Planning & Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Good evening everyone. I call to order the October 29th, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Mr. Dutter, would you call the role? Yes. Uh, Chair Aen here. Vice Chair Chang here. Commissioner Hecman here. Commissioner James here. Commissioner G here. Commissioner Peterson here. Commissioner Templeton here. For the record, we have quorum. Thank you. Assistant Director Armor, do we have any agenda changes, additions, or deletions tonight? No changes. Very good. Mr. Tveta, do we have any uh public comment for items that are not on the agenda?

Uh yes, uh to the chair, we do have uh one request to speak at the moment. Um I'm going to invite uh Bob L to the mic. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh, good evening. Forgive me for reading. I'm not a great public speaker, but my name is Bob Lennox. Um, and I'm the president of the Palo Alto Airport Association. It's recently come to our attention that there is a proposal for housing east of 101 near Gang Road. Uh we respect the uh city's push for more housing, but this location has issues due to its proximity to the airport, which I'd like to bring to your attention. Uh I know that planning is still in the early phases, and we recognize this item uh is not on your agenda this evening, but apparently it will be in the near future. First, this development lies within the airport influence area and as such I understand there is a legal requirement for the Santa Clara County Airport Land use commission to review the plans. Any building within the airport influence area requires the county's airport land use comprehensive land use plan to be considered for compliance. Secondly, well, this would be the first residential construction in this otherwise commercial area. It is planned directly under the uh the airport traffic area, which is this red line right here. Okay, this development is going to be right in this area. And there's already traffic planned for there, and it's a safety issue. this patterns been optimized for safety while minimizing noise impact on the

existing residential areas. Uh we feel it would be a grave disservice to future residents if they were not clearly informed of the aircraft noise footprint before purchasing. You know, harmonious community relations with neighbors and the city are cultivated when expectations are set and met, not discovered, and disappointment would follow. We look forward to collaborating with the commissions and the city council to create the best combined outcome for both resident and airport communities. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lennox.

Um, and through the chair, I've received no other public comment cards and no request to speak on general public comment. Very good. Thank you. All right, then it's time to move on to uh city official reports. We'll start with you Miss Armor.

Yes, thank you. Just briefly, we will jump into the standard report for upcoming meetings. Next page. So, uh, as we are getting to the end of the year, we have one meeting scheduled for November. Uh at this time we have three items scheduled for November 12th. The annual comprehensive plan progress report, the PaloAlto link update, and the consideration of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan for recommendation to can council. November 26th regular meeting is canceled. Happy Thanksgiving. On the next slide, a couple of things of note from the council's agendas. Um, just passed on October 12 20th, the tenative map recommended by PTC um to council was approved on consent calendar. And uh next month before your meeting on the 12th uh one of the meetings of city council that includes items of interest, the lighting ordinance update and 660 University will be going on November 10th. That concludes my presentation. We have a senior transportation planner um Azie Arce here to give the update for transportation.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Uh hello everyone. My name is Azie Arce, senior transportation planner with the office of transportation. I will be stepping in in this role uh going forward and providing the OOT updates. Um so looking forward to engaging with PTC and serving as a resource. Uh next slide, please. Uh just kicking it right off and you should have received an email about this. The city did um release the draft bike and ped plan. Uh just a reminder, this is an update to the 2012 bike and ped plan. You've been involved in this process for the last couple years and looking forward to presenting the draft plan at your next meeting on November 12th and we wanted to alert you all of its release so you have ample time to review because coming prepared with your review and questions will ensure a productive discussion. Uh next slide please. Um uh some good news and you might have heard already but this uh uh there was a ribbon cutting for the CALR um rehabilitation project that included the uh bikeway. Um Calrans was there, city staff was there present as well as um uh uh regional representatives. Um so it was nice to do the ribbon cutting ceremony and really celebrate the outcome of of that process. Um, so if you haven't ridden it, go go go take a ride. I highly recommend it. Next slide, please. Um, another year of successful bike rodeos at local schools. Um, this is part of our safe routes to school team and this is a flagship program, as you know, for the city. Um, we led 12 bike rodeos this year at all third grade for all third grade students at each elementary school at Paul Alto Unified. Approximately 700 students were served um over this 60inute uh safety course. Uh we also gave away about 24

refurbished bikes to students in need and dozens and dozens of helmets. Um, so just a special shout out to the over 230 parent volunteers to help us put these events together, as well as collaborative partners like PAUSD, the police department, Stanford's public safety department, uh, Silicon Valley Bike Exchange, and many others. Uh, next slide, please. uh bike Paul Palo Alto uh returned again this year and with a strong showing of over 600 participants uh and volunteers provided free helmets uh uh helmet fittings, free bike repairs, suggestions for uh best bike routes uh and information on safe routes to school program. So you see some staff there with uh some local folks and uh people from our safe routes to school partnerships and um uh community members doing the bike repair. Next slide please. Um the more recently just last week the Urban Land Institute was in Palo Alto specifically focused at looking at the Palo Alto transit center um looking at some near-term and long-term recommendations. Um they had a panel of experts from across the nation looking at the site. Um, some recommendations that uh were addressed included addressing SB79 by upzzoning the area and other uh uh sides of the track between University Avenue and El Camino in addition to the area plan on the Stanford site next to the shopping mall. So, some upzoning. I'm sure uh the PTC will be part of those conversations. Design and construct the Corey Road connection. reallocate or relocate the MacArthur building uh to use the site um road diet on University Avenue uh and to pedestrianize some of those loops that we see uh heading into the station among many other uh recommendations. Um and we're going to take some time to think about how and if

and how we can build that into some of our CIP or other programs. Um uh next slide please. Just a quick correction on the title here. It should be Alma Street/Charleston Road Safety Improvements. I was typing too quick, but just wanted to highlight that there there is a a project to bring some improvements to this area. This project is separate and independent from the ongoing rail grade separation conversations. So, just wanted to distinguish those two. Um, this is in cooperation with CALR and the Peninsula Joint uh powers board as well as the city. So, think of design elements that could include um installation of a pre-signal, street lighting, roadway resurfacing, utility relocation, signage, and striping. All part of the conversation. There was a community meeting last night um at Mitchell Park and uh there were about 10 attendees with a lot of interest um uh and uh really insightful comments. uh there was support for the safety improvements by the city uh in addition to Cal Train. So we should see uh some movement there. Uh uh next slide and in closing and I think one of your agenda items today will be a discussion around or really an introduction around the vision and the idea around a grand boulevard initiative. So, just wanted to note that uh uh Cassie Hall's the major corridors manager Samr is joining us tonight and she's a project manager for the GBI initiative and she will they will be presenting a a progress update on the GBI and sharing the vision and goals to get your feedback. So, just wanted to provide those updates. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. RSA. So, commissioners, questions for Miss Armor or Mr. RSA? I have Commissioner Templeton, Mr. Hman and then Commissioner G. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to Mr. Arce for a thorough and very informative update. Um, I am delighted and I I know they won't all be like that, but I really appreciate you sharing those things with us and that's exactly the kind of content we're looking for. So, thank you,

Commissioner. So, in the time I've been on the commission, it's very rare that a representative from the transportation department has come to deliver the report in person. Um, so I'm really excited to see here tonight and I hope going forward you'll make a habit of it. Thank you, Commissioner G. Yeah, I just want to echo what my other fellow commissioners said and also um personally really enjoyed the bike rodeo because I remember doing that as a child. So, just want to say that was a lovely memory. Um, I also had a question for Miss Armor. Um, I've been following the items going to council. I didn't notice that the the retail notes have gone. Do you mind if did I miss that?

No, you did not miss that. Um, there has been a fair amount of movement uh in our upcoming agendas for council as they we've been juggling around um all of the different priorities that they are working on. And so that staff report is ready to go, but it uh there's been some discussion as to whether it should go to the retail committee before going to council. And so the latest, which I didn't include in my presentation because we'll see whether um we do maintain this plan, but the latest is to go to the retail committee in December uh and then bring it to council on consent after that.

Okay. Thank you. Um just wanted to clarify that since we're also talking about more retail today. Vice Chair Ch uh also echo uh everybody else thank you for coming Mr. RC um appreciate the report and I could a question for uh Miss Armor. So when you said the lighting ordinance is that the dark skies ordinance? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Any further comments or questions? [snorts] Thank you both. It's uh it's good to have you here, Mr. RSA, and uh we'll look forward to seeing you in future meetings. All right, if we are done with commission with questions of staff, then I believe we're ready for item number two, our study session on the Grand Boulevard initiative. Hello everyone. My name is Cassie Halls. Um I am the manager of major corridors at SAMR. Great to join you all tonight and I'll try to keep this brief. Um and thank you also Azie for the great introduction. Um so as you can see on the slide here uh we are um providing an overview of the Grand Boulevard initiative today which is a multi- agency partnership to implement transportation improvements on El Camino and to expedite improvements um across the whole San Monteo County um segment of El Camino. However, we are also including Paulo Alto um due to a couple factors. we just to the proximity of Menllo Park and then also because of um rowdy CR which is our breadandbut transit service goes all the way to the Palo Alto transit center. So we wanted to include Palo Alto however um we wanted to focus on Sonteo County given our jurisdictional focus at SAM trans. Um, so I'm just going to be providing an overview of our efforts and also an introduction to our planning study which we are going to be completing at the end of this calendar year. Um, and we're asking for your input on um, a couple pieces of the action plan. So we'll have a couple discussion questions at the

end. Next slide. Oh, I'll also mention that Jason Kim is on the Zoom. Um, he is the transit capital planning manager of VTA. We're closely coordinating with VTA. So if you have any VTA specific questions, he he's also available. Next slide. Okay. So what is the Grand Boulevard initiative? This is a partnership between SAMR jurisdictions along El Camino transportation focused public agencies including the SMCTA and CALR as well as MTC um CCAG and SAMR. Um and then advocate and business groups in Sanonteo County. And I'll just mention that Paulo Alto has been a very active member as well as Stanford have attended uh multiple meetings. Um so Samr is working with these partners to lead workshops with staff. Uh we've done about a year and a half of workshops um to focus on how do we build momentum around transforming transportation on El Camino. Um, so this group is called the GBI task force and we're working to advance a unified vision focusing on mobility and safety on this critical north south corridor that we understand serves as both the main street of a lot of local communities as well as providing this important regional connection. Next slide. Um, so this is just a little bit of why are we doing this? Um if any of you um ever drive on El Camino or bike or or walk um or take public transit, you probably understand this already. Um but it's we we believe that it's time to modernize El Camino Riale. I recently learned from Calrans, it was actually the first highway. Um so that that's the basis. So, it it was designed to move autos quickly and is now kind of a hodgepodge of being, you know, both a um main street as well as trying to be this high-speed auto um experience. So, we think that it needs to be transformed to address these mobility and safety needs.

Um and there are a lot of co- benefits even though we're trying to hyperfocus on mobility and safety. Um we think that there are a lot of co- benefits including placemaking, economic vitality, you know, providing more sustainability elements and infrastructure to support future development. As we know there's a lot more housing coming to El Camino. Next slide. So um this is just a provides some visuals of um who's involved in our GBI uh working group and task force. So we have a a task force that includes all the city and agency staff, advocacy groups, business groups, and we also have a focus working group of just the city and agency staff that is focused on implementation. Next slide. Um this is a overview of all the agency partners and roles. One of the the exciting things about GBI is um due to the jurisdictional structure, El Camino projects often are, you know, maybe maybe different folks are leading different projects and they're not um under one roof. So now we are designing El Camino or designing GBI to focus on how we can all collaborate and um speak with one voice so that it's easier for cities to understand what is the policy and plan for El Camino. um and also to provide a unified approach for all of this. And I'll also mention that um Calrans as well as um SMCTA have been and the others have been excellent partners and um MTC and the SMCTA are providing funding for this plan along with SAMR dollars. Next slide. Um and then lastly, um apologies that Paul Alto is in gray here. That's not a personal offense to you all. [laughter] Um this is you know we've done these road shows mainly in Sanonteo County so you all are the exception but um we're coordining AC coordinating across nine different projects and studies underway

so we're also coordinating with Corey Road um and um we're working with VTA. Um however the the ones in Sanonteo County are listed here. The main takeaway is that there's a lot of work happening on El Camino and all the cities are kind of gearing up to make changes and what our um intent is with GBI is to streamline the efforts that cities have to do in order to move these projects forward. Next slide. Okay. So, I'm going to take a couple slides to talk about our planning study which is called the GBI action plan. Um if any of you know about the CALR process, this is a requirement that CALR asked of us. Um that's the feasibility study for this effort. Um so this is um intended to refine design concepts prior to starting um the next phase of the CALR process. And it's important to note that normally when um cities try to make improvements on El Camino. They have to go through the CALR process on their own. The process is very extensive uh requires a lot of traffic studies, multi-million dollar planning efforts, etc. But what we're doing is we are proposing a coordinated approach for all of San Monteo County plus a portion of Palo Alto up to Corey Road um to go through one U CALR process together given that there are pretty similar conditions across the the county. Um we're leading this coordinated process. SAM Trans is sponsoring the first phase with the TA and then we will be identifying roles and responsibilities moving forward from there. However, we see that there's a lot of benefit in having this coordinated approach. So, it's less of a burden for cities to go through this process. Um, so next slide, please. Um, so the the GBI action plan is is essentially just setting our vision before we start this whole approach together. Um, and so um and the difficult thing is we have just in Sonteo County alone, we have 14 um

jurisdictions. So we're trying to work with all these jurisdictions to establish a cohesive vision. So it may look different for each city in terms of what you know what exact what their final design is. However, we want similar themes across the county and we also want to make sure that any facilities that we uh put in are continuous. Um so for example, you all have some great new bike lanes on El Camino and Palo Alto. Um right now in Menllo Park it just basically ends. So, we want to figure out ways to make sure that all of these jurisdictions are working together. Next slide. Um, this is just a a slide showing how we're doing engagement for the GBI action plan. We're presenting to all the councils. Um, right now we also have a steering committee of all the public agencies that I mentioned and we are going to be seeking SAM trans and TA board adoption at the end of the year. Next slide. Um, so this is our corridorwide vision that El Camino Rial is a safe and vibrant street where people of all ages and abilities travel comfortably. Um, you know, we're not trying to do some goldplated design. We're not trying to to do the perfect thing. We're trying to p try and get along um a improved vision for how we can prioritize safety and mobility on El Camino. Um, next slide. Um so when we have worked a lot with cities along El Camino as well as the advocacy and business groups um we asked them from the beginning to figure out what are the the problems on El Camino. We know there are a ton of problems but how do we prioritize them? How do we make sure that we're addressing the things that matter the most? And so both in the data that we um gathered um as well as from all of the cities and and other folks involved in GBI, we saw safety as a top issue. Um and uh when you look across the Bay Area, El Camino

