HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-14 Planning & transportation commission Summary Minutes1
1
Planning & Transportation Commission 2
Action Agenda: June 14, 2017 3
Council Chambers 4
250 Hamilton Avenue 5
6:00 PM 6
7
8 9
*Vice Chair Waldfogel will participate from offsite. 10
Location: Holiday Inn, Monet Room 11
3000 Van Dyke Avenue 12
Warren, Michigan 13
Call to Order / Roll Call 14
15
• 6:02pm 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and we're going to begin tonight's meeting of 18
the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Today’s date is June 14, 2017, and I'd like to 19
begin with a call to order or roll call. 20
21
Yolanda Cervantes, Administrative Assistant: Chair Alcheck, Commissioner Gardias, Commissioner 22
Lauing, Commissioner Monk, Commissioner Rosenblum, Commissioner Summa, Vice-Chair 23
Waldfogel. That is six present one absent. 24
25
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. 26
27
Oral Communications 28
2
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 1
2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 3
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: We have some agenda changes, right? 6
7
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah actually no, no changes, but there was an updated agenda 8
that was posted and published more than 72 hours in advance. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Right, I’m sorry. That's what I meant. Do we have those at tables? Do you mind if 11
I get one? 12
13
Mr. Lait: I think we're bringing [unintelligible] from the back table. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, that would be great. Alright, so then do I have any speaker cards for Oral 16
Communications? Ok, seeing none let's move to City official reports. 17
18
City Official Reports 19
1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 20
21
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Great, just a couple of announcements Chair and Commission. 22
The City Planning or the City Council considered a item that the Commission acted on last time 23
you met on 260 California Avenue. This was the restaurant request for hearing. The City Council 24
3
approved that item on consent on Monday. And coming next Monday you have a couple of items 1
that are going forward that you might be interested in. One is the Southgate RPP program 2
resolution and also on the 19th is a Castilleja scoping report. This is an informational report that's 3
being transmitted to the Council that reflects the comments that we've received during that 4
scoping meeting. The scoping meeting was held here before the Commission. And that 5
concludes the Directors Report. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. 8
9
Action Items 10
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 11
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 12
13
2. Comprehensive Plan Update Review Process 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Let's begin with the first action item, a concept, a Comprehensive Plan update 16
review process. Before we begin sort of our discussion would staff sort of summarize where we 17
are and any other information they want to provide us? 18
19
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Yes, thank you, Chair Alcheck and Commissioners; Hillary 20
Gitelman, the Planning Director. I'm joined by Elaine Costello and Elena Lee on our team. This is 21
the third time the Commission will have talked about the Comp Plan update and the process that 22
you want to do, that you want to use to conduct your review. 23
24
4
We're hoping tonight we can settle on an approach and this staff report presents two options and 1
then I understand a couple of Commissioners had forwarded a third option for consideration this 2
evening which I'll let them speak to, but first let me say that the Council had a discussion of the 3
Comp Plan update on last Monday and did act to refer the current draft to the Commission for 4
the Commission's review. I conveyed to the Council your Commission’s request for additional 5
time and for that time the clock to start later in the year or so after the vacation, summer 6
vacation season. So the Council was aware of that request, they did consider it, and in fact there 7
was an amendment proposed at one point that would have given the Commission a little more 8
time and change the schedule slightly, but that amendment failed. So in the end the Council's 9
Motion was to refer the draft of the Comp Plan to the Planning and Transportation Commission 10
(PTC) for review and recommendation within 90 days of receipt of the document which as we've 11
explained before will be at the end of this month. So you'll have all of July, August, and 12
September to meet and put together your recommendation should you choose to do so. 13
14
So the two options that are outlined in the report are based on some of the feedback we got from 15
the Commission at the last meeting. They include more meetings on land use and transportation 16
than on the other subjects and we scaled it back to only in one option we have a subcommittee 17
on land use and transportation the other option there is no subcommittee, it’s just the full 18
Commission acting together on all of these elements. So those two options are outlined in the 19
staff report and then as I mentioned we've received today from Commissioners Waldfogel and 20
Lauing a third suggestion which is just to take a pass and not conduct this review. We are looking 21
5
for a Motion this evening selecting one of these options so that we can proceed and plan ahead 1
for the meetings that we’ll be supporting you with through the summer. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. As you guys know I wasn't here at the last meeting so, but I was 4
here at the first meeting and in order to sort of effectively manage this item I'm going to sort of 5
walk you through where I think we are and then hopefully you guys can help me get to where we 6
need to be. At our first meeting we talked about the general plan of approaching the 7
comprehensive review. There was a discussion about sort of whether this was a legally required 8
review and then there was also a discussion among this among, from this group that suggested 9
subcommittees was of interest. That wasn't a suggestion I put forward originally, but it sort of 10
came out of this discussion that everybody felt that subcommittees was of interest. It's my 11
understanding is at the following meeting the discussion sort of changed tack; subcommittees 12
were less of an interest and specifically and I would argue astutely we should be focusing more 13
time on the Land Use and Transportation Element if we are going to do it at all and potentially not 14
needing subcommittees. So and then of course for those of you who did see Monday night's 15
discussion then you know, but as Director Gitelman summarized the Planning Commission, the 16
City Council had a discussion about what they'd like us to do and put it to a Motion. 17
18
So because I have this sort of opposing view here in this memo I’m happy to give you guys some 19
time to discuss it and share your thoughts. I'm not sure how you want to coordinate that, but I'm 20
happy to let you speak to it obviously because it's a part of this discussion and then I'm hoping we 21
6
can wrap this up sort of quickly because we have a big agenda tonight and we've essentially spent 1
a month and a half of meetings talking about how we want to approach a potentially 90 day 2
review. So with that in mind let's try to be concise and efficient tonight. So is there somebody 3
that wants… is there one of you (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: [Unintelligible] Motion [unintelligible] Asher should speak to it. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: With respect to this letter you mean? 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, yeah. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: First and I can speak to it as well. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Ok, well go ahead, one of you. 16
17
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So Ed do you mind speaking to it? I’m just not sure how audible that I’m 18
going to be. You tell me how good it is. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: Can we hear it? I think Commissioners can hear it. Can you? No? 21
7
1
Chair Alcheck: [Unintelligible] 2
3
Commissioner Rosenblum: From a process standpoint though I don't, I think it's premature to 4
start making Motions. I think, my personal view, is that this memo is no different from any of us 5
saying I have a third option or I have a fourth option. And so you guys have provided your written 6
option and I think it's really appropriate to speak to it, but I think it’s premature to make the 7
Motion and I think if any of us have comments on a of the options I think that the Chair should 8
direct us to comment on what we prefer, but I view this as simply another option that's been 9
offered (interrupted) 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Yeah and I apologize. I don't mean to speak to your Motion. I meant I understand 12
I wanted you to speak to this perspective and let's have a discussion and then I'll call for Motions 13
when I think we're ready. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, the first thing I just wanted to say is I just wanted to thank the 16
Director for appropriately communicating our requests to Council as we asked and it was very 17
well presented and considered. So appreciate that. 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Do you guys want to say anything else about this memo or this third alternative? 20
21
8
Commissioner Lauing: I mean all I could add to what is already written there is that I spoke to this 1
rather at length in the last meeting and the issues are summarized there. It's completely 2
consistent with what we said before. There are two very valid ways to come up with a Comp Plan 3
and one of them has been chosen, the Council seems pretty happy with the Comp Plan, the 4
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) worked terrifically hard on it. And we have a very time 5
compressed scenario with the current suggested plan to work it. So the idea has been we should 6
take the option of saying we don't need to do a report, we need to work on the implement as it 7
applies to necessary code changes. So that's the essence. 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Ok. So I guess in an effort to get the ball rolling here I will suggest that my 10
preference is that we comply with the City Council's request which is to review this document and 11
participate in the process and do so within the 90 day timeframe that they've asked us now 12
several times to do. And I would suggest tonight that I think that if we allot more time for the 13
Land Use and Transportation Element and potentially less time to some of the other elements 14
that are less relevant to our particular appointment that might be a good use of our time. The 15
foundation of the argument that I believe you and Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel are 16
making are one, a potentially flawed analysis of the code and what it's asking us to do. And I'm 17
suggesting that it's potentially flawed because I believe staff and the City Attorney have already 18
explained to us once that they think that we could be involved in this and I don't know that they 19
think that somehow we can avoid it. I understand your perspective and I appreciate it, I just don't 20
agree with it. 21
9
1
But I guess the biggest takeaway for me is that it seems a bit rude. It’s… you're basically saying 2
