HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-29 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: October 29, 2025 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6
7
Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 8
9
The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10
11
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 12
13
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there were no agenda changes. 14
15
PUBLIC COMMENT 16
17
Bob L., President of the Palo Alto Airport Association, spoke of issues related to the proposal for 18
housing east of 101 near Geng Road due to its proximity to the airport. Bob L. understand there 19
was a legal requirement for the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission to review the 20
plans. Future residents should be informed of aircraft noise before purchasing property in the 21
area. 22
23
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 24
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 25
26
Jennifer Armer noted that the November 12 PTC meeting would address the Annual 27
Comprehensive Plan Progress Report, the PaloAlto Link update, and consideration of the Bicycle 28
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan for recommendation to Council. The November 26 meeting 29
had been cancelled. On October 20, Council approved the tentative map recommended by the 30
PTC. Council would address the Lighting/Dark Skies Ordinance update and 660 University would 31
be presented to Council on November 10. 32
33
Office of Transportation Senior Planner Ozzy Arce announced that he would be providing future 34
OOT updates. The City released the Draft Bike and Ped Plan, which would be presented to the 35
PTC on November 12. There had been a ribbon cutting for the Caltrans Rehabilitation Project, 36
which included the bikeway. The school Bike Rodeos had been successful. Bike Palo Alto 37
returned this year. Last week the Urban Land Institute was in Palo Alto and there had been a 38
specific focus on looking at near- and long-term recommendations for the Palo Alto Transit 39
Center. Ozzy Arce outlined some of the recommendations, which staff would look into building 40
into some of the CIP or other programs. There was a project to bring improvements to the Alma 1
Street and Charleston area, which was independent from the ongoing rail grade separation 2
conversations. It was in cooperation with Caltrans, the Peninsula Joint Powers Board and the 3
City. Design elements could include installation of a pre-signal, street lighting, roadway 4
resurfacing, utility relocation, signage and striping. There had been a community meeting on 5
October 28 with support for the safety improvements. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton appreciated the content of Ozzy Arce’s update. 8
9
Commissioner Hechtman was happy that an OOT representative delivered the report in person. 10
11
Commissioner Ji echoed the remarks of Commissioners Templeton and Hechtman. 12
Commissioner Ji had enjoyed the Bike Rodeo. Commissioner Ji asked if the retail nodes had 13
gone to Council. 14
15
Jennifer Armer answered that the plan was to present the retail nodes to the Retail Committee 16
in December and then to Council on consent. 17
18
Vice Chair Chang thanked Ozzy Arce for the update and echoed prior comments. 19
20
Chair Akin looked forward to seeing Ozzy Arce in future meetings. 21
22
ACTION ITEMS 23
2. SamTrans Grand Boulevard Initiative: Fall 2025 Progress Update. CEQA Status: Not a 24
Project 25
26
SamTrans Cassie Halls stated the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) was a multiagency 27
partnership to implement transportation improvements on El Camino and to expedite 28
improvements across the whole San Mateo County segment of El Camino. However, it included 29
Palo Alto. The Planning Study would be completed the end of this calendar year. The details of 30
the GBI were discussed, including partnerships and roles and projects and studies underway. 31
The GBI Action Plan was intended to refine design concepts prior to starting the next phase of 32
the Caltrans process, which Caltrans required and SamTrans was proposing a coordinated 33
approach for all of San Mateo County and a portion of Palo Alto to enable going through one 34
Caltrans process. Roles and responsibilities would be defined from there. SamTrans was 35
presenting to all Councils and all public agencies involved had a Steering Committee. SamTrans 36
and TA Board adoption would be sought at the end of the year. Cities and advocacy and 37
business groups along El Camino had been asked to identify problems so they could be 38
prioritized. 39
40
Cassie Halls voiced that the top issue was safety and the goal was to adopt a safety first mindset 41
to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. It was desired that El Camino Real work for all 42
users. As it was challenging to develop, implement and fund projects on El Camino, a new 43