Rial is the most dangerous corridor. Um and we have an unusually high rate of fatal or serious injury crashes, particularly for people walking and biking. So this is one of our top problems that we're working to address. And our goal for this is to adopt a safety first mindset to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. We also um saw all of the cities coales around mobility. So um the general feedback was that El Camino Rial has this highway like design that is in congruous with the local communities and discourages walking, biking and transit use. So we want to transform El Camino Rial into a complete street that works for all users. And then lastly, we hear that it's very challenging to develop, implement, and fund projects on El Camino. Um so we're creating a new framework for change um aligning vision u policy and funding as I described previously. Next slide. Um so this is just the menu of options that we're proposing in the action plan. Um this doesn't mean that these are the things that each city is going to do. Um but this is the the the types of improvements that will be advancing through the CALR process. So, um, these include, you know, elements such as traffic calming, um, elements to add more inviting active transportation facilities such as crosswalk improvements, wider sidewalks, and then transit improvements such as bus lanes, um, bus stop enhancements, and access improvements. Next slide. Um, so GBI uh, builds on plans and projects in Palo Alto. wanted to make sure we're not just creating another plan that we're synthesizing all the work that that all of the local jurisdictions have done. Um so a few to note are the um the El Camino Riale master planning study um which um helped us for the Paulo Alto section was helpful in in figuring out how you know how we're going to include this and how we make sure our vision aligns with this

and vice versa as well as we're closely coordinating with Corey Road as well. Next slide. Okay. So, I'm just going to uh prompt a couple next slide couple questions. Oh, actually, sorry. Um, this is a good slide to talk about. Um, so it's important to note at from the onset with this project that this is going to be very expensive and it's going to take a long time, which is never what people want to hear, but I think we should level set the expectations on El Camino. So, this is um, you know, 22 miles of streetscape redesign. It's going to be one of the largest capital projects we've completed in Sanonteo County. Um, and we estimate uh 750 million to a billion dollars to complete this effort. Um, we're currently at the blue on the left. So, we're in the conceptual planning phase. I mentioned the GBI action plan and then we'll be starting the project initiation document which is the CALR way of saying um the conceptual planning work and then moving into design and construction. Um so we we think this will likely take six to 10 years to realize all the improvements we want to make. This doesn't mean that um we have to wait 6 to 10 years to make improvements. There are um after we complete the GB action plan that will help us identify some of the the improvements we want to the lowhanging fruit improvements that we want to move forward to um you know those other implementation processes that are a bit quicker for spot improvements. Um but this is you know our fully redesigned corridor is going to take a fair amount of time. Um however there's a lot of economies of scale of doing it as a coordinated effort. Um by having all of these 15 jurisdictions including Palo Alto involved in this coordinated process. We're spending 2 and a.5 million for the the first the PID which is listed here. Um where if a city went alone they would often spend $2 million. So there's a lot of benefit for cities to be involved in this. Um, and also

another note, um, we've had the SMCTA also at many of these council presentations. They were unable to come tonight. Um, but they they are really bringing, um, you know, all the forces in to try to get this funded. So, there are a lot of funding sources that, uh, they, you know, us and MTC can access that cities can't access. And this is more competitive for discretionary funding given that it's a quarter-wide project. Next slide. Okay. So, I I hope I didn't go over time, but um I'm happy to answer general questions. And then we also have some discussion questions listed here um and a cheat sheet at the bottom of the the goals that I'm asking about. So, I'm curious to hear um what goals do you have for the corridor, how we can best work together to advance this vision, and then are you supportive of the process as we've described it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Miss Halls. Um, we will be able to entertain some [clears throat] clarifying questions here in just a moment, but Mr. Trader, we have a an iPad technical problem up here. Let's take a quick look at that and then I think we can begin. Um, yeah, clarifying questions. [clears throat] Commissioner G. I'm sorry. Uh James, sorry I'm misreading this. This is my problem, not yours. Vice Chair Chang,

um just a quick question. So I know that you've involved all the cities and I've also involved Pawato obviously. What about Stanford? Because it's not a city but kind of a mini city. That's a great question. So they're involved in our I mentioned the task force and the working group. Um they're involve involved in our task force. So we have advocates, we have groups like Stanford, we have um business groups, sama other types of folks. So that's kind of our broader group. So they are we engage them twice a year. Um and then we have a in between that we have a quarterly [snorts] uh meeting with all of the working group members. So all the cities and agency staff. So Sanford's been involved. Yeah. Thank you.

Anything else? Vice Chairgress, Commissioner Peterson.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. So, the question I have is um large number of agencies and the last time I checked agencies don't always share money. So, trying to create a patchwork. I think the vision is is fascinating and I think with communication obviously in a in a good team it can you know this is probably the way of the future. How do you envision trying to coordinate or allow I think you're even talking about more you're you're creating the platform to allow people to coordinate and to put those projects together so that they make a coherent thing because what you're describing right now is it's basically like a patchwork quilt like made of different patches all the way through and it looks great but still it's not quite a planned corridor which is probably why it has the high injury rates. um what's your vision for for trying to create that pipeline of funding that everybody's kind of sharing and then going forward and then the last piece of that is contractors. Do you have contractors that are participating? That's difficult too because you know you're not necessarily guaranteeing them work but it's hard to you know think all this through without you know the end players too. In terms of contractors, you mean consultants? Is that what you're referring to? Or

I was thinking like I mean I was I used to work at Granite Construction. So I'd be like okay bring Granite Construction and have them be like you know what does this look like from that perspective?

That's those are great questions. So um I would say a lot of this is still being defined in terms of the actual implementation. However, what we've proposed, if you actually go back one slide, um um so to get this project all the way through construction, um it's going to cost or the construction itself is going to cost something like 750 million. Um we so the main source of funds that we're anticipating um being able to access is the um highway call for projects that SMCTA has. And so they can fund up to 50% of these um construction dollars. um or of the total project costs. So um but they can't do it in one year. They have to we have to phase it across multiple years. Um and it's every two years as the highway call for project. So our idea right now is that we are going to get everyone through this PID process which is we're basically trying to create like a big tent make sure everyone's you know has the bare minimum in order to be involved in this process. So, we've done a lot of technical assistance with cities just to make sure that everyone is able to be a part of this process in the county. Um, and then from there, once we get into design, um, right now we basically don't need to decide on our preferred alternative until 2027 when we start the design phase, the PA and ED that's listed here. Um so right now we're just you know working with all the cities making sure they have either local plans or we provide them technical assistance to get them to a point where they have alternatives and then we we decide what the preferred is in 2027. And then around that time also we need to have difficult conversations across jurisdictions because there are going going to be instances um where one city wants to do one thing and another city wants to do another and they're just not congruous. Um so part of the effort of creating this regional framework is we're trying

to make sure everyone agrees on some general themes that they want to see. Um but then from there we are going to have to do some um negotiations, conversations with individual cities and also making sure that we're you know providing transition zones, making sure that design is continuous. you know, we may not have um one, we're definitely not going to have one facility up and down the whole 22 miles. Um we may have like bike lanes, you know, for five to six miles. We may have transit lanes in the spots where we know that there is the most congestion for for transit. We've studied that. We understand where those pinch points are. So, we know what our priorities are. Um, one of the the goals of the GBI action plan is for El Camino to be a backbone bicycle network. However, that doesn't mean that El Camino has to be that facility. It could be parallel routes that are included in the corridor. Um, so there's going to be a lot of, you know, this we're kind of in the easy fun part right now where we're just everyone's happy. We love the vision and over the next couple years we're going to start having fights. But, um, I think really I mean Sam trans is not the natural person. there's no natural agency to lead this effort. So, we're relying on this this um five agency um partnership um but someone at the regional level needs to kind of intervene because you know cities cities can all they control are their boundaries. So,

thank you. Appreciate it, Commissioner Templeton. Thank you. Um, this is a very exciting project and thank you for bringing it to us. And I I understand that you're shopping it around to to the big tent right now. We may not uh it's unclear how much we're going to see of of it in the future. Can we go back to her slide about her questions? Um, so goals. Um, do you want us to limit the scope of goals to how it interacts with our city? Okay. Is this uh clarifying or Well, it sounds clarifying to me, chair. What do you think?

Um, just wanted to make sure you're happy with the with the limitations so that we can get the public comments in if any. Sure. It sounds like you would like me to hold off and I will talk to you later then. If I don't mean to uh to suppress the uh the question, just trying to uh follow the process as I was, but I'm happy to hold off. Let's go ahead. You seem eager to move forward. Let's do it. All right. Any further clarifying questions from Miss Halls?

Mr. Diver, do we have any requests to speak? Yes. Uh to the chair, I have one request to speak on Zoom and I have not received any public comment cards in person. Um at this moment, I'll allow Bill R to uh speak. Uh Bill R, you may now speak. Uh can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

All right. Um uh I I think any planning or eventually environmental consideration of this project's got to consider the existing physical environment and the existing physical environment includes the bike lanes that exist in Santa Clara County both within the city abuing city territory and unincorporated territory Stanford in the in the county. Um the existing bike lanes quite frankly in every member of our family has observed them night and day for probably I don't know at least as long as they've existed and I think there's there's a dangerous condition of public property that's present both during the day and the night. During the day bicycles go both ways on these lanes and cars are utilizing bike lanes as turn lanes. There's been a lack of education So safety is an issue and if this is notification of a dangerous condition of public property, it's certainly present. It's also used by electric bicycles and it's not clear what the use of the existing bike lanes is. At night, it's even worse because there's no visibility there. I think a issue that has to be resolved for existing retail uses for that portion of the bike lanes that exist in the city is existing right of entries. Those are rights and property. Those property owners are entitled to compensation. More importantly, ADA access has been severely limited by the existing bike lanes. It's unclear how those spaces that existed are replaced, but I think enforcement's a critical issue. Who's going to do it right now for these problems that exist on the existing bike lines? Santa Clara County Sheriff, CHP, Cal, PaloAlto Police Department. Right.

I would suggest that there's an immediate need for clarifying that before going forward with the plan. Now I've read these documents and it is really unclear to me how this planning process relates to the stip you know how it's all the funding seems hypothetical it is not linked to anything real so I think that you know addressing these issues about retail uses right now that have had their parking and ADA eliminated the existing conditions on these bike lanes I think everybody Everybody acknowledges the use is low, but I think that's evidenced by a lack of education about how the bike lines bike lanes are to be used safely and how there's to be enforcement for the protections of all users of the corridor. So, I would hope that that kind of study comes out with active engaged enforcement for the safety issues. Thank you. And uh to the chair uh that concludes um I have no other um public comment.

Thank you. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Ross. So, we will open it up for general discussion, beginning with Commissioner Templeton. Thank you. Um just for the public's awareness, um you're representing SAM Trans and not Calrans. Is that correct? That's correct.

Great. Um, so can we go back to her slide, please? Thank you. [gasps] Um, I have a lot of thoughts about El Camino in general, but um, I'm going to try and keep it scoped uh, per your request. Um, it just so happens that today, uh, on my way in, I, uh, dropped off on the Stanford side of the train station, had to go loop through the campus and come back. So, I got a nice tour of, uh, the entire facility uh, on both sides. And um I would say one of the goals I have for this kind of terminus this big um bus train station um that intersects with three different systems rights trans and VTA um is uh I support your your desire to to improve that train station and the flow of uh or the hub as it it was very confusing to navigate uh every time I go in, I'm never sure if I'm in the right exit exit uh path and um it's not clear where to drop off uh someone who wants to ride the train. Um you know, there's no signage that says here's the underpass if you're trying to go north. Um drop them here or here. like so I would say that's um possibly something to improve uh as as you reimagine that space but also how it interfaces with El Camino is just um enormously frustrating and um it does have the sense of being a legacy

something that was there for many decades that definitely could use improvement. So, in terms of the vision, uh I appreciate that that's something we'll be talking about. I recognize that it's very expensive and there's probably limited stuff that we can do, but if we could find um some ways to improve that flow um and the pedestrian uh space, walking space there is a good idea as well. But like I found myself putting my car in a space where I knew a bus should be and having my son step out and trying to figure this out. He also couldn't walk from we were very close and we had a detour so we had to drive all the way around. He couldn't walk there. So um you know he didn't feel comfortable biking. So like making sure our um like you said uh our access to the other paths bike paths in Palo Alto are very clear and well lit especially coming from the train station at least. I know there's the rest of that is up to us and our bike ped plan but uh that would be very very nice um from from this and if it was an outcome from this project as far as the process goes. Process sounds fine. Um, I don't know how much you'll want to interface with us as commissioners versus our lovely Department of Transportation staff. They know a lot and um they often uh are very judicious about how and when they bring transportation projects to us. So, [laughter] um that said, if you thought that that you were coming back with something that might be controversial and worth discussing that this is a place for that. So, um, we welcome you back anytime you want to come. Um, and and for next steps sound the process sounds good to me. Um, I'm really supportive and I'm also very appreciative that we had a chance to talk about it with you and I think there's a lot that we can do. Um, the one thing that I I just think about when I think about El Camino and PaloAlto and especially because we

have this university involvement, it definitely is pedestrians. Um, it definitely is less experienced bicyclists, right? less experienced pedestrians and the size of crossing El Camino um is is very terrifying for people um that may be less experienced. Um and then the last thing is sometimes we have flooding on El Camino uh under that uh University Avenue bridge. So if you are going to do any kind of improvements to that interchange that needs to be dealt with and if you aren't going to do it that still needs to be dealt with right so if if you in other words if you don't want to shut down El Camino when it rains which happens right on this side of the border because of that underpass um even just having a better pump or better maintenance for the pump if there is one um would be something worth seriously considering. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Tippleton. I have Commissioner Hecman and then Vice Chair Chang.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the uh presentation. I I think it's an exciting, ambitious project, and it's uh great to get a first look at it. Um I love the name of the project because I think of El Camino Rial as the granddaddy of boulevards in California. you know, sometimes um I'm down in um Southern California and I end up on some piece of it and because that these these little metal sculptures, I think it's a lantern, something like that, that that are both north and south. Um and I always when I see that it I get this sort of weird connected feeling and you know, it makes me think of like like the the wagon trails that connected the original missions in California. So I think it's a it's a super important part of our um state history and and the idea of uh um beautifying it and increasing its its functionality in this you know limited segment uh is uh definitely worthwhile. Uh so thank you for bringing it to us. Um um the goals I would have for this corridor really I I can improve on the goals you've stated. You know, we had a a public commenter um just before our remarks uh speak to really what I think is the the safety goal uh which which I don't think it's a coincidence that that is listed first. Um I think that was intentional because that is the the the first and foremost um goal of this process. And so um I uh I I know that will be um warped into it. Um the the mobility goal is the one that really uh makes me scratch my head. We have a a really a set amount of space curb to curb um and and maybe even less if we're talking about expanding sidewalks unless we are talking about um acquiring land to expand the boulevard

which would be extraordinarily expensive. And I nothing I read in the these documents suggests that that is in the cards at least now. And so, you know, the real question is, well, how are we going to make everything fit? How do we make this a a pedestrianfriendly skate uh streetscape while accommodating more bikes, which is already happening right here in you know, PaloAlto uh and our neighboring cities um and more buses and uh accommodating cars that want and need to flow in volume. Uh so, I mean, to me, the mobility goal is uh it's nice to see it written. um how are you going to do it? And and you know that's that's what the process is for. And so I'm looking forward to to seeing those ideas as they uh as this unfolds um you know well after I'm no longer a commissioner. Um uh so that's what I uh have the goals. Uh how do we keep uh we best work together? Uh I I think you've started that process here tonight. We we keep communicating. Um I don't know how often the PTC will be involved um as to this you know sort of limited segment uh on the north end of PaloAlto um but but I think everybody just keeps talking um and that's how you work together and I am supportive of the processes as you've uh described it. So u those are my comments keep going. Thanks.

Thank you Commissioner Hecman. Vice Ch.

