can as a City … like do?
39
40 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, this is part of the discussion from last night that I deliberately
41 skipped today…
42
43 Commissioner Templeton: Sorry.
44
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 22
_______________________
1 Commissioner Akin: But perhaps that was a mistake. For a good part of the meeting, Steve
2 Guagliardo, who’s our Economic Development person in the City Manager’s office, attended
3 and it’s clear that a lot of these issues are in … those balls are in his court, but we discussed a
4 number of possibilities that Council could pursue as well, they’re simply not within the purview
5 of the PTC, so these things are going to get looked at and there is a person who is in charge
6 nominally of making sure they get looked at … Council has, at its disposal a huge number of
7 carrots that can be applied to encourage particular kinds of tenants and I think it would be well
8 for us to suggest a few of those but I sort of doubt that we’re coming up with anything that
9 they haven’t already thought of. But you’re point is well taken, and… I just want to be
10 encouraging that yes, people are thinking about it, it’s not getting lost.
11
12 Commissioner Templeton: That’s good to know. Thank you.
13
14 Commissioner Lu: I just want to make a couple of quick comments and clarifications, so, when I
15 was speaking earlier about formula retail, I just wanted to be clear that for restaurants I am not
16 against blocking formula retail of restaurants, just increasing the threshold … I think maybe I
17 made that point in a disjointed way. For example, Cupa Café apparently has nine locations and
18 if they had one more, they would not be allowed to open on Cal Ave, but they’re hyper local
19 business that has a lot of character and so… restaurants can be allowed up to some pretty high
20 limit I think, that still has character and certainly something more than ten. For other areas, I
21 haven’t thought about all the uses but would be generally very permissive… or more permissive
22 of formula retail … I think CUP’s are incredibly painful for businesses to actually pursue and I
23 think it’s a really strong disincentive from even getting a proposal together, to have to do a lot
24 of negotiation with the landlord and then have even a 10% chance or even 20% change that
25 your project gets blown up can radically alter the economics of opening in Palo Alto versus
26 opening in a neighboring city next door. So, I think anything possible to avoid CUPs for
27 reasonable use cases is a line I would want to pick.
28
29 Commissioner Templeton: That’s why I was thinking in trying to something like that for like a
30 district or like a couple of blocks like as a group.. is that something… even thought it’s different
31 buildings and landlords and like… I know it’s a little different but … like if you can make that …
32 part of the process… the reason that’s so painful for our small business owners is they don’t
33 know it… so if we could have somebody who knows how to navigate that process, kind of help
34 them with that it might make it easier. I don’t know.
35
36 Commissioner Akin: Yeah, that’s one of the options… Dan mentioned this, I think some of the
37 others of us described it as well, the spiritual successor to the what uses for our document…
38 and just as long as we stay simple and consistent as possible so that it’s predictable and
39 understandable. I’m amused by the discussion about formula retail restaurants because I’ve
40 been around here long enough that I remember generations of these things coming and going
41 downtown … how many people here ate in the Burger King on University Ave… the ToGo’s ?
42 The Roundtable? Right… so, these things existed and yet somehow the local restaurants
43 managed to survive and even thrive, so I’m less worried about that than I once was just
44 because of remembering the history here. Any rate… to try and bring this to some close, we
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 23
_______________________
1 need to move on to other things, I guess what my thinking is… and what Commissioner
2 Reckdahl and Vice-Chair Chang and I need to take what you just told us and make a pass
3 through the code and come up with some at least some pointers to the areas that might be
4 fruitful. And then we can consider suggesting changes in those areas to Council. Does that seem
5 like a good next step?
6
7 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, to me.
8
9 Chair Summa: I think so, because unless we just want to react to the slide that Ms. French had
10 up… hoping that we would look at it, and we didn’t talk about it… unless we want to react to
11 those seven bullet points or whatever… however many there are… I’m looking for it… but … we
12 could do that and give some direction to both … to everybody…
13
14 Commissioner Reckdahl: What I think… I want to understand what you guys are thinking so
15 that when we’re in our group we’re not in there … our tiny little group without taking your
16 opinions into account, so any guidance you can give us by saying … Oh.. Not that one or … Yes, I
17 like that one…
18
19 Chair Summa: Okay here it is… So I would say there is a considerable interest amongst the
20 group of … in number 1. Not to eliminate it but to find a way so it will be more usable. I didn’t
21 hear much interest in 2. I think three…
22
23 Commissioner Reckdahl: Well, but 2 … could you broaden that, is there… should we look
24 through the list of retail … not tonight, but look through the list of retail and propose perhaps
25 adding these categories that we think that these categories in a ground floor retail would not
26 ruin the retail vibe.