framework for change was being created. A list of streetscape changes under study was 1
displayed, which included safety, active transportation and transit improvements. The GBI built 2
on plans and projects in Palo Alto. It was estimated that the project would cost $750M to $1B 3
and take 6 to 10 years to complete, although there would be spot improvements before 4
completing the full corridor. After the conceptual planning phase, the Project Initiation 5
Document (PID) would be started and then the project would move into design and 6
construction. Funding sources that cities could not access could be accessed by the CTA, 7
SamTrans and MTC, which would make it more competitive for discretionary funding. Cassie 8
Halls asked what goals Palo Alto had for the corridor, how work could be done together and if 9
the process was supported. 10
11
Vice Chair Chang queried if Stanford was involved. 12
13
Cassie Halls responded that Stanford was involved in the taskforce. 14
15
Commissioner Peterson questioned how the project would be combined to be coherent, how 16
the pipeline of funding would be created and if there were participating contractors. 17
18
Cassie Halls answered that a lot of the implementation was still being defined. It was 19
anticipated that 50 percent of the total project cost would be accessed through Highway Call 20
for Projects through SMCTA, which had to be phased across multiple years. The preferred 21
alternative would be decided in 2027. SamTrans was trying to ensure that all agreed on general 22
themes. From there, there would need to be negotiations with individual cities to make sure 23
the design would be continuous. There would not be one facility down the whole corridor. 24
Some areas might have bike lanes and others transit lanes. One GBI Action Plan was for El 25
Camino to be a backbone bicycle network; however, there could be parallel routes in the 26
corridor. There was no natural agency to lead the effort, so the 5-agency partnership was being 27
relied on but intervention at the regional level was needed. 28
29
PUBLIC COMMENTS 30
31
Bill R. thought the existing physical environment, including existing bike lanes, right of entries 32
for retailers, safety, ADA access, enforcement and funding, should be considered before moving 33
the plan forward. 34
35
Commissioner Templeton supported improving the flow of traffic and pedestrians at the train 36
station, which needed signage, and access to bike paths should be clear and well lit. The 37
process sounded fine. Crossing El Camino was scary for less experienced pedestrians and 38
bicyclists. The flooding on El Camino under the University Avenue bridge needed to be 39
addressed. 40
41
Commissioner Hechtman expressed that safety should be the first goal. Commissioner 42
Hechtman questioned how the streetscape could be pedestrian friendly while accommodating 43
more bicyclists, buses and vehicles with limited space. The best way to work together was 1
through communication. Commissioner Hechtman supported the process as described by 2
Cassie Halls. 3
4
Vice Chair Chang suggested keeping SB79 and additional downtown housing in mind. It would 5
be important to work with Transportation and Planning staff. Vice Chair Chang asked if the 6
framework for change would impact adjacent agencies or be something Palo Alto could learn 7
from. 8
Cassie Halls replied that SB79 was being tracked. Cassie Halls discussed the train station 9
requiring a half mile radius. Regarding the change in the process, Caltrans was changing a lot as 10
an agency and had new policies. It was hoped that the GBI would be a test case for Caltrans and 11
how this type of work could happen. There were potential future changes to all the processes. 12
SB960 stated Caltrans had to expedite transit improvements, which should shape the future of 13
what would be done. 14
15
Commissioner Ji mentioned that the redesign of the station might depend on the ULI study. 16
17
Commissioner James agreed with the framework. Commissioner James inquired where the 18
photographs on Packet Page 22 were taken and if there was any overlap with one of Peter 19
Calthorpe’s ideas for El Camino. 20
21
Cassie Halls answered that the photographs on Packet Page 22 were taken in Menlo Park and 22
Redwood City. There was not a perfect location on El Camino exemplifying the vision but 23
pockets that could potentially happen in the future. The initiative had been around since 2006. 24
25
Chair Akin voiced that bike lane connectivity was a high priority goal. Chair Akin asked how 26
modernization benefits would come into play for economic vitality and at what stage in the 27
process things like traffic flows should be measured and modeled so they could be applied to 28
the incremental changes over time. 29
Cassie Halls answered that the goals were very focused on mobility, safety and process. When 30
the exercise was done that identified priority problems, climate change adaptation and 31
economic vitality were identified, which SamTrans considered co-benefits of the improvements. 32