Hi, thank you for coming tonight and thank you to both commissioners who've already given really great comments. I agree with everything that's been said. Um, so I'm just going to add a tiny bit. Um, as I think about the timeline for the project and you saying it could be 6 to 10 years, we've had legislation as I'm sure you know that um affects Palo Alto quite a lot affects the transit center right there quite a lot because um of the housing. So [snorts] SP79 is just something to keep in mind. And I think that um while certainly you're going to be working with our transportation folks a lot more than with us, it's also really important to work with our planning folks because since the end of your segment connects to our downtown. We have a downtown planning effort. We don't know how SB79 is going to affect that. But regardless, there will be many, many more units of housing. And in addition, I know that at one time there was a project proposed for the transit center itself. And all of those things would increase the amount of um multimodal traffic. And so just to keep those things in mind as I'm sure that you're doing, but those are some of the thoughts that come um top of mind when I'm thinking about how this would impact Palatoto. Um I did have a question for you. So when you spoke about coming up with a new process um to create a framework for change in what ways do you see that affecting PaloAlto or affecting segments? I mean, your map shows the segment of El Camino Royale that you're really working on and those um agencies that you're working with, but is that framework for change something that would impact the adjacent agencies or um be something that we could learn from?

That's a great question. Um and and just to your previous comment, we are definitely tracking SP79. I think for this segment in Palo Alto, the train station will over overrule anything that El Camino would um to do. So the the fact that there's a train station, there's requirements for I think a half mile radius um for the El Camino portion. We're still getting interpretation on um uh whether or not it would be applicable to El Camino based on our understanding of what the future of the corridor is going to be. But for the Palo Alto segment, um nothing would come new out of any improvements we made on El Camino given the the presence of the train station. Um to your question, um about the the change in the process. Um I think this what I prop what I talked about today is our first step towards um change. I think Calrans has been very active uh in this partnership. they are changing a lot as an agency. Um they have a bunch of new transit policies, complete streets policies that are reshaping how they do their work, whether it's repaving or whether it's, you know, these larger projects that they're involved in. Um so I hope that GBI is really a test case for them of how this type of work can happen. And they've said that multiple times when they've attended GBI meetings that this is like a new framework for how to do multi-jurisdictional visioning. Um and they currently have their CM the comprehensive multimmoal corridor plan which is um their long range vision for El Camino that they're doing both here and in San Monteo County um as well as uh the small portion in in SF and um our process is is um guiding that effort in San Monteo County. Um, so I think there are, you know, there's

this coordinated process that we're leading with CALR. Um, that that's what we're focused on right now, getting all the cities through this process so they don't have to deal with it alone and so we can also maximize dollars for for construction. Um, but I think there's also a potential future um, changes to all of these processes. So, one of the recent pieces of legislation was SB um I think it's nine is it 910? Anyway, there was a new I'm not remembering the the the name, but there was a new um bill that passed that makes it so that CALR for state route has to um expedite transit improvements. So, I think that SB960 is the name, but I think XP SP960 will really shape the future of what we're going to do. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Commissioner G. Thank you. Um just want to echo my fellow commissioners. Thank you for coming. Thank you for including us. Um I just have a very small comment which is um I think that the this the way our station may get redesigned depends potentially on the ULI study that we recently went through for um the station. So I'll defer for conversation with Mr. RC who seems very involved on that to to learn more about what we're doing there.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Uh, Commissioner James.

Um, nothing nothing uh revolutionary to add here. Um, I think um I agree that the the framework uh for getting to this point looks looks smart to me. Um, I agree with Commissioner Hecman, sorry, Commissioner Hecman, that uh it looks like a very hard problem to solve, right? I mean, it's sort of there are all the limitations there and I'm very curious to see what the some of the design solutions are. And then the last question I have is just kind of a very narrow one, which is on the draft quarter wide vision page, you've picked two locations to show photographs of, and I assume those are kind of best of class in your view, and I'm just curious where they are. Oh, it's a good question.

It's packet page 22. Yes. Yes. Um, so one is in Menllo Park. Um, I know this material too well now. You guys are my last council presentation. um one is in Menllo Park and the other I believe is in Redwood City. So the bike lanes in Redwood City um the wide pedestrian um walkways in Menllo Park. I would say there isn't really like a perfect uh location on Al Camino that exemplifies what our vision is. I think there are little pockets of what you could see is potentially happening in the future. Um, but that's that's the the test cases that we showed in that photo.

Can I ask one one thing? I think the naming is the same of uh one of Peter Calthorp's books for uh sort of ideas for El Camino. And I'm just wondering if there's any overlap there. Is that coincidental?

So, this initiative has actually been around since 2006. That may be what you're referring to. Um so it was broader before it was two counties both um Santa Clara County and San Monteo County and it focused on you know land use um housing um transportation as well and there was a lot of progress that came out of that for the housing and land use side of things. um transportation given this whole CALR process and the implementation challenges. Um there were only about a/4 mile of improvements that were made on El Camino um in terms of like transit and and bicycle improvements um in the county. Of course, Palo Alto is now Paul Alto, Mountain View um have improvements, but um we just haven't really moved the needle. So that's why we wanted to to focus on transportation.

Thank you. Thank you. I will jump in with a few things here going from the specific to the general. Um you asked about goals. Uh I would say that bike lane connectivity is a high goal, a high priority goal uh for me uh and a very difficult one to achieve but nevertheless of interest. Um, I noticed that the modernization benefits include economic vitality, but I didn't get a sense of how that flows from the vision, the problem statements and goals or the streetscape changes. So, how do these how do these things that you mentioned early in the high level uh discussion come into play?

That's a great question. So, the goals as you mentioned are very focused. So we have mobility um safety and and process. Um however there were a lot of things that we wanted we heard from people that were important. Um and when we did that exercise of identifying priority problems um we knew that there were when we did that prioritization there were a lot of things like climate change adaptation you know economic vitality that were kind of co- benefits that we saw of these mobility and safety improvements. So if you make it somewhere people want to walk or they want to bike um take public transit um and if you make it so that there are more street trees you know it feels safer there's lighting um the hope is that it's promoting more economic vitality you know more businesses will open more businesses will will have you know more u people coming to them um and also that people will be shifting you know there are always going to be people driving on El Camino we're not neg that that people are going to drive. Um, however, that people more people are shifting towards alternative modes which do have a tie in based on literature to more economic activity like biking. People are more often to stop and go into a shop than if they're driving through. Um, and same with walking. So, I think it's not a direct benefit, but it's one of those co- benefits.

So, it's the hope is it's a consequence. Okay. And that segus nicely into my last uh observation or question. U and this also ties into Commissioner Hecman's comments. Um so we'll be eventually we'll be seeing this as a set of incrementally applied changes if I understand correctly. Um yet there are some high level requirements that we have to meet and maintain throughout that process and uh unfortunately things like maintaining vehicle traffic flows u is among them um are among them. So I'm curious as to at what stage in the process we begin um measuring and modeling things uh like the traffic flows we have to deal with and that we hope to deal with. Um and uh this applies perhaps um more critically to safety than to any other uh aspect that we've been discussing tonight. So um where in the process do you begin to pick that up so that it applies to all of these incremental changes that we might expect over time?

Yeah, that's a great question. So um Calrans has a very rigorous process for measuring things like that. So in this first phase which is the project initiation document we'll start doing some traffic analyses um as well as other analysis like storm water report things like that very engineering heavy topics um and then we'll be doing we'll be kind of going deeper and deeper in future design phases. So they require even more detailed modeling later but that will start um in 2026.

Great. That's a more optimistic answer than I had uh hoped to hear. So that's and so I'm pleased. All right, that's all I have. Uh commissioners, do we have any other questions or comments? Commissioner Peterson,

thank you. Just want to follow up my initial question where I was asking um with your uh how are you going to patchwork the funding and then I I'd mentioned uh bringing in contractors. So, one of the things that's seen on infrastructure projects is the sooner you bring in the the shovel, so to speak, but the people who are going to be building it and get them involved in the process, the sooner that um the the whole process and decisions you make when you get to the final stage. Um you're already kind of aligned with the people that are going to be bidding on the project. Um, and of course there is that challenge of of trying to uh manage expectations, but it's always good on something large like this to to get some of the re regional large heavy construction partners involved one way or another.

Yes, that's a great um point and I forgot to respond to that portion of the question. So um Samr and the TA are pretty familiar with alternative delivery methods and that's definitely something that we would consider for this given that it's such a big project and it has such a long time horizon. Um I don't remember the exact acronym but there's like construction management something something. So we've done that for a lot of our um bus divisions and um when we've had to reconstruct them things you know projects with pretty long timelines and that are very involved. So we'll definitely be exploring those models.

Thank you. That's exactly where I was going with it. Any other questions, commissioners? Thank you again. This has been uh a very optimistic and hopeful expression of where we'd all like to go. U and we very much appreciate your taking the time to uh inform us.

Thank you. All right, I believe we are ready to begin uh our study session for item number three on retail revitalization. So, may we have the presentation?

Yes, thank you. Um we h tonight that we have um Gan Iceberg online to uh talk us through the options here for this item this evening. So I will pass it off to her once she's ready.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Aken and members of the commission. Um so tonight we're talking about retail revitalization measures. Next slide, please. And this is based in policies from the comprehensive plan and from the city council's priorities which include um promoting a retail zoning strategy. On the comp plan side, there are a number of policies related to retail including zoning revisions to support small business parking reductions and supporting innovative retail. Next slide, please. This task is also built on a number of studies that were done a couple years ago uh by Street Sense and by Michael Baker International. And so those provide a basis of data, of analysis, of recommendations for the city to consider. The PTC met a number of times in 2023 and 2024 to review these reports and discuss potential strategies, but didn't have an opportunity to review an actual ordinance or move forward with an actual ordinance. The city council and the city council retail ad hoc committee ended up preparing and adopting a interim ordinance. Uh, next slide, please. And that ordinance addressed a few targeted issues. So one, expanding permissible uses. So some specific changes to definitions to try to allow more flexibility in a number of districts, reducing thresholds for waiverss from use regulations, and modifying the formula retail definition on California Avenue to again be a little more expansive. So the interim ordinance sub sunsets in December 2026. And so um a permanent ordinance would replace that in advance or otherwise it sunsets on that date. Next slide please. So tonight we're looking for the PTC to consider options and recommendations for

this retail strategy. Um these are primarily in attachment A of the staff report and we're looking for your feedback to help prepare an ordinance for your consideration to make a recommendation to council. So this includes refining and making permanent those interim regulations, addressing other topics that were identified by the PTC, by council in their motion on the interim regulations by staff over the last couple years, and then considering other amendments based on those previous consultant reports. Next slide, please. So one of the problems when we started really looking into the zoning is that it's very complicated. Um there are multiple sections that apply for a retailer who's looking to identify locations in the city to locate. Uh it's very lengthy, very textheavy, and in some cases in some of the districts fairly restrictive in terms of the types of uses that um can locate. And the issue is that all other things being equal, if a retailer wants to be in the region, um maybe not as sensitive to being in PaloAlto, if the lease rates are comparable, uh they may choose to locate in other places. And so the zoning can help on the margins can help um encourage retailers to locate in PaloAlto. Next slide, please. So first issue is about use regulations. Um so restrictions on uses um can prevent um you know can help uh or can can lead to um some increases in vacancies. Um so allowing more uses can reduce those vacancy rates can improve pedestrian orientation and potentially increased revenues. And we're particularly looking at some of the trends in retail and the typical uses that we see uh today in the market that may not be allowed in PaloAlto but that Palo Alto may may be supportive of. Next slide please. So this includes um takeout restaurants

particularly since COVID uh we see takeout in many restaurants in many locations is actually currently procluded in the code and so distinguishing that from drive-throughs which uh the city probably wants to continue to limit in most locations. A second animal care distinguishing the this idea is distinguishing between daytime uses which uh pet grooming cat cafes uses that don't have overnight facilities that might have noise impacts. Likewise, automobile showrooms which are now allowed downtown and could be considered in other districts where dealerships are not allowed or appropriate. Next slide, please. Other ideas around fitness centers. Currently, fitness centers are regulated by uh size in certain districts and so we could consider increasing that size to allow a little more flexibility. Similarly, medical offices um we see medical spas as a new use. Other types of medical offices that have a retail component like uh wellness or med spas or acupuncturists where there could be streetf facing uses that ensure that more pedestrian orientation, window shopping. And so thinking about expanding the office, excuse me, the medical office definition to allow those types of uses distinguished from a more traditional physicians type of office.

Next slide, please. So lastly, on use regulations, the commission could also consider allowing office uses uh in the rear of a space, so facing a side street or rear yard, not lab or university necessarily. Going to interrupt you for a moment. Sorry, we're having your audio has uh reduced. I don't know if you have a way to adjust your microphone or not. It wasn't coming through quite as clearly. If you could maybe just speak slightly louder. How was that any better?

Uh indifferent. Um you were you were fine initially. So was there anything that changed? No, but let me hit a button and see if that Is that any better? I don't detect any difference. All right. Well, we'll we'll make it work.

Okay. I'll try to speak speak up. So, lastly on use regulations are there's a category of retail like it's a definition in the code. It is not a use classification itself. So, another idea to be more expansive is to expand the existing retail service definition, which would encompass both retail and retail like uses. This could help streamline the code and just broaden the range of allowed uses. Next slide, please. Your volume is back, by the way.

Oh, great. I'll stop shouting. Um, this is more of a perception issue, but retailers can be turned off by the the term conditional use permit. In other communities, conditional use permit means it requires review by a decision-making body like a planning commission. Um, in Palo Alto, it's really more of an administrative use permit, an AUP. And so, changing the name could help with that perception. Alternatively, just publicizing more on the city's website. What is the process? what should retailers expect? Um, and make sure that it's clear that the cup is generally um a director level of decision. Next slide, please. This issue is really about um certain districts have layers of land use regulations. And so, um this is analyzed in attachment B, this example from Midtown and Charleston shopping centers. But when you start looking at the code to understand what applies in those locations, uh first we look at the base district which is the CN, the neighborhood commercial district. That has one use table. Then if you look at the second use table that's specific to Charleston and Midtown Shopping Center, that's another use table. And then finally, there's an overlay, the GF, groundf flooror combining district overlay also applies to the Midtown and Charleston shopping center. So it's a third set of uses. And at that point, you then learn that it's actually the GF supersedes the other two. So, you really only need to look at the GF. Now, this is confusing for someone who reads zoning for a living, for decision makers, for staff, but it's particularly confusing for a retailer who's less experienced in that. Next slide, please. Other issue we identified is around parking. Um, so a few different things here. One, commercial parking ratios are

dependent on the actual use type. So different uses have different ratios. This can be challenging for existing buildings when a applicant, a tenant is seeking a change of use permit. So if the existing building maybe has zero parking spaces or one parking space, a new tenant wants to locate and they're not proposing an addition. Um, but if they have a higher parking requirement, say they generate a parking requirement of two or three spaces and they cannot physically put that on the site, that use cannot go into the space. And so, uh, in some cities, you'll see that they exempt change of use applications from parking requirements to acknowledge that physical limitation of an existing use. Other things that the city could consider are increasing the shared parking reduction so that a residential and commercial use could um share more parking or really um promoting some of the state laws like AB2097 which exempts parking uh close to major transit. Next slide please. So the retail preservation ordinance um this uh applies in all location where retails are permitted use and so um I'll show on the next slide a map but if the commission is interested in looking at the retail preservation ordinance there's a few different things we could do. We could limit its applicability uh to specific locations like in downtown. We could reduce the replacement threshold. Generally, it's a one:one replacement requirement in terms of square footage. If there's an existing retail use, we could look at modifying the waiver thresholds to make it a little easier to make the argument for a tenant that they cannot replace um that particular use. Uh we could also on the flip side look

at requiring retail in specific locations rather than requiring retail where it currently exists. Uh next slide please. So this next slide shows a map. In yellow are the places where uh the retail preservation ordinance applies. The caveat being if there is an existing ground floor retail use that needs to be replaced. The blue hatching shows locations where regardless of the existing use, a ground floor retail use is required. uh say when you um are swapping out a use or putting in a redevelopment uh and a new building. Next slide, please. So, lastly, the the zoning map. Um the zoning map spans 18 pages. This this is very complicated. So, if you're a retailer looking where you can locate, it makes it very difficult. So, short-term idea is just to publish a simplified map. Uh we put one in the staff report that highlights where commercial locations are, where uses can uh locate. Longer term, uh the commission may be interested in streamlining commercial districts and those overlay districts and simplifying this map. Next slide, please. Uh so I wanted to introduce my colleague who I'm working on this project with. Um Christine Fenberg is a retail broker. um and she's been working in that role for over 30 years. Uh we have collaborated together before on policy projects for cities and so she really provides a lot of uh perspective from the retailers perspective and from her uh network of retailers of brokers uh of property owners. Next slide please. So she will be available during Q&A. she did reach out to a few stakeholders uh within Palo Alto um and so she can provide a little

more information about those conversations. Um in terms of other stakeholder outreach, there was a number of outreach efforts that were done as part of that previous consultant work effort. Next slide please. So, uh, the re staff recommendation is to ask the commission to consider options and recommendations for this retail ordinance and to provide a feedback to staff so we can bring back an ordinance for your consideration and ultimately recommendation to the city council. Uh, that concludes my presentation. We do have a few extra slides if you want to hear more from Christine. And also I do have a slide that just lists the discussion topics from attachment A if that's helpful as you're going through uh with your discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Eisman. Commissioners, do we have any clarifying questions for Miss Eisberg or Miss Fenberg? Commissioner Hecman.