27
28 Chair Summa: I guess that would be useful, but we’d have… what’s allowed is retail and retail-
29 like, so and there’s a lot of things, like pet grooming is allowed; that we’re… we need to
30 understand clearly amongst us all. Eliminating number 3, I didn’t hear any interest in that based
31 on region, district, whatever, and maybe there’s interest in having more leeway on side streets
32 like the Council decided to do downtown. I don’t know what lower relief standards means.
33
34 Commissioner Akin: Perhaps Dan would like to speak to that. But there was one specific
35 example in the RPO or to get a waiver, essentially requires a legal standard that’s so high it
36 would never ever be done. And that seems like low hanging fruit.
37
38 Commissioner Templeton: So like somebody couldn’t rent this property ever because it’s
39 zoned in a way that’s not popular anymore and they can’t change it.
40
41 Chair Summa: So I wasn’t sure what that meant… it’s to allow more waivers from the ground
42 floor retail. I’d have to think about that, I didn’t now what it meant so I didn’t read… I didn’t
43 review the waiver process. Simplifying the zoning code to make it more user friendly is a whole
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 24
_______________________
1 separate thing that I don’t think we were specifically being asked here and I think Commissioner
2 Akin sort of said that also. And if anybody else has comments on these five things…
3
4 Commissioner Templeton: I just want to correct the record because I said that Town and
5 Country is mostly not these formula places, but they do have a CVS, so.
6
7 Chair Summa: They have a CVS, a Trader’s Joe’s, a Pete’s
8
9 Commissioner Akin: And a forty percent vacancy rate.
10
11 Commissioner Templeton: Dangit. But I like to go there.
12
13 Chair Summa: Yeah.
14
15 Commissioner Templeton: So I’m still trying to say the destination idea is fine, what I’m trying
16 to correct is it does tolerate some of this formula retail use.
17
18 Chair Summa: Exactly. I think it’s mostly formula, and so I’ve kind of commented on the
19 possible zoning strategies preliminaries, would anyone else like to? We’ve kind of all talked
20 about them. And What else specifically could we … it’s hard to discuss simplifying the zoning
21 code without having the zoning code with redline additions in front of you to compare. It’s too
22 broad and open of a thing. And …
23
24 Commissioner Akin: It’s too long term.
25
26 Commissioner Reckdahl: The consultants looked at this and they’re newbies, right? And they
27 say Oh my God this is really complicated. And even, I’ve been through the zoning code a lot and
28 it’s still complicated for me. And so, that can’t be a good thing. Is there ways of like reducing
29 the overlays or reducing the number of different types of zones so there’s less complexity. Or is
30 that complexity necessary. If you think it’s necessary, that’s a valid opinion.
31
32 Chair Summa: I think… I’m sure the code could be rewritten better because it gets kind of… it
33 gets added on to and changed, in an ad hoc sort of manner, it’s not one thing, it’s a compilation
34 of things. I don’t know if it’s worse than other city’s codes. You know, but I do think ‘allow
35 alternate active uses’… if there are uses, we have left out, that are not retail and retail-like uses
36 that are left out, we should definitely accommodate for adding those in. I just think…
37
38 Commissioner Templeton: More libraries and book stores.
39
40 Chair Summa: Well, we can’t tell people to open libraries and bookstores. I don’t know if that’s
41 enough for tonight or if the consultant and the ad hoc and the staff need more than that.
42
43 Commissioner Akin: Speaking only for myself, yeah I think we have enough to work on. We can
44 do something useful and be ready for another round.
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 25
_______________________
1
2 Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay but we don’t want to go open loop and propose something that
3 you’re drastically opposed to so getting your opinions is very valuable.
4
5 Chair Summa: Thanks. Mr. Wery, is there something else you would like our specific feedback
6 on this evening?