Folks feeling safer and improved aesthetics could promote economic vitality. Alternative modes 33
of transportation were tied to more economic activity. Caltrans had a rigorous process for 34
measuring traffic flows, etc. The PID would include some traffic, stormwater, etc., analyses and 35
more detailed modeling would be done in future design phases, which would start in 2026. 36
37
Commissioner Peterson queried how the funding would be patchworked. It would be 38
advantageous to get construction partners involved early in the process. 39
40
Cassie Halls replied that SamTrans and the TA were familiar with alternative delivery methods, 41
which would be considered. 42
1
3. STUDY SESSION: Consider Retail Revitalization Measures and Initiatives Related to 2
the City Council’s Economic Development and Retail Vibrancy Priority. CEQA Status: 3
Not a Project 4
5
Consultant and Principal at Lexington Planning Jean Eisberg provided a background of retail 6
revitalization measures and initiatives. The interim ordinance would sunset in December 2026. 7
A permanent ordinance would replace that in advance. Jean Eisberg requested the PTC consider 8
options and recommendations for the retail strategy and provide feedback to help prepare an 9
ordinance for Council’s consideration. It was explained that the zoning was complicated and 10
sometimes restrictive, which could deter retailers from locating in Palo Alto. Allowing more 11
uses could reduce vacancy rates, etc. Jean Eisberg provided suggestions of uses to be included. 12
Definitions of allowed uses could also be expanded. It was explained that the term “Conditional 13
Use Permit” could discourage retailers. Using the term “Administrative Use Permit (AUP)” could 14
help. Alternatively, publicizing the process, etc., on the City’s website could help. The layers of 15
Use Regulations were confusing. Parking regulations restricting changes in use within existing 16
retail was problematic and options to address such were outlined. The Retail Preservation 17
Ordinance (RPO) applying to all locations was problematic and options to manage that were 18
detailed. The zoning map was complicated and it was suggested that a simplified map be 19
published. Jean Eisberg was working on the project with Christine Firstenberg, Principal at 20
Retail Real Estate Resources, who would be available for Q&A. It was recommended that the 21
PTC consider options and recommendations for the Retail Ordinance and that feedback be 22
provided so an ordinance could be brought back for consideration and ultimately a 23
recommendation to Council. 24
25
Commissioner Hechtman addressed Attachment A on Packet Page 39 and asked why staff 26
called out provisions regarding waste and what the origin was on the 35 square feet referenced 27
on Packet Page 43. 28
29
Jean Eisberg responded that Attachment A was to have objective standards that could be 30
incorporated into the ordinance to help reduce waste impacts. There should be a process and 31
receptacles to manage pet waste. Jean Eisberg explained the origin of the 35 square feet 32
referenced on Packet Page 43. 33
34
Commissioner Ji questioned what the red and blue colors and the circles represented on the 35
slide titled Availability: Palo Alto. 36
37
Principal at Retail Real Estate Resources Christine Firstenberg responded that the red and blue 38
colors were generated by different programs and indicated nothing other than available space. 39
The circles identified commercial or retail buildings having no availability. 40
41
Commissioner Peterson asked if there was an index of commercial viability of each site. 42
43
Jean Eisberg replied that the comment about viability related to the RPO. The RPO covered RM 1
and RP Districts, so technically if there was a retail space in one of those districts it would need 2
to be replaced upon redevelopment. RM districts in certain locations were not the best retail 3
sites. 4
5
PUBLIC COMMENTS 6
7
There were no requests to speak. 8
9
Chair Akin suggested breaking the discussion into each of the 10 zoning issue groups. Chair Akin 10
asked the Commission if there were any general discussion items not covered by specific issues 11
on Packet Pages 39 to 53. 12
13
Vice Chair Chang inquired where the formula business definition was in effect. 14
Jean Eisberg replied the formula business definition was regulated only on California Avenue. 15
16
Commissioner Ji thought it would be helpful to include Cal Ave District R on Attachment B. 17
18
Commissioner Templeton queried if Council wanted the PTC to know about any particular 19
issues. 20
21
Jennifer Armer thought the starting point was the interim ordinance Council approved last 22
December. The motion approving the Ordinance included a list of items that should be 23
specifically considered in more depth. Additional items included a cat café and dog grooming 24
and there was concern about restrictions in the existing code and how cat cafés and dog 25
grooming had been understood in the past and a desire for more flexibility. Council would have 26
