Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-25 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: March 25, 2026 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 Chair Akin announced that Commissioner Hechtman hoped to join the meeting later. 12 13 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 14 15 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer noted that public comment for items not on the agenda 16 would be addressed after Item 4. 17 18 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 19 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 20 21 Jennifer Armer commented that there was a plan to discuss alternative housing related to one 22 of the Housing Element implementation programs and a first review of a new Planned Home 23 Zone at 788 San Antonio Road at the April 8 meeting. Tentatively planned for April 29 was 24 consideration of a tentative map at 4103 Old Trace Road and the next consideration of the 25 Stream Protection Ordinance. It was expected that the election of Chair and Vice Chair would 26 occur at the next meeting, assuming Council provided direction on the 2 spots open for 27 recruitment. On March 16, Council approved the projects at 2100 Geng Road and 4075 El 28 Camino Way based on the PTC’s recommendation for a project of reduced size and the Bird-29 Friendly design ordinance was approved with minor modifications. On April 6, Council would 30 discuss the San Antonio Road Area Plan. On April 13, Council would consider a decision on the 31 project at 3606 El Camino Real. 32 33 Senior Planner Office of Transportation Ozzy Arce mentioned that new bollards and signs had 34 been installed on car-free Ramona Street. There was ongoing analysis for a temporary Churchill 35 Avenue rail crossing closure and on April 13 Council would be presented with options and 36 would provide staff direction. At the regional level, Santa Clara County was conducting a 37 Foothills Expressway multimodal feasibility study, which would advance the County’s active 38 transportation plan recommendation for a continuous Class 1 shared use path along Foothill 39 Expressway and Junipero Serra. The County shared 2 alternatives for the corridor and was 40 requesting community feedback on a preferred alternative. There was currently an open survey 1 which would run through April 15 and there would be a virtual community meeting on March 2 26. More information could be found on the project webpage. At the regional level, VTA 3 initiated a new effort – the Across Barrier Connections (ABC) Plan. There would be a community 4 survey open April 1 through April 26 and a virtual community meeting on April 22. More 5 information could be found on the project webpage. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton addressed the Churchill crossing and clarified that eliminating the at-8 grade crossing would remove the lethal means from the School District adjacency and wanted 9 all to give thought to making the crossing safer. Commissioner Templeton asked if there was an 10 open survey for the Churchill crossing. 11 12 Ozzy Arce was not aware of an open survey but folks could provide comments on the project 13 webpage. 14 15 Commissioner Ji discussed skipped signaling in relation to the Meadow crossing and asked if the 16 signal phasing tied to the Train Preemption Program impacted only the Meadow crossing. 17 18 Ozzy Arce would discuss the issue with the traffic engineers to determine what intersections 19 were impacted by the signal phasing. 20 21 Jennifer Armer mentioned that when a train was coming through it was standard practice to 22 have preemption over the cross traffic, although she would confirm that. 23 24 Commissioner Ji noted skipped signaling was occurring without the presence of a train and 25 requested that staff look into it. 26 27 Chair Akin inquired if there was an update on Nathan Baird’s parking meeting efforts. 28 29 Ozzy Arce had informed Nathan Baird of the PTC’s interest in receiving more information on 30 parking policies and updates on the Parking Management Program. That information could 31 come in the form of an informational report, an email, etc. 32 ACTION ITEMS 33 34 2. San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation Alternatives Study Session. 35 CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. 36 37 Chair Akin expected more than the usual amount of discussion and suggested there be time 38 limits and requested that commissioners provide feedback related to limiting each 39 commissioner to 3 minutes for clarifying questions and 5 minutes in each round of general 40 discussion. Chair Akin wanted to ensure that there would not be one round with a long 41 discussion limiting the ability of some commissioners contributing to the first round. 42 43 Commissioner Templeton did not consider time limits necessary. 1 2 Vice Chair Chang supported time limits. 3 4 Commissioner Ji expressed that having a shorter first round could warrant some merit but not 5 time limits after that. 6 7 Planning and Development Services Principal Planner Robert Cain voiced that since September 8 a lot of work had been done on developing potential alternatives, which were included in the 9 meeting packet. Staff was scheduled to go to Council on April 6 and the PTC’s feedback would 10 be presented to them. Robert Cain displayed a slide showing the project area and goals. Phase 11 2 was nearing the end, which developed land use and mobility alternatives. A community 12 survey was on the project website, which would be open a few more days. Upon concluding 13 Phase 2, policy recommendations would be developed and staff hoped to return to the relevant 14 bodies for study sessions or action items near the end of 2026. It was envisioned that most of 15 2027 would include finalizing the draft plan and conducting the environmental review. It was 16 hoped that final adoption of the plan would occur in the first half of 2028. To manage 17 development of the plan area, staff did not feel it appropriate to have the same 18 recommendations throughout the entire area, so the plan area had been separated into 19 smaller, discrete subareas. There was a focus on redevelopment of infill where there was low-20 density commercial with higher density residential and mixed use products. Consideration was 21 being given to where to include parks, plazas, and other third spaces; improving roads; the 22 ped/bike experience and transit; and adding transit. 23 24 Robert Cain stated there was a particular focus on the intersections. Four subareas had been 25 identified, which would include a lot of change based on development applications the City 26 received or interest developers had expressed. Robert Cain detailed the areas that were 27 included for San Antonio, North and South Fabian, and the CTI area. In addition, it would 28 include areas along East and West Bayshore and Alma and areas of stability along South San 29 Antonio. The Greenmeadow neighborhood was included; however, a lot of change was not 30 expected. Staff requested feedback on the overall plan direction, scope, and timeline; the 31 subarea classification; and residential density and building heights. There were 3 height options 32 – maintaining a 60-foot height limit, increasing height to 90 feet, and allowing high-rise. Staff 33 considered the 90-foot option the most financially feasible for multifamily apartments in the 34 area. High-rise would not be profitable until reaching 160 to 250 feet. No official height limits 35 had been set. Staff requested PTC input on height tiers for future development. The low end 36 height limit could yield 3,800 new units and 7,400 units at the high end. Staff requested 37 feedback on varying building heights by location. The ARB had discussed allowing high-rises 38 along 101 and the interchange but restricting heights in areas directly adjacent to single-family 39 residential. Regarding office development, staff requested feedback primarily for the CTI area 40 (the packet included 3 options). 41 42 Robert Cain noted that the 2 CTI neighborhoods were deficient in parking, so staff requested 43 additional parking space, which could be done as part of the development process and it might 44 be easy to incorporate open space at the Maxar. Parcel consolidation in CTI could allow for 1 small parks. Staff wanted to know if the focus should be on a large, consolidated neighborhood 2 park in each area or smaller dispersed parks throughout the neighborhoods, whether they 3 should be interior to the neighborhoods or adjacent to the major roads, and whether they 4 should be co-located with retail, cafés, etc. Staff questioned whether additional parks and 5 plazas should be at other key intersections, such as Middlefield and San Antonio. Staff asked 6 the PTC to comment on ground-floor retail and whether there should be a focus on the 7 neighborhood areas at the north end of the plan and/or if it should be in the central San 8 Antonio area. There might not be enough foot traffic or parking for ground-floor retail along 9 San Antonio. Staff requested general feedback on mobility and whether improvements should 10 be modest, quick and easy to implement, or if more development should be done. Options 11 included separated on-street bicycle lanes, multiuse sidewalk paths, and full sidewalk separated 12 bikeways and sidewalks. Another option would be to start with street-level bike lanes while 13 building toward one of the other options. The packet contained examples of what the buildout 14 could be at certain areas. 15 16 Commissioner Ji queried how long it would take to complete the plan, if there was a difference 17 in an area plan and a specific plan, what level of feedback staff needed for this level versus the 18 next level, and what height and density feedback would mean for the policy recommendation. 