7
8 Consultant Dan Wery: I think we’ve actually made a lot of progress here, I think when we start
9 taking… and record it and we’ve been taking good notes, there’s quite a bit to go on and it is
10 guidance and that’s good. So I think you’ve made some real progress. The… I’ll just loop back to
11 the last discussion quickly on simplifying the code, under that category there were a couple of
12 items there … one was what Allen [Commissioner Akin] had mentioned about the … or actually
13 that’s the relief standard… you do have a relief standard in there which is the alternative active
14 uses, that’s a good… a reasonably good standard. One of the things you could do in terms of
15 simplifying the code and or lower the relief standards to be more reasonable, the other
16 standard that was in there, by the way, is an unconstitutional taking of all economic use of your
17 property. That’s an impossible standard. You don’t want to go there. I’m just advising you,
18 that’s not a good standard threshold, that’s the ultimate … it’s life or death, it’s extrastencial.
19 The alternative active uses is a typical reasonable hardship standard is the [TIMESTAMP 3:55
20 Unintelligible] there’s other provisions in there that when you … how do you prove that? Their
21 code says well you need to look at ten years of history… that’s a long history that.. so again.. the
22 other details start to pile up on that… it becomes… again… if you want to deny something,
23 you’ve got every ability to deny something… so again, all these things kind of feed into each
24 other… so there’s opportunities there to lessen that up and we can get into more details
25 perhaps with the ad hoc committee. In terms of simplifying the code, one of the examples I
26 suggested was kind of a… those use tables… I think Commissioner Akin had mentioned that an
27 Commissioner Reckdahl had mentioned that as well. That I think is a great starting point. You
28 can do that.. we’ve already started that … just a broader understanding of the code. And I think
29 that’s something that can be done relatively quickly, that will pay dividends again for staff and
30 property owners and applicants and will lead to more specific changes when you look at the
31 code through that lens you’ll see gaps and conflicts and inconsistencies as we did, and I think
32 that’s a good method. So I think that would be a recommendation in terms of simplifying the
33 code. And then with any other provisions that you’re looking for again… simplifying the code in
34 general… great idea. I’d make that a recommendation… and then you can get into how do we
35 implement that. And again… as I mentioned there’s a couple different ways. Any other
36 amendments that you make again, keep that same thing in mind… you want that certainty, you
37 want that ease of use and simplify wherever you can. So let’s not add more complexity in the
38 code, let’s make it simpler. So even if you’re looking at formula retail, or the ground floor R or
39 GF modifying districts, you know, think of it that way, hey maybe we can simplify that. We
40 have… there is redundancy for instance between the RPO and those R and GF modifying
41 districts, and then as was pointed out earlier.. there’s kind of the inverse, which is the
42 restrictions on office uses. And they’re all kind of circling and competing and working together.
43 So there’s opportunity there to simplify. One of the things I think Chair that you mentioned that
44 I specifically noted was you know, in terms of the permissible uses, the retail and retail-like,
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 26
_______________________
1 focusing on other … other public uses that are open to the public and that’s an approach that
2 has been used elsewhere so rather than trying to define each and every type of use, again …
3 uses come and go, they evolve, focus on the outcome that you want, which is you want
4 activity… you want people going in and out of the door… you want to have a use that drags or
5 generates pedestrians past the doors of the other businesses, so you have that synergy there
6 that adds to vitality. Just as an example San Diego has certain streets and districts that they
7 require certain amount of active street frontage and they give example of uses and it’s much
8 like you’re retail and retail-like but the standard is… does it generate that activity. And that’s
9 very similar to what Chair, you had mentioned about, you know, is it generating that.. open to
10 the public … is it generating that traffic. That’s something that you know, would be a relatively
11 discreet easy change that could open up you know, flexibility in to your uses. Again… kind of
12 you know, mitigate some of the you know, other restrictions. Where you’re trying to be so
13 precise and you’re never going to get it right, if it’s only this use and not those uses, there’s
14 always going to be some use that falls through the gap or doesn’t quite fit the interpretation. So
15 I think those are just a couple of things I… you know maybe, we can follow up on with the ad
16 hoc together. I think those are good opportunities. So.