new items to consider upon bringing the recommendation to them. It was expected that the 27
PTC’s recommendation would go to the Retail Committee before going to the full Council. 28
Annihilating retail was not being proposed. 29
30
Chair Akin requested the Commission address definitions on Packet Pages 39 to 42. 31
32
Commissioner Hechtman supported the first bullet under animal care (the second and third 33
bullets were not necessary) and the retail financial service. Under casual restaurants, it might 34
be helpful to determine if an establishment was a bar or an actual eating and drinking 35
establishment. The definition of retail-like uses should read “contribute substantially to 36
pedestrian activity.” Commissioner Hechtman liked the fourth bullet, not the first three, under 37
retail-like uses and on Packet Page 42, he liked the first bullet rather than making the interim 38
ordinance permanent. 39
40
Commissioner Templeton asked if animal waste meant produced by an animal or by the service. 41
Jennifer Armer believed animal waste referred to produced by an animal. There were 1
regulations for animals passing away in a facility. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton gave an example of definitions possibly not being restrictive enough. 4
Commissioner Templeton requested that consideration be given to the waste of products with 5
strong odors by grooming establishments. Commissioner Templeton questioned whether the 6
distinction of automobile showrooms related to a lot versus a retail front. Takeout orders 7
should be allowed for casual restaurants. 8
9
Jennifer Armer noted that a permit was required to have animals on a premises. It was 10
explained that an automobile showroom was a different character than a lot and might be 11
appropriate in some commercial areas. 12
13
Vice Chair Chang voiced if she did not speak to modifications listed on Packet Pages 39 to 42 14
that she agreed with them. Vice Chair Chang had no objections to animal care as long as it did 15
not impact neighbors or pedestrians. Outdoor chemicals should not be allowed. The ordinances 16
were outdated for fast casual restaurants. Vice Chair Chang supported takeout not being its 17
own thing but requested that staff address any unintended consequences of upgrading a purely 18
takeout service to a restaurant, such as parking requirements and commercial kitchens and 19
dishwashers. Regarding retail-like use, “high level” should be changed to “substantially.” It 20
might not make sense to roll retail-like into retail due to how the definitions would be used. The 21
look and feel of certain areas of the city should be maintained. Vice Chair Chang explained how 22
things might be nested, such as a traditional retail area and then being more flexible expanding 23
out of the zone. Certain retail-like uses might be moved into retail and others kept as purely 24
retail-like. Vice Chair Chang did not know what Palo Alto wanted for formula retail business for 25
California Avenue, so it was suggested that the definition remain but not necessarily the first 26
bullet because the goals were unclear. 27
28
Commissioner Ji agreed with the Commissioners comments regarding animal care, retail 29
finance services and auto showroom. Fast casual restaurants might need commercial kitchens 30
and dishwashers but the impacts should be investigated. For retail-like use, Commissioner Ji 31
supported the word “substantially,” revising Bullet K to be objective and staff defining objective 32
criteria or recommendations. Regarding Bullet 4, Commissioner Ji would not be happy with 33
retail-like, such as hotels, facing away from streets due to lack of access. Eating and drinking 34
services and commercial recreation could be defined as retail. Commissioner Ji did not support 35
folding retail-like completely into retail but some items could be meshed. Commissioner Ji 36
supported making the interim formula retail business definition permanent. There could be 37
additional definitions for retail-like uses for medical or something similar. 38
39
Commissioner Peterson agreed with the Commissioners’ comments and supported the current 40
formula retail definition for California Avenue. 41
42
Commissioner James agreed with the sentiments of the Commissioners. It would make sense to 43
split animal care, to make the proposed changes to retail finance and to remove the takeout 44
service definition. Retail and retail-like usage should be as permissive as possible with without 1
losing guardrails. There should be definitions for retail and retail-like categories. Commissioner 2
James was uncertain about formula retail on California Avenue as local boutique businesses 3
should not be squeezed out or have rents increased. 4
5
Chair Akin queried how difficult it would be to establish objective performance standards for 6
animal noise and waste. If feasible, animal care should be defined as a single category. Chair 7