19 20 Robert Cain answered that it was a 20- to 25-year plan. At this level, staff wanted big-picture, 21 framework-type feedback. In June, staff would go to Council for a vote on preferred heights, 22 bicycle facilities, and parks. Then staff would write policies for the bigger picture. Upon staff 23 returning in the fall, there would be a request for feedback on the policies and specifics 24 matching the framework and any needed improvements. 25 26 Jennifer Armer replied that area plan and specific plan were the same and used 27 interchangeably. 28 29 Raimi & Associates Principal Planner Chris Sensenig responded, regarding height and density, 30 that staff would look at the specifics of height and whether it should transfer to Adobe Creek, 31 for example, and staff would begin writing policy and the zoning for stepping down building 32 height. 33 34 Commissioner Peterson questioned how sea level rise and the riparian corridor should be 35 considered in the policies. 36 37 Jennifer Armer answered that sea level rise would be considered in the environmental review 38 but it would be helpful to express any concerns or interest in the policies being developed. 39 Upon developing policies, consideration would be given to stream corridor protection adopted 40 by reference or with modifications to this plan. It was expected that the Riparian Corridor Plan 41 would move forward to conclusion prior to any decision on the Area Plan. There should not be 42 a problem because they were separate topics and not intermingled. 43 44 Commissioner Templeton addressed Slide 5 and asked what bicycle and pedestrian 1 improvements could be made at Charleston and San Antonio Road at the Mountain View 2 intersection and if work could be done with Mountain View. 3 4 Robert Cain answered that staff was coordinating with Mountain View to ensure seamless 5 improvements. There were challenges with the Charleston and San Antonio Road intersection. 6 Staff was considering tying into the 101 Interchange. Palo Alto staff had good communication 7 with Mountain View staff. 8 9 Chris Sensenig added that Packet Page 130 showed the alternatives for the Charleston 10 intersection. 11 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS 13 14 Penny E. commented that the plan would require massive investment in infrastructure and 15 community facilities due to the increase in housing growth and asked how it would be funded. 16 Penny E. had not seen a traffic study and was concerned about traffic impacts and asked what 17 would be studied in the EIR traffic analysis. Thought should be given to what should be built in 18 the areas, what Google was planning to do nearby, and the VTA Interchange plans. All 19 transportation modes should be a well-connected to Cubberley and Cubberley and the Mitchell 20 Park super block should be an essential community hub. San Antonio Road should include 21 retail. 22 23 Sherry was concerned about traffic on San Antonio and on the cross streets due to the increase 24 in housing and Mountain View building in in the area. There should be physically separated bike 25 lanes and possibly a shuttle or a bus lane. Sherry objected to building office space. Large parks 26 would provide more value than small parks. 27 28 John P. was concerned with traffic and did not see the plan addressing wait times. Parking lanes 29 should not be converted to bicycle lanes. John P. suggested bike lanes be moved from San 30 Antonio to Montrose or a parallel neighborhood road. 31 32 Jennifer Armer announced that Commissioner Hechtman joined the meeting. 33 34 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned that he heard the broadcast from 6:15 through the second 35 public commenter. 36 37 Commissioner Peterson asked how large of a park the location could accommodate. 38 39 Chris Sensenig replied that a park in the CTI would be limited to 1 space between 1 and 1/2 acre 40 with paseos, etc., functioning as publicly accessible open spaces and gathering places. Staff had 41 considered 1 and 3 acres in the CTI neighborhood. The Maxar site could accommodate a 4-plus 42 acre park. 43 1 Commissioner Templeton remarked that the proposed subarea classification was sensible. 2 Commissioner Templeton wanted to hear more about high-rises being near the highway and 3 not adjacent to single-family homes, although high-rises should be lower height due to 4 migratory bird paths. Commissioner Templeton was not sure if more office space was needed 5 but was intrigued by staff’s comment that it would be replacement or less. It was important to 6 have spaces active during the day and evening and that they be designed for optimal safety. 7 Commissioner Templeton felt those living in the area would use the Baylands as the park if it 8 was accessible. The plan did not address how the City would operate with adjacent 9 organizations to ensure the pathway being safe and suggested a footnote referencing a similar 10 adjacent project showing how safety had been improved. There should be spaces suitable for 11 dog-walking, etc. Housing was more important than ground-floor retail but ground-floor retail 12 might add value to housing if it was family and community-oriented businesses. Retail 13 vacancies would negatively affect safety. 14 15 Vice Chair Chang commented that the subarea classification made sense. Vice Chair Chang did 16 not want to build office and was concerned about traffic. CTI-B3 and CTI-B4 were not great 17 ideas. Vice Chair Chang discussed housing and the plan providing significantly more housing 18 than what was outlined in the current RHNA cycle. This area was a small part of Palo Alto and 19 housing should be spread out, so one place would not be impacted. Vice Chair Chang did not 20 know why the City would add more than the lower density alternative projection on Packet 21 Page 81 in 1 area. Housing spread across the area would disperse the transportation impacts. 22 Vice Chair Chang supported lower residential density and lower building heights based on the 23 20-year buildout and all the housing for this RHNA cycle being in this part of the city. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman wanted the plan to be implementable (not aspirational) in terms of 26 land use and economics. Commissioner Hechtman had no issue with the subarea classification. 27 The existing low-density residential areas are going to be protected, so this area and the El 28 Camino corridor need to be dense. Commissioner Hechtman liked 8-story buildings with shorter 29 buildings adjacent to lower density residential and did not consider high-rises to be part of the 30 new California suburban. As for office development, the City had aging office stock and 31 Commissioner Hechtman did not want tech to vacate because of that. To spur the desired 32 residential density in the corridor, one-for-one replacement of office should be allowed. New 33 office and residential structures should be allowed. TDRs are a useful tool. Parks should be 34 larger and offset from the main boulevards. A shopping center/district was needed instead of 35 ground-floor retail. The mobility improvements were headed in the right direction. 36 37 Commissioner Ji queried how many parcels in the South Fabian area were developable and if 38 there was a difference between the South Fabian area and the bottom of the Charleston area. 39 Commissioner Ji discussed why the bottom of Charleston might belong with central San 40 Antonio. Commissioner Ji questioned the likelihood of North Fabian redeveloping and there 41 being projects on the left side of Fabian. 42 43 Chris Sensenig responded there were developer applications for the area and developer 1 interest between Charleston and Fabian. It might take longer to develop the bottom of the 2 Charleston area because parcels were smaller. The sites on the left side of Fabian allowed 3 residential and would probably be similar to densities the ARB spoke about and standards 4 might go down to Adobe Creek. There was an office building that had the potential for 5 development. 6 7 Robert Cain answered that staff had discussed developing a residential site with the North 8 Fabian property owner. The owner put the site up for sale marketed as a potential residential 9 site. 10 11 Commissioner James expressed that the subarea classification made sense. As for residential, 12 negotiations should begin at 5 stories because the height could potentially double as 13 developers used legislation, the density bonus, etc., to somewhat change the nature of 14 projects. Five-story buildings on San Antonio would fit comfortably. Commissioner James was 15 not opposed to townhouses in the Maxar region as that was what developers wanted to build. 16 Commissioner James asked how viable high-rises would be now and in the future and imagined 17 high-rise being adjacent to high-rise only. 18 19 Robert Cain could not predict future development trends. Building a high-rise was significantly 20 more expensive than building a 60- or 90-foot structure. Building between 90 and 160 feet 21 would not provide an investment return. If high-rises should be allowed, policies would be 22 developed. 23 24 Chris Sensenig added there was not a significant cost increase for office high-rise but there was 25 for high-rise residential. 