Uh thank you, Chair. Just a couple of clarifying questions for attachment A. Uh packet page 39, the animal care potential modifications. Um there's I understand why u noise might be a concern that we need to address uh by ordinance for you know things like you know dogs barking all night. But I didn't understand um what uh staff was thinking in you know uh including possibly provisions regarding waste. Um I mean I I understand that animals create waste but you know humans do too and I don't know that we have so I was wondering why why did staff call that out? What was staff thinking about? um because that'll help me understand these potential alternatives to you know the first bullet.

So the idea was to have some standards um that could be incorporated into the ordinance that would help like objective standards that would help um reduce those impacts. So in terms of pet waste is there making sure there is a process and receptacles um to manage that waste. Okay, thanks. Um, and then the other question I had is on packet page 43 under the permitted and conditional uses on Calav. Uh, the last bullet um in the potential modifications um allow medical offices that contain at least 35 square feet of retail sales facing the street. I was just curious about the origin of that 35 square feet. So we came up with that it was really like a 7x5 foot rectangle and so you get this kind of frontage along the window 5 foot depth. So it is a we were thinking about as a rectangle. You can't necessarily get that um for all say shapes and sizes but that's where that came from. [clears throat]

Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you Mr. G. Thank you chair. I was actually wondering if you could uh I had some questions about the additional slides uh specifically like the uh the slide with the availability if you could pull that up. Sure. And I would invite Christine to weigh in here. My understanding this is really just a snapshot in time from I think this week of I was just wondering what the red and the blue are.

I absolutely can. They are just um what this is is just a peak at availability that we pulled up yesterday. The difference between red and blue is really nothing with regards to the space itself, but rather the program that we use to pull up the information. For example, Loopnet Co-Star. They're different software programs. One, the red belongs to Loopnet, the blue belongs to Co-Star. So it it it means nothing with regards to the actual space itself other than it's available. Thank you. And what about the circles?

The circles indicate a building that uh Co-Star andor Loopnet who were owned by the same company. um they have information on that building and that building is identified as a commercial building or a retail building but it has no availability. All right. Thank you. That's all. Any further clarifying questions? Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you. Quick question. So, I don't know if it was a comment in passing, but you mentioned um sites that were not um commercially viable. I I can't pretend to say that I know anything about commercial uh sites or anything. Is that um is that a proposition that, you know, maybe that's part of this? You know, I don't know if there's a heat map or even just like what we have on the on the screen right now that there's a index of commercial viability of each site. The the comment was related to the retail preservation ordinance. And when we look at that map, it covers the retail preservation ordinance covers RM districts, residential districts. It covers the RP district. So technically, if there is a retail space in one of those districts, um it would need to be replaced upon redevelopment. And I would argue that the RM districts in certain locations are not the best retail sites in the city. And so that's really the that that's where that's coming from.

Thank you. Now I think it was a good comment that you know retiring retail sites of course that's turnover is a normal thing. Thank you. Further questions. All right then. Mr. Tveta, do we have any requests to comment? Um through the chair uh I see no raised hands on Zoom and I have received uh no public comment cards at this moment.

Very good. Thank you. Right. Um we could have a really extensive discussion on this tonight and uh a good bit of what we talked about in the premeating was how do we organize things so that we can be as effective as as possible. um I think what I'd like to do is uh [cough and clears throat] is uh follow the uh suggestion made by Miss Eisberg u that we break up the discussion into each of the 10 zoning issue groups so that we have a chance for everyone to comment on a given group before we move on to the next. that gives um that gives us a chance to have some back and forth within a particular subject area so that we don't have to wait to go through nine other unrelated areas before we uh can do that. So the issue groups are uh their titles are highlighted with gray bars um on the packet pages and uh what I will attempt to do is give you a heads up as to which packet pages uh we're talking about and then open it up to discussion on the uh items that fall on those packet pages. So there will be some overlap between items. Uh animal care comes up in a number of places for example. Uh but that's okay. We can have either repetition or perhaps just carryover decisions uh from earlier issues. Um, before I begin that though, I first wanted to ask if there were any general discussion items that aren't covered by

the specific issues that are on packet pages 39 to 53.

So, I just have a really quick clarifying question that's kind of a little bit more detailed and I don't know if other people do for each section. And so the way I see this happening is that I'll just give my example right now. So for formula retail business, we're asked about our opinions about removing it etc. But that's sort of dependent on where that definition is used. Um and so my question my clarifying question to staff is like where is that formula retail business definition in effect? Is it in effect anywhere in our city? But that kind of then informs our like the whole discussion. So, does it make sense to have any quick clarifying questions so that all the commissioners can base all of the decisions on the same information?

That's what I'm hoping we get right now. Okay. Well, that's mine. [laughter] All right, then. Commissioner Gan, um I have kind of more of a logistical Oh, yeah. Go ahead. So, so are you happy that the you've expressed No. Can we get the answer for real retail specifically? Okay. Not just not just the general issue. Okay. It is only regulated on California Avenue.

All right. Thank you. then we'll move to Commissioner G and then Commissioner Templeton.

Um my comment is a little bit brief and kind of just more of an organizational point which is if we continue to have kind of this patchwork of uh information, I think it would be helpful to have the Cal A District R also included on attachment B so that then uh it would be easy to also compare and contrast all of these. Okay. Thank you. So that would be um for the use of the next iteration of the ordinance that we see or for council or for Okay, Mr. Templeton.

Thank you. Um I am trying to figure out if so this is coming back to us because council has asked us to come back to us. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. And do we foresee any hot buttons in here that council's pretty frustrated about and wants us to know before we go into this discussion? For example, I'm thinking about last year's repeal and replace was a hot button that really poed a lot of people uh when it came through us. Is this the same kind of it's it's the same topic? Is this the same kind of uh presentation when it gets to council or have we kind of resolved our phrasiology so that we can have a discussion where we don't panic someone who's worried that we're I mean we're talking about changing retail preservation. So I'm just thinking if you can help us understand uh where council is regarding the stuff you've put in front of us. Is this going to be a surprise to them or is it going to be uh this is the stuff you already spoke about with them and it's in line with what they're looking for?

I'll I'll start and then Miss Eisenberg Eisenberg might have something more to add. Um I think the starting point is the interim ordinance that council looked at. So we and and approved. So we started there and then and that was the previous council

and so that was last December. Correct. So there was that interim ordinance that went into effect um based on their approval. In addition, the motion that approved that ordinance included a list of items for these next discussions to include specifically identifying things that we should be looking into and discussing in more depth. There are a couple of additional items that have been added on. So, for example, over the last year, there have been some issues that have come up. For example, the idea of a cat cafe and dog grooming where there has been concern about the restrictions that the existing code includes and how those have been um understood in the past and a desire to have some more flexibility. And so there are some items that we have included that is one example in here that were not part of the previous discussions with council. So they will be new for them to see when we bring your recommendation forward to them. Uh however, I do expect that we will be bringing your recommendation to the retail committee before we bring it to the full council. Okay, that's that makes sense and I appreciate you going through that. So, um I'm particularly thinking and I guess we'll get to it when we get to the retail preservation section, but there was a um slide in here where Miss Eisberg was saying, you know, it's I'm paraphrasing here. It's a hot mess. We need to smooth it out. Um and I know that is going to make mean that we are recommending changes to that. And that doesn't mean nobody's proposing annihilating retail, right?

Correct. And in addition, um, if you would like clarification on any of these, uh, if it's not clear whether it is something that was part of a previous discussion with council versus something that has been brought up as new based on our analysis over the last six months, we can provide that clarification as we go as well. That's great. I just want to make sure that our work is being characterized accurately as it goes forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Templeton. All right. Any other more general questions or should we begin to really dive into the uh into the details now? All right. Uh the first section consists of packet pages 39 to 42. That is definitions. So all of you who have comments or questions about that section, please light up your lights. Commissioner Hecman, then Commissioner Templeton. [clears throat]

Uh, thank you. So, I just go top to bottom. U, so in animal care, um, and again, I'm really kind of focused on the potential modifications, which often in these boxes give us options. Um, I am, uh, and and we're just giving our individual feedback. So, I I'm supportive of the the first bullet, which is uh split the definition between sort of daytime and overnight. Um and um I don't think that the second and third bullet are necessary. You know, every restaurant in Palo Alto has bathroom, but but I don't think those bathroom provisions are in our zoning code. They might be in some other code, building code, whatever. and and I would think, you know, dealing with uh waste and dealing with noise beyond our noise ordinance, those maybe need to reside somewhere else than adding more provisions to our zoning code. Um the next one, retail financial service, that's an example of something I'm fine with. And so as we go through this, I'm not going to talk about those anymore other than to use this one as example. So, you know, uh the potential modification is to fix a typo and and make the interim definition uh definition permanent. So, I'm okay with that. So, as we go forward, I'm not going to uh talk about those. Um so, that means I skipped to fast casual restaurants. So, um for this one, I just want to flag an issue for staff to think about. Um, and because we're looking at little pieces of our ordinance rather than the thing in totality, this may or may not apply. Uh, in San Jose, uh, where I do some work, uh, there's a city of San Jose, there's a definition of bar and there's a definition of, uh, eating and drinking place. And the bar is more

heavily regulated because it there can be more trouble there. And so, uh, a number of, uh, outfits, including some who have been my clients, want to fit into the definition of eating and drinking place, even though they're really a bar. And so, so they have food like chips and dip or platters from Costco, and they don't have any real food service. They don't have a kitchen, um, even a prep kitchen. And so again, I don't know if that concept applies here, but um I think that's something that staff should look at in this term eating and drinking service. Do we really do we care how much eating there is if if the the real function of the establishment and 99% of the revenue comes from drinking? So that's just kind of a heads up on that one. Um retail like uses. Um um uh let's see. Uh first of all in the potential definitions at the bottom of the first column uh staff had asked for some feedback on some replacement for the high level right they they didn't like that and I don't much either so I thought about uh some alternatives considerably significantly more than nominally but the one that I like the most is substantially contribute substantially to uh pedestrian activity because I think that gets so that communicates what we're uh trying to get out even though it's not quantified. It's a a qualitative term. So that's first column. Second column um I like the fourth bullet and not the first three. Um expanding the retail service definition to fold retail like into retail.

Uh, let's see. The packet page 42. Um, um, I like the first bullet rather than making the interim ordinance permanent. And I guess my my thought on that is there might be a concern that if we do that, we're going to open some floodgates to um, and I just I feel like that'll be a nice problem to have. and if it happens then you know uh in a subsequent revision of the ordinance we can pull back. So those are my comments on the that first category. Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Templeton then Vice Chair Chang. Thank you. Um all right. I never imagined that we would be talking this much about animal waste, [laughter] but uh I I recognize that um Commissioner Hecman asked this during his clarifying question round, but I I thought I would wait. Um you mean produced by an animal or do you mean produced by the service? I believe the intent was produced by the animal.

Okay. But it is a valid question given if it was a veterinary service. Um but there are regulations uh for that when animals pass in their care. So that would be

so I'm thinking on a entirely different line and I I want to bring this up because of I I don't know if this of our definitions are restrictive enough. So I'm going to give you an example. There uh is now or used to be down on El Camino Way some kind of pet uh place that I guess smelled a lot like like veterinarian. It might have been a veterinarian. I'm not sure. But they smell like very very strongly. I have tried to avoid going down that road because even with my car windows closed, it is uh extremely smelly to me. And so I'm imagining if somebody is going to use one of these places, and I'm not thinking of the cat cafe. I'm thinking of anybody maybe taking a um more liberal uh read of this. Is it possible that somebody could open an establishment for grooming that would have strong smells of the kind of products they use and wash off that would then produce waste that makes smells in the vicinity that would be uncomfortable to some other establishments nearby. So that's the waste I'm asking about. It's chemical.

Thank thank you for that clarification. And I think this discussion actually gets to exactly the point that staff was trying to identify with with those notes, which is there's a reason that the city and most cities actually are are pretty restrictive as to where veterinary offices and other animal services can be allowed. uh and so there is an interest in allowing them but how do we draw an appropriate line in terms of the potential impacts of one use on another uh smell is is one of those smell noise waste uh etc. And so for some of these uses, if it is an animal staying overnight, is it the different type of animal that's being allowed? You know, dogs barking versus cats um or other animals. Um those are the the types of distinguishing, you know, what are the concerns? Um so that that would be my feedback is to add odors um to be something to evaluate. And I'm just going to put it on the record. I am not a cat cafe hater. I love cats. I love cat cafes. I go to as many as I can in every country I visit. So, I just want to say like it's just something to think about as in terms of um being a being a good neighbor uh as a retailer. One additional note, um, anytime one of these facilities does include having animals on the premises, our animal control, um, within our police department are involved and there is a permit that's required, um, as part of that. And so there are certain things more focused on the health and safety of the animals and that they are being

cared for and contained appropriately. uh but that that there is that level of review and additional um control that is part of the process as well just yeah there's disease vectors I mean we don't want to think about it but it's it's for real um okay so that's that was my note I wanted to add here um and then for the car thing um automobile showroom is the distinction you're trying to make of whether it's a lot or like a um just a retail front or

correct? We have had some recent examples where if you're talking about a retail showroom like um the Rivian that is now in Stanford Shopping Center, that is is really about um showing the cars that are available rather than having a large lot for storing the car individual cars that are going to be sold rather than having service. um available and so it is a different character and might be appropriate in some of our um commercial areas rather than something that's more focused on service. Okay.