Akin would not object to the split between daytime and overnight care if it could not be 8
managed any other way. Animal care would not have to be categorized if there were enough 9
objective standards. Chair Akin agreed with the proposed modifications for retail financial 10
services and fast casual restaurants and the interim definition for automobile showroom. The 11
definition and use of takeout should be eliminated. The subjective qualifier for pedestrian 12
activity should be eliminated; Chair Akin did not object to using the word “substantially” or 13
“substantively” but the simplicity might have been valuable. Merging retail-like into retail was 14
attractive but Chair Akin questioned if anywhere in the code retail alone was used with the 15
specific intent of excluding retail-like. 16
17
Jean Eisberg replied there should be performance standards for animal noise and waste and 18
there were a couple ways to regulate it. The metrics should be clear. 19
20
Jennifer Armer responded that the use of retail-like and where it should or should not be 21
allowed was not clear and it was not addressed in many places. Staff understood from Council 22
that there should be more flexibility and a broader range of uses within retail areas. 23
24
Chair Akin preferred there be no distinction but hoped it would be investigated more 25
thoroughly. 26
27
Vice Chair Chang stated there needed to be a definition for medical retail. The 3,500 square 28
feet might not be sufficient if it was an 11,000 square-foot building. Vice Chair Chang had 29
supplied a medical retail definition in the past and other jurisdictions might have examples that 30
could be considered. If Bullet K was retained, it would be helpful to list as many objective 31
standards as possible. 32
33
Jennifer Armer addressed defining medical retail and noted a clear line had been drawn that 34
would not allow for a medical spa or medical personal service if medical staff was involved. 35
There had been a fair amount of interest in that type of use in the past. 36
37
Vice Chair Chang suggested looking into a small amount of a space being used for a consulting 38
physician. 39
40
Jennifer Armer mentioned that another example was an eye doctor selling glasses. 41
42
Commissioner Ji asked if the RPO impacted retail and retail-like businesses. 43
44
Jean Eisberg responded that the RPO impacted retail and retail-like businesses. 1
2
Jean Eisberg stated more research could be done and a draft returned for the PTC’s 3
consideration. 4
5
Commissioner Hechtman stated the retail environment was somewhat broken as measured by 6
vacancy and vibrancy. The environment was a product of the Ordinance. Changes could be 7
made to the Ordinance if there were unintended consequences of the changes being 8
contemplated now. 9
10
Chair Akin proceeded to Packet Pages 43 and 44. 11
12
Commissioner Hechtman supported staff’s suggestions for Cal Ave. As for the waiver and 13
adjustments, Commissioner Hechtman preferred the detailed potential modification over 14
making the interim regulation permanent, and the alternative viable use in Subjection 2 and 15
eliminating the economic hardship, which was captured in the alternative viable use, which 16
could potentially be used as the basis of a waiver or adjustment. 17
18
Vice Chair Chang stated a waiver process was needed and it should be permanent if Council 19
supported it but it should be the same for all retail. Vice Chair Chang queried how often the 20
waiver process had been used and if folks had considered using it but found it too onerous. 21
Retail revitalization was needed but there had been data problems with both consultants’ 22
reports in the past, which had not been addressed. In premeeting, Christine Firstenberg had 23
provided the PTC information that was not provided by the consultants. Vice Chair Chang 24
questioned if the retail problem was specific to Palo Alto and what could be done to help the 25
situation. High office rent was an issue in Palo Alto. 26
27
Jennifer Armer was not aware of any request to use the waiver process in the last year. 28
29
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang was aware of the waiver process being used twice several 30
years ago. It was not known how often someone might have thought about using it but did not 31
because it was overwhelming. 32
33
Christine Firstenberg responded that Palo Alto’s Zoning Code needed to be cleaned up because 34
it was dense and extremely hard to understand, which affected retailers’ decisions and could 35
lead to candidates considering other cities. Changing the language would help the vacancy rate. 36
The larger issue, even over zoning, was the size of spaces. All uses were downsizing. Tenants 37
fitting in Palo Alto’s median square-foot size were often in retail-like uses. Medical salons/spas 38
were ballooning in the Bay Area, which would fit in Palo Alto’s median square-foot size. It was 39
thought that loosening the retail-like uses would address the size issue. 40
41