26 27 Chair Akin stated the office occupancy hypotheticals in the plan were based on VTA's estimate 28 but Cushman & Wakefield estimated much greater density. Packet Page 152 indicated that 29 office lease rates would have to increase by about 10 percent for the prototype offices in the 30 plan area to be feasible, which was another factor driving employee density. If office should be 31 built in the plan area, there would be 60- to 100-percent more employees than the plan 32 estimated, which would be a huge additional demand on parking and transportation. Office 33 employee density downtown had been underestimated and required implementation of 34 employee permit parking in the neighborhoods. Such could not be done for San Antonio. The 35 jobs-housing imbalance, as discussed on Packet Page 37, would be drastically worse. In Scenario 36 3, the new offices in the CTI subarea alone could offset the entire housing gain across the whole 37 plan area. Chair Akin did not support net new office space nor a dramatic increase in the 38 number of jobs in the area as it would worsen the jobs-housing imbalance. If office was 39 developed too early, the sites would never be available to redevelop with housing. Upon 40 creating policy, there should be an office space cap or a requirement that balancing amounts of 41 housing be entitled before entitling office. 42 43 Commissioner Peterson preferred large parks and asked how much park space was required per 1 1,000 residents and if the requirement could be met. 2 3 Jennifer Armer replied that the City was not deficient in open space overall. Staff wanted the 4 distribution and the access available to those in the area. As a tool, new development was 5 required to provide open area/parks or pay an in-lieu fee or a fee toward park maintenance and 6 staff was considering what level that should be for this area and other tools to ensure open 7 space. 8 9 Robert Cain added that the City had a goal of 2 acres of neighborhood parks and 2 acres of 10 district parks for every 1,000 residents and 5 acres of neighborhood and district park, 11 recreation facilities, and open space as part of the parkland dedication goals. With perhaps 12 10,000 new residents, Robert Cain did not expect the City to provide 40 acres of parkland in the 13 plan area but staff would look at how all open space throughout the city would be managed. It 14 was important to add neighborhood parks to the areas that were more than 10-minute walks 15 from the Baylands or other neighborhood parks. 16 17 Commissioner Peterson noted that with a 1:10 ratio, he was in favor of more parkland with 18 larger parks, not smaller parklets. Much of the Bayland Park was marsh. Accessibility to the 19 Caltrain station should parallel the Highway 101 walkway. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton inquired what the tallest building was in the JCC/Moldaw area and 22 requested that staff comment on developers doubling building heights. 23 24 Robert Cain replied that the tallest building in the JCC/Moldaw area was about 6 stories. 25 Developers could request concessions/waivers from cities if sufficient affordable housing and 26 other criteria were provided, which was outlined by the State. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton asked if heights should be set lower to navigate around the laws. 29 30 Robert Cain responded that staff tried to create alternate pathways. The HIP stated if a 31 developer followed the City’s process instead of the State Density Bonus Law the City would 32 provide the developer with certain benefits. 33 34 Jennifer Armer added that the El Camino Real Focus Area, etc., tried to provide options that 35 could potentially be done through other pathways but with a little more control in terms of 36 what was important to the City. 37 38 Assistant City Attorney Yang reiterated it was possible for developers to use State laws to go 39 beyond the standards created by Palo Alto and developers could ask for a 100-percent density 40 bonus but realistically they qualified for bonuses between 20 and 25 percent. The bonus would 41 probably be expressed in terms of FAR, not necessarily an increase in height. The City could not 42 control height under State Density Bonus Law but could control FAR or density. A developer 43 would be allowed to build a tall, skinny tower with that density. The developer could build 1 something within the height limit set by the City with fewer setbacks. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton asked if a 10- or 12-story building could be built if the City limited a 4 building to 5 to 8 stories. 5 6 Assistant City Attorney Yang confirmed that a 10- or 12-story building could be built the City’s 7 limit was 5 to 8 stories. 8 9 Jennifer Armer added that it was difficult above a certain height because it changed 10 construction type. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton noted that putting height restrictions into law defeated the purpose. 13 14 Jennifer Armer stated the recommendation could be to consider the vision and then staff could 15 keep in mind the impacts of the laws when considering policy. 16 17 Vice Chair Chang stated developers could translate the City’s heights into FARs. Vice Chair 18 Chang aligned her comments with Chair Akin regarding office occupancy and with 19 Commissioner James regarding 60 feet because of the Density Bonus issue. Office heights of 60 20 feet should apply to the whole area except for North Fabian along the freeway. The area should 21 have retail, such as what Cupertino did for Vallco. If that was not possible, retail should be 22 concentrated in the central San Antonio area. 23 24 Commissioner Ji was concerned about suggesting an 8-story midrise because developers could 25 request more waivers and concessions than what Palo Alto offered. Commissioner Ji was 26 nervous about the application of the 0-percent bonus. The 60 feet created an opportunity for 27 the City to not be severely impacted if a developer wanted to apply the State Density Bonus. It 28 seemed that 8-story midrise was financially feasible. Packet Page 151 indicated that 5- and 8-29 story office had negative residual land value and Commissioner Ji was curious about the 30 impacts of that because there was a significant demand for office space. Packet Page 149 31 indicated that 5- and 8-story multifamily hovered around the land value line. It might not make 32 sense to work toward what would be financially feasible at this time because before approving 33 the San Antonio Road Area Plan the financial feasibility of the different sizes might change. If 34 height transition was desired, it should be along the highway where higher density was located. 35 There could be higher density or height in the CTI region along the Mountain View site because 36 it would be a relative transition with the Mountain View frontage. Commissioner Ji seconded 37 comments made by Chair Akin and Vice Chair Chang concerning office. Commissioner Ji asked 38 what Parks in Palo Alto were comparative to the sizes in the plan. 39 40 Chris Sensenig noted that Vallco was a 1/2-acre plaza sounded by diagonal parking. The project 41 on California Street and San Antonio was about 1/2 acre of open space. Both were good 42 examples of tight urban spaces. 43 44 Commissioner Ji requested a comparison to areas in Palo Alto. 1 2 Robert Cain responded that Bowling Green Park and Heritage Park were about 2 acres and 3 Cameron Park was about 1 acre. 4 5 Commissioner James stated the area along 101 on the Maxar site or the CTI site next to 6 Mountain View would be more tolerant of height. Commissioner James preferred big public-7 facing parks rather than small green spaces. The feasibility analysis on Packet Page 143 8 indicated that 2-acre parks would be financially viable. 9 10 Chris Sensenig noted that the CTI was comprised of small lots aggregating space. Staff could 11 aspire for the largest possible but it would be difficult. 12 13 Commissioner James clarified that there could be a 2-acre park on the Maxar site. A smaller 14 park on the Maxar site centrally located to the neighborhood would be a good choice. 15 Concerning commercial and retail, Commissioner James did not want to hurt the City’s 16 economic growth nor the housing-to-jobs ratio, which should be the guiding principle. Retail 17 could be a benefit to the neighborhood if done right. With pedestrians and bicyclists 18 commuting to trains, Commissioner James would trade a floor of height for ground-floor retail 19 along central San Antonio, etc., if it could be negotiated with a developer. Commissioner James 20 was in favor of separating pedestrians and bikeways from the roadway by greenspace and 21 trees. Commissioner James liked the left side of Alt MSA-3 and possibly just one side of the road 22 could be done if the bicyclists and pedestrians were separated and if there was greenspace and 23 safe crossways to the other side. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman liked the CSA-A2 alternative. If building height was capped at 8 26 stories, using the Density Bonus to increase it to 11 stories it would not pencil out for a 27 developer because the entire structure of the building would need to be changed. If a 28 developer looked for a waiver to eliminate ground-floor retail, it would be because retail would 29 not be profitable. The logical place to put a full service supermarket would be on a corner of 30 San Antonio and Middlefield, which could include parking, and housing on top. Commissioner 31 Hechtman discussed why it was not ideal to have a grocery store at the Maxar site. 32 33 Chair Akin understood the economic study concluded that townhomes were feasible, that 5-34 story multifamily was not feasible unless rents rose by at least 10 percent AND cap rates 35 declined, that 8 stories were not feasible unless rents rose by at least 10 percent OR cap rates 36 declined, that 5-story office was not feasible unless cap rates declined a lot, that 8-story office 37 was not feasible unless cap rates declined or rents increased at least 10 percent, that 9-14 38 stories were not feasible, and that above 14 stories were feasible but expensive. Chair Akin 39 thought additional development in the foreseeable future would have to target 90-foot height 40 limits, which was consistent with applications elsewhere on San Antonio. Chair Akin was 41 nervous about limiting height to 60 feet to avoid the consequences of Density Bonus Law 42 because the State could identify it as a constraint on production and there would be 43 consequences. 