Is my understanding it may be um Gan I don't know if you have anything to add in terms of or Christine about the retail character of those or whether I covered it. I think you covered it. Okay. All right. um fast casual restaurants like is I is this even the least bit controversial? Like is it as straightforward as it seems? Seems too to me.

I'm just checking. I mean, yes, people should be able to pick up and not dine in if they want to. So, sure. All right. Thanks, Thank you, Commissioner Temple. Vice Chair Chang.

Um, so I'm going to focus on where I might have something different to say than the other commissioners before me. And if I don't speak about it, it means I agree with the potential modification that's listed in the column. Um, so with respect to animal care, I guess my overarching thing is it's exactly what we've all said from a common sense approach, and I leave it up to staff to figure out how to best do this, which is uh fine with animals being there as long as it doesn't negatively impact neighboring businesses or um any neighboring establishments um or people walking by. Uh just a note though for the existing definition for animal care, it does say outdoor kennels and it would seem to me that we wouldn't want to allow anything outdoor if we're going I mean in a in a retail area. So, um, for the fast casual restaurants item, I didn't go through our code again, but I wanted I I do remember when I was on the retail ad hoc for the PTC reading our ordinances and they were just so outdated. [laughter] I mean, there's things that like travel agencies that hardly exist anymore. Um, and I remember thinking, geez, this whole concept of like a takeout definition is so strange. But, um, while I support removing it and or I support not having it be its own thing because everybody does takeout now, um, what I wonder is do we have any unintended consequences? This is just a flag for staff to consider of upgrading something that might be a purely takeout service def um establishment to a restaurant. In other words, like are there parking requirements that are more ownorous or anything like that where we would need

to be careful and so I just don't want that type of unintended consequence. Um and then similarly um the whole the commercial kitchen and commercial dishwasher um again I I don't know why we had that before but there must have been a reason and so I just worry it might be affecting some other like I don't know building code or it might be referenced in some other way that is material. So, it's just a check. Um, for the retail like use, I agree heartily with Commissioner Hecman's um, uh, recommendation to change the word high level to substantially. Um, but then where I differ is I'm not sure that it makes sense to roll the retail like into um retail because I don't know how those definitions are going to be used. So there's a world in which I might think that there are certain parts of Palawata where we care very deeply that we kind of want to maintain the look and feel. Like I think of Bowler Games downtown and it's all like restaurants and retail. It's almost all restaurants and retail. But then if you imagined what would happen if that Burling downtown Berling game were turned into things that were only on the retail like use, what that would do and whether it would be a place we would want. I'm not sure that it would. And so I was think as I was thinking about the whole, you know, overlay issue that we're going to discuss later on tonight. There's the idea that we might want to be able to nest things like here's our most sort of traditional retail area or where it's most important to us to have something really vibrant and we want to really keep it that way and then kind of

expanding out of that zone will be a little bit more flexible and out of that zone even more flexible. And so because of that, I wonder if we might want to preserve that. But I'm not sure. And it may make sense that may make sense that certain of these retail like uses actually be moved into retail and then other ones kept as purely retail like because I did get a sense when this when we when the commission discussed retail in the past that there were certain uses that felt certain retail like uses that felt more like retail to us than others. um where so that's just my thought there. Um, and then for the formula retail business, I I think I don't have enough kind of historical context on what our city or maybe just not even enough understanding of what our city really wants for Cal A. [snorts] Like I remember hearing before that Kalav is supposed to be our more kind of boutiquey neighborhoody um retail area and then universities you know more like what we see all over the US. But and if that's the case then maybe keeping the current definition makes sense. But again it sort of depends on what we want. And I'm not sure that I have a I don't know what we PaloAlto want. Um so because of that I would say just leave it there right now. That's my uh feedback. Thank you. Leave the formula retail business definition in existence rather than just removing.

Do you mean not changing it from 10 to 50? No, no, no. Okay. Making it permanent, but not necessarily um removing the definition. Not necessarily the first bullet. Okay. Yes. I I'm not I'm not completely opposed to the first bullet either. Again, I just don't know what the goals are for the various areas. Like how do we want Cal AB to be different from university or anywhere else in the city because it's only applies in Calab. that if we don't care if it's different then we don't need that definition.

Thank you vice chair commissioner G. Thank you. Um for animal care plus one everyone what everyone said. Uh same for retail finance services and auto showroom. Uh for fast casual restaurants, I do agree that now I don't really care how people eat their food, but I I kind of [sighs] want to address maybe uh Vice Chair Chang's comment about why is there this comment about dishwashers and I think what Commissioner Hecman said about these establishments that don't have any real kitchens could be a reason why there this part exists. But right cuz if you are just serving Costco platters, you don't need a commercial dishwasher for anything. Um so just kind of food for thought but no pun intended um on this section about that but also want to plus one about kind of looking into the impacts of this because I believe eating and drinking service is probably a pretty widespread um mention in the code. Um, now kind of coming to regal like use. Um, I want to support the substantively I believe Commissioner whatever word Commissioner Hecman used. So I don't substantially there we go. Um, um, for for that um I want to talk a little bit about bullet two here which is revise bullet K to be objective. I do think that even uh I would be in support of that. I don't know if I know exactly what criteria should be here and it may not be a specific set. It might not be like you have to have storefront windows and displays and lack of window coverings, but it could be like some choose like have some criteria of the above. I'll defer to staff's expertise on this area. But I think having some kind of like if not objective criteria but recommendations and say like one of the

things that makes it uh support pedestrian activity is that you have a storefront window and that can help with the director's um decision- making when it comes to to that. And then I want to talk about uh bullet sorry I guess that was bullet three not bullet four but now now I want to talk about bullet four the retail and retail like and for me one of the the distinctions in participating in the uli study this week was the impact of the hotels that are in between town and country and a university right so imagine that the the sherin that's kind of at the corner there was actually a retail complex if I was at the train station I would probably go and walk around but it's a giant hotel that faces El Camino and I can't really access it from university right and so that kind of hotel is not defined as retail but it would it is defined in retail like so if we were to convert things right and we just get a bunch of hotels that kind of face away from the street I I think I would be pretty unhappy um with how that looks like but I do agree that there are some things that feel very like maybe could go into the retail definition. Kind of just going through here. Item A, the eating and drinking services. I think anywhere where I think about retail, I'd be happy with that one. Um maybe uh item F, which is the commercial recreation, which I saw is like amusement, exercise theaters, bowling alleys, billiard parlor, skating arenas, etc. like I do think that having large places for a bunch of younger people to kind of come and gather I think could be really interesting in our retail areas. Um, so I think that kind of stepping back here, I'm not supportive of folding

retail like completely into retail, but I think there exists some world in which we can mesh some of these items, but not all of them together there. Um, and then for on packet page 42 about formula retail business, uh, I'd be in support of making the interim definition permanent. Um, and then one thing that I I think we haven't really talked about as much is about the kind of the maybe additional definitions that we might want. This is peeking behind the curtain a little bit on to packet page 43 with Commissioner Hecman's question about the medical office with 35 square feet. I wonder if maybe we could define something that is retail medical or something similar that could provide that we could then slide into uh the retail like uses. Um, but I don't have the knowledge about what that looks like and I guess our consultants have said that 35 makes sense, but I think that could be an interesting definition to slide in here.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, so I want to just echo what I've seen I've heard the other commissioners talk about that I I agree with pretty much all those comments, but particularly I want to raise the comment that um uh Chair uh Chang brought up about California Avenue that the current uh definition for California Avenue is appropriate. Um, I live by there. I think one way or another I've become the California Avenue Commissioner simply from going to the restaurants and everybody recognizes me there and I I hear from all the all the business owners there [sighs and gasps] every decision we make. Um, and one of the things that I've noticed there there are a lot of fitness uh studios on California Avenue and they've been cycling in and out of business. So there's not um there's not the business proposition for a larger space there and the current businesses that are there uh seem to be you know like uh Chair Chang brought up they're boutique uh businesses and they've been there for a very long time multi-generational uh some of the businesses and so that's why I would propose that we do keep the same the same definition that we have now. And um what I put in there, you know, California Avenue was recently closed. And so therefore, I think California Avenue, if anything, is is probably ready for even um more of an understanding of what is California Avenue turned into as a closed street, which probably has pushed it into more of a boutique, more restaurants, more uh specialty shops. Um and so I think that that also lends itself well to that street. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner James, do you have anything on this section?

Um, mostly I I I agree with um, you know, the sentiments here. I would I would uh say that for me splitting the uh on on animal care, splitting seem to make sense. Um, certainly on retail finance that the the proposed changes made sense to me. Um uh the uh yeah and I think certainly removing takeout service definition makes sense to me there as well. Um the retail and retail like usage. I mean I think my sort of overarching thing here is that I completely support the idea of simplify simplify simplify. Um, and I would uh rather than Palo Alto being the the the [clears throat] community along this this strateg peninsula that is the hardest and less attract least attractive for retailers. I I wish it was the the most desirable. I mean I I just rather be on the other I I don't want to remove all guard rails, but I would rather that was our reputation rather than it was kind of a difficult place to start a business for even a big a big enterprise or a small one. I I think small businesses are great and uh and so um you know I would on all of these my my goal is to kind of be air on the side of being as um permissive as pos possible without kind of uh losing all the guard rails. So, um I think with the um uh I I I think I was sort of leaning towards the idea of uh combining collapsing retail service and retail like um u I have heard uh some kind of compelling arguments for why you might want that to be two-tier to preserve certain the character of certain certain areas and maybe not having them go uh to less retail um kinds of businesses on the on the on

the front street. Um, so, you know, I'm I'm open to a a smart definition that would still keep those two categories. Um, and um, and uh, you know, I think this yeah, the formula retail on California Avenue um, I think is tricky. I I I I have to say I I came in uh to this meeting leaning towards uh considering moving the the definition um again with this kind of over overarching simplifying and and trying to get rid of vacancies. Um um I certainly don't want to squeeze out existing local boutique businesses. Uh, I would not want to create a situation where rents, you know, if if if chain coffee shops and whatever go in and and and there's now scarcity, I wouldn't want rents to go up and squeeze those folks out. So, I think that's kind of a tricky one. Um, and I'm kind of a bit uh uncertain about that to be honest.

Thank you, Commissioner James. Um, seeing no other lights, I'll run through my list. Uh, I have a unique perspective on the, uh, animal care thing as I once as a kid worked removing animal waste from a small zoo. U, so I've seen a number of takes on this problem. Um, my question is how difficult would it be to establish objective performance standards for noise and waste? Is that something that's really if is that something that's really feasible or not, Miss Eisberg?

Um, I think we want to try to do that. It doesn't need to be objective in the way that we think of housing objective standards, but we want to make it clear, especially if it's a staff determination um clear at the counter what the metrics are. So yes, we want to get as close as possible. As um Jennifer said earlier, there is also this stop gap of the animal control on the PD side. So, we do have a couple ways to regulate,

right? So, it's it's tricky. I mean, there are uh as Commissioner Templeton and Vice Chair Chang have brought up, there are health issues, there are odor issues. Um, if it's feasible, then I think I would prefer to define animal care as a single category rather than splitting it. I strongly suspect that you're going to find that u a lot of these issues are going to be applicable even if the category is split. So the so perhaps we don't have a real distinction here. Um but I don't uh strongly object to the split between daytime and overnight care if we can't manage the issue any other way. So I would just hope that we can come up with enough objective standards that we can um deal with the issue in such a way that we don't have to categorize uh animal care. Um, with regard to retail financial services, the proposed modification is fine. I want to just confirm a few of these that Commissioner Hecman has already mentioned. Uh, automobile showroom, same. The interim definition is fine. Um, fast casual restaurants, uh, the proposed modification looks good. I would vote to eliminate the definition and use of takeout. Just so I'm on the record for that. Uh I would also vote to eliminate [clears throat] the subject the subjective qualifier for pedestrian activity entirely. Um just to make it uh as straightforward as possible. Um I certainly don't object to using substantially or substantively. Um but I

think the extra simplicity might be worth it. Um merging retail like into retail is attractive. Um but I would want to know if there are any places in the code where we use retail alone with the specific intent of excluding retail like [clears throat] because that's an indication that there really ought to be a distinction between the two. Miss Armor

on that point, I'll jump in just quickly to say that um the use of retail like and where it should or shouldn't be allowed um is not really clear. Uh mostly it is currently in the code just in spaces like the retail preservation ordinance. It's not actually included uh in very many places. But the intent um as we staff understood it from council was to be allowing more flexibility in a broader range of uses within the retail areas. And so this question about whether there should be a distinction and whether we should be specifying where they are or aren't allowed uh is an important part of the input we're looking for from you.

Okay. will put me down for preferring that there be no distinction but not convinced yet that we've actually done the homework. Um uh Commissioner G's observation is very pertinent there. Um finally on formula retail uh I have some comments about that but I think they're best deferred until we can uh talk about the R combining district and Calav. So that's it for me for this section and I have uh comments from Vice Chair Chang.

I just forgot to comment on two things. Um so I'm going to throw them in right now. So I do think that there should be we need to work on a definition for medical retail because in various places there is the option to just allow medical office and I could see that being problematic. Um I'm not entirely sure, for example, that the 35 square feet is is sufficient if say it were an 11,000 foot place. So I think we just need to think about it. Um and then in fact again in the past when Town and Country was coming here asking if they could allow medical office during the pandemic, I tried really hard to come up with what I thought a medical retail definition should be. and it wasn't necessarily easy, but I'm hoping that maybe there's more examples out there in other jurisdictions that we might be able to lean on. Um, and then I do think that if we keep with, you know, if we keep bullet K, then I do think it would be helpful to make as many um standards objective as possible to make it easier for the director to make those decisions as well as to to remove uncertainty um from from potential businesses. who might choose to come. So they can say, well, I know I like if we know that if you do these things, it definitely would count, then I think we should we that would be really useful information for somebody who's coming up with a creative use because that they're going to be an likely a small entrepreneur and you know they're not going to go to they're not going to have it here if if it seems at all like it might be harder than the next city over. Thanks.

If I may add um to the vice chair's comment about defining medical retail, I think also the medical spa or medical personal service is another area where there's been a a clear line drawn to that if there is a medical professional, a doctor involved, then that is not allowed. Um, and so that line is another one where it could blur very easily if it it starts to open up and there has been a fair amount of interest in that type of use in the past.

And we've also because we have that definition, if there is medical staff there, then it's not allowed. I don't know that that's um you know back when we were talking about this before I remember Commissioner Tumbleton talking about I think it was the Blossom Birth Store at Town [snorts] and Country being a really wonderful resource and it did have lactation consultants in the back. But how amazing would it be if you could also have a nutritionist for example who might be an actual MD or you know you could imagine a store where there's I don't know a fitness type thing where there's a MD giving you advice on health too um but still largely generating a lot of foot foot traffic. So I just don't know what there is out there and we need to think about how do we allow for a very small amount of the space to be used for say a consulting physician.

Thanks. [clears throat] Another example is um an eye doctor associated with selling glasses. Commissioner G. Thank you. Um Miss Armor, I had a question about the retail preservation ordinance. So does that today only impact places labeled retail or does it also impact retail like it includes retail like? So any site that has a retail or retail like use must be replaced in kind. Thank you. That's all.