Vice Chair Chang felt the waiver process should remain if there should be more retail-like uses. 42
Businesses should be allowed smaller spaces. The pedestrian overlay might have been valuable 43
but not the R overlay. 44
1
Commissioner Ji requested commentary related to Palo Alto rents relative to neighbors. 2
3
Christine Firstenberg answered that Palo Alto’s rents were more expensive. Some spaces on 4
University Avenue were much higher than surrounding cities. The availability reports indicated 5
some spaces were $48 a foot but a few properties leased in the $90 range. Market rents on the 6
Peninsula were typically $48 to $60 a foot. It was felt that property owners would eventually 7
consider reducing rents. Some spaces in Palo Alto were coming to the market with rents similar 8
to Menlo Park and Mountain View. 9
10
Commissioner Ji asked how long some landlords had had high rents and how the market would 11
handle allowing more uses. Commissioner Ji would be interested in offices facing a side or the 12
rear if such offices were community serving as defined by the Code. 13
14
Christine Firstenberg could do some research to determine how long some landlords had had 15
high rents. In many cases rents being out of line with market rents was due to leasing being 16
done by those outside the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) industry. Allowing 17
more uses would allow leasing of more spaces. Spaces at market rate would be leased before 18
those above market rate. Many retailers needed a certain type of utility infrastructure, which 19
could be expensive, so waivers could be helpful. 20
21
Chair Akin mentioned that the May 8, 2024 Packet had historical data for retail and office 22
vacancies and rents. 23
24
Commissioner Templeton stated building façades might need to correlate with the inside of 25
businesses. Formalizing the Cal Ave Shopping Center could help folks understand the separate 26
regulations and governance. The train stations lacked amenities, so maybe there could be 27
printings posted at the train station for Cal Ave retailers. A California Avenue vision was 28
needed. 29
30
Chair Akin supported keeping the provisions in the interim ordinance. Fitness centers might 31
become more attractive as SB79 forced more growth with less open space, which suggested the 32
size limit should be increased. Regarding office uses facing side and rear yards, it might need to 33
be worded as “not front-facing,” as some office space might be entirely internal. Chair Akin did 34
not have a strong opinion about medical offices with street-facing retail. Regarding formula 35
retail on Cal Ave, Chair Akin inquired if there was a trend for formula retail on University or 36
downtown. The exception process was too onerous. The rules should be clarified and adjusted 37
later if needed, which staff would need to make judgment calls on as the PTC was not 38
conveying a clear message. Regarding the area specific combining district, there was too much 39
in the base district to consolidate everything into an area specific district but all the other 40
specificity could be combined into one area specific combining district, so only one combining 41
district and the base would have to be looked at. This was worth pursuing on Cal Ave, Midtown, 42
Charleston, and possibly downtown. 43
44
Commissioner Templeton inquired if this item could address allowing popup cafés on California 1
Avenue. 2
3
Jennifer Armer replied that Popup cafés did not need to be addressed in this exercise. 4
5
[The Commission took a 10-minute break] 6
7
Chair Akin directed the conversation to Packet Page 45 – 18.30(C) ground floor combining 8
district regulations. 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman supported staff’s alternative to making the interim regulation 11
permanent. 12
13
Vice Chair Chang supported offices facing side and rear yards, although she was not totally 14
against fitness and exercise studios. If street-facing retail was to have office use behind it, the 15
office use should be neighborhood-serving. With the growing population, there was a need for 16
more recreational space. The consultant had noted that the vacant spaces were too large, so 17
smaller businesses should be encouraged. It was requested that the consultant and staff 18
determine gym size thresholds, which ideally should be the same on Cal Ave and University. 19
20
Chair Akin noted that he had previously commented on non-front-facing office, fitness studio 21
size limit, animal care and waivers. Chair Akin addressed Packet Page 46 – CD, CN, CC and CS 22
Districts. CD uses with GF and R uses should be harmonized, so the proposed modifications 23
were encouraged. Chair Akin supported merging them where sensible. 24
25
Vice Chair Chang was not in favor of removing the GF Combining District. The Midtown and 26
Charleston designations could be eliminated because the ground floor overrode that. Vice Chair 27
Chang did not support the middle bullet point because offices should not be in those spaces. 28
29