44 1 Chair Akin did not have a strong opinion on parks but small, linear parks and a park fronting 2 Charleston should be avoided. Chair Akin spoke of many jobs in Silicon Valley being spread out 3 and probably not within bike/ped distances, so maintaining the effectiveness of longer distance 4 transportation should be a priority and wondered if it should affect the mobility priorities on 5 Packet Page 25. Improved access to Caltrain was essential. There might need to be improved 6 access to 101 or truck route capacity might need to be maintained. Such was mentioned in 7 passing on Packet Pages 90 and 95 but might need to be more visible. Chair Akin questioned 8 where parking demand would go if on-street parking was removed and wondered if thought 9 should be given to building public parking garages. If a lot of office should be built, 10 consideration should be given to retail supporting residents, not the daytime workers. The 11 consultant had indicated retail concentrations should be at intersections. 12 13 [The Commission took a 15-minute break] 14 15 Jennifer Armer announced that Commissioner Templeton exited the meeting and would not 16 return. 17 18 Commissioner Peterson commented that it might be difficult to put a park in the CTI because 19 lots would have to be purchased and brought together. However, Commissioner Peterson 20 questioned if the PTC should recommend a large park if that should occur. Commissioner 21 Peterson discussed building height and AI changing the construction industry, which could 22 change the construction cost assumptions used. It was awkward crossing Alma on foot to get to 23 the San Antonio station and Commissioner Peterson suggested that more thought be given to 24 that intersection. 25 26 Chris Sensenig stated one option might be to have the largest aggregated park possible and 27 another might be a 1/2-acre plaza/park. 28 29 Vice Chair Chang loved Commissioner Hechtman’s idea concerning a grocery store and noted 30 that her prior comments about retail on Fabian was not related to a grocery store. Vice Chair 31 Chang opted for Alternative MB-1 for Maxar; however, if something like Vallco was done, there 32 could be higher density and it might make sense to have higher density at the edge of the 33 Maxar site. Vice Chair Chang was not in favor of more office as Palo Alto had unoccupied new 34 office. Vice Chair Chang desired a larger park on the Maxar site, which should be accessible and 35 visible from the larger streets surrounding it. It might be difficult to have a larger park in the CTI 36 but it should be no less than 1/4 acre and closer to 1/2 acre and not on the larger surrounding 37 streets. Vice Chair Chang was most in favor of Mobility Alternative 2 because it would provide 38 the most tree canopy. 39 40 Commissioner Ji was not interested in smaller parks nor a park on Charleston. Alternative CTI-41 A3 aligned with comments made by commissioners previously. Commissioner Ji asked what the 42 green arrows on Packet Page 66 represented. 43 44 Chris Sensenig replied that the green arrows were paseos, publicly accessible pedestrian 1 pathways, which would provide outdoor space and connections. 2 3 Commissioner Ji queried if in-lieu park fees would pay for the paseo or if there would be work 4 with the developers. 5 6 Chris Sensenig responded that it was too early to pinpoint whether in-lieu park fees would pay 7 for the paseo or if there would be work with the developers. Staff would look at a number of 8 ways to achieve the amount of open space. 9 10 Commissioner Ji expressed that breakup in the CTI area would produce more pedestrian 11 activity, although there might be a trade-off with having cut-throughs in the big park. There 12 should be a big park. Commissioner Ji supported Commissioner Hechtman’s comments related 13 to the grocery store and was strongly in favor of potentially considering retail requirements for 14 the central San Antonio area. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman supported investigating Chair Akin’s comments concerning the 17 density assumptions in the plan for office and liked Option CSA-B2. Commissioner Hechtman 18 supported 8-story buildings on South Fabian but feathering height down adjacent to lower 19 density and liked Options A1 and B2. Commissioner Hechtman suggested a maximum height of 20 60 feet for the strip on the side of North Fabian. Commissioner Hechtman suggested Option B2 21 on the east end of the Maxar site, although Option B1 was a consideration. In terms of height 22 on the Maxar site, Commissioner Hechtman elected Option C2 with Option C1 if Option B1 23 should be done at the east end. In terms of concepts, Commissioner Hechtman liked Options B 24 and C. Calculations needed to be done to determine if there would be enough profitability for a 25 3-acre park in the Maxar. As for the concepts on Packet Page 55, Commissioner Hechtman liked 26 Options A and C. 27 28 Commissioner Ji asked if thought had been given to the back alley on central San Antonio being 29 used for trash pickup, etc. Commissioner Ji supported Option CSA-A1 for central San Antonio 30 and CSA-B1 for the land use alternative but was curious about the potential carveout for the 31 grocery store Commissioner Hechtman mentioned. Commissioner Ji inquired if staff was 32 considering connecting the bike path to Wyandotte. Commissioner Ji supported Option SF-A1 33 for the South Fabian subarea. Ground-floor retail might not be best for South Fabian and 34 commercial and office usage should be restricted. A height of 90 feet could work for the North 35 Fabian areas along the highway but tapering down toward the middle. Commissioner Ji elected 36 Concept D or B for park size. Commissioner Ji echoed Vice Chair Chang’s comments concerning 37 Vallco. Having retail there could be interesting but Commissioner Ji did not know if it should be 38 like Concept C, A, or D. 39 40 Chris Sensenig replied it would be hard to implement trash pickup, etc., in the back alley on 41 central San Antonio. 42 43 Robert Cain answered that a bike path to Wyandotte would significantly impact a private 1 property but it was possible for the City to purchase property, etc., to make key connections. It 2 was in the plan because staff had been directed to look for ways to lessen the block size. 3 4 Vice Chair Chang asked staff to speak to the suggestion of putting a bike path on Alma. It was 5 concerning because the bike lane would end and bicyclists might continue on Alma in the lanes 6 for automobiles. Signage in the neighborhoods might be a solution. 7 8 Robert Cain answered that some feedback indicated it was challenging going through the 9 neighborhoods and that a 2-way bike track on the east side of Alma would be valuable. It could 10 also provide a connection to the San Antonio Caltrain station. 11 12 Chair Akin estimated that the current jobs-housing ratio at Vallco was 5:1. 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman liked Options A3 and B3 for CTI alternatives. Replacing the 15 commercial in the CTI in kind could provide the same amount of commercial, 1,000 residential 16 units, and a park. There did not seem to be much incentive to increase office on East Bayshore 17 because it was not a good housing site. Commissioner Hechtman wondered if office space on 18 West Bayshore, rather than the HE site, would be likely to redevelop as 3-story townhouse. 19 Commissioner Hechtman liked MSA-2 and MSA-3 but, since additional right-of-way would be 20 needed, he elected MSA-1. Commissioner Hechtman liked MCH-2. Commissioner Hechtman 21 referenced the market analysis and questioned if 8-story single use versus residential over 22 office could provide the same results and suggested staff investigate if Council should be aware 23 of it. 24 25 Robert Cain noted there was a potential to do MSA-1 and MSA-3 without acquiring additional 26 right-of-way. MSA-2, as currently designed, would require additional right-of-way. Staff had 27 considered doing MSA-1 as a short-term project with the hope of building out to MSA-2 or 28 MSA-3 in the future. 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman noted that MSA-3 indicated a need for an additional 5 feet of right-of-31 way. 32 33 Robert Cain replied that the plans were conceptual and there could be a 5-foot sidewalk instead 34 of an 8-foot sidewalk, etc. As for mobility, staff wanted to know if there should be separated 35 and 2-way bike facilities on both sides of the street, if 2-way should be on one side of the 36 street, or if there should be separated bikeways. A lot of design detail would need to be worked 37 out in later stages of the project. 38 39 Jennifer Armer added that it was a truck route, which should be considered. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman preferred an alternative that would be safe and one that would not 42 require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. 43 44 Vice Chair Chang did not prefer MSA-2. As for MSA-3, it would not be necessary to have a 1 separated and bidirectional bikeway on both sides if there was a way to cross the street and 2 Vice Chair Chang requested that staff consider parking not being necessary. Vice Chair Chang 3 loved the idea of starting out with MSA-1 and aspiring for something else. Concerning MSA-3, 4 Vice Chair Chang was concerned about expense and managing the utilities issue. 