All right. I see no more lights at the moment. I'll give everybody last few minutes to think if there's anything else they want to comment or ask. But in the meantime, I'll ask uh Miss Eisberg and Miss uh Fenberg if there is anything more they would like to hear from us on this uh section. I don't think so. This has been very helpful. I know there's some points where there's some different direction um among commissioners, but I think we've heard enough and to do a little more research and come back with um a draft for your consideration on some of these sticking points.

All right, then still seeing no more lights. I think we can progress to the next section. So, this is on packet pages 43 and 44. um 1830A retail shopping the R combining district and this is of particular interest on Cal a commission. Thank you chair before I start I first of all I thought that first section great great discussion a lot of variety of comments before we jump into the second it's a little after 8 o'clock and I'm wondering if this is an appropriate time for a break or do you want to do it after the section or skip it or what?

Good question. Uh, I actually considered proposing that we do it after this section. Uh, can everybody uh is everyone comfortable with that or would you like to take a break now and then pick up? That works for me. All right, then we will plan to take a break after we're done with this section.

Okay. So, uh, listening to my fellow commissioners in the the the first topic, uh, it it occurred to me that I I did have a sort of a general comment to make and then I'll talk about this section. Um so this item before us tonight, it's called the retail revitalization strategy. Um our uh retail environment here in PaloAlto is to some extent broken as measured by vacancy and vibrancy. And uh we've got this item tonight because the city council wants to fix it and they want our recommendations on how to do it. So I would just observe that that that our current retail environment is a product of our ordinance. Um and and I think that's you know the our consultants have made a lot of recommendations to sort of change um the landscape and the fewer changes we make to our ordinance whether it's out of fear of unintended consequences or or other reasons that the less of a a retail environmental change we should reasonably expect. And so so you know my attitude here is is and said it before um I would prefer and and I think Commissioner James said it is is you know let's go a little bold and if in the future um uh we get we actually see some unintended consequences we can pull it back. So that's my sort of general comment on this section. Uh I'm I'm supportive of the staff's suggestions for Calav and my comments were really on the waiver and adjustments. Um, I prefer the uh detailed potential modification over

making the interim regulation permanent. And and also um staff in the um uh the added uh subsection 2 alternative viable use. I I I actually prefer that rather than in addition to a modified version of one economic hardship. I think that's a better solo tool and that we should eliminate the economic hardship which is really captured in the alternative viable use where it says the permitted retail or retail like use is not viable. So that serves as a standard and the the change that would occur if we keep economic hardship that it results in an unreasonable financial burden. I I just think that is going to be um that unreasonleness is going to be very difficult uh to apply and determine you know what constitutes an unreasonable fi financial burden. So that's why I I I kind of like this new concept that staff came up with and I'm wondering if that can be the basis of a waiver or adjustment.

Thanks.

Thank you. Uh I see no more lights here. Uh anyone else have comments? Vice Chair Chang. Um so with respect to the waivers I just hope that whatever waiver process that we have it's the same everywhere like I mean with respect to retail um because I know it comes up later on also on the next page. Uh here's like I I my question to staff about this is how often has staff heard that this is a problem? like how often has this process been used the the the waiver and or how often has somebody wanted to use it but then found it too ownorous because I understand that we need to have a waiver. we need to have a waiver because in there's some unforeseen situation we might need to allow an exception. But if this is not being commonly if this isn't commonly needed then it's not really a problem we need to spend a lot of time discussing and I would just say let's just do what council you know council thought it was good enough I'd say just make that permanent. Um, but I'd like to understand the context.

I'll start by saying that I'm not aware of any requests to use this. Um, my history with it is just over the last year though, so I don't know whether this has been used uh in the past. Yes. Yeah. Uh so to my knowledge it's been used twice uh both in sort of short success succession several years ago. Um unfortunately we don't really know how often someone's thought about using it and then been overwhelmed. So

um you know that's that's the unknown piece.

Okay. Um, I mean, so a couple things in response to I I agree with Commissioner Hecman that if we need retail revitalization, we need retail revitalization. That said, um, you know, I've made it crystal clear that I had there were like serious data problems with both consultant reports before and we pointed them out and they weren't necessarily addressed. So um in fact when in premeating when we talked to our new consultant who's retail broker and I am forgetting her name right now even though I wrote it uh Ms. Fenberg she was very very knowledgeable and was able to provide us in premeating all sorts of information that we weren't able to get from the consultants before and so um I've also heard anecdotally right this is not from any source that's reliable but I but I've heard from people who [sighs] work in um for some of the landlords in Palo Alto that Palo Alto is going gang busters relative to some other cities So the the council imperative to look at retail and revitalize it was made in 2020. Unfortunately, it's taken us a very long time and a lot of it's come back. Now that said, we still do have vacancies and we don't want those vacancies. So I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done. I'm just saying I want to understand the magnitude of our problem. like is this a retail problem overall versus a retail problem specific to Palo Alto? And then again as discussed in premeating um there is the issue of Palo Alto and its rents and office being particularly attractive here. So I don't know that like I think that we should be making these changes. I'm still also not sure that making all these changes would

necessarily make a dent in what our problem is. And so I would love to hear from Miss Fenberg about what it is that she thinks are the things that we that are kind of like the lowest hanging fruit that we would that could really help the situation based on what she knows about the market and has seen as a retail broker. Um so with that I'll just stop. I'm happy to answer that. Um, thank you very much, Commissioner. Um, generally speaking, at a very high level, Palo Alto's zoning code needs cleanup. Um, I read zoning codes every day. I have to as a broker I look at um all the zoning codes for all of my retailers that I am representing before I actually present a site to my retailers. I have to go to that city zoning code and see if the use is allowed. And PaloAlto zoning code is very very dense. It's extremely hard to understand. And in fact, there was a time when I couldn't quite [clears throat] understand it because the levels were so deep. It does affect a retailer's decision or a broker's decision about do I spend the next 25 minutes trying to figure this out or do I go look in Menlo Park to see if indeed I can find an alternative site there. So I I highly am I'm very very pleased to see that you are taking this on. This is an extraordinarily difficult task. Um I look at the uh difficulty of changing the language here and it it it's

mind-boggling but you're taking it on extremely well but it should be done. It will help change the vacancy. The larger issue though I think over even over the zoning is and I do think the zoning is an issue but the larger issue is the size of your spaces um in retail with costs having gone up so much recently. We're seeing that every single use is downsizing and so we did a few analysis in trying to prepare for the meeting and Jeannie and I have talked at lengths about different availability. Um when I ran the availability report I think you saw there was 37 um available spaces in PaloAlto as of yesterday. The median size, meaning not the average, but the median size of that retail square footage is 3,460 square ft. There is not a lot of tenants that will fit that size. So again, that is a whole another issue that is over and above zoning. But the iss the tenants that could fit into that size are often in your retail like uses. Fitness, it goes up to about 5,000 square ft. uh the medical um uh the medical salons or medical spas are ballooning in um desiraability around the Bay Area and those can fit in that size of square footage. So again by

loosening up the retail like uses I do think you are going to be able to address that um uh the size of the buildings that are available in PaloAlto. So I think with again we're cleaning up the zoning and again it's a very difficult job. So I commend you for that but also loosening up those uses in the retail like will allow these bigger spaces to um get leased because again it's just there's not a lot of tenants in those size categories anymore. Thank you so much for providing that context. And so I wanted you to share it with the rest of the commission because it kind of prefaces some of my comments, which is that if we do actually if we're loosening a whole bunch of things, then I think that the more we loosen all those things, the more we may actually want a waiver process to kind of remain as it has been because ideally we keep it things loose enough that nobody needs to use a a waiver process. And so I guess um I while I want to make a lot of changes, I'm not sure that the waiver one is necessarily what we want to do. If the sizes are too big, then yes, allowing additional uses. But then the other question is do we and we had we as the commission had also talked about this before. What if we allowed the back of the space like we want to keep that retail corridor vibrant, but what if we allow the back what if we allow people to shrink their spaces? So, this would be talking about modifying the retail production ordinance and that might be a better way to get the retail or the um community serving businesses that we want without allowing, you know, it's just a real bummer if you have a retail corridor and then like an office in the middle because somebody's able to claim that or something that we don't want in the middle because somebody's able to claim that it's it's not what we want. I think

we just need to relax in the ways that we want to relax. So that's my comment about um this item with respect to the waiverss and I I would love it if we didn't have to have these overlays. Like I just think we should if Calav is the only place in the city that this applies to. Let's just say this is the Calav district and anybody who says I'm interested in this space can go look to the Calav section and see all the retail requirements that apply to it there. So I would like to get rid of the R these overlays. I just think are a pain. Um, and maybe there's a like I know we have the pedestrian overlay too. I think that one may have some value because pretty much all retail areas should have a p pedestrian overlay but not the other way around, right? Not all pedestrian areas should be retail areas. So, that one may be valid. But with respect to retail, I don't think we should be doing retail overlays on places like we just have ground flooror retail or not. Um, that's kind of where I stand kind of jumping the gun to the next topic, but it explains my reasoning for why I would like to get rid of the R, the R overlay.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Then, Commissioner Templeton.

Thank you. Actually, I was wondering, um, Miss Fenberg, since we were asking questions, uh, I was wondering if you had any commentary on the rent prices for Palo Alto relative to our neighbors. Yes. Um, PaloAlto is known to be more expensive. There are some spaces along University Avenue that are [clears throat] ex that are much much higher than the surrounding cities there. I did see though in the availability reports that we just ran that there are some spaces at $48 a foot. That's about market and some 48 to probably $60 a foot is about what the market rents typically are on the peninsula. Every now and then you'll see something at 72, but I don't there wasn't many at 91 and you have a few properties um for lease in the '9s. So, I do think those will naturally come down because the tenants are not paying those kind of rents right now. and it they just the longer they stay on the market, the longer well more likely the property owners think about reducing the rents. So, yes, your rents are a little higher. Um, but I do believe the market will take care of that because there are now spaces that are coming out onto the market in PaloAlto with a rent that is similar to rents in Menllo Park in Mountain View. So, not all of them, but some. And that's a big statement.

Yeah. as a followup there like it what is your understanding for other than I guess loosening restrictions for what could be there as to why um some of these uh landlords have kept it at 91 or like do you know how long they've been keeping it at such high rates?

I couldn't address specifically how long. Um, I can go back and maybe do some historical research for you, but it is really a landlord's prerogative. Um, in in some cases, what we see in the industry is the leasing is being done by someone [snorts] that is not deep in our industry and and I'll use it as the internet, the ICSC industry. So the ICSE is the international council of shopping centers. Most of the retail leasing people belong to that in um organization and it's an educational networking organization where people talk and people talk and convey what's happening in different markets. When we see rents that are out of line with the market rents, it often is um because the leasing is being done with someone that's really not used to doing retail leasing and they might be an office lease um a leasing agent or they might be a property owner that they're wanting to lease their own building and they just don't have enough information. So it varies quite a bit but oftent time it is just lack of proper information as to why they believe something should be priced a certain way.

So do you think that if we were to allow more uses that would like I guess how would the market handle that in in your experience? Allowing more uses will get many of the spaces leased up and those spaces that have a rent that's above market will be the last ones still available. They will not lease up when other spaces in PaloAlto are being leased at a rent lower than that. So again, there will be the market rent and there'll be those above market and you will see that those don't get leased. One of the other things we are seeing um throughout the state of California right now is and I think this addresses or talks is when you were speaking about the waiver this came up in my mind many of the retailers in today's world they need a certain type of infrastructure with regard to utilities and some of the buildings some of the older buildings don't always have the proper utilities. So, in some cases, you may come um a property owner may come to you and say, "I only have 100 amps in my building, and I don't have an ability to bring my electrical amperage up to 200 amps." And that can make a difference to the point where that building or that space won't get leased because there's very few retail tenants. And I'm including restaurants, personal services, medical spas. I'm including a lot of those retail like uses when I use the generic uh verbiage of retail. Um there's most

of the tenants that are active in today's industry cannot live with 100 um amp service. So those buildings probably exist in PaloAlto that don't have the ability to increase the amperage without really undue hardship. We we are it's it's affecting our retail leasing throughout the state.

Thank you. This was super informative um to say the least. Uh yeah. Um I guess I'll I'll provide my comments on the section. I know we've gone a little bit on a tangent, but this was extremely informative. Thank you. Um, so, um, kind of going back to where we originally were on packet page 43, I think that for me, I I could be interested in allowing offices that face a side or the rear. I would be more interested if we limited that to, for example, community serving uses um, as defined by our code. Um, and then I don't have any additional comments on the waiver.

All right. I will Commissioner Templeton, you're next, but I wanted to interject something really quickly here for Commissioner G. Um, our packet for the meeting of uh May 8th, 2024 has all the historic data for many years uh for vacancies and for retail vacancies, office vacancies, and rents. Uh so I strongly recommend taking a look at [clears throat] that uh if you want that data. Thank you for letting me jump in, Commissioner Templeton.

Of course. Um, yeah, I just wanted to to weigh in. I was I was mulling over some of the com comments that um, Vice Chair Chang made and I was getting kind of a Main Street USA vibe on in Disneyland. [sighs and gasps] [laughter] And so I'm I'm describing that because I don't know if that's what we mean, but they do have some parts of the street side retail facing, you know, 35 foot thing we, you know, that we've been talking about, whereas you don't know how deep the store is behind it. Um, and I I think that's it's it's sort of interesting because what we're talking about is creating and maintaining a vibe, right? But also there's a kind of a, you know, facade nature of it that maybe not kind of the authenticity that we're known for here. And and I struggle because, you know, I think being able to have that vibe that would be created uh by this storefront window shopping kind of thing is is interesting and very tempting, but I don't know really how um viable it would be long term or what what it might do to how people feel about the actual experience, right? if they're not able to if the store doesn't match the facade kind of thing. So, I think as as we explore this concept, which is very interesting, we should we should think about like the next step, not just tempting them in, but how do they feel once they're in to the the store? Um, and is that something that will keep

people coming back? Um, and then the other comment I had just about California Avenue, um, with regards to her comments was, you know, we do have shopping centers have their own kind of zone. So if you're saying like I I'm sure like we even literally have a sign that says Calab shopping center, right? So maybe you know formalizing that is not a bad idea because it will help people understand why it has separate regulations um and governance um and just thinking about like is that the right thing to do um you know did that just spring up and happen I don't think it did but really to understand you know both of our train stations in PaloAlto um really lack amenity ities, right? Like they're near things that you could you could walk a couple of blocks and get a coffee, but they don't have those kind of things at the station. And Calav is is kind of a little bit closer to having stuff, right? You can go to Molly Stones, you can go get a coffee, you can get a meal. Um, so you can do some some printing. Um, so you know, there's there's things that are are there, but if we were more purposeful about it, would we have uh would it be more attractive to people, right, visiting and to retailers to to establish themselves there? So, I really do like that idea and I I just wanted to throw it out there that um if we were to understand it like if you think about major major train stations and I'm not saying Calab is a major train station,

okay guys, but like if I'm thinking as a model of train stations um in in other cities, I there's always a little grocery, there's always a little cafe. There's always like a place to sit down and get your nails done or your shoes shined or whatever. Like there's things that are nearby to pass the time and to catch on your way home or your way to work uh something that you might need. So I think that's possibly um a way to establish a vision. Now, I don't know if that affects this specific section we're talking about if and if that impacts, you know, retail and retail like. And my I guess my main takeaway for staff is like let's have a vision for California Avenue. And yeah, I don't know to what extent this exercise we're doing today is that vision. So, I'm just going to throw that out there for the future. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, I'll I'll run through u my items, seeing no other lights at the moment. Um, and like everyone else, I'll generalize a little more than I had originally intended, but uh so I think the provisions in the interim ordinance are worth keeping. Um, fitness studios might become more attractive as SB79 forces more growth with less open space. So that suggests to me that we probably should increase the size limit so that we might be able to attract a few more of those. Um, as noted before, um, I'll just reference earlier comments about takeout and

animal care. Um, office uses facing side and rear yards. I suggest that probably what you want is some language that says office uses that are not front-facing because I can imagine an entirely internal office space that faces none of the yards which might still be a valuable um addition. So simply um not frontf facing would take care of that. Um, I have no strong opinion about the medical offices with street facing retail. So, I think other commissioners have covered that better than I can. Um, about formula retail on Cal A. Um, of course, downtown allows formula retail and I haven't noticed it being a problem, although I would say it tends to turn over. Uh I would be interested in knowing if