Commissioner Ji addressed Packet Pages 51 and 52 and suggested making liquor stores 30
conditional use for the GF Combining District. Commissioner Ji did not support keeping general 31
business services in conditional use as ground floor spaces should support individual consumers 32
generally. It was requested that staff explain the over/under 3,000 square feet for personal 33
service. 34
35
Jean Eisberg believed the over/under 3,000 square feet for personal services, fitness and a few 36
other uses had to do with CN needing be small scale. 37
38
Commissioner Ji inquired what the fitness requirement was for CN. Somewhat consistent 39
fitness standards were preferred. There might be some value in having specific area zoning for 40
Cal Ave as it was a closed pedestrian street. Commissioner Ji supported using GF generally for 41
Midtown and Charleston. 42
43
Jean Eisberg would look up the fitness requirement for CN. 44
1
Chair Akin commented there was value in creating combining districts for separate areas. Chair 2
Akin asked if creating a district by taking the most lenient options from all applicable columns 3
from the tables on Pages 51 to 53 would be acceptable. A disciplined way to create a proposal 4
for a new ordinance might be to interpret the current rules in the most generous fashion 5
possible. Chair Akin supported there being one base and one combining district. 6
7
Commissioner Ji requested that Section R be considered in the loose restrictions Chair Akin 8
spoke of. 9
10
Chair Akin moved the conversation to Packet Page 47 – 18.52.030 basic parking regulations. 11
12
Vice Chair Chang did not know the parking requirements for the varied uses but she supported 13
the parking regulations in theory. 14
15
Commissioner Templeton announced that she had a venue change and would log back on in 16
about 15 minutes. 17
18
Chair Akin was not comfortable with completely ignoring the parking impacts with change of 19
use. The standards could be updated. There was a new garage on Sherman so lower parking 20
requirements might be tolerated on Cal Ave. Parking might need to be addressed with area 21
specific districts. Chair Akin was receptive to the idea of increasing the shared parking 22
threshold, although there should be measurements to justify what the value should be. Chair 23
Akin was reluctant to explicitly cross reference AB2097 because it could be interpreted to 24
encourage zero parking rather than making a considered choice. Area specific/district specific 25
regulations could be expressed in way that would meet the requirements of the law, perhaps 26
without misleading. 27
28
Commissioner Ji noted that as businesses came and went on El Camino Way the parking 29
implication change was significantly experienced. 30
31
Commissioner Peterson promoted walking and public transportation. 32
33
Commissioner Hechtman noted that the sections he did not comment on indicated agreement 34
with staff’s proposed modifications. 35
36
Chair Akin addressed Packet Page 48 – process and administration. 37
38
Commissioner Hechtman supported renaming the CUPs (not the first bullet) because the 39
development and commercial communities disliked CUPs. That simple action might be an 40
attraction. 41
42
Chair Akin, Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner Ji agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. 43
44
Chair Akin addressed Packet Page 49 – retail preservation. 1
2
Commissioner Hechtman supported the first, third and fourth bullets (including the sub-3
bullets). The second bullet might need to be limited to promote behavior the City wanted to 4
encourage. Commissioner Hechtman somewhat supported the last bullet. The framework 5
should be adjusted in ways other than eliminating the RPO. 6
7
Commissioner Ji generally supported keeping retail where it was. 8
9
Vice Chair Chang wanted to create ground-floor retail in certain areas, such as El Camino, but 10
questioned where else it could be done. If the RPO was not desired, mandating retail in certain 11
locations might be logical. Vice Chair Chang suggested that Housing Element sites, which were 12
not low-income housing, require ground-floor retail and the areas outside those nodes be 13
released from the retail requirement. 14
15
Jennifer Armer noted that the GF and P overlays required ground-floor retail for Housing 16
Element sites that were not low-income housing. 17
18
Vice Chair Chang expressed it did not work when putting the GF overlay on the Housing 19
Element sites. 20
21
Jennifer Armer voiced that in compliance with the Housing Element it would only work on the 22
sites that were not allowed to build 100-percent housing. 23
24
Vice Chair Chang expressed that the City could implement the Housing Element differently to 25
make that distinguishing factor, which would solve the problem on El Camino. In theory, Vice 26
Chair Chang would support removing the RPO but it would require using the GF overly in a lot 27
of places. 28
29
Chair Akin could support excluding the Residential and the Office and Manufacturing Zones 30