5 6 Commissioner Ji questioned how far the utility boxes were from the curb and what the cost 7 would be to move them. 8 9 Transportation Planning Sylvia Star-Lack responded various kinds of utilities would be in the 10 path depending on the choice made. 11 12 Robert Cain answered that staff did not yet know what the cost would be to move the utility 13 boxes but Option 3 would be the most expensive alternative. Any number of utility boxes, 14 which were at varying distances from the street, might need to be relocated and the curb 15 would be rebuilt in Option 3 and it would be an expensive, long-term project. Transportation 16 staff felt it was the best option to meet the Bike/Ped Plan goals and best for user safety and 17 comfort. 18 19 Commissioner Ji asked if the utility boxes would be the most expensive component. 20 Commissioner Ji liked the idea of the left half of MSA-3. If many bicyclists were going to use the 21 route, bike and ped should be separated. Commissioner Ji referred to Packet Page 120 and 22 noted that it would be relatively easy to create an extension. Commissioner Ji did not support 23 double bike lanes on both sides of San Antonio but to instead have more flashing crossings. 24 Commissioner Ji explained that biking should occur as much as possible on the north side of San 25 Antonio as opposed to the south side. Commissioner Ji supported MSA-1 in the short term. 26 Parking overflow would impact the area, so a pilot study would be interesting. 27 28 Robert Cain replied that the utilities would not necessarily be the most expensive part but 29 Option 3 would be the most expensive partially due to utilities, tree replanting, and 30 reconstructing the curb. There was not a breakdown of which piece would be the most 31 expensive. 32 33 Commissioner Peterson addressed Packet Page 92 and discussed the intersection with the 34 Caltrain station. 35 36 Jennifer Armer mentioned that staff clearly heard that there was a concern about access to the 37 train station, which staff would pay careful attention to in plan development. Particular areas of 38 concern could be mentioned in the meeting or shared with staff via email. 39 40 Commissioner Peterson explained why trying to determine where to walk was confusing. 41 Packet Page 92 showed 2 walking paths but 1 path might make the most sense. 42 43 Chris Sensenig noted that the site across from the Caltrain station was private property. People 1 were not barred from walking through the property but access could change at any point. There 2 should be discussions with Mountain View and the property owners to see what could be done. 3 4 Commissioner Peterson mentioned that it would be important to connect it all the way through 5 because it would be a major throughfare for future San Antonio residents to get to the San 6 Antonio Shopping Center. 7 8 Commissioner Ji inquired how much retail was planned for the Mountain View project. 9 10 Chris Sensenig believed the Mountain View project included 40,000 to 50,000 commercial, but 11 it would not be “Capital R” retail and would include a daycare, a gym, etc. The Mountain View 12 project and the CTI needed one retail area between the two. 13 14 Commissioner Ji discussed why the CTI would not be a good area for retail. Commissioner Ji 15 referenced Packet Page 75 and explained why consideration should be given to what 16 transportation Mountain View would be doing in the area. It was important to coordinate with 17 Mountain View as it related to Charleston from San Antonio to 101. Commissioner Ji 18 questioned how to interpret the numbers on Packet Page 136. 19 20 Kittleson & Associates Transportation Planner Amanda Leahy replied that the numbers 21 reflected peak-hour volumes. 22 23 Commissioner Ji suspected that the values indicated at the San Antonio and Charleston 24 intersection would improve significantly once the 101 improvements occurred, so there might 25 be flexibility to make the segment of Charleston between San Antonio and the end of the 26 intersection more neighborhood-feeling. Having bicycles on San Antonio was a concern because 27 it was a truck route. Commissioner Ji queried why there were special setbacks in the CTI area 28 and if there were plans to make any changes. 29 30 Chris Sensenig responded that staff was looking at changes and, in the future, would go into 31 more detail concerning the right street section. 32 33 Commissioner Ji requested that staff continue exploring that. Commissioner Ji suggested 34 removing the left turn lane going onto the small U-shaped part of Fabian from Charleston. 35 Commissioner Ji was against a bike lane on Alma and proposed instead that there be directional 36 street signs in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Ji referred to Packet Page 151 and understood 37 that folks wanted to build more office but that the 5- to 8-story offices would lose residual land. 38 39 Robert Cain voiced, regarding Packet Page 151, that a lot of assumptions went into the report. 40 Policy & Services had received a different report. Staff was looking through the housing 41 element to find ways to incentivize residential development where the office market was very 42 strong. The office market was specific to certain subareas within Palo Alto. Developers were 43 eager to build office in some parts of the city and townhomes in other parts. Because there was 1 no Class A office in the CTI area, there was a risk to putting it in. 2 3 Chris Sensenig added that different developers had different objectives. A landowner in CTI was 4 interested in developing office and proposed a development in their Mountain View holdings. 5 6 Robert Cain requested that Commissioners Ji, James, and Peterson provided thoughts on office 7 limitations in the CTI area. 8 9 Commissioner Ji preferred no office in the CTI area. 10 11 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Commissioner Hechtman’s previous comments related to 12 office in the CTI area. 13 14 Commissioner James did not want jobs and housing to be out of balance. The ratio of housing 15 and office should not put the City in a deeper hole on RHNA allocations. 16 17 3. Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of Title 16 (Building 18 Regulations) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement 19 Retail Vitality Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA Status: The Ordinance is 20 Consistent with and Represents Implementation of Adopted Policies in the 21 Comprehensive Plan, for Which an Environmental Impact Report (Comprehensive 22 Plan EIR) was Certified on February 5, 2016. 23 Principal at Lexington Planning Jean Eisberg requested that the PTC make a recommendation 24 on the draft Retail Ordinance, which would then be moved to Council. The interim ordinance 25 would sunset at the end of the year. Jean Eisberg outlined the feedback received from the 26 Council Retail Subcommittee, which was in the packet. The ordinance aimed to expand the 27 types of retail permitted to retail-like, other office, and medical office uses. The ordinance had 28 a number conflicting standards for certain areas of the city so Lexington Planning aimed to 29 reduce the confusion and streamline use regulations. Standard conditions for specific uses had 30 been added and overly subjective findings had been removed and there was a goal to link 31 findings to the purposes of a zoning district. One of the 6 key topic areas was eating-and-32 drinking services and it was recommended that there be a new use classification for bars in the 33 commercial districts downtown. Another key topic was the issue of offices and medical offices. 34 All uses would continue to require compliance with certain design standards currently in the 35 code. It was proposed that the CN regulate uses in certain areas. A series of footnotes called 36 out specific permitted or conditional use permissions for those areas. It would remove the 37 ground-floor (GF) designation from the zoning map. 38 39 Jean Eisberg noted there were a number of changes related to streamlining permitting, which 40 included changing some locations from CUP to P for noncontroversial uses to allow it by right; 41 changing the term conditional use permit (CUP) to administrative use permit, which would be a 42 staff-level permit; making changes the parking regulations to add a blended rate to the 43 California Avenue parking districts; making changes to the TDM program; modifying parking 1 ratios and the shared parking allowances to provide more flexibility and to streamline parking 2 ratios across different districts; and exempting certain zoning districts from the applicability of 3 the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Most of the sites that would be excepted from the 4 applicability of the Retail Preservation Ordinance were within the San Antonio Road Area Plan, 5 so the Commission could recommend waiting for that process to unfold before making changes 6 to that area and consideration could be given to removing it from the ordinance. The staff 7 recommendation was to recommend implementing the retail vitality measure to Council. 8 9 Manager of Economic Development Alex Andrade highlighted that the Retail Committee 10 wanted to ensure that ground-floor uses would be activated and wanted consideration given to 11 medical, health, and personal uses. Alex Andrade supported flexible land use and zoning on the 12 ground floor as it related to retail and commercial spaces. Alex Andrade discussed the vacancy 13 rates on Cal Ave and University Avenue. There were University ground-floor spaces that were 14 difficult to occupy because they were large. Alex Andrade proposed the BREA strategy – 15 business retention, expansion, and attraction. Flexible zoning in land use in health and personal 16 services would help attract uses to the ground floors along University Avenue, Cal Ave, and 17 other commercial districts. Flexibility was a key in moving forward. 