[snorts]

uh there is a trend towards more of it or less of it uh on university or in downtown uh because that might inform our decision about what we choose to do on Calav. Um yeah, the exception process is far too honorous. Um I appreciate the comments from the vice chair. Uh my original thinking was that I would vote to just clarify the rules and and then adjust them later if it turns out that um there are unintended consequences. So you will have some judgment calls to make about uh make about that. We're not giving you a a clear message. Um, the vice chair also, [clears throat and cough] pardon me, the vice chair also brought up something that I had had intended to bring up later. Uh, and that's the idea of area specific combining districts. Um, so it's not just Calav, it's also Midtown and Charleston that face this problem. And my original proposal at premeating was just collapse everything down to one district. And I have since changed my mind about that. There's just there's too much in the base district to um to throw that out and try and consolidate it in an area specific district. But all the other specificity could be combined into one area specific combining district. So you would have to look at only one combining district and the base. Uh and I think that concept is worth pursuing on Calav Midtown and Charleston at at least um possibly

downtown. I haven't thought that through. So uh yep, I think that covers it for me on this section. Commissioner Templeton,

thanks. I'll be quick. You just reminded me of something that um I was wondering if this is the area where we would talk about it or not. Um we used to have a cafe that was uh that popped up without being permitted on California Avenue and um it was pretty popular and I'm just wondering like should someone want to do something like that again legally? Would would we want to is this what we would change to allow that? Is it is it already allowable enough? We just didn't see that happen or like I'm just wondering staff, do you have any thoughts on if are you familiar? Okay,

go ahead. Just this we're talking about uh Backard Brew, right? And the illegal component was what? I think that's what we need to understand in order to make the modifications. Exactly my question. So maybe Jean or other staff know. Was it a code enforcement? I thought there was some I know that there was like a code enforcement electrical issue like they were running [snorts]

extension cords where they shouldn't. Um that kind of a thing. But other than that, I don't know if it was a lot. It was a vibrancy component of downtown or of Cal that that we lost for reasons of safety. Um so we were just trying to understand if something wanted to happen there in the future, do we have we create an environment where it could? Yes, my understanding is they are working to get the permits they require to be able to reopen. It did have to do with safety. there were things I my understanding and I have not been deeply involved was um that there were modifications made that did not comply with building or electrical code or

so it's not something that we need to correct during this exercise that was the question really okay that's all I wanted to double check all right thank you all right any further comments on this section if not then as previously agreed let's take a break 10 minutes. We'll come back at 8:52.

All right, everyone. Are we ready to proceed? All right, we are back in session and uh ready to begin the next segment of uh retail issues and I believe that is packet page 45 uh 1830C the ground floor combining district which applies to downtown Midtown and Charleston. Commissioner Hecman.

So for both of these, I feel like the the staff potential modification um is more flexible than making the interim regulation permanent even as modified. And so I'm supportive of of sort of staff's recommend uh staff's alternative to making the interim regulation permanent. Thank you. Next, Vice Chair Ch.

Um, so I'm more excited about allowing offices that face the side and rear yards than I am necessarily. I'm not totally against it. Um, but the fitness and exercise studios, um, up to 3,000 square feet. And the reason for that is [sighs] I've been to places where there's just a ton of fitness studios and it's like effectively an office. Like it's just not I mean, yes, the people come and go and so it does generate some foot traffic, but um, they're really big store frontages. It's like a big gap. is sort of that hotel effect that Commissioner G was talking about and it breaks things up. And so would I prefer to have a giant fitness studio for, you know, half a block or would I prefer to have some sort of retail and then office back behind it, the non- street facing? I would prefer that alternative, I think. Um that said, I also hear what uh our chair said about um the need for more recreational space as we have more people coming. So I I'm a little bit torn on that. Um what really stuck with me is what our consultant said, which is that the spaces that are vacant right now are too big. And so if whatever we can do to make, you know, I think we want those smaller businesses. It's not that we necessarily want fitness studios. So, if we could encourage those instead, then I would prefer to do that instead of increasing the size up to 5,000. And I would love for our consultants and staff to figure out what that threshold is. And ideally have it kind of be the same threshold on Calav as on University so that we don't have like why are we

splitting hairs? I I don't understand why the gym needs to be smaller in one place than the other necessarily. Um maybe there's a good reason, but I I just think it'd be simpler if we could just um uh make it the same everywhere. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no lights at the moment, I'll run through mine quickly because they're all repeats of things that I've said before. um the not facing front office [snorts] um the fitness studio size limit um animal care as usual um and uh waiverss. So I think I've commented on all of those previously. Uh anyone else? Oh, Vice Chair Chang,

I forgot to say one thing with respect to my um comment about allowing offices that fa that are not front-facing. I too in general would prefer if those were somehow neighborhood serving uses because that would then help generate that foot traffic that we need. And I think there's a need for that. that I hear about, you know, therapists and having a hard time finding office space and these little nooks might be perfect for something like that.

Thank you. Any other comments? It sounds like we've mostly gone over this ground already. All right, then. Um, we come back to this if we need to, but um, for the time being, let's go ahead and proceed to packet page 46, the CDCCS districts.

Yeah, I thought these sections would go more quickly, but I'm surprised they're going this quickly. All right. The only novel uh suggestion I have here is um I like the idea of harmonizing the CD uses with GF and R uses. So I would encourage uh the proposed modifications there and um support um merging them where that makes sense. Anyone else?

Vice Ch. So, the one thing that I um was like an emphatic no on was removing the ground floor. Wait, are we on commercial district right now and Midtown or you're just doing one at a time? Yeah. Packet page 46. Yeah, the whole thing. Okay. Yeah. I'm not in favor of removing the ground floor combining district. So, I think we can get rid of the Midtown and Charleston designations because the ground floor o uh overrides that. But I wouldn't want just that middle bullet point because I don't think we want offices in those spaces.

Thank you. Further com further comments. All right. Oh, Commissioner G. Yeah. Um, I guess it was more kind of a clerical question. I had a bunch of comments about the usage of GF, but I had it all relative to attachment B. Like, would it make more sense to talk about here or are we going to go through some of the uses on attachment B?

That's a good question. Um, yeah, my my own notes essentially say um that I was going to defer it, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. We could try and tackle some of those things uh in this section.

Uh, okay. Sure. Okay. So, I guess we'll jump kind of down to packet page 51, which is where some of the information for the commercial district, the Midtown Charleston shopping center, um, and the ground floor are all kind of listed out. Um, I found it just kind of above little pretty sad to read that you have this table, but then columns 2 through 4 are moot. So, that was um, kind of enlightening about how complex the code was. Uh, okay. So, um, in general, I'm kind of using column 5, the GF combining district, as my reference point because that is the current status quo. Um, so on packet page 52 about liquor stores, they're currently not allowed in GF, but they're conditional use in all of the other categories. I'm indifferent, but I guess to make it consistent, we could also make them conditional use um for the GF combined district. And then for uh on packet page 53 uh about fourth from top, the general business service, um I'm actually uh against uh I'm not for keeping it in conditional use. I'm more favor of not having it because the code describes this as uh general business services used engaging in sales service installation repair services general intended for to support other businesses rather than individual consumers. My general opinion is that for ground floor spaces we probably want things supporting kind of u individual consumers generally. Um so that's for line four and then uh I think for

for the uh fifth from bottom the personal service uh I don't have a particular uh preference as to whether we should use the CN the permitted under 3,000 square ft and the conditional use over 3,000 ft² but if staff had an explanation as to why that is um could be swayed one way or another on that one. Um and I think those were all my comments on that. Do you want to uh request any explanation for uh for that? Sure. Yeah. Can can we talk about the personal service 3,000 ft?

I believe it's there because the CN district neighborhood commercial is supposed to be small scale. So there's actually another table that's sort of subsumed into here which gets at the size thresholds and that's where you see size thresholds for personal services for fitness and for a few other uses. So in wait uh sorry where okay so for the fitness I know we've we feel like we've been talking about the size of fitness quite a few times tonight. Um, so I didn't see that listed on this chart. What's the fitness requirement for CN?

I'll have to go back and look at the table. There's basically a separate table in the code that regulates size of establishments and then over the either whether it's permitted or CUP, but I can look it up.

Okay. Um, just kind of a general comment. I think I would prefer probably somewhat consistent fitness standards. Having like seven different fitness standards across the code, I think is just a little bit too complicated. If I'm a if I'm trying to host look for a place to put my fitness studio, but in every single block of the city, I have to look at a different sizing, I think would be a little bit silly. Um, so that's my general comment on that. Um, kind of going back to what some other folks have said, uh, I guess I think there might be some value in having like a cal C calav specific area zoning just because it now is a closed pedestrian street. And I think that because it's closed, we may want to curate it differently than some other areas. So that's kind of my rationale for Kellav, but I don't find that Midtown and Charleston are particularly that different in my opinion and I'm happy to kind of keep it using the GF generally. Um, but would love to hear other commissioners comments on that.

Thank you. Seeing no other lights, I'll jump in with the few comments I have on this. Um, most of these points I've already made earlier that I think there's perhaps some value in creating uh combining districts for the for the separate areas. Um along those lines, I was sort of curious um suppose you were to create such a district by going through the tables on pages 51 to 53 and taking the most lenient option from all of the applicable columns. What do you get? Do you get something that uh we find is acceptable or is it attractive? Um if we're looking for uh going big then you say well okay let's let's start by taking the rules that we have and interpreting uh interpreting them in the most gener generous fashion possible. So um if you want to lead with a proposal in a new ordinance then that might be one disciplined way to go about creating that. Um but yeah the existing situation is just horrible. Uh so um yeah, so I I think the best we can do is probably one base and one combining district, but if you have a more creative solution, um I'm sure we'd all like to we'd all like to hear it. Um that was all the comments I had on this section. Anyone else? Mr. G,

I just want to jump in um and piggy back off of Chair Akin's comments about kind of the most loose restrictions. I'd also just like to have section R maybe considered it as well on that. Very good. Any other comments [snorts] here? All right. If not, and of course we can always come back, uh, we'll move on to packet page 47, which is 18.52.030, uh, basic parking regulations. I think we're slowing down here tonight. Um, Vice Chair Chang So, I think I don't have enough information to fully understand this because I don't know what the parking requirements are for the varied uses. Um, but this is where like the famous Calab yogurt store example comes up where a yogurt store couldn't come in because it like there was too much parking that was required whereas I think we would have been really happy to have the yogurt store. So, uh, in theory, yes. But I just don't know if that means then suddenly that we don't have [snorts] I I don't I don't know what that could do. But in theory, yes. Cuz I I I know for example that restaurants are really parking intensive. And so if a restaurant are really po I mean look at um Porta Valley with Alpine in [laughter] and their parking situation. It's um like we just wouldn't want to create something like that. I don't see that happening. it'd be a lovely problem to have. [snorts] Um, so it seems to make

sense to me, but that's based on the little I know.

Commissioner Templeton. Yes. I just wanted to let the commission know that I will be having a venue change and if you're still going when I am able to log back on in about 10 or 15 minutes, then I'll join you then. Thank you.

Thank you. We look forward to you rejoining us. Um, I'll jump in with my comments here and see if it inspires any reactions from anyone. Um, so I am not comfortable with uh completely ignoring the parking impacts of change of use because I can I can see too many potential problems there. Um, I have no problems with updating the standards because you can certainly argue that what we have are out of date. Um, and this gets back to the um area specific uh overlays. Uh, in Calav, we have a nice new garage um on Sherman, so we might be willing to tolerate um lower um parking updates in that area than we are in some others. Um, so, uh, I'm I suspect this might be something we want to address with area specific districts. Uh, I'm also okay with increasing the shared parking threshold and echoing Vice Chair Chang's comments if we have any actual measurements that justify what the value should be. Uh, because this is one of these things that it values uh, I'm sorry, it varies depending on the the hour of the day. So, I have no idea what the maximum over the course of the day needs to be. Um, but I'm receptive to the idea of changing the threshold. Just I don't know what it should be. And uh, finally, a purely political observation. I'm sort of reluctant to explicitly cross reference AB 2097 because that could be interpreted as

encouraging zero parking rather than making a considered choice. Um sure in the AB2097 areas it's allowed but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to encourage everyone to think that um zero is always the right answer. Uh and it may be area specific uh district specific regulations um could be expressed in a way that um meets the requirements of the law uh without perhaps misleading. So but again that's purely political consideration. The other things I've mentioned are more substantive. So those are the ones that really matter to me. Commissioner G.

Uh, the chair basically said all the points. I just wanted to do a plus one from my lived experience on El Camino Way where there is no other place to park. Um, and so when I've seen the different businesses come and go, you really do feel the parking implication change pretty significantly based on what's around. Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, so when it comes to parking, being the I don't know, probably one of the few who as a pedestrian, I walk. Uh, I really enjoy public transit. I just think it's a good time to always reinforce that that I enjoy not parking and I enjoy not driving. I haven't changed the tire. I haven't had to get the oil changed in I don't know how long. Um, I miss the 10-minute lube. The the people down there are great. Uh, but um I always want to I want to promote that lifestyle of of get rid of your car and use the Cal Train and take the bus. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further comments on this section? All right. Um to move on to another one that should be fairly straightforward. That's packet page 48, the process and administration question. Commissioner Hecman.

Uh, thanks. Before I go to 48, I just want to remind staff that that the sections that I don't say anything about and and I've heard this I think at least one other commissioner said this, that means I agree with staff's proposed modifications. So, so and I want that to be remembered because um it's easier to remember, you know, words than silence. So, so, so the fact that somebody, you know, might have picked at uh something on page 47, um there's also this very um implicit voice of mine that's saying, "I like what you wrote." All right. So on uh 48 um uh I am supportive of the renaming the cups and I have seen this in a lot of jurisdictions uh where they are moving um to um sometimes they call it administrative permit or a special permit but but CUP um has a connotation in in the you know development and and uh commercial community and it means a lot of hoops to jump through um and you know possibly multiple layers and and you know public hearings um and so and even if our even if our cup process was somehow simpler than other places we don't get the credit for that because everybody just think it's oh god it's a cup so um we we name it something different and I think just that simple action um will attract people to investigate more thoroughly. So I like uh the second bullet, not the first and I agree. In fact, I perhaps we have general

agreement here, Vice Chair Chang. Yes, also second bullet. Second bullet.