we don't want to participate in the process despite your repeated requests and instead we'd 3
prefer to critique it after the fact, right? We’d like to review it after it's been passed and suggest 4
code changes. It’s… we just had a meeting with City Council where we asked them repeatedly 5
what they want from us and this was the number one. And we also suggested that we didn't 6
have enough work. And now I understand from our last meeting there was a conversation about 7
look it’s summer, we have vacation schedules, and this Commission isn't on vacation during the 8
summer. I'm not a… I don't get vacation from my work and this Commission doesn't have a 9
vacation like City Council does. And so I just don't want to spend more time sort of discussing this 10
and I want to make sure that if this Commission decides tonight to vote against City what City 11
Council asked us to do two days ago and what I would argue four weeks ago that it's clear to all of 12
us that we're denying their request despite what I understood as our ask, what do you want from 13
us? And so… unless I mean if someone's going to make this Motion I think they need to respond 14
to that. I think they need to respond to how do we, how are we grappling with their request and 15
the irony of us saying we’ve got time and we're interested in getting into the meaty issues and 16
then avoiding participating in what I think is the most fundamental part of this job. 17
18
And the argument that we should postpone till the end of the summer or vacations there's a 19
reason why we only need a quorum. Not everybody on this Commission has to be at every 20
meeting. There are seven of us and as long as we have four we can proceed. And so I'm hoping 21
10
tonight and I'll make the Motion or someone else can, I'm hoping we can set a Motion up that 1
when we get this document at the end of the month we can follow the calendar of dates set up 2
and we can participate in this process and not to say that we couldn't also participate in a process 3
to amend the code, but I think the direction from City Council is clear. So if we decide to ignore 4
City Council’s direction I will be voting in opposition of that. So does anybody else have any 5
thoughts on this? Go ahead. 6
7
Commissioner Rosenblum: So first I think the memo I take in the spirit of Option 3 and so I have 8
no real beef with it. My personal view which I expressed at the previous meeting was that we 9
should review this and that 90 days should be sufficient, but after all this discussion just a couple 10
of quick thoughts. I think we do need to review this. I think it's core to our charter. We’re the 11
PTC. This is the core document that's going to be governing land use in our City through 2030 and 12
if history is a judge probably longer than that. I think that we need a final review. I think it is not 13
a rubber stamp review. I think that the CAC went through many options and they presented 14
those options and there's a framework for us to grapple with those same options and give our 15
feedback to Council after 90 days of review to say we think that of these options these were the 16
ones that PTC believes should be considered more strongly and why. 17
18
I agree with Commissioner Summa’s points at the last meeting that what we really care about is 19
land use and transportation and that splitting ourselves into subcommittees where only one 20
subcommittee gets a crack at that seems unfair and unwise and I agree with that. I still think 21
11
subcommittees are really useful, that we work really well together in smaller groups that we 1
present back to the whole team. So option I guess it would be 1A at this point for me would be 2
that we have multiple subcommittees on the same subject looking perhaps from different 3
perspectives so that when we come together as a group again we will have had several groups 4
that spent time together discussing and come up with recommendations perhaps from two 5
different points of view, but I think would help us in our deliberations that people took on pieces 6
of it themselves. Anyway so my final recommendation on this I think we should pursue it, I think 7
we should do it in 90 days, I think that we should agree on the structure of how we pursue it and 8
my rationale is that we're an advisory body to Council, Council’s asked for their advice on this 9
despite our pushback, and it's core to our charter. So I think that we need to proceed. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Anybody else want to chime in? 12
13
Commissioner Summa: I will. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Please do. 16
17
Commissioner Summa: So I appreciate my two colleagues bringing this forward. I think we 18
especially at the last meeting we had a lot of concern that there really wasn't enough time to 19
thoroughly review this. I have become kind of pretty lukewarm to the idea of subcommittees. I 20
think we would tend naturally to break up into legal subcommittees to discuss things with one 21
12
another and I don't think they have to be formalized subcommittees. And I sort of took this 1
differently I guess than the Chair in that I thought that the two people who wanted to bring who 2
submitted this memo considered it an equally legal and respectful option on a way to proceed for 3
the Planning Commission and so I am actually interested in it and I have some other ideas about 4
how we could proceed with the structure about going through to 90 days if my colleagues would 5
like to hear them or maybe we'd like to finish the discussion on this item, on the memo first. 6
7
So one idea that I had was to keep basically the orientation meeting and the next land use and 8
transportation meeting, the next one on the 9th and then on the 30th to make that a third land 9
use meeting and to take, land use and transportation, and to just go through the remaining ones 10
on the 13th and then have our recommendation to Council meeting (interrupted) 11
12
Chair Alcheck: I’m sorry will you just can you say that all again one more time? 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Sorry. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Yeah. So keep this [to] July 12th [unintelligible] I just want to understand where 17
you’re coming from. 18
19
Commissioner Summa: Yes. My understanding is the, my idea is to further put an emphasis on 20
land use and transportation and have us do it together without formal subcommittees. 21
13
1
Chair Alcheck: So you want to dedicate two, two periods (interrupted) 2
3
Commissioner Summa: I would like to dedicate a third, another period so that the August 30 4
which had been safety, natural environment, and community services and facilities would be 5
lumped together. So we'd have three land use meetings, one for the rest, and then our final 6
recommendation meeting and not have subcommittees. Because one of the things we did not 7
have a chance to do in the CAC despite all of our efforts and the great vast amount of time and of 8
staff and the committee was to correlate land use to transportation which I actually think is a 9
requirement of the law to do so. And I think we could actually emphasize going through the land 10
use and transportation correlation and I think at the same time we could also have a discussion 11
about the differences in the draft now after the Council, the Council's referring to us and the final 12
draft of the CAC. So if we're not interested in pursuing my colleagues memo which I am 13
interested in and one of my reasons is that I just having spent so much time on the CAC I really, 14
really don't think that you can do it so quickly, go through it and really understand it, and I have 15
always thought the emphasis of this body should be on land use and transportation. I think 16
having a crack at correlating the two would be very useful and letting having public meetings with 17
all of us or as many of us can be here would be very useful for the public so that they can 18
comment on it as well because that there hasn't really been an opportunity for that before. So 19
those are some of my thoughts and preferences if we do go forward with the 90 day review. 20
21
14
Chair Alcheck: Let me ask a quick question just so I understand [unintelligible]. So instead of 1
week four being safety and the other elements you would push week four’s items to week, the 2
first week of September, the first meeting of September. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: The 13th. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: And then you would leave open the Land Use and Transportation Element for a 7
third discussion theoretically. 8
9
Commissioner Summa: On the 30th. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: On the 30th. Let me ask you a question, if so if that was the Motion tonight you 12
would support that, that sort of (interrupted) 13
14
Commissioner Summa: Well I haven’t heard the whole discussion. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: I just want to understand it. So you would support that type of review or you 17
wouldn’t? 18
19
Commissioner Summa: If we are going to have a 90 day review I would support that. I am very 20
interest, I should say I am inclined to say now I would support it, but I haven't heard my 21
15
colleague’s discussion (interrupted) 1
2
Chair Alcheck: No, but I just wanted to understand if you were sort of putting that forward as this 3
is what I’d get behind. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: It was something that I was thinking about and I would appreciate hearing 6
my colleague’s ideas about it. That said I do want to emphasize that I understand and we can 7
there are plenty of things we can spend our time on like the parking and Transportation Demand 8
Management (TDM) and that we could really make a big impact too in these 90 days. And there 9
have been many eyes for quite a long time and now the Council's final, well not final, but sort of 10
almost final so that's kind of where I'm thinking right now and where I'm going. I'm still 11
interested in the my colleagues memo (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Do you mind just responding to this… how would you frame if we decide not to do 14
it how do we, how do you respond to sort of City Council's Motion on Monday night? 15
16
Commissioner Summa: If we decide not to do the 90 day review? 17
18
Chair Alcheck: If we decided to abstain from review I'm just curious what your take is on grappling 19
with that request that they made. 20
21
16
Commissioner Summa: Well the way it was framed in the memo was that it was a legal option for 1
the Planning Commission and so I don't see that as disrespectful. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: No, I'm just saying (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: In light of the fact that two days ago they asked us to do it within 90 days I mean is 8
that an issue for you or no? 9
10
Commissioner Summa: It's (interrupted) 11
12
Chair Alcheck: I understand what the memo is saying. I'm saying despite what the memo says 13
Council has also made a request and so are you comfortable saying I hear you, but no? Is that on 14
the table? 15
16
Commissioner Summa: I have had very little time to consider it and I would like to hear the rest of 17
my colleagues and the discussion before I (interrupted) 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. 20
21
17
Commissioner Gardias: First I want to make this comment that whoever organized today's 1
meeting didn't think about the consumers or I'm sorry, our customers, and so look at the 2
audience. I don't believe that so first of all thank you very much for coming. I don't really believe 3