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS 20 21 Peter G. and family owned 451 University Avenue and had submitted a letter to the PTC. Their 22 building had been vacant for several years but Neko Health was a perspective tenant. Neko 23 Health provided diagnostic screenings, not treatment, and showcased technological innovation. 24 The new GF Combining District addressed preventative health screening as a use but clarified 25 that it addressed screening, not treatment. Peter G’s letter proposed a few modest refinements 26 to the draft language to allow Neko diagnostic use to fit within the zoning. 27 28 Trevor C. attended on behalf of Neko Health in support of the updates to the Retail Use Code, 29 specifically the expanded definition around medical spa and personal services on University 30 Avenue. Trevor C. discussed Neko’s work. 31 32 Jim B. spoke of an issue not related to Item 3. 33 34 Chair Akin informed Jim B. that comments for items not on the agenda would occur later in the 35 meeting. 36 37 Commissioner Peterson asked about the removal of the requirement for 50-percent of receipts 38 to be in food for an establishment that served alcohol and how many establishments on 39 California Avenue were defined as a bar. 40 41 Jennifer Armer answered that a CUP was required if an establishment’s receipts were from 42 more than 50 percent alcohol. The definition was new and would allow potential for more 43 flexibility on the types of uses and to ensure there would be categories to accommodate the 1 different uses. 2 3 Commissioner Peterson asked if every establishment on California Avenue was currently a 4 restaurant. 5 6 Jennifer Armer answered the current code stipulated that 50 percent of receipts had to be for 7 food, so the establishments on California Avenue were currently restaurants. 8 9 Vice Chair Chang questioned if with the current CUP process there were 2 ways that it could be 10 elevated to the Planning Commission and Council – one being the Director of Planning elevating 11 it and the other being notifications going out to those within 600 feet of a CUP at which point 12 there could be a public hearing if requested. 13 14 Staff confirmed that was correct. 15 16 Vice Chair Chang asked if there were concerns with the suggested language changes sent in by 17 Peter G. 18 19 Jean Eisberg replied there was one suggestion for a more expansive, flexible type of medical 20 office. The other suggestion was to expand what constituted a personal service, which would 21 expand what was under the umbrella of personal service. The only issue was defining what that 22 language would be. There was not a definition of preventative health or wellness in the code. 23 Lexington Planning was trying to reduce the amount of interpretation that needed to happen, 24 which could be challenging for new uses. 25 26 Chair Akin inquired if without the definition there was a concern it could be interpreted to 27 mean a much broader variety of services than the City intended. 28 29 Jean Eisberg responded that health diagnostic spas was suggested, which was not a common 30 phrase, so there was a question as to what that would consist of. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman asked if changes were not made to the code to address the public 33 commenter if the Director would have discretion to determine that the proposed use fell within 34 the category even though it was not specifically named or if that kind of use would clearly not 35 fall in the types of uses being envisioned. Commissioner Hechtman inquired if the personal 36 service definition was limited to the 4 items listed in the code and if the Director had discretion 37 to determine if something was similar in nature. 38 39 Jean Eisberg understood that the use would not require licensing from the State. The 40 interpretation could mean that the use was not medical office but was personal service instead. 41 42 Jennifer Armer stated if an establishment required licensed medical professionals it was 43 considered medical office. The question would be what types of medical professionals would be 44 involved in the uses. The Director had discretion to determine if something was similar in 1 nature to the 4 listed items and there was flexibility. The list of uses contained examples; it was 2 not an exhaustive list. Jennifer Armer was concerned that something could be similar but with a 3 licensed medical professional, so the PTC’s recommendation needed to be clear. 4 5 Commissioner Ji inquired if the use would be allowed in the version of the current draft without 6 modifying it and what the average rent per square foot was on Cal Ave and University and 7 requested that there be a breakdown of the overall average rent of occupied versus vacant 8 properties. 9 10 Jean Eisberg understood that the use would not be allowed because it would not have retail 11 sales. The change made by the public commenter would make that change by adding retail 12 sales or personal services to medical office and allow the use on University. If the use was 13 interpreted as personal service, which was possible, it would be the change required to allow it. 14 15 Alex Andrade referenced the Economic Activity Report and provided the average cost per 16 square-foot rent in the University Avenue and Cal Ave Business Districts as of Q4 of 2025. Alex 17 Andrade explained that the particular space being discussed was challenging. 18 19 Chair Akin noted that rent data was available in the reports from Michael Baker International. 20 21 Vice Chair Chang queried where the definition of personal services could be found. 22 23 Jennifer Armer furnished a slide with the definition of personal services. 24 25 Commissioner Peterson was concerned that there had been no public comment/letters related 26 to establishments on California Avenue. Changing the definition could allow the opening of bars 27 next to current establishments, which would not be fair to those establishments. 28 29 Jennifer Armer confirmed that no comments had been received about California Avenue. 30 31 Vice Chair Chang queried if there had been conversations with the Chamber of Commerce. Vice 32 Chair Chang would send Jean Eisberg a list of typos in the draft ordinance. Vice Chair Chang was 33 supportive of bars because the CUP process would provide notification to specific residents and 34 vibrancy could be increased and vacancies decreased but bars should not be allowed on 35 Charleston or in Midtown. Vice Chair Chang referred to Packet Page 198 (C) and thought the 36 intention was that a bar should not be permitted if the applicant had had violations but with 37 the caveat that the deciding body could consider the number and frequency. As written, it 38 indicated that one could meet the requirement for A or B and be allowed to exist even if there 39 had been many recent violations. 40 41 Jennifer Armer noted that most recent conversations were with the Retail Committee and the 42 public commented primarily addressed the personal service medical spa-type use. 43 44 Commissioner Hechtman commented that under the new definition the Nut House would be 1 considered a bar. Cal Ave had a couple establishments referred to as wine bars. Commissioner 2 Hechtman was positive that more than 50 percent of those establishments’ revenue came from 3 alcohol sales. Commissioner Hechtman did not think there would be a mix change on Cal Ave 4 but that things would be labeled differently, which was not an issue. A preventative healthcare 5 screening use did not fall within any subcategory description. Commissioner Hechtman 6 referenced Section 18.04.030 and stated it did not fit under A through I and did not think the 7 Director would agree that such an establishment would be a personal service. Commissioner 8 Hechtman questioned if it was appropriate for retail store frontage. If so, staff should add 9 language. 10 11 Commissioner Peterson wanted to ensure that businesses on California Avenue were not at a 12 disadvantage and suggested that current establishments be allowed to automatically convert to 13 a bar if desired. Commissioner Peterson asked what the process would be for a restaurant to 14 stop serving food and convert to a bar. 15 16 Jennifer Armer noted that full-service restaurants received a CUP for their use if they served 17 alcohol, so this would not increase what they were required to do and they would be allowed 18 to continue. A restaurant converting to a bar could be a modification to the existing CUP, which 19 would involve a fee that was usually several thousand dollars. 20 21 Commissioner Peterson queried if there could be a one-time conversion without a fee. 22 23 Vice Chair Chang did not want to use the definition suggested by the public commenter for the 24 business being considered because it might allow undesired services. Vice Chair Chang 25 questioned if it would be okay to have establishments with licensed professionals, such as a 26 Quest lab for example. The definition of personal service could include many things. Vice Chair 27 Chang wanted restaurants, etc., not medical offices. Vice Chair Chang was not indicating 28 whether the particular service being discussed was right or wrong but the suggested definitions 29 might not work. 30 31 Commissioner Ji did not consider some of the uses being discussed to be personal services. The 32 street should be vibrant with services folks could partake in. Concerning bars, Commissioner Ji 33 asked if the 50-percent food service revenue was audited by the City. Commissioner Ji 34 supported the bar language as it was, since an existing use converting to a bar would go 35 through a somewhat less expensive, fast-tracked process and because businesses would be 36 notified. 