17
18 Chair Summa: Okay, Is that enough for us this evening. Does anybody have anything to add?
19 Okay well thank you very much. I will release our consultants and thank you for coming this
20 evening and we can move on to our final item which is the Palo Alto Link.
Item 2
Attachment A - PTC
03.27.24 Draft Verbatim
Item 4 Excerpt
Packet Pg. 27
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 6
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 24, 2024
Report #: 2404-2859
TITLE
Review and Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission 2024-25 Work Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
(1) Review the accomplishments from the 2023-24 Work Plan cited in the draft 2024-2025
Work Plan (Attachment A) and
(2) Review the eight draft goals for 2024-25 and provide direction for refinements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff prepared the attached draft work plan for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, which briefly notes the
accomplishment of 2023-24 PTC Work Plan goals, carries forward many goals with adjustments
into the 2024-25 work plan for the July 2024 to June 2025 term. The 2024-25 PTC work plan
will extend through June 2025 to consider development projects, ordinances, provide feedback
in study sessions, recommend policy direction, and review annual reports. The PTC is asked to
evaluate the accomplishments of 2023-24 and provide comments on draft goals staff identified
in the draft plan and, ideally, the PTC can approve the draft 2024-25 work plan goals, as may be
modified during the meeting or subject to final refinements.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 28
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report is intended to be an overview of the draft plan for 2024-25, with a crosswalk to the
23-24 work program goals. Draft goals are noted in this report and on the draft plan. A
discussion of the Council priorities and objectives in the report may lead to a desire to add or
refine goals. Given the workloads anticipated for the upcoming PTC agendas, staff suggests the
PTC refine and approve the goals during the meeting. Staff can make final refinements to the
plan based on PTC comments and share the revised plan in the next PTC packet, prior to
sending the plan to the City Clerk for inclusion in a June Council packet.
BACKGROUND
2023-24 Work Plan Process
In 2023, the staff conducted two meetings on the work plan:
•March 29, 2023 was to discuss the prior year accomplishments and status of 18
projects/goals in the 2022-23 plan. The PTC suggested focus on Council priorities,
deleting five goals, merging four goals into two, refreshing other goals, and adding two
new goals.
•April 26, 2023, the PTC adopted the goals for fiscal year 2023-24; the PTC recommended
being realistic with work plan goals and giving focus to Council priorities.
2023-24 Work Plan Goals Overview/Accomplishments
The 2023-24 work plan1 had 13 goals as discussed in staff’s April 26, 2023 report2. The minutes
from 2023 are provided in links3 below. Staff has carried forward several goals from the 2023-
24 work plan to the proposed 2024-25 work plan (Goals 3, 6, 7, and 13). Note that Goal 10
regarding Car Free Streets has been moved out of the Office of Transportation (OOT) into the
City Manager’s Office; therefore, it is not carried into the 2024-25 PTC work plan.
1 Link to current work plan: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-
minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/ptc-2023-2024-
work-plan.pdf
2 link to April 26, 2023 staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-4.26-work-plan.pdf
3 Link to minutes: Summary minutes
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-
minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-4.26.2023-summary.pdf
Verbatim minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2023/ptc-4.26.2023-
verbatim.pdf
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 29
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 6
2023-24 Goals - Ongoing/Revised and Carried Forward
Goal 3 was about coordinated area plans (rephrased as Area Plans)
Goal 6 on State legislation (ongoing) was met in part by production of map/ handouts
Goal 7 on parking programs (ongoing) including Residential Permit Parking
Goal 13 is about the Stream Corridor ordinance; this is targeted for late summer completion.
2023-24 Goals – Met/Will be Fulfilled during 2023-24 Work Plan Term
Goal 1 was met by sessions on SS4A, El Camino bike lanes and review of traffic reports
Goal 2 will be fulfilled by the PTC in May with comments on the MBI retail report
Goal 4 will be fulfilled by the PTC in May with commends on the NVCAP
Goal 5 was met by the 4/15 joint meeting with Council and ordinance adoptions
Goal 8 was met by the Palo Alto Link sessions with the PTC and Council
Goal 9 was met by the BPTP vision sessions with the PTC and Council
Goal 11 was met by the passage of the RRP ordinance in November 2023
Goal 12 will be fulfilled by the PTC consideration of bird glass/dark sky ordinance in May
Transportation Goals
Goals 1, 7, 8 and 9 were met and two were partially met and repurposed for 2024-25:
•Goal 1: Road Safety; PTC study sessions were conducted on Safe Streets for All and El
Camino Real bike lanes, and OOT staff provide traffic safety reports to the PTC with
regularity; this goal continues as Goal 1 into the 2024-25 work plan as ongoing.
•Goal 7: Parking Programs; RPP etc. this goal is repurposed in 2024-25 plan as Goal 6.
•Goal 8: Palo Alto Link; this goal was met, the program is running
•Goal 9: BPTP Update; this goal was met; the PTC conducted a study session and Council
will conduct a session regarding the vision for BPTP during the 2023-24 plan term; this
goal is repurposed for the next stages of the effort in the 2024-25 plan as Goal 7, for the
PTC to review deliverables until adoption of the plan.
Planning Goals
Goals 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 were met/partially met; partially met goals will be repurposes for 2024-
25:
•Goal 2: Retail Recovery; this goal will be met within the 2023-24 plan term; study
sessions and ad-hoc are working to bring the report to PTC May 8, leading up to a
presentation to Council June 10; this goal is repurposed to ‘Retail Ordinance Updates’
•Goal 3: Coordinated Area Plans is repurposed as ‘Area Plans’ and is an ongoing goal
•Goal 4: NVCAP; this goal is met with PTC review of the plan, Certified SEIR and zoning
code amendment on 5/8 and Council review and adoption set for June 10.
•Goal 5: Housing Element; this goal is met. HE revision (4/15 Council adoption) and HE
ordinances PTC reviewed and Council adopted: Safe Parking, Implementing HE Programs
1.1A, 1.1B (rezoning GM/ROLM), 1.3 (By-Right Housing on HE sites), Density Bonus law,
HIP (6/12 PTC). Goal 4 for 2024-25 targets additional HE programs implementation.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 30
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 6
•Goal 6: State Legislation Implementation (ongoing) - SB9 and AB2097 handouts and
map were done; this goal is repurposed to Goal 5 for implementing state legislation
•Goal 11: Rental Registry Program; this goal was met with the 11/23 ordinance adoption
and May 6th Council is targeted for the rental registry contract.
•Goal 12: Dark Sky/ Bird-safe Glass (5/29); this goal will be met in the 2023-24 term.
•Goal 13: Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation is an ongoing goal; during the
term, staff worked with consultants on background reports and approaches/strategies;
this goal is repurposed as Goal 8 in the 2024-25 work plan.
DISCUSSION
2024-25 PTC Work Plan Draft Goals
The draft has eight goals, including the goals that are carried forward, repurposed or modified
from 2023-24 plan:
Goal 1: Road Safety
Goal 2: Retail Ordinance Updates
Goal 3: Area Planning
Goal 4: Housing Element implementation
Goal 5: State legislation implementation
Goal 6: Parking Programs
Goal 7: Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update
Goal 8: Comprehensive Plan Policy/Program Implementation
City Council Priorities/Objectives
The City Council’s priorities and objectives for 2024 are viewable on the City’s webpage at this
link4. For the 2023-24 work plan, the PTC had considered the Council’s 2023 priorities and
objectives and added several goals. Below are the Council’s Priorities and Objectives that relate
to the work of the PTC; staff used the numbering system in the document viewable via the link:
•Economic Development and Transition:
o [18] is addressed with the Retail Study presentation to Council set for June 10,
2024. A likely follow-up ordinance update is captured in the 2024-25 PTC work
plan as Goal 2, with draft title “Retail Ordinance Updates.”
•Climate Change and National Environment:
o [23] is captured in the 2024-15 work plan as Goal 7, to continue community
engagement to inform/receive Council feedback on the 2025 BPTP preparing for
next steps including environmental review and adoption in 2025.
o [33] is about Palo Alto Link to consider continuation and/or expansion of future
service (as note this was handled in 2023-24 with PTC, so this goal is retired).
4 Link to Council priorities and objectives are found here
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/communications-office/attachment-a-2024-
proposed-council-priority-objectives-3.pdf
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 31
Item No. 3. Page 5 of 6
o [38] is about the preferred alternatives for City Rail/Grade separations (this is a
Rail Committee item).
o [44] is about the stream/creek corridor ordinance (captured in 2024-25 plan as
part of Goal 8).
o [45] is about bird safe glass and dark skies ordinance (finishing during the 2023-
24 work plan term).