All right. That's I thought that would be an easy one. All right, let's move on to uh one which is a little more challenging. Packet page 49. Uh that's retail preservation. Commissioner Hecman. Yeah. So, um the let's see first and third bullet. uh first, third, and fourth bullet. I'm supportive of first bullet including the sub bullets. The the one I uh I sort of wanted to throw on the table for possible discussion is uh the second bullet consider reducement requirement for less than one one uh of less than one to one to square foot to increase size flexibility for redevelopment projects. And I was just when I looked at that I was like well any redevelopment project or do we you know do we want to promote to direct people to yeah if you if it's going to be you know mixeduse housing or or you know something else and so I just want to kind of put that out for possible discussion that maybe we want to limit that benefit to something some kind of behavior we want to encourage. Um um uh the last bullet um you know I have spoken in the past I'm kind of uh supportive of this. Um I think it's a it's controversial on this commission and so I don't push it anymore. I like trying to adjust the framework in other ways rather than just eliminating the RPO. Thank you. Other comments

Commissioner G and Vice Chair Chang.

Yeah. Um I'm generally I guess Commissioner Hecman, I won't rehash our continued RPO conversation. Um, but one of the things that I just kind of experienced this past weekend was I have a friend who asked me like when is something moving into where Bill's Cafe was over on Lomver in Middlefield, right? And it's currently an empty plot of nothing, I believe. Um, and so these are the kinds of things where I get the like I am lucky enough to live pretty close to El Camino. Um, but some other people really enjoy going to their neighborhood business. And so, um, I'm generally kind of for keeping the retail where it is.

Thank you, Vice Chang. Um I think when we were talking about nodes on El Camino, um as I was preparing for that meeting, I desperately wanted to actually just create ground flooror retail in certain spots, right? Like I'm okay with this one going away, but then I would want this whole corner to be ground flooror retail. And so to the extent that we could actually do that, I think it could really work for certain areas. However, we have additional complications there. Like for El Camino, if we could do that, I think I would be okay with it. Um, I don't know where else because it their neighborhood like for Phils, if I understand correctly, let me look at the map here. Yeah, like Phil's doesn't have to be retail by zoning. Um, and yet it was like such a big part of that neighborhood. And so if we were to I I think a potential if we don't like the retail protection ordinance, I think a more methodical way to do it would be to mandate retail in certain locations. And that probably would actually would make sense. Um, I just don't know how difficult it is to like if there's other legal barriers to mandating the retail. And I do know that with respect to El Camino, there's a problem where um I actually emailed uh Mr. Yang about this where in the implementation of how we chose to um implement the housing element there are a bunch of little postage stamp size places and I talked about this in the retail node discussion here at the PTC where they don't actually generate that much housing um

but because they are housing element sites um and we as a city chose not to make a distinguishing implementation we chose not to distinguish between housing elements designated for low-income housing versus not. All housing element sites don't need to replace the retail. And so what happened is even as we were drawing the nodes within those nodes, several of the sites don't need any retail. And so we would want to probably like the ideal way to do this to really be thoughtful about it is to leave it a housing element site. um but to say also that ground flooror retail is required in this because this is not a site that's designated for low-income housing and then that would make our and then we could the the areas outside of those nodes we could release and say um you know we don't need retail here because we feel good about these nodes. So I think that would be like in my dream world that's what I would like to do but I'm not sure we can do all those things. Yeah,

if I may jump in, that's exactly what the GF and P overlays do, right? But we So I understand that. Um, and so I understand that, but right now then if we put that GF overlay on our housing element sites, it doesn't work. So, for the purposes of El Camino, it we're in trouble. It it would only work on those sites that are not um allowed to build 100% housing, you know, in compliance with the housing element.

Yes. Um and so there is a separate issue of if we really wanted to do something like this, what we should also apparently for us as a city to choose to implement our housing element just slightly differently where we make that distinguishing factor that's allowed by state law and then that would solve the problem on El Camino. [clears throat] Um, so I think right like in in theory I would be okay actually with removing the retail protection ordinance, but it would require using the GF overlay in a lot of places I think.

Thank you. I'll jump in because that segus pretty well into my comments. um which are much less well thought out than the vice chairs. But uh yeah, I could support excluding the residential zones and the office and manufacturing zones provided there's not much existing retail there that we want to protect and I suspect that's the case. Um, I believe someone on staff did this analysis for us once before, but I was not able to find it in my records at the time. Um, and uh, that relates to uh, excluding San Antonio and El Camino. Um, and I think the vice chair has covered all of the trade-offs in those issues uh, in those areas nicely. Um yeah, we want to contribute to retail vitality, but what's the best way to go about it? Um minor issue removing the need for I have a note here. Removing the need to express 10-year history is fine. Um about eliminating the uh RPO and requiring ground floor retail in more general in greater generality. Uh I'm very interested in that idea. Um but I don't know whether developers are receptive to that approach. It would be interesting to get um Miss Fenberg's take on that. And I also want to know is it even possible in the SP79 areas? Can we require ground floor retail there? So those are the two things that um I would like some uh elaboration on. Um, in most cities that that I do work,

almost every city I work with does have a ground floor requirement. And what what we council the cities to do is to really go to the node um concept because requiring retail on the ground floor in a midblock situation doesn't always it the retail doesn't always get leased. retail really works better at um an intersection of two streets and to require retail on a long long block um midb block it it's not always successful because it doesn't always get leased. So again going to a node system being very thoughtful about where you put the retail requirement. Um that is where most cities are going in the Bay Area right now. So I hope that answers your question, but almost every city again is dealing with some of the same issues you're dealing with. And um they're all struggling. This is not easy. So as far as the state laws, there's so many state laws from for housing. The way I understand them is every one of the state laws gives you different rights and you have to identify to the city which state law you're using for the housing development that you're proposing. um if you want to go around if you want to get a b um density bonus or if you want to um reduce the density or if you want to go and build without having to go through a

full entitlement process. So it's very complicated. I believe the law is not clear as to whether or not they can disregard your zoning requirement for retail on the ground floor. I've been told by one of the politicians at the state level that the intent of the law was never to disregard a city's requirement for zoning up for retail on the ground floor. And yet we're seeing it happen in every city right now. Um developers are coming in for housing and saying that they're not going to do retail on the ground floor. So I think the law laws will have to be litigated before we get a clear understanding of what you as a city can stand firm on. Um does that answer your question?

That's a start. Uh I think Miss Armor was going to weigh in on this as well. Um I was actually going to invite Mr. Yang in case he wanted to add anything more or clarification to that. Yeah. Um sorry, were we discussing this in relation to um SP79? SP79 and retail on the ground floor

whether it there's nothing in SP79 in particular that addresses retail on the ground floor. Um but SP79 projects are generally um uh eligible to use density bonus law and uh under density bonus a developer could ask for relief from retail requirements um as a concession from the city.

Okay. So it sounds like in general we can't count on it. Um but u the same concern applies to uh applying RPO in in those projects as well. Right. That's right. Density bonus is available to you know any development housing development project uh that's providing the you know minimum amount of affordable housing.

Okay. So it's so the question I had originally isn't really dispositive. Okay. H I don't know what advice I can offer you then. Uh but in the meantime, I will pass the buck to Commissioner G.

I'm just thinking out loud here cuz I mean I'm looking at the various overlays on the map. There's like CSLD and all these other things, but I I am curious. This is not really a fully big thought, but having the GF overlay for some of these like RM40 places that are next to commercial areas could be an interesting idea. But again, with all the state laws, not super applicable, but I don't know. Midtown looks like it might be far enough away from some of these stations where having that could be interesting, but not a fully big thought. I'm sorry we're not giving you very crisp advice on this one, but uh do we have any other comments

chair? Uh welcome back. Hi. Um I'm back and I just wanted to say that I um I had to leave for just cause and I'll be happy to join by video for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Templeton. Uh, well, we're just about to start a new section. So, this is on packet page 50, 18.38, uh, PC districts comments. No one wants to touch PCs [laughter]

or or they're you're all in favor, which is great. Well, um I'm certainly open to allowing uses that are allowed in the other commercial districts. Uh the only question I had was uh I didn't understand what the conditional permitting process would be uh that would be used in that case.

We would use the same process. So, in a PC, for example, when you have a shopping center like Edgewood Plaza, which is a PC zone, um it has a list of allowed uses and a list of conditionally allowed uses, same as any of our commercial districts. But in some cases, when those um PCs are older, they may not have the flexibility that is appropriate to be consistent with our other commercial zones and shopping centers. Yeah. So, what I was getting at there was um do you have to create a new PC as things are constituted today?

The the goal with this provision would be to allow the director the authority to allow uses in those PCs without having to go ahead and do the the reszoning. That that is actually the intent of this suggestion if there is support of the commission for that. Okay. Um, I think that's probably satisfies my concerns. So, Commissioner G,

I think it'll come to a shock to nobody on this commission that I am skeptical about PCs. Um, I think that I'm generally just uh not I I think I I don't know the specific implications, but generally would like to have the PC potentially kind of I I don't know really know what similar means. So, I think like I'm a little bit just cautious about the wording there, but that's all.

Vice Chair Jack in in theory okay with this except that as I think about the amount of kind of neighborhood angst over certain PCs like um over in Edgewood when the grocery store wasn't was vacant that was really upsetting to the neighborhood and so is there I don't know what because I don't know what similar means you know it was spec the grocery store was the was the public benefit. And so if it in in a if you like is there a situation where we have a similar use that just really wouldn't be seen by the community as equivalent to the public benefit. That's the kind of situation that really worries me. Um but in theory, yes, if similar is properly defined. And I I think we can consider wording to see if we can do something. But I would I would say that uh for Edgewood in particular, since I was actually part of the process of updating that PC the last time, they um you know that grocery store was a very important part of that. And so that would be a part of the PC that would be expected to be retained, right? as opposed to the lists of the types of commercial uses for the other tenant spaces in that shopping center. I think we would understand that that's a different um component um rather than just the individual small shops there. Any other comments on this one? All right. Then uh given that we have already discussed the uh material and attachment B, I think we're looking at

just one item left for the specifics and that's uh the zoning map on um back at page 50. Vice Chair Ch.

There's not much to say here other than I think we all agree the current situation is not good and that we do need to simplify. So I'm in complete agreement with the staff and I'm guessing because of the silence of everybody else, it means everybody also also agrees. Lots lots of nodding here. Commissioner G and then Commissioner James

just plus one. But also I think one thing that could be helpful is like explaining some of these overlays like the H overlay, the D overlay, the L overlay that may come attached to the map. Like if like in terms of simp simplification either we actually simplify more or like if this is the one pager also tell people where they can find out other information. Commissioner James, I just thought I would make my nod verbal. I agree.

Good. That's confirmed. I think I think there's universal approval on this one. All right. That concludes all of the uh specific items that I had intended to cover. So, Miss Eisberg, is there anything else that uh you need of us on this item? Um, I don't think so. I really appreciate everyone's direction. I think the the feedback on the retail preservation ordinance is probably the most complex, but um, we'll dig in a little more and come up with some ideas for you.

Thank you. I'm I think we're looking forward to it. This is potentially uh useful progress. All right. Anyone else with a comment? All right, I think this item is concluded. All right, that brings us to item number four, approval of minutes. Um, and um, we have a couple of uh, a couple of minutes to approve. And I'd like to treat one differently from the other. So, let's do them separately. Um, Mr. Teta, do we have any uh, public speaker requests for this item? So to the chair, I've received no public comment cards for item four and there are no raise hands on Zoom. Thank you. All right. So the easy one is the uh minutes of July 30th, 2025. So do I have a motion?

Move approval as revised. Second. All right. Uh, since Yeah. And I just wanted to um um make a note before calling names um that there were two uh commissioners uh absent that day. Um and so if you didn't view the recording um you can say I abstain when I do. Yeah. It was uh um Commissioner James and Commissioner G. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, we'll need to do a roll call then. Yeah. Okay. Um, Commissioner Peterson.

Hi. Uh, Commissioner G, abstain. Uh, Commissioner Templeton, yes. Uh, Commissioner James, abstain. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, yes. Vice Chair Chang, yes. Uh, Commissioner A, uh, uh, Chair Akin, yes. Uh motion carries 502 uh with Commissioner James and G abstaining.

All right. We have what's possibly a novel situation concerning the minutes of August 27th. We received a public comment uh with a request for changes um late and I don't know how many of us have reviewed the changes. Uh I did and I found them um perfectly reasonable contribution. Uh so if anyone needs to take a moment to review the changes, they're I believe on the first page of the public comments and they're quite small and through the chair I believe we did have a verbal public comment for this item

um which was the same person who provided those written comments. So they may be interested to speak to it. I don't see him here in chamber. Is he on Zoom?

Yeah. Uh they're not here in the chamber anymore. And I do not see a raised hand on Zoom. Correction. That was the second [snorts] page of the public comments. So to uh recap, this applies to the verbatim minutes of um August 27th, 2025. The changes are to um add chair Aiken and the commissioners on one line to add u the article a the tenative map a copy of which on line six. um correcting uh the developer on line 8 from town and county development to town and country development. And lastly on line 12 changing the name um correcting the name to C Town and Country Development LLC. So these are all um I think uh straightforward clarifications. So, what I would move um is to approve the minutes as previously revised with the addition of the revisions proposed in this public comment.

Second. All right, Mr. Deta, would you call the role? Yeah. Um, Commissioner James, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hickman, yes. Commissioner Templeton, yes. Commissioner G, yes. Commissioner Peterson, yes. Vice Chair Chang, yes. Chair Aken, yes. Motion carries. 5. Thank you. All right, it's time for commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. Anyone have something for us today?

Um, Commissioner G.

Yep. Thank you. Uh I had the privilege of participating in the ULI study last week. I thought it was very interesting. The they interviewed folks on the Tuesday and then had a full report by Friday. The Friday report is on YouTube. So if you are interested in taking a peek uh I thought it was pretty interesting. Um, also in my uh interview uh I was with uh some other folks from the community as well as I think Steven the the historical resources board planner that came to us about the shrink wrap. And I thought it was really interesting to learn that the MacArthur Park Cafe building had already been moved before and so they're thinking about that as one option to revitalize the area is to move that cafe again somewhere else. Um, and then also that there is another building over there that I've always overlooked. Um, and that is a Stanford owned building that they plan on storing a bunch of rocks in.

So, from the Earth School. So, which we have seen. Yes. Um, so that was interesting. I think that might have been on this meeting which I did not attend.

So, there we go. Um, so I think that there's definitely a lot of interest to revitalize that kind of piece of the area as well as maybe doing something more creative with the parking lot that's on the other side where the the parking lot and the hotel complex are both owned by Stanford. And so there is some talk about kind of doing some shifting and making revitalizing that side as well. Um, so that was what came out of my conversation with them. Um, uh, Commissioner Peterson, would you like to add anything from your session? I, uh, I missed the session, so I was going to ask you questions about your session so I could, I could vicariously, uh, experience.

Okay. Um, the one other thing I'll add is that uh, I think that there's I I think that the there's some interesting conversations about the park as well that they want to connect. So right now the bike path through the park is really complicated and convoluted. Like a lot of people that come there's a bike trail that goes on kind of the art like whatever side we're on of the tracks on Menlo Park side, but then you have to like kind of do this weird cut across and so there might there's I think some lowhanging fruit accessibility wins through um the park there as well that they're talking about implementing. So, I think what I really liked about the session was there was a lot of lowhanging fruit activities, which I feel like everyone on this commission really appreciates being able to go into action and not wait um x number of years for something like a grand boulevard initiative to roll through. So, that's one thing I did like about the project.

Thank you. Anyone else? If not, then we are adjourned.