provided that not much existing retail needed to be protected. Chair Akin supported removing 31
the need to express a 10-year history. Chair Akin was interested in the idea of eliminating the 32
RPO and requiring ground-floor retail in greater generality but it was unclear if developers 33
would be receptive to that approach. Chair Akin inquired if ground-floor retail could be 34
required in the SB79 areas. 35
36
Christine Firstenberg replied that most cities had a ground-floor retail requirement. Going to 37
the node concept was recommended because retail worked best at an intersection of 2 streets. 38
Midblock retail was not always successful. Christine Firstenberg understood that a housing 39
development being proposed had to identify the State Law being used. It was not clear if the 40
State could disregard a city’s zoning requirement for ground-floor retail. To understand it 41
clearly, the laws might need litigation. 42
43
Albert Yang remarked there was nothing in SB79 addressing ground-floor retail but SB79 1
projects were generally eligible for Density Bonus Law and under Density Bonus a developer 2
could request relief from retail requirements as a concession from the City. 3
4
Chair Akin understood that in general it could not be counted on but there would be the same 5
concern in applying an RPO. 6
7
Albert Yang confirmed that was correct. Density Bonus was available to any housing 8
development project providing the minimum amount of affordable housing. 9
10
Commissioner Ji remarked that having the GF overlay for some of the RM40 areas next to 11
commercial areas could be an interesting idea. 12
13
Commissioner Templeton announced her return and that she would be joining the remainder 14
of the meeting by video. 15
16
Chair Akin directed the conversation to Packet Page 50 – 18.38 PC Districts. Chair Akin was 17
open to allowing uses allowed in the other commercial districts but did not understand what 18
conditional permitting process would be used. 19
20
Jennifer Armer responded the same permitting process would be used, although older PCs 21
might not have the appropriate flexibility to be consistent with other commercial zones and 22
shopping centers. 23
24
Chair Akin questioned if a new PC would need to be created. 25
26
Jennifer Armer answered that the intent with this provision was to allow the Director the 27
authority to allow uses in those PCs without doing rezoning. 28
29
Commissioner Ji was skeptical about PCs and cautious about the word “similar.” 30
31
Vice Chair Chang would support it if “similar” was properly defined. It was concerning that 32
there could a similar use that the community might not consider equivalent to a previous public 33
benefit. 34
35
Jennifer Armer would determine if something could be done to address the word “similar.” It 36
would be expected that a grocery store, for example, would be retained. 37
38
Chair Akin requested comments on the zoning map. 39
40
Vice Chair Chang and Commissioner James agreed with the map. 41
42
Commissioner Ji agreed with the map but requested an explanation of the overlays. 43
44
Chair Akin found that the Commission approved the map. 1
2
Jean Eisberg would return with some ideas for the RPO. 3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4
5
4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 6
Minutes of July 30, 2025 7
8
PUBLIC COMMENTS 9
10
There were no public comments. 11
12
MOTION 13
14
Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Chair Akin seconded the motion. 19
20
VOTE MOTION 21
22
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 23
24
MOTION PASSED 5-0-2 (Peterson, Templeton, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Ji, James abstained) 25
5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 26
Minutes of August 27, 2025 27
28
Chair Akin announced that a public commenter had requested changes to the verbatim 29
minutes, which he outlined and found to be reasonable. 30
31
PUBLIC COMMENTS 32
33
There were no public comments. 34
35
MOTION 36
37
Chair Akin moved to approve the minutes as previously revised with the additions of the 38
revisions proposed by the public commenter. 39
40
SECOND 1
2
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 3
4
VOTE MOTION 5
6
The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 7
8
MOTION PASSED 7-0 (James, Hechtman, Templeton, Ji, Peterson, Chang, Akin) 9
10
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 11
12
Commissioner Ji had participated in the ULI study last week and the report was on YouTube. To 13
revitalize the area, consideration was being given to moving the MacArthur Park Café building. 14
There was a plan to store rocks from the Earth School in a Stanford-owned building. There was 15
interest in revitalizing the area and doing something creative with the parking lot on the other 16
side. There had been interesting conversations about connecting the park. 17
ADJOURNMENT 18
19
Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. 20