that you came here to listen to our discussion. I probably were more interested in the parking or 4
some other items that would be discussing today so my apologies to you that you have to listen 5
to this. This topic is important to us and somehow there was probably not much of the thought 6
given about the agenda and this we should have discussed probably at the end of the of this 7
meeting. So my apologies again, but now let me go back to the major aspect. 8
9
So typically in the in regards to the 90 days I think that there is it's a statute driven timeline which 10
is pretty much artificial because has nothing to do with the scope of work. And I just don't want 11
to make this statement, but since there was as there was a speech about this that we should just 12
respond is typical process within any industries that pretty much you ask subordinates or 13
volunteers how much time it would take them and you take assessment of their of the time into 14
consideration. I don't believe that that statute looks into this, I thought that professionally there 15
should have been an effort to pretty much to rely on our perspective how much time it would 16
take us to review and provide comments to the Comprehensive Plan. So that's number one. 17
18
So I believe that just setting everything aside and I would just talk about some other aspects. I 19
think that I'd be willing to support some remark to the Council that would address this issue. I 20
don't believe this is professional to ask us to review it within 90 days having knowing that CAC 21
18
elaborated on this for a couple of years. Council also just took its chances to review it. So that's 1
number one it's about the 90 days. 2
3
In terms of the in the second aspect is how to do it. So the last time when we met I talk about the 4
options and I think that there are some other options. So those are the following options that I 5
was thinking of. I mean number one is that is a possibility to not to address any other elements 6
but Transportation and Land Use; those are key elements. And I think that if we were going to be 7
under some time crunch I don't know if it's going to be 90 days or longer we should probably just 8
include those, we should focus on those two only, leave everything aside. Also probably the 9
meeting the number of the meetings should be accelerated to allow us to do this work. So I don't 10
know if it's possible just, but we should probably just meet every week or maybe have three 11
meetings amounts to pretty much to meet this request. 12
13
Another aspect is that I thought that we should clearly limit our scope of review to some 14
disputable items. And I believe that there was some statement from CAC, there were maybe 15
some statements from the from the City Council, we should pretty much just decide to lock 16
ourselves in this limited review and then say ok we'll only review items that were outlined by CAC 17
as some items for discussion and maybe items from the Council perspective as well. And then we 18
should just look at those and then address this discrepancies and then we would outline our 19
position on those items. So those are the options that I was thinking of if we're going to do this in 20
much shorter time. It would pretty much reduce our scope to a much narrower number of 21
19
elements or items to discuss. 1
2
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 3
4
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Can I speak to this as well? 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, yeah. Let me just clarify something by the way I believe that we didn't adjust 7
it on the fly, but I believe we set this item up as the first item to accommodate the schedules of 8
the Commissioners who were available at the time they were available so to give them a chance 9
to participate. Go ahead Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel. 10
11
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. I could tell you the turnout at my remote site is overwhelming. 12
Let’s see so I just want to make a couple comments. One is there’s no disrespect here to the City 13
Council as Commissioner Lauing said we've looked at the codes, we've looked at the memo from 14
Director Gitelman and this is consistent with our understanding of that, but I think the bottom 15
line just to echo what Commissioner Gardias said is that if we're going to do this there are things 16
that we just need to approach it differently. We would need to define the scope. We need more 17
time. I mean I think six months might be a reasonable amount of time. We need dedicated staff 18
resources and we need a start date after the end of the summer. I mean it's just unreasonable to 19
expect this to get taken up in July and August [with] any intensity. I can't speak for other people, 20
but I have both personal and work travel booked during that period and I mean I won't even be 21
20
able to pick some of the stuff up until mid to late July. So I just think that that given all these 1
dimensions if the Council is intent on having a response 90 days after they submit it to us at the 2
end of June our best response or our best alternative is just to say we can't issue a meaningful 3
report, a meaningful analysis in that period, but we will commit to coming back as we discover 4
things in our next work, in our next task which is code review. So I just think this is the best we 5
can do given the constraints that have been handed to us. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Ok. I'm going to respond. Look, I think that this… first of all let me just address this 8
issue about vacation. City business does not revolve around Planning Commissioners travel 9
schedules. It just doesn't. 10
11
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, but the thing is this has been going on for years (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: If you can’t… if you… Hold on a second. Asher, hold on a second. 14
15
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible] the next two months just don't matter. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel (interrupted) 18
19
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: That argument just doesn’t matter. 20
21
21
Chair Alcheck: It's irrelevant if you can attend this meeting. As long as a quorum can attend the 1
City business has to continue. And if your schedule is so busy that participating in this 2
Commission becomes very difficult then I think you should rethink your participation on the 3
Commission. I need that suggestion that we can't I can't make that meeting so that meeting that 4
item should get postponed needs to stop. The notion that you're participating on one item 5
tonight and with the exclusion of the others is to me in and of itself odd. All the items that are, 6
we’re reviewing tonight deserve our attention. I understand this one is of the most importance 7
to you, but picking and choosing what things we participate in isn't necessarily a good format for 8
us to do this job. 9
10
So staff isn't on vacation. The rest of the City isn't on vacation. This Commission is not on 11
vacation and if there is items for us to review I what I'm to understand from your statement is all 12
the other items that we would be reviewing and all of those meetings somehow are less relevant 13
and therefore they can, you can miss those things and those can be dealt with in June, July, and 14
August and those could be particularly important to the individuals who apply for the items that 15
we review. So it's that is a moot point. 16
17
I also feel like basically the argument shouldn't be whether we need more time the argument 18
should be how soon can we get into this. We've already spent six weeks talking about it, thinking 19
about it. I just don't agree and I don't mean to suggest that your intent was to offend or that your 20
intent was to disrespect. My suggestion is that Council has given us direction and we asked for 21
22
that direction. We sat at this table all of us there were how many was [us], 16? How much, 16 of 1
us here and we asked them and we told them we're hungry, we want the work and the 2
suggestion that well, we're not that hungry is what I am suggesting is slightly is may in fact be 3
rude and not to suggest that you intended to do that. 4
5
So I just don't agree and I don't know how to proceed. I think we need to have a Motion put on 6
the table and if we can we can vote on it, but I think I let me just say one other thing. This 7
particular Comp Plan began at this Commission. An individual Commissioners membership on a 8
commission spans a certain number of years, but this Commission as a body has been involved in 9
this specific Comprehensive Plan from the beginning. I was a sitting Commissioner when we 10
started drafting elements of this Comp Plan. It was then those elements then served as the 11
foundation for the discussions that the CAC had and now it's coming back full circle. Needless to 12
say that we are behind schedule so while some of you may not have been here at that time it's 13
inappropriate to suggest that this Commission hasn't had a long running involvement in this 14
process. The question is whether or not you can read I don't know how many pages is the Land 15
and Transportation Element? 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: Neither of them are all that long. If I could offer a suggestion? I mean just based 18
on what the Commissioners have each said it sounds like if we took the six meetings that we've 19
scheduled out through the summer and we focused only on Land Use and Transportation and you 20
forwarded at the end of those six meetings your recommendation on those two elements we 21
23
would have met all of your objectives to some extent. Maybe everybody wouldn’t get everything 1
they want, but we would be doing some of what each of you say. We wouldn’t be putting a lot of 2
energy into other elements of the plan. We would be focusing on what's most important. We 3
would be doing it all as a group, not in subcommittees. So I guess that's where I hear this 4
Commission (interrupted) 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Are you comfortable with this sort of approach that look Commissioner Summa 7
made a good point. She was suggesting that we focus more time on Land Use and Transportation 8
which I hear you’re feedback. I'm wondering though if we're flexible, if we decide look, this 9
discussion has to continue into our next meeting and it turns into 100 days or 115 days instead of 10
90 are we comfortable with some flexibility there? 11
12
Ms. Gitelman: You know what; I think that this came up at the Council meeting. It wasn't in the 13
Motion, but I think the Council understood that you might get close to the end and you weren’t 14
going to meet the deadline and you could ask them for a little more time. But they didn't want to 15
right off the bat think you weren't going to be able to make it to 90 days. So I think it is I think it 16
would be good to start with the intention of finishing in 90 days and to focus on Transportation 17
and Land Use which I hear is where the Commission thinks you could really add value. We're 18
going to tee up key questions for you on those two elements. Our intention is not to revisit all 19
the policy options that the CAC developed and the Council has already weighed in on, but there 20
are kind of key questions in each of those elements and as a Commissioner Summa indicated in 21
24
the space between the two elements, how the two interact that we really think the Commission 1
could add some value and if you as a group devote time in each of your next six meetings to that 2