•Housing for Social and Economic Balance:
o Advance Housing Plans
▪[48] Develop and identify housing opportunity sites through the Downtown
Housing Plan including community outreach (2024-25 work plan Goal 3)
▪[49] Submit a compliant Housing Element to HCD (met within 2023-24 term)
▪[50] Approve final NVCAP (will be met in 2023-24 term)
▪[51] Receive SLO concept plan for San Antonio Corridor (met in 2023-24 term)
▪[52] Approve consultant contract to initiate a specific plan for San Antonio Road
Corridor including project goals and outcomes (2024-25 work plan Goal 3)
o Implement Housing Production Policies (2024-25 Work Plan Goal 4)
▪[54] Initiate a review and make recommendations for a possible extension of the
Housing Focus area to other geographic locations along El Camino Real
▪[55] Consider funding affordable housing related projects based on responses to
NOFA
▪[56] Approve consultant contract to assess housing development fees for the
conversion from a per unit to per square foot basis
▪[57] Refine implementation of SB9 objective development, urban lot split standards
▪[58] Adopt an ordinance that implements HE program 3.4 related to the HIP
▪[59] Amend the municipal fee schedule and prepare economic feasibility analysis
that implements HE Program 3.1 related to fee waivers and adjustments
▪[60] Initiate study implementing HE Program 6.5 related to alt. housing types
▪[61] Adopt an ordinance implementing various HE programs
▪[62] Initiate analysis to amend the zoning code to implement HE program 3.9 related
to commercial floor area.
o Advance Renter Protection Policies (finishing in 2023-24 Work Plan term)
▪[68] Council discussion of possible ordinance related to fair chance renter policy
▪[69] Council discussion of possible anti-rent gouging policy
▪[70] Finalize plan to maintain affordability and improve conditions at BVMP
▪[71] Approve a service contract to initiate Renter Registry Implementation
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project is not subject to review according to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Thus, no CEQA review has been performed.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 32
Item No. 3. Page 6 of 6
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Council is anticipated to review the board and commission work plans in June. If the PTC
continues the review of the 2024-2025 work plan to refine the verbiage, the May 8th PTC
meeting would be the target meeting to further discuss draft goals of the 2024-25 work plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft 2024-25 Work Plan
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 33
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
2024-25 Workplan and 2023 -24 Workplan Overview
Staff Liaison: Amy French, Chief Planning Official, Planning and Development Services (PDS)
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services (PDS); Office of Transportation (OOT)
Date reviewed by PTC April 24, 2024
About the Commission The seven-member Planning & Transportation Commission adopted its 2023-24 work plan on April 26, 2023. The members and chairs are listed below. Members serve 4-year terms. See
Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) webpage link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp
Current Commissioners • Doria Summa (Chair)
• Bryna Chang (Vice Chair)
• Bart Hechtman
• Keith Reckdahl
• Carolyn Templeton
• Allen Akin
• George Lu Mission Statement
The Planning & Transportation Commission advises the City Council, Planning Director, and Chief Transportation Official on land use and transportation matters, including the Comprehensive Plan,
zoning, transportation programs, and related matters. The Commission's primary responsibilities include:
• Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan and applying the Comprehensive Plan to proposed development, public facilities, and
transportation in Palo Alto
• Considering and making recommendations to the City Council on zoning map and zoning ordinance changes; any changes to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code must be reviewed
by the PTC and the City Council
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions and Site and Design Reviews, on appeals on variances and use permits
• Considering other policies and programs affecting development and land use in Palo Alto for final City Council action
• Reviewing and making recommendations on individual projects as described in the Municipal Code, and Open Space development;
• Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on transportation, parking, and other related mobility issues
• Ensuring robust community engagement and dialogue regarding planning, land use, and transportation and providing recommendations to the City Council regarding these matters and
incorporating the public discussion. The PTC hearings provide a forum for public comment and public interaction
Prior Year Accomplishments
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/ptc-2023-2024-work-plan.pdf
The PTC recommended the revised Housing Element, ordinances, and development, provided feedback in study sessions, recommended policy direction, reviewed annual reports, completed goals and continued the ongoing goals.
Transportation Goal 1 Road Safety and Goal 9 BPTP: BPTP vision sessions (PTC, 4/29 CC), Safe Streets For All (PTC, 4/29 CC), El Camino Real bike lanes (PTC, 4/1 CC), traffic safety report reviews ongoing; Goal 2: Retail Recovery –
sessions, ad-hoc, report to Council; Goal 3 ongoing; Goal 4 met: NVCAP and Certified SEIR and zoning code amendment (5/8 PTC, 6/10 CC); Goal 5 HE revision (4/15 PTC/Council adoption) and HE ordinances for: Safe Parking,
Implementing HE Programs 1.1A, 1.1B (rezoning GM/ROLM), 1.3 (By-Right Housing on HE sites), Density Bonus law, HIP (6/12 PTC); Goal 6: State legislation implementation included SB9, AB2097 handouts and map; Goal 8: On
Demand Transit – PA Link launched; Goal 10 Car Free St. - CMO; Goal 11 RRP 11/23 ord. - met; Goal 12: Dark Sky/ Bird-safe Glass (5/29 PTC); Goal 13: Stream Corridor not met (target dates end of summer); Other ordinances
adopted in term: Electrification/Noise, Parklets, PHZs 800 San Antonio, 3265 ECR, 660 University; Projects reviewed: 575, 830 Los Trancos; 3200 Park/340 Portage, 2901 Middlefield; 4075 ECR, 2501 Embarcadero
Item 3
Attachment A: Planning and
Transportation Commission Draft
Work Plan 2024-25
Packet Pg. 34
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 2024-2025 Workplan
Staff Liaison: Amy French, Chief Planning Official, Planning and Development Services (PDS)
Lead Departments: Planning and Development Services (PDS); Office of Transportation (OOT) PROJECT/GOAL 1: Safe Streets For All Safety Action Plan Review and support the adoption of the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Opportunity to investigate an area
of considerable public concern.
Estimated adoption by the end of 2024 Fully funded by a FHWA grant Adoption of plan by Council No
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE Safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists is important. Reducing and/or eliminating
injury and death resulting from collisions is an important priority for many residents. A public dialogue at the PTC is welcomed by those concerned members of the public.
The challenges in this area are addressed through existing committees and active
projects. The work continues regardless.
No
PROJECT/GOAL 2: Retail Ordinance Updates
Council is likely to direct PTC to amend Zoning Code after staff presents the Retail Study prepared by MBI, reviewed by the PTC with support from PTC ad hoc committee; the study included consideration of AB 2097 and outreach. This is a Council priority (objective 18 of EDT): “Present to Council recommendations for a citywide retail zoning strategy and receive direction for zoning ordinance implementation.”
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Overall, this project aims to ensure
a strong climate for retail
businesses in Palo Alto that can
allow residents to meet their daily needs and have a high quality of
life.
The high-level reviews of trends and best practices
in retail will be presented to Council June 10, 2024.
The PTC is likely to receive Council direction for Title 18
changes in the 2024-25 plan year.
Consultant work, staff oversight, and
meetings preparation, and participation
from the local retail community.
These interrelated projects may result in
the development of new ordinances
and/or broader policy recommendations
to the City Council.
Yes - Council assigned.
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Any shifts in retail trends that will endure are occurring and can benefit from further and refined action by the City.
While this is an impactful body of work, the need to get it right and coordinate with
existing and new resources outweighs the need to quickly pursue the work. Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 3: Area Planning This goal carries forward the prior year goal for neighborhood planning approaches and overall effectiveness of various approaches to neighborhood planning. The staff and PTC will consider new neighborhoods that result from the 6th cycle Housing Element sites and demand for public facilities/services. For the Downtown Housing Plan, staff retained consultants and began outreach in April/May, with community assessment, community advisory group, and technical advisory group meetings, and formulation of goals and policies. For the San Antonio Road Area Plan the RFP will be released in summer 2024, and work with a consultant on the area plan can begin.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Development of preliminary schedule for new area plans would enable City Council to
provide direction
By December 2024 Staff time to research and prepare a staff
report to PTC and ARB
Successful conversation and possible identification of an approach (or
approaches) to guide the City's future.
No
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Council directed work on a preliminary schedule It would be timely to hold study sessions after the Housing Element has been
certified
Yes
Item 3
Attachment A: Planning and
Transportation Commission Draft
Work Plan 2024-25
Packet Pg. 35
PROJECT/GOAL 4: Housing Program Implementation The PTC reviewed responses to HCD second-round comments with Council on April 15, 2024. PTC reviewed zone changes and Comp Plan amendments to achieve RHNA housing yields. Commence work on HE program implementation goals (see Council objectives list) for 2024-25: Program 3.4 Housing Incentive Program (including Program 3.4 E, Expand the El Camino Real Housing Focus Area at strategic locations on El Camino Real) to be completed by December 31, 2024, Program 6.5 Alternative Housing to be completed by June 2025. The PTC may also begin work on Program 3.7 (Objective Standards in SOFA) toward the goal of December 31, 2026 adoption.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Compliant housing element and programs to encourage housing development
PTC and Council reviewed on April 15th
submittal for HCD certification; targets for
Programs 3.4 and 6.5 fall within plan term.
Staff and consultant resources employed Implementation of programs by target
dates
Yes - State Mandated
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Housing Incentive Program SOFA objective standards Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 5: State Law Implementation – Laws with Prior Effective Dates (AB 2097, AB 2011, SB6) and any new 2024 Laws to Become Effective 2025
AB 2097, AB2011, SB6 Implementation and related policy considerations; includes development of policy considerations related to TDRs in Downtown and SOFA, parking district policies and in lieu parking fees, alternative parking facilities, loading zone, and ride-share passenger loading.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Provide clarity to property owners and potential developers.
Study session with PTC and Ordinance Recommendation during 2023-24 plan term Staff resources have been assigned. Adoption of ordinance amendments Yes - State
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE
Implementing state laws and discuss policy considerations N/A Possibly - direction in April
PROJECT/GOAL 6: Parking Programs
The PTC will receive an update regarding options for improving the City’s parking programs. This includes a Roadmap for Residential Parking Permit Program improvements and commercial parking improvements. Parking Data Portal - PTC will receive an update regarding parking availability data. The new license plate reader technology allows for regular collection and reporting of parking availability.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL- APPROVED
Improved parking operations. Ongoing.
Ongoing.
Feedback from PTC and continued engagement from the public. Yes
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE
The staff work behind the project continues; proposed updates help advance the work. Additionally, the public welcomes opportunities to engage w/the PTC on this topic. This project represents a large body of ongoing work to manage parking supply and parking policy.
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 7: Bicycle and Ped Transportation Plan Update A citywide evaluation of the bicycle network and pedestrian network. The plan will identify opportunities to enhance and connect the network.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL- APPROVED
Updated bike/ped transportation plan Final plan update in 2025 Fully funded by a TDA3 grant Updated bike and ped plan No
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE
N/A Update is timely, but not mandated by any state laws. No
PROJECT/GOAL 8: Comprehensive Plan Policy Implementation. This includes Streamside Corridor changes in Title 18 and other Comp Plan policies that lead to Title 18 revisions.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED/LOCAL LAW/COUNCIL APPROVED Work through the relevant remaining
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs
to completion
Stream corridor ordinance July 31 PTC. Others TBD; Staff identifies these tasks in annual reports
Staff and consultant assistance – during a
year when staff resources will be focused on
implementation of the Housing Element
Adopted ordinances to amend Title 18 No
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL
Some of the programs and policies are higher priority Some of the programs and policies are lower priority Yes – Comprehensive Plan
Item 3
Attachment A: Planning and
Transportation Commission Draft
Work Plan 2024-25
Packet Pg. 36
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 24, 2024
Report #: 2404-2866
TITLE
Study Session: State Laws to be Implemented in Title 18 Revisions
BACKGROUND
The staff of planning and city attorney’s offices will prepare a presentation regarding the
strategies the City has been developing for addressing the implementation of several state laws
that became effective in 2023 and 2024 such as AB 2097, AB2011, and SB6, and related policy
considerations. There is no staff report at this time; staff is targeting the May 29, 2024 PTC
meeting for presentation of a draft ordinance for PTC review and recommendation to Council.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 37