37 38 Jennifer Armer replied that the City did not audit the 50-percent food service revenue unless 39 there was a complaint. Related to comments about the street being vibrant with services folks 40 could partake in versus needing an appointment for services, it might be helpful to add 41 language related to drop-in service versus appointment-only. The character of the medical spa 42 described would be open 7 days a week and the model indicated that it would be open until 8 43 p.m. 44 1 Vice Chair Chang mentioned that operating hours would not solve the medical issue. 2 3 Chair Akin referred to the definition of bars and suggested eliminating the phrase related to the 4 on-site consumption restriction since there would soon be open-container sales on Cal Ave. 5 Chair Akin was inclined to disallow bars in CN. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman addressed Packet Page 176 (125.1) and thought preventative-8 screening-not-treatment establishments would be at the discretion of the Director. Such an 9 establishment would not provide services related to, but distinct from, retail services. It would 10 not fit in (C) but it would not have to. It would not fit in (A) through (J). It fit in (K). 11 Commissioner Hechtman did not object to such a use. A change was not needed and there did 12 not need to be a carve-out for anything special. Commissioner Hechtman referenced the 13 sentence stating “Not all retail-like uses are permitted in zoning districts that allow retail-like 14 uses” and asked if University allowed retail-like. 15 16 Jennifer Armer stated the definition of retail-like was not used in the use tables. Specific uses 17 were listed in the use tables. 18 19 Vice Chair Chang wanted flexibility. Vice Chair Chang noted that the letter stated that the bright 20 line was whether there was a State licensed professional. 21 22 Jennifer Armer expressed that the line being used was a State licensed medical professional. 23 24 Vice Chair Chang was comfortable with that line. Quest Diagnostics fit into a lot of the 25 definitions – did not necessarily require appointments, accepted walk-ins, and generated a lot 26 of traffic. Vice Chair Chang explained why there were concerns with the Director having the 27 flexibility to change uses in commercial PCs and the way parking had been collapsed on Page 28 201. Retail in the ROLM, RP, and GM zones should be bundled with the San Antonio Plan. Some 29 of the language regarding residential uses in Charleston Center and Midtown was not clear. 30 Vice Chair Chang spoke of the lack of footnotes on Page 178 as it related to collapsing 31 Charleston Center and Midtown into a larger table. 32 33 Commissioner Ji did not see anything special about commercial PCs in Section 18.38.030 and 34 inquired if it was a technical definition. 35 36 Jennifer Armer responded if it was residential only there was not a purpose for it because it 37 would remain residential and there would not be any substitution and the goal was about 38 commercial uses and something specifically being a public benefit of the PC would not be 39 changed. 40 41 Commissioner Ji discussed a concern because the Palto Commons, for example, was considered 42 a commercial PC. The number of uses potentially allowed was too loose given the requirements 43 44 Jennifer Armer voiced that an unlisted use would be materially similar to the listed/allowed 1 use. 2 3 Commissioner Ji found the language to be vague. For the purposes of office and manufacturing 4 zones, ROLM, GM, etc., Commissioner Ji preferred to defer it to the San Antonio Road Area 5 Plan. Commissioner Ji queried what was meant by “sightlines to public areas near the 6 establishment” on Packet Page 198. 7 8 Jean Eisberg responded that sightlines to public areas near the establishment related to 9 operational conditions for alcohol service and ensuring places seen from a public area would be 10 free of trash and well-lit. 11 12 Chair Akin was inclined to defer RPO and ROLM to the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Chair Akin 13 discussed concerns with exempting small retail additions from TDM plans and transportation 14 fees and suggested that an effective date be specified in the ordinance and to base exemptions 15 on total exemptions after such date. Akin was concerned about a loophole and that one could 16 add 1,500 square feet multiple times year after year. It was odd to relax parking requirements 17 in areas where there was no need to do so and perhaps have relaxed parking requirements 18 where there was a lot of space, such as RP. Since the ROLM requirements would probably 19 change, the existing standard of 1 space per 250 feet could remain unchanged everywhere else, 20 as it currently was, and applied to RP to maximize consistency across districts, which would 21 achieve the consistency goal without making a change that might be detrimental in a wide 22 range of areas throughout the city. Chair Akin remarked that a recommendation needed to be 23 made but not all problems needed to be solved at this meeting. Chair Akin did not want to lose 24 the value of the improvements the PTC made in relaxing constraints and making the others 25 more intelligible. The PTC had discussed specifics that created questions about this being ready. 26 At the very least, the PTC was struggling with the new medical and medical-like uses, which 27 would not be solved at this meeting. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman thought there would be unintended consequences with the proposed 30 change to medical office. Whether called health diagnostic spa or preventative healthcare 31 screening with no treatment, it did not fit in personal service or retail. The issue should be 32 forwarded to Council. Commissioner Hechtman referenced Packet Page 174 and suggested that 33 the phrase “from an eating and drinking service” be eliminated, that Part B specify 10 to 15 34 minutes, and that staff review the language and content in Part C. CUP was mentioned many 35 times, the first on Packet Page 177, and Commissioner Hechtman requested that staff change 36 that throughout. Commissioner Hechtman requested that staff review the sentence on Packet 37 Page 179 stating “Residential uses may be located fronting rear and interior side yards on the 38 ground floor or on upper levels”. 39 40 Commissioner Hechtman stated the language “not well suited to other uses” on Packet Page 41 183 was subjective. Staff should review the definition for specific purposes on Packet Page 190 42 as it stated eating, not eating and drinking. Packet Page 192 Section 1830(A)050(b)(2) read 43 building frontage, so Packet Page 195 Section 18.03(C)030(b)(1) might need to reflect building 44 frontage, not street frontage. Staff should review the language “all other uses permitted in the 1 underlying commercial district, provided they are not located on a ground floor” on Packet 2 Page 195. There was a reference on Packet Pages 196 and 197 to alcoholic sales or service and 3 sales and service might need clarification. Packet Page 198 Subpart C needed refinement as the 4 first and second sentences were contradictory. The table on Packet Page 200 should reflect 5 square feet. 6 7 Chair Akin stated there were too many loose ends to make a recommendation and inquired if 8 the item should be continued. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to know if staff had clear direction on what the PTC needed to 11 see on return of the item so that a recommendation could then be made. 12 13 Jean Eisberg was missing clarity on the medical office issue. Upon knowing what was desired, 14 use classifications could be devised. 15 16 Chair Akin stated the medical office use issue would be forwarded to Council. 17 18 Vice Chair Chang concurred with Chair Akin’s comments about parking but it was not known if 19 the rest of the PTC agreed. Vice Chair Chang addressed Packet Pages 177 through 180 and 20 stated the ground-floor overlay had been removed in order to keep Charleston Center and 21 Midtown the same. Small adult daycare homes would be permitted in CN, which indicated they 22 would be permitted in Charleston Center and Midtown, which was strange. In looking at the 23 original ordinance that was crossed out, Vice Chair Chang thought daycare services were 24 allowed and questioned if that was correct. Vice Chair Chang had a hard time envisioning a 25 daycare center on Charleston. Footnotes could potentially correct some of it. Packet Page 178 26 referenced home occupations, which would be allowed in Midtown and Charleston Center. Vice 27 Chair Chang did not know if residential care homes should be allowed. Some of this was not 28 allowed previously and there was a question if it would be at ground floor. Vice Chair Chang 29 questioned the 30-foot retail depth on California versus University. The PC language needed to 30 be tightened up. Vice Chair Chang asked if automobile showrooms should have the same 31 limitations as other retail, if daycare centers should have a limitation, and if daycare homes 32 would only be in residential and on an upper floor or in the back. 33 34 Jennifer Armer remarked that home occupation related to home offices. 35 36 Jean Eisberg voiced that the intention was not to keep the Charleston and Midtown shopping 37 centers the same as they were in the current code but to expand uses instead. Footnotes could 38 be added but the proposal was that residential care facilities and any residential uses would be 39 allowed only above the ground floor or in the rear. A home-based daycare would not be on 40 retail frontage. A commercial-type daycare could be on the frontage. Jean Eisberg believed 41 daycare homes would only be on an upper floor or in the back. Residential uses were not 42 currently permitted in Charleston and Midtown. 