subject I think you could really add some value here. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Could I comment? 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: Thank you. I just wanted to underscore the fact that there's no news here. 9
In other words these two options were outlined as valid strategies three meetings ago and there 10
was absolutely no it's not even meant to be controversial it's meant to be a solution. The Council 11
has said in the times that they've discussed it we are going to direct it back to you, that's required 12
by law, and there's an optional report that we can do or not which is on the table and Council's 13
aware of that. It's not that we don't want to spend time on this, it's the opposite. It’s that we 14
want to spend more time on it than the current schedule allows. If you just look at the schedule 15
that's there and you say well we could only do 3 hours and be alert that's about 18 hours on all of 16
it compared to eighteen months the CAC has been working on it. So the issue is in the time 17
allowed can we come up to speed on where we are and add real value? And real value in the 18
areas of the direction that I've heard are you can look at it at a high level, but don't change much 19
and don't wordsmith things. Well of course you have to change words so you'd have to do some 20
wordsmithing. 21
25
1
So it seems to me that the they're pretty happy with where they are, that it's been sort of 2
“negotiated” over the course of months and months and months. So there's not sort of a while 3
we have a problem here we really need you guys with your expertise to dig in and take a look at it 4
that doesn't seem to be the issue. If it was that I think we'd have a different point of view relative 5
to the Motion that's being proposed here. It just seemed like a more efficient way to get the 6
Council the plan that they that they want. And then as we see tonight we also have the parking 7
study that should be due in the fall and some other things here and we have to get on to 8
California Avenue and so and so and so on. So that's the spirit of what we're doing here is just 9
trying to pick one of those two options and go with it. If we had we’re all saying this ad nauseam 10
at this point, but if we had more time and we could focus on a couple of items that would be 11
great. But we don't at this point and in fact the actual calendar year does allow for that because 12
we have about six months left in the year, but only about three months left on the proposed 13
schedule. So there is flexibility, but we would have to get Council extension which I think we 14
should get in advance not wait for 90 days. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Yeah. 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: I just want to address something that I think a lot of our colleagues 19
have brought up which is the amount of time the CAC spent versus the amount of time we need 20
to spend reviewing. I just don't think there's a relationship. A lot of things that come before us 21
26
represent years of work by staff or other committees; so the parking study for example, this is 1
something that was started years ago as was the bike master plan, as were many things and yet 2
we do it over the course of a week. We weigh in, we give advice based on our best judgment. My 3
personal belief is that these are items that we’re probably more familiar with than almost any 4
other because we're on the PTC so almost everything the CAC did that had to do with the 5
elements that we care about we followed the discussion, we may have watched the Council 6
proceedings, we may have looked through the online forums. Like these are definitely things I'm 7
far more familiar with than things that normally come in front of us. 8
9
So I'm in favor of the suggestion brought forward by Director Gitelman which I think really 10
reflects what Commissioner Summa suggested. I was more comfortable with subcommittees, but 11
I also agree that in fact if we want informal subcommittees if I just want to talk to you there's 12
nothing stopping me from doing so and so if the two of us want to get together and do a deep 13
dive on an area we can certainly do that. And for the purpose of moving forward I think that if we 14
spend all of these meetings focused on Land Use and Transportation try our best to stick to the 15
schedule that we will have fulfilled our duty. 16
17
And the final bit just my personal view on our responsibilities to Council I don't necessarily agree 18
that we need to follow if they say don't wordsmith, don't change too much, if we really think that 19
we're walking into a big mistake we're certainly free to voice our objections. What I don't think 20
we're free to do is if they say you need to review this and we’ve asked you to review this I think 21
27
we do owe them a thorough review, but I'm not sure we owe them the minimum scope of 1
review. If we choose, if we have seriously strong objections then everyone I think should be free 2
to voice those strong objections. So I think we should try to get through. If we feel like there's 3
areas where we feel very strongly about I think that we even if staff isn’t happy or Council’s not 4
happy then people should voice those. I feel good about the process to date so I personally don't 5
have major deviations from what's already there and I already know that because I've read what's 6
there. So I would be ready make a Motion on Director Gitelman’s suggestion. If there are no 7
more comments I would go forward with that. 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Ok, please do. Please make your Motion. 10
11
MOTION 12
13
Commissioner Rosenblum: I first want to check to make sure Asher [unintelligible]. Ok. Well then 14
I would make a Motion that we follow the procedure as outlined by Director Gitelman, that we 15
spend the entirety of our remaining sessions on the Comp Plan, focus on Land Use and 16
Transportation Element, that we not use the subcommittee structure, and that we try to adhere 17
to a 90 day timeline to get feedback to Council on the Comp Plan Land Use and Transportation 18
Element. 19
20
SECOND 21
28
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'll second that Motion. Do you want to speak to it? 2
3
Commissioner Rosenblum: No. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok. I'm going to make one comment on it and then we'll take a vote. I want to say 6
something in the spirit of reconciliation here it's not if as we dive into this there is a sense that we 7
are struggling to grapple with the issues effectively and the timeline I will entertain any discussion 8
or requests that we want to make to City Council to give us more time. I want us though to work 9
as a team to jump in to this crucial document headfirst and at least try. At least try to give it our 10
best shot. We have had an exceptionally light schedule for the last six months. I don't, I can't 11
take credit for it. I mean I've been efficient here, but I can't take credit for it. And it's just like in 12
life sometimes it when it rains it pours. The next three months may be a little bit more of a time 13
commitment from each of you, but consider it that you took it on the early side because it has 14
been a very light schedule for us. And most of you have four years ahead of you and this 15
document will serve as the basis for almost every decision we make on this Commission. And so I 16
really hope that we can get together on this and give it our best and if we are struggling to 17
address the concerns on this Commission as they arise we’ll ask for more time and I think that 18
that I can imagine that City Council will be amenable to that because I think they appreciate just 19
how important this document is to them as well. And I think if we give it a reasonable effort they 20
will be reasonable with our request as well. So with that I'd like to… yeah. 21
29
1
Commissioner Lauing: I’d like to ask a question about are you suggesting that the value of 2
eliminating the maker, the suggestion of evaluating, I'm sorry, eliminating the subcommittees is 3
to spend more time on the elements? 4
5
Commissioner Rosenblum: No, I actually still like subcommittees, but in the interest of just 6
squaring these circles I Commissioner Summa doesn't seem like subcommittees, others seem to 7
not like them (interrupted) 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: I love them. 10
11
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so, but I don't feel strongly enough to delay this any further. I 12
want to go forward the process and I agree with Commissioner Summa that if we want to get 13
together and decide we want to spend time I'd be happy to sit down with you, sit down with 14
Commissioner Summa and go through things as a (interrupted) 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: But up to, but only up to three people because (interrupted) 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: That's right and so we have to make sure that we’re compliant. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: So you would at least have to have unofficially assigned subcommittees so 21
30
that we wouldn't be (interrupted) 1
2
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I think the suggestion is they’re not assigned, that we self-assign 3
ourselves to things we're interested in and seek out others. So in the interest of moving forward I 4
would be happy with that. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: It would be akin to the memo. It would be akin to the memo, right? You’d go 7
together with a Commissioner to delve into sort of more specific questions and you spend time 8
with them crafting something. If Commissioners through this process and I hope honestly the 9
more we dive into this the better the result, if the Commissioners feel like spending time with 10
another Commissioner or two on specific areas of this on the off weeks of our meetings 11
informally in a way that doesn't violate the Brown Act obviously then you're welcome to do that 12
all year long. In fact, I don't I mean I don't think a week has gone, a meeting has gone by where I 13
haven't had at least a discussion with one Commissioner about a item every meeting. So it's not 14
infrequent that I'm having a conversation with a Commissioner ahead of a meeting to discuss 15
questions that they might have and I'd encourage you to do that as well. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Right, but that's not what we’re talking about. We're talking about having 18
to limit any subcommittee to three people and if the fourth person has a question none of those 19
three people can talk with them. So I think we would have to look at unofficial official meetings 20
so we wouldn't be in risk of that. 21
31
1
Chair Alcheck: Why don't we do it like this? In ahead of the meeting if there is a interest and 2
schedules permit for a Commissioner in particular to want to engage with another Commissioner 3
then maybe during our orientation we can that item can be raised and we can suggest guidelines; 4
if you're going to delve into this issue please don't have a discussion with the remaining 5
Commissioners and we can set some parameters up if that makes you feel more comfortable. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I don’t think it’s comfortable; we have to do it. It's a legal 8
requirement so and to Gardias’ point which I'll turn into a question given that we're hearing again 9
that there's no no-one’s trying to duck work here, just the opposite. We want to dig in deep. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Well the notion that we would wait until the end of the summer is in my opinion 12