43 44 Vice Chair Chang imagined that retail-like uses should have the same restrictions as existing 1 retail-retail uses. 2 3 Commissioner Ji noted that the word “and” was used on Packet Page 176 Section 121.1 4 Subsections I and H but not all subsections included the word. Commissioner Ji asked what was 5 special about the Midtown Shopping District properties listed Packet Page 183 and if citing 4 6 specific parcels should be referenced in the code; why Footnote 3 was removed from Packet 7 Page 185; why the usages for NV-R1 and NV-R2 were included in the table on Packet Page 187; 8 if the normal code would support the uses for NV-R1 and NV-R2 in R1 and R2, such as a small 9 adult daycare home; and if there were different retail uses for University and Cal Ave as it 10 related to the 30-foot depth. 11 12 Jean Eisberg stated the word “and” should probably be deleted from Packet Page 176 Section 13 121.1 Subsections I and H and added to Subjection J. The 4 parcels were located within the 14 Midtown Shopping Center but were clearly office uses. They were carved out previously and 15 the carveout was maintained. The language was odd and could be revised. Concerning 16 Footnote 3 being removed from Packet Page 185, a CUP was required for commercial 17 recreation regardless of size. Jean Eisberg did not believe any changes had been made to the R1 18 and R2 districts. Due to the way the way the Zoning District was written, it was one use table. 19 Jean Eisberg would have to investigate to see if a small adult daycare home was allowed in R1 20 and R2. It was allowed in NV. The parcel sizes on California Avenue tended to have 100-foot 21 depths with many of the buildings extending that distance. California Avenue varied in building 22 depth and width and the buildings tended to not extend deep into the lot. Retail depths were 23 usually a minimum of 40 feet. A 30-foot minimum was on the smaller side. The idea was to 24 allow offices beyond the 60- to 100-foot depth. It was a combination ensuring enough retail 25 depth and acknowledging the differences in the parcel sizes. 26 27 Lexington Planning Christine Firstenberg added that the reason for the different retail uses for 28 University and Cal Ave had to do with the buildings on University Avenue being deeper than 29 those on California Avenue. 30 31 Commissioner Ji asked if it less about use and more about the size of the building. 32 33 Jean Eisberg stated it was a combination of use and building size to try to reduce vacancies and 34 provide flexibility. 35 36 Jennifer Armer added that part of the reason for the recommended depth related to the 37 existing buildings and lots, to allow reuse of the buildings, to be creative for some that were 38 clearly too deep, and to give flexibility so existing facilities could be reused. 39 40 Vice Chair Chang asked what an ideal/average retail depth would be for Cal Ave or University 41 and if converting the front part of a building to 30 feet would make it hard to rent in the future. 42 43 Christine Firstenberg spoke of how the shopping center industry determined depth, which was 1 50 and 60 feet. Street retail varied. National retailers had to adhere to a criteria but 2 independent retailers did not. Lexington Planning was trying to provide flexibility to tenants, so 3 they could determine how to utilize some of the space of the University Avenue buildings that 4 were too deep for most retailers to function in. Allowing a building owner to lease out space a 5 retailer did not need provided economic benefits to building owners and retailers. Regarding a 6 30-foot space possibly being difficult to rent, the depth could be increased to 40 feet, although 7 a demising wall could often be easily removed for a future leasing situation. 8 9 Commissioner Ji asked if a 30-foot space was still being recommended for Cal Ave. 10 Commissioner Ji stated that Section 1830(A)(b) Subsection 1 noted that 30 feet would be 11 measured from the ground-floor street frontage and asked how that would work on a corner 12 lot or if it would be in relation to California Avenue. Commissioner Ji addressed Packet Page 196 13 Section 18.42.090 and inquired if there were any conditions in the CUP permit not captured in 14 that section and if there was a discrepancy. Packet Page 200 contained a table for minimum off-15 street parking requirements and Commissioner Ji queried why some of the numbers had 16 changed. 17 18 Christine Firstenberg could discuss with Jean Eisberg increasing the 30-foot space to 40 feet. 19 Concerning off-street parking requirements, 1 stall for every 250 square feet was normal for 20 limited service. It was normal to have more parking stalls for sit-down restaurants, although 21 there were currently not a lot of active sit-down restaurants in the Bay Area. 22 23 Jean Eisberg added that 30 feet might be too conservative and increasing it to 40 feet was 24 reasonable. Jean Eisberg thought the 30-foot measurement applied to the California Avenue 25 building frontage but the language could be clearer. Regarding Packet Page 196 Section 26 18.42.090, there would probably be an item in the CUP for a bar. As for the change in off-street 27 parking requirements, some of the existing ratios had been taken through different scenarios 28 and some of the numbers did not make sense based on potential use classifications. There was 29 one eating-and-drinking parking standard, which a quick-service tenant would not be able to 30 meet. 31 32 Jennifer Armer added that a CUP was required for a business to be open past 10 p.m. 33 34 Commissioner Ji referenced Packet Page 204 Section 14 and suggested that the deleted section 35 not be removed because it provided benefits. 36 37 Jean Eisberg voiced that Packet Page 204 Section 14 referenced findings for CUPs, which was no 38 longer required by beauty shops, nail salons, etc. The section would apply only to formula retail 39 businesses, which required a CUP. If the section should be retained, beauty shops, nail salons, 40 etc., would be deleted. 41 42 Commissioner Ji noted that after hearing Jean Eisberg’s comment, he might not support 1 deleting Section 14 on Packet Page 204. 2 3 Chair Akin questioned if enough feedback had been captured to make a recommendation to 4 Council. 5 6 Jean Eisberg understood that typos should be corrected and language clarified. Jean Eisberg 7 asked if office parking should be more restrictive for the RP Zone. Doing so could create 8 nonconforming conditions in the RP Zone and she suggested leaving it alone and just using the 9 parking ratios for the new eating-and-drinking use classifications. 10 11 The PTC agreed to not make parking more restrictive for the RP Zone. 12 13 Chair Akin asked the PTC if there was support for an effective date for the retail addition 14 exemption to avoid a loophole and one being able to add 1,500 square feet multiple times year 15 after year. 16 17 Jennifer Armer stated language could be included to address the exception not being multiple 18 times in order to avoid the fee. 19 20 The PTC accepted that approach. 21 22 Chair Akin inquired if the open-container sales on Cal Ave could be resolved by revisiting some 23 of the language. 24 25 Jennifer Armer confirmed that the open-container sales on Cal Ave could be resolved by 26 revisiting the language. Jennifer Armer requested that Commissioners email their lists to staff. 27 28 MOTION 29 30 Vice Chair Chang moved to forward the ordinance to Council for approval with the clarifications 31 outlined in the PTC’s discussion at this meeting. 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 36 37 VOTE MOTION 38 39 The clerk conducted a voice vote. 40 41 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Ji, Commissioner James, Commissioner Peterson, 42 Commissioner Hechtman, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) (Commissioner Templeton was absent) 43 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 2 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 3 Minutes of February 11, 2026 4 5 PUBLIC COMMENT 6 7 There were no comments. 8 9 The clerk noted that Commissioner James would abstain from the vote due to being absent on 10 February 11, 2026. 11 12 MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Ji 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 voice vote. 23 24 MOTION PASSED 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner 25 Hechtman, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin) (Commissioner James abstained) (Commissioner 26 Templeton was absent) 27 28 PUBLIC COMMENT 29 30 Jim B. spoke of racism, etc. 31 32 Chair Akin read a statement in response to the above public comment. Palo Alto was 33 committed to a culture of belonging and the speaker’s message of discrimination and hate was 34 denounced. 35 36 Sathiyasangaree A. did not agree with the topics the PTC discussed. 37 38 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 39 40 Commissioner Hechtman noted that reading the verbatim minutes was challenging due to 1 Commissioners speaking over each other and suggested speaking one at a time. 2 3 Commissioner Ji apologized for missing the PTC-ARB joint meeting due to attending the 4 Planning Commissioners Academy, which was very helpful. A list of the information learned 5 would be sent to the PTC. Most other Cities’ planning commissions had a City email and 6 suggested that Palo Alto do the same and that the answers to questions sent to staff ahead of 7 the meeting be cc’d to all commissioners. 8 9 Chair Akin noted that attending the Planning Commissioners Academy had been worthwhile. 10 ADJOURNMENT 11 12 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 12:02 a.m. 13