putting off important work. 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: I'm not speaking to that point. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. Just to be clear. 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: I mean I'm happy to start earlier than what’s on the schedule. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: That’s what I meant. That was my point when I said we're ducking work, when I 21
32
suggested we were ducking work I was suggesting that putting off any important work simply 1
because of potential conflicts with vacations it would be inappropriate. That was my comment 2
and if you're not making that if you weren't arguing that point then… 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: I'm not. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: Not making that at all. I mean (interrupted) 9
10
Chair Alcheck: It's in here. It’s in here. It says that the issue… 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: We discussed that at the last meeting that it's not optimal timing because 13
you definitely will have people gone. No question. So, but we're not talking about that right now 14
that's a bit of an outlier. So the question based on what we are discussing here and it sounds like 15
you want to add something else Gardias is why not just go back now and say we want to dig in, 16
we want to spend more time on it, and you know let's not have an arbitrary 90 days? Let's try to 17
start a little bit earlier and go a little bit later and that's what the kind of sense of the Commission 18
is. 19
20
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I'm sorry Commissioner Lauing I mean there was a discussion about whether 21
33
the Council wanted to give this Commission up front the additional time that you requested and 1
they said no. They said please try and do it within 90 days. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: They voted on a 120 day Motion. 4
5
Ms. Gitelman: If you find towards the 90 days that you need just a little more time we would 6
entertain that kind of request. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: I mean I would like to put the Motion on the floor to a vote. That pertains to this 9
Motion? Ok. 10
11
Commissioner Summa: This is a question for staff and maybe legal staff. So the basis for this what 12
I think was offered in very good faith and memo and was offered in an attempt to actually come 13
up with a better, a better product in the end and I really appreciate my colleagues that made this 14
memo, but is isn’t basic notion that there were two legal processes and that the PTC has the right 15
to pick the one they want, is that correct? 16
17
Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Alright, Senior Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang. I 18
wouldn't characterize it that way that the PTC could choose among the options. It's more that 19
there are two avenues for amendment that are laid out in the statute and it’s just the best fit for 20
the in our opinion for the process that we've gone through was to interpret it as a Council 21
34
initiated amendment which would lead to a 90 day review period. The other possibility is to see it 1
as an amendment that the PTC started many years ago, but that would lead us to a 45 day review 2
period at this point. So we were looking at this from the lens of trying to have the most time 3
allotted under the statute for the PTC. 4
5
Commissioner Summa: And I wanted to ask Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel if he 6
would be, Waldfogel, I mean sorry, if he would be comfortable with a compromise such as we are 7
and Commissioner Lauing such as we're contemplating? 8
9
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: What kind of compromise are [unintelligible] because I [unintelligible] 10
clarity that the Council is not allowing extra time. And then just for clarity that this is what they 11
want, 90 days starting in a couple of weeks, boom, that’s it. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: I think what Commissioner Summa is asking is if this you’re asking if they're 14
interested in supporting this Motion? 15
16
Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 17
18
Chair Alcheck: How about we put it to a vote and see? 19
20
Commissioner Summa: I… in the spirit of working together I'd kind of like to hear if this Motion 21
35
helps them get to a place where they can where we can have a better working outcome and I 1
think that's what I'm interested in knowing before we vote. 2
3
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, thank you for the voice of reason. I will chime in although I'm just 4
minding out my time, but there is a substantial risk here that’s I don't know if there is any 5
assessment that this work can be done. I opened the plan element I just browsed through it; I 6
just came through a first sentence of the compact concept. I searched through the entire 7
document, I understood that this concept of the compact city is not placed well and I can argue 8
for this. And then I got scared because I'm thinking my gosh, now we're going to just go through 9
the 90 days period we're going to have multiple items like this. We're going to either restrain 10
ourselves just to leave things like this aside or we're going to just or we're going to be at the risk 11
that we will not that we will just have some long deliberations, variety of different findings, and 12
we pretty much put ourselves at risk trying to be agreeable with the Council which we of course 13
would like to be because we want to do our job well. But then risk element is great because we 14
would be risking the position of this Commission, the quality value that it provides, the advice to 15
the Council we would be risking that we could provide the advice that will be not well vetted, will 16
be not put through, so I think it's still substantial. 17
18
I think that I was proposing to limit ourselves to maybe the perspective that CAC outline in their 19
in some of their documents also look at the position look at the Council position and then focus 20
on this. If we have that those two bodies and then also if we include the work only if we scope 21
36
the work of Transportation and Land Use Elements I think it's doable within 90 days. Opening this 1
for 90 days for those two elements which of course are interesting and I'd be eager just to dive 2
into them it's I think that it carries lots of risk and it just pretty much positions us for failure. And I 3
it would be really hard for me to accept this risk without any mitigation on the horizon. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok, I appreciate that. Look, I know how hard, I know how much effort you put into 6
the work that we do here and I want to suggest that the Motion that's on the table that 7
Commissioner Rosenblum articulated represents an effort to reconcile, right? He's abandoned 8
his preference for subcommittees in an effort to create compromise with Commissioner Suma 9
who does not want any Commissioner to not be as involved as they could be on land use and 10
planning and miss out on a potential subcommittee meeting, right? It represents a compromise 11
of the schedule that we looked at originally which involved reviewing every element equally. And 12
I think the compromise that we're, I would be asking and again I would really like to put this to a 13
vote, but the compromise that I would essentially be suggesting that I would prefer you to make 14
is this notion that perfect is the enemy of good, right? 15
16
We're going to spend what looks like close to over an hour discussing how best to address this 17
item and that it's and the concern is that we won't be able to do it perfectly. That's what you just 18
said and I'm I would respond to you by saying perfect is the enemy of good. We need to do a 19
good or great job and if we attempt to do a perfect job you're right (interrupted) 20
21
37
Commissioner Gardias: No, no. My apologies, I didn't say this. I didn't say that I cannot, to the 1
contrary I was just talking about the risk. The risk is too big and then pretty much I was in order 2
to compromise I was willing just to a proposed the Friendly Amendment to the Motion that's on 3
the table if you were going to accept it. And I will in a moment because I still think that just 4
having those two elements for 90 days it's not enough time even if we commit ourselves and then 5
there may be a number of the occurrences and there may be disagreements so we pretty much 6
risk our position and outcome if we just accept this rigid limitation, even if it's going to be just 7
lifted by Council and they give us two weeks. Because it's going to be nothing if we could just 8
come to some disagreement and then pretty much the amount of disagreement in those two 9
elements may be too large. So that’s what I wanted to say. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: I'm an optimist here. Go ahead. 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: I just want to ask a question again. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Hold on, hold on. I’m sorry. Did you have an amendment? 16
17
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I'd like to (interrupted) 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Go ahead. 20
21
38
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 1
2
Commissioner Gardias: Some amendment, but and ok. So the amendment, Friendly Amendment, 3
is to limit the scope to the items outlined in CAC documents as well as the items proposed by the 4
Council and focus work on the Comprehensive Plan review on the ending positions of those two 5
bodies. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: I'm not sure that’s… 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Understand the… I'm not sure I understand the proposed amendment. 10
You said to concentrate on I said could you restate please? 11
12
Commissioner Gardias: Yes. It's to focus on the CAC issued document which outlined items of 13
disagreement. I don't remember this document precisely, but I know that there is such a 14
document. And then also look at the Council position and work on those two perspectives. 15
16
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 17
18
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, so as the maker of the original Motion I don't think I want to add 19
this and I'll tell you why. Staff is going to be preparing a package and as Director Gitelman already 20
said they have what they believe are the key items that Council is grappling with and that staff 21
39
would like to clarity on and I think that they probably will use the documents you cite as a starting 1
place for that, but I don't want to right now dictate how they should be writing their directive to 2
us. So I think it's fine to say you should take that into consideration, that should be a strong part 3
of what you come back to us with, and I'm sure they're going to be using it, but to now say we 4
want as our directive to look at these, this memo and that the items that Council may have 5
disagreed with or had discussion on as our charter I think is narrow. I think that staff and I trust 6
our staff enough to be able to take that into consideration and give us back the key items. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: So that the reason why I was proposing this that when CAC pretty much 9
defined the Comprehensive Plan for the last 18 months agreed there was an agreement on a 10
number of items and then if I don't know how CAC worked, but I'm sure that if there was an 11
agreement pretty much we can trust those decisions. So if we were going to review those items 12
that are subject of the final disagreements between Council and CAC we would have to pretty 13
much reopen the process of the entire elements review or maybe even more. But then just we 14
can try, I was thinking that we can trust in Council and CAC if we if they agreed on the majority of 15
those items and only commit ourselves to those that are subject of agreement. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: Of this agreement. 20
21
40
Chair Alcheck: Thanks for that explanation. Ed do you have or Commissioner Lauing do you have 1
a comment? 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I had a question again I guess appropriately to the maker, but to 4
anybody who wants to comment on it: we're not presupposing at the end of 90 days anything 5
with respect to the report, correct? So at the end of 90 days in your Motion we would just be at 6
90 days. We could decide to make a report then that supports it or rejects it or we could still 7
decline to send a report, correct? 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I mean hold on let me just a process clarification here. At the end of 90 days 10
if you don't feel like this Comprehensive Plan is sufficient for the purposes of adoption then you'll 11
have the opportunity to tell City Council that. You'll have the opportunity to advise City Council 12
that in your opinion this Comprehensive Plan which represents all of the work that it represents 13
isn't good enough work product to pass it. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: Right. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: You have that prerogative only after you review it. Not reviewing it does not give 18
you the opportunity to make that statement and so, but accepting this Motion tonight does not 19
suggest that you will of course approve it. 20
21
41
Commissioner Lauing: Right. That’s what I just said is that we're not making any presumptions 1
about what's at the end nor are we frankly in this context making an assumption that it's going to 2
end in 90 days. 3
4
Chair Alcheck: And I'll add if you feel at the end of the 90 day period that we didn't have we 5
weren’t in opposition of let's say a majority of Commission members that we didn't have a 6
sufficient opportunity to review you could always abstain or present your objection at that time 7
too. 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: Right, that’s what I’m saying. That’s exactly what I'm saying. I'm trying to 10
clarify and help the maker. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: That, those are my only point. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: No, no, no. I’m going to call… no, I don't think we need to restate it. Ok 17
(interrupted) 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: Somebody has it written down. 20
21
42
Chair Alcheck: I’ll well, let’s restate it. Actually does staff want to restate it? 1
2
Ms. Gitelman: I believe the Motion was consistent with what we had suggested most recently 3
which is to focus the Commission’s six meetings within the next 90 days on Land Use and 4
Transportation, no subcommittees. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Do we have to have six meetings in there as part of the Motion? I mean 7
what if we decide that we want to ramp up and do twelve? Each one of those… 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so as the maker of the Motion I thought six was a reasonable 10
number. I think it's a pretty even to try to balance concerns around the amount of 11
time/work/effort I think having six meetings scheduled to have at least a quorum of this group 12
reviewing intensively one element and as Director Gitelman said it's not that long. And I do 13
intend to explore what Commissioner Gardias had suggested which are all the areas of 14
disagreement and choices. I intend to talk to individual CAC members, etcetera. So I think that 15
having six hearings, six meetings is sufficient. So to me if people wanted to suggest more or 16
fewer I'm open to it, but I think that sounds like a reasonable number. 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: I just raised it because it's I think unnecessarily limiting. So if we get two 19
months into it and we say if we really cranked it and met every week for the next four weeks we 20
could get this thing done. 21
43
1
Chair Alcheck: You never know, maybe we get it done in four meetings. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Right. That’s what I’m saying so why pick six? 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 6
7
Commissioner Summa: I was just (interrupted) 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah I just with the whole respect I just I think that items like how many 10
meetings or are we going to have subcommittees or not are the technicalities. So I just you know 11
(interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Yeah (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Gardias: We can always reorganize ourselves and then adjust, right? 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, let’s just (interrupted) 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: Internal organization doesn’t have to be a subject of this discussion or the 20
Motion at this moment. 21
44
1
Chair Alcheck: I couldn't agree with you more. Let's not focus on that particular particularly of 2
that Motion because in all fairness you could make a Motion in the first week of the first meeting 3
and if there was enough support you could adopt the Comprehensive Plan recommendation at 4
that meeting. There… you have a lot of flexibility here. The question is are we going to try. So 5
with that I’m going to call to a vote. All those (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Gardias: Hold on a second, just a moment. I'd like to use the process. There is a 8
process. So there was a Friendly Amendment which was not accepted so I'd like to use the rules 9
of meeting. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Unfriendly Amendment? Ok. 12
13
Commissioner Gardias: And just pretty much continue, may I? 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Well we have a Motion on the floor so unless you’re going to make an Unfriendly 16
Amendment? 17
18
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, exactly. That's what I'm trying to do, ok? 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Please do. 21
45
1
Commissioner Gardias: I think that I can propose Unfriendly Amendment to focus on the areas of 2
to focus I will state it like this: to focus primarily on the areas of disagreement. 3
4
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Is there a second? 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: You want to understand what I'm talking about? It is pretty much I'm 7
trying just to make a step toward what you're saying. It’s pretty much that if we go (interrupted) 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Again it’s the same (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: First, if you want to go through deeper through the elements I'm fine with 12
this. 13
14
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I again I think it's exactly the same as the previous amendment 15
to me in the sense that I believe staff I mean I’m happy to right now make a statement staff 16
please include the elements of disagreement in the report that is given to us. At the same time I 17
don't think it's appropriate for us right now to limit staff in any way to what they think we should 18
be discussing. And I trust staff to pull out those elements. I agree with you areas of 19
disagreement would naturally be an area that we would want to delve into. Why was there 20
disagreement among members of the CAC? Why was there disagreement among members of 21
46
Council? So I agree with you in principle I just think having this is part of the Motion is a bit 1
limiting to staff who may want to have many other things in there as well. And all of us can easily 2
reference what were elements of disagreement because that was written up in a specific report 3
with choices by the CAC and was debated at Council. So I agree with your spirit of this, I just don't 4
think it really fits in a Motion to I and to be blunt about this I agree with the points around how 5
many meetings, subcommittees not subcommittees, to summarize what I really want to do is to 6
say we want to kick off the process now with a good faith effort to try to finish it this summer. So 7
that's the spirit of what we are attempting to pass right now. 8
9
SUBSTITUTE MOTION #1 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: So I will respond. It's not about the staff, it's about us and pretty much 12
the Motion would be to limit us. Just to go through this my intention was just to go through the 13
areas of disagreement first and then focus on those. If we do it within a short period of time then 14
I am fully supporting your effort to dive deeper into the elements. I had my reservations, but I 15
was willing just to make this step forward, but I still would like to just have it as part of the 16
Motion because I think this should be pretty much restraint on ourselves. So if you don't accept it 17
then I would like to just propose Substitute Motion and then Substitute Motion pretty much has 18
the same language as Mike and Eric proposed with addition of the focus of the primary focus on 19
the of the areas of disagreement. 20
21
47
Chair Alcheck: Ok, is there a second? 1
2
SECOND 3
4
Commissioner Summa: I’ll second. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: That means it goes immediately to a vote. Do you want to speak to your Motion 7
before we vote? 8
9
Commissioner Summa: I think we’re, we've had a hard discussion tonight because we're not in 10
agreement and I think it I personally feel that those areas would have been emphasized in our 11
discussion anyway, but I don't think it hurts to add them in the Motion to just make sure that they 12
don't get overlooked. So I'm fine with it. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: So to be clear your Motion, the Motion is to make it exclusive. 15
16
Commissioner Summa: No, to add it to yours. 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Inclusive. To make sure that we look at differences is how I understood it. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: So hold on, let me understand something. Your first Friendly Amendment was to 21
48
suggest that we exclusively look at the areas of disagreement because you felt like there wouldn't 1
be there was too much risk if the area of review is too great. Your substantive [Note-Substitute] 2
Motion is that we in addition to what was going to be reviewed we make sure we emphasize our 3
review on those items as well which I presume would be in the review by default. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: That's correct. So my first was Friendly was to have it exclusively. Then I 6
just made a step forward Commissioner Rosenblum and I said that my proposal was to focus 7
primarily on the areas of disagreement still leaving the being open (interrupted) 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Leaving the freedom to review everything. 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: We can just dive deeper into the elements if the time allows. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Ok, can I (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Gardias: But pretty much with this (interrupted) 16
17
Chair Alcheck: I got it. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: With this revision I would like to ensure that we from start we look at the 20
areas of disagreement and then pretty much we would be able to control ourselves against this 21
49
90 days benchmark. If we can just go through them with over one or two meetings you pretty 1
much have another number of meetings that you can commit to a number of the discussions. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: Ok (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: But then pretty much if we will be locking down on a number of 6
discussions related to those areas of disagreement it might take us through the entire 90 days. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Let me ask staff a question real quick. Do you interpret these two Motions as 9
substantively different? In your mind the Motion to kick off the process is it substantively 10
different than a Motion to kick off the process and pay particularly close attention to the 11
disagreements between, raised by the document that Commissioner Gardias is highlighting? 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: Well I think I'll just respond by saying I thought Commissioner Rosenblum 14
characterized our intentions as staff perfectly clearly which is I mean we'd like an opportunity to 15
bring to the Commission in our professional judgment a list of what the unresolved or key issues 16
are in each of these elements. If you want to then deviate from that list and focus on other things 17
that's of course your prerogative, but I think we as staff feel like it's our responsibility to do some 18
homework and give you the best kind of context and setting and tee up the most important 19
questions for your work. Some of those may be areas that there were disagreement on the CAC 20
or between the CAC and the Council, but I think those are not the exclusive issues we will identify 21
50
for you. 1
2
Chair Alcheck: Ok, so here's I'm going to summarize really quickly the process situation that we 3
are in right now. We have a Motion on the floor by Commission Rosenblum which in essence 4
which is to kick off this process and identifies that the bulk of our meetings will focus on the Land 5
Use and Transportation Element. that Motion was seconded. Substantive [Note-Substitute] 6
Motion has been introduced and excuse me, a Substitute Motion has been… No, it’s an 7
Unfriendly. 8
9
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Well he’s making an Unfriendly Amendment which you need to 10
vote on to see if it carries with (interrupted) 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Right. There's an Unfriendly Amendment on the table that has been seconded, 13
excuse my characterization there. There’s an Unfriendly Amendment on the table which needs to 14
receive a vote before we can vote on the Motion which is to direct the Commission in its review 15
to focus on the areas of disagreement as outlined in the documents identified by Commissioner 16
Gardias primarily before reviewing other areas of potential importance in the Comprehensive 17
Plan review that we are kicking off. So before we vote on the Motion I'd like to take a vote on 18
whether we have a majority of individuals here that support this Unfriendly Amendment. All 19
those (interrupted) 20
21
51
Commissioner Lauing: I still need to understand if I understand. 1
2
Chair Alcheck: It's a little complicated and to some extent it’s (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Is it to focus on differences or to look at things inclusive of differences? 5
6
Chair Alcheck: I don't believe Commissioner Gardias is excluding areas that are not in this list, but 7
he wants us to begin this list before we move on. Is that right? 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct. I mean first of all it's a Substitute Motion it's not the 10
Unfriendly Amendment, right? That's how we ended up? 11
12
Chair Alcheck: I think it has to be an Unfriendly Amendment because you can't make a Motion 13
until we deal with the Motion on the table. So if you want to withdraw your Unfriendly 14
Amendment and make a Motion. 15
16
Mr. Lait: So there is a procedure where a Commissioner could offer a Substitute Motion and that 17
would have precedence over the Motion that's on the floor. 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Oh. Would you like me to treat it as a Substitute Motion? 20
21
52
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, please (interrupted) 1
2
Mr. Lait: Ok, so I just don't know if the seconder understood that as a Substitute Motion versus a 3
Unfriendly Amendment. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Alright, so it's not an Unfriendly Amendment. Commissioner Gardias would like to 6
treat this as a Substitute Motion which means that we are going to set aside the Motion by 7
Rosenblum if the Substitute Motion is supported by a seconder. So I want to be clear are you 8
interested in seconding the Substitute Motion? 9
10
Commissioner Summa: I thought I already did. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: No, you seconded… oh, in that case, ok. So staff was concerned that maybe you 13
thought you were seconding a (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Summa: Yes my understanding (interrupted) 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Unfriendly Amendment. 18
19
Commissioner Summa: Yes and my understanding, my intention was because he, I believe 20
Commissioner Gardias’ intention is to make sure that we really take a thorough look at the areas 21
53
where the CAC did not come to a consensus and I don't think it hurts to add it to the Motion 1
because I think that was probably the intention of staff anyhow. So I think it's fine to give that a 2
surety. 3
4
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION #1 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Let’s vote. All those in favor of the Substitute Motion to kick off the process 7
and have Commissioners focus on the areas of disagreement as outlined by the documents 8
Commissioner Gardias highlighted before moving on to other areas of relevance please say aye 9
and raise your hand. Ok, we have two. All those opposed to this Substitute Motion please say 10
aye and raise your hand. 11
12
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Opposed. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: Ok, that's four. Alright, I'm going to try to do this as efficiently as possible. We 15
have a Motion on the floor which is to in essence kick off this review period and to focus our 16
review on the Land Use and Transportation Element exhaustively on a number of meetings to be 17
determined between four and six. All those in favor of Commissioner Rosenblum’s Motion please 18
say aye and raise your hand. 19
20
SUBSTITUTE MOTION #1 FAILED (2-4-0-1, Commissioner Monk absent) 21
54
1
Commissioner Lauing: This is inclusive of the differences or whatever, right? 2
3
Chair Alcheck: This is an this is kicking off the process you can review anything you want in 4
anticipation of there is nothing outside of the review. 5
6
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, from a process standpoint Chair the original Motion said six 7
meetings. I would be supportive of saying six, at least six meetings. 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Oh, ok. 10
11
Commissioner Rosenblum: And then obviously we can vote later to change that, but just to make 12
sure that we’re not doing (interrupted) 13
14
VOTE 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok, sorry. I misunderstood I thought you edited that earlier. Ok, so I think we're 17
clear on what the Motion is. All those in favor of supporting the Motion please raise your hand 18
and say aye. That’s four in favor. All those imposed [Note-opposed]? 19
20
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: No. 21
55
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok that's two opposed and we have one absent. Would you like to speak to your 2
opposition or are we comfortable moving on? 3
4
MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Gardias and Waldfogel opposed, Monk absent) 5
6
Commissioner Gardias: I think I already outlined the risk. It's clear in the meeting minutes. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel do you care to speak to your 9
opposition? 10
11
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I think that the points have been made verbally and in the memo that 12
there’s just not enough time to do a good job. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. Thank you. 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Just a moment we're still I thought that there was more that we can just 17
discuss? Can we just (interrupted) 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Here’s what I’m going to say, we’ve spent an hour and 20 minutes on an item that I 20
was hoping would take us 20 minutes. There is a packed agenda tonight. In the interest of time I 21
56
will give you two minutes to ask any questions or deal with any issues, but I really want to wrap 1
this up. 2
3
Commissioner Gardias: I think that the burden and this comments should not be to me, but 4
rather those that scheduled this meeting. So I just with the whole respect would like you to ask 5
you not to make such comments that somebody else should take responsibility for. So I'd like to 6
just mention go to the memo that was prepared by the colleagues and with the interest of 7
exploring the process I still believe that it's flawed having 90 days’ timetable. If we do nothing 8
this issue is going to come back a few years from now and there will be another Commission and 9
there will be another Commission will be put in front of the same restrictions and there may be a 10
similar discussion. So I think that my proposal is still look at the memo that our colleagues wrote. 11
I made couple of changes to the memo and I was hoping that we can hopefully unanimously if 12
there will be interest to propose it to the City Council for the vote. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: Ok, we just our action item was to decide how we are going to proceed on the 15
review of the Comprehensive Plan. We just had a Motion that passed to kick off that review 16
which essentially suggests that the Motion on the back page of this document was rejected by a 17
majority of the Commissioners even though we didn't vote on it. It wasn’t made or seconded and 18
the one that was made and seconded was approved. 19
20
Commissioner Gardias: I totally understand. I mean did you understand what I said? I said that I 21
57
modified this memo (interrupted) 1
2
Chair Alcheck: You want to make some amendments to this and suggest (interrupted) 3
4
Commissioner Gardias: That’s right. I believe (interrupted) 5
6
Chair Alcheck: But it's off the table. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: I believe that, excuse me, I believe that for the for the future interest 9
there needs to be some action taken by the Council that we should just express to the Council 10
one way or the other that they should modify either the code or some other process because few 11
years from now there is going to be a similar issue as we just went through. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: So I’m not… staff do you have any suggestions on how we should (interrupted) 14
15
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think if the Commissioner’s request is that we agendize sometime a 16
discussion of how we can improve in the future we can do that, but it wouldn't be proper to have 17
that conversation now. This was agendized really for the discussion of this current review cycle, 18
but that's something we could take up at a later date and would appreciate your thoughts. 19
20
Commissioner Gardias: Very good. Thank you. Let’s do this then. 21
58
1
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 2
3
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Alright. With that I’m closing this item. 6
7
8
Commission Action: Motion made by Commissioner Rosenblum, Seconded by Chair Alcheck to 9
1. Use all meetings to review land use and transportation element 10
2. No subcommittees 11
Motion passed 4-2 (Gardias, Waldfogel against) 12
13
14
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00015]: 15
Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Denial of a Conditional Use Permit 16
for Operation of the New Mozart School of Music at an Existing Church Facility. 17
Environmental Assessment: In Accordance with the California Environmental Quality 18
Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270 CEQA Does not Apply to Projects Which a Public 19
Agency Disapproves. Zoning District: R-1 (10,000). For More Information, Please 20
Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 21
22
Chair Alcheck: Staff can we begin with the next item on the agenda? 23
24
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yes and I think before Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] 25
Waldfogel hangs up the phone I understand he's conflicted on the next item and I just want to 26
give him an opportunity to speak to that conflict and recuse himself from the discussion. Our 27
next project is 305 South California, North California. 28
59
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok, Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel would you address the nature of 2
the conflict? 3
4
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I live within 500 feet of the subject property. 5
6
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Alright, well thank you and I appreciate you participating in the item and 7
wherever you are we'll talk to you soon. I see we have to disconnect is that what has to happen? 8
9
Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, I’ll drop off. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Oh, ok. Alright, are we comfort… oh wait, you know what? Before I move on I 12
have two speaker cards here that say Agenda Item 2. On the revised agenda what we just did 13
was Agenda Item 2. I suspect that [Tim Cain] and Sarah Burgess are here to speak about Cal Ave. 14
Ok, I just wanted to clarify. Alright so let's move on. 15
16
Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m Clare Hodgkins, Project 17
Planner for this project. Tonight we have before you a request for a hearing on the Director's 18
tentative decision to deny the applicants request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The New 19
Mozart School of Music proposed use of the site the First Baptist Church as a music school 20
providing private one on one and small group lessons. The proposed use is consistent with the 21
60
City's definition of a personal service use and the proposed to use is not a permitted use in the R-1
1 zone district. Just a bit about the background, the City's Code Enforcement Division issued two 2
Notices of Violation between February and December of 2016. In January the applicant applied 3
for of 2017 the applicant applied for a CUP which the Director of Planning subsequently 4
tentatively denied. 5
6
Again the for key considerations of the application was denied because staff was unable to make 7
the determination that the project met the zoning code and that continued operation of the 8
music school was not detrimental to the general well welfare. It must be noted that 9
fundamentally the proposed use is not permitted in the R-1 zone district and therefore must be 10
denied. It should also be noted that the City has received correspondence from a number of area 11
residents documenting negative impacts related to the subject school’s unpermitted use of the 12
site. Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend 13
denial of the proposed project to Council based on the findings included in the Draft Record of 14
Land Use Auction. And with that I'll turn it back to you. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: OK. So walk me through this do I need to allot 15 minutes to the applicant 17
(interrupted) 18
19
Mr. Lait: Yeah, [unintelligible]. That’s correct. 20
21
61
Chair Alcheck: [Unintelligible] and then at what point after that I do speaker cards and then 1
there's a rebuttal? Ok. Ok, would that applicant please approach and give me one minute to set 2
your time. Ok I’m setting you up for 15 minutes. Please begin. 3
4
Charlie Bronitsky: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Good evening, my name is Charlie Bronitsky. I'm 5
representing the New Mozart School of Music. With me today is Christine Shin. Her husband 6
Paul and their son are in Oaxaca actually this week on Homestay, learning about new cultures 7
which I think is a wonderful thing in today's world, but that's why they can't be here. 8
9
The New Mozart School of Music is the epitome of a small business providing this community 10
with a service that it doesn't otherwise have. It teaches music in singularly or in small groups to 11
mostly elementary school age children. It's regrettable for us that we're here today. We really 12
didn't want to be here today. We didn't want to be adverse to the City in any way. We didn't 13
want to be a problem to the neighbors. The fact is however that the school has been there a 14
while because the church didn't know and the school didn't know that they needed a CUP. When 15
the notice came out in February I contacted the City right away. There's a gap between the two 16
notices. I think what happened was that your code enforcement officer had medical leave, but 17
we've been attentive to this from the beginning. 18
19
When we first started working with Claire she and we all believed that this was a mere formality 20
that the school, the school as I've pointed out in the application that we originally submitted 21
62
teaches has only one group class and there's never more than 10 kids in there; all the rest are 1
single person-single child. single teacher-single child. So at most there could be 26 people at 2
school and that rarely ever happens. What we didn't know at the time and we've come to learn 3
over the time is there's concurrent use there, ok? And so really this started out as an issue with 4
the parking. The City it wasn't until just a week ago from today that the City first took the 5
position, staff took the position that it's not it's personal service not private elementary. Because 6
private elementary, excuse me, private education does qualify. 7
8
So we went along since last October when we were going through this whole process every one 9
of us was understanding that we could get a CUP we just had to meet the guidelines. And it was 10
supposed to initially be a pretty informal process. I said you know we're going to need time to do 11
architectural drawings, staff said to me oh no just sketches. I did the sketches myself. I have no 12
artistic talent, but I did the sketches myself. We submitted them; I provided the City with 13
everything that we knew about the concurrent uses at the time. Staff got back to us and said 14
they wanted dimension plans so we hired an architect, a designer or I don't remember which and 15
we provided dimension plans. 16
17
Then towards the end of the process the City started to meet with the church having learned 18
about some other uses. And I think having read the emails and other correspondence from the 19
neighbors I think most of what they're objecting to are some of these other uses, but so far other 20
than a meeting we're sort of being isolated out for enforcement of this when really the impact, 21
63
the reason for it being denied isn't caused by us. We don't have that volume of student, we don't 1
have that volume of person. We also offered in our application to reduce the size of the school, 2
to change the hours of the school not to operate in certain times and staff really didn't ever 3
respond to that. But like I said when I started we really didn't want to become adverse so if the 4
City doesn't really want us to be there and we're a problem for the neighbors we're willing to 5
move. And I expressed this to staff and staff acknowledged to me on the telephone that process 6
takes three to six months because you've got to build out the space, you've got to get those plans 7
approved, you’ve got to do the construction; all that stuff takes time. Ok, but I said ok we are 8
willing to withdraw this if you give us the time and they said no, they would give us 30 days. We 9
can't move this place in 30 days, ok? Moving this place in 30 days destroys the small business, 10
takes all these children who are getting music education and says no more education for you, ok? 11
12
So we're here today because we have no choice. We really feel that there are issues that the staff 13
should have considered and we would recommend that the Commission send this matter back to 14
staff to further examine all what is actually causing the impact that the neighbors are having a 15
problem with. We would recommend that the Commission send this back to consider the options 16
of a potential smaller school. We would ask that the Commission and I'm going to address this 17
now from sort of the legal argument, my apology for that, but this whole concept of personal 18
services versus private education. 19
20
So in the municipal code there's definitions and really the school sort of comes under both 21
64
definitions. It is it does provide so for personal services one of the things is art, dance or music 1
studios intended for an individual or small group person in a class. But private educational 2
facilities says a privately owned school including schools… that doesn’t matter, offering 3
instruction in the several branches of learning and study required to be taught in the public 4
schools by the education code of California. So here's my legal argument, sorry; Education Code 5
Section 51210 it provides that for first through sixth grade students in elementary schools in the 6
State of California are required to be taught and I quote, “visual and performing arts including 7
instruction in the subjects of dance, music, theater, and visual arts aimed at the development of 8
appreciation of aesthetic development of aesthetic appreciation and skills of creative expression. 9
So in fact this school does qualify in this instance it would be personal services, but it's also 10
private education because it provides one of the mandated sources of education here. 11
12
But now to take it to another legal height, sorry, here's the fundamental problem I see in that 13
distinction that distinction in my opinion is a violation of the First Amendment of the United 14
States Constitution. And why is that? Is because you're that distinction if it's in accordance with 15
the way staff interprets it versus the way I interpret it is you have now determined that because a 16
school doesn't teach math or science or English, but instead teaches music or art the context that 17
that school can’t exist in a certain location and that is context based law prohibiting speech. And 18
there's a case just from couple of years ago it's Reed versus the Town of Gilbert, Arizona, I'm sure 19
the City Attorney will take a look at this, and it deals really with signs. And it says that if your sign 20
ordinance for a church is different in size than your sign ordinance for other things that's context 21
65
based violation of the First Amendment right freedom of speech. This is really no different 1
because what you're what the law says is because you teach this type of thing you can't be here. 2
That's like saying ok well it can be a church, but it can't be a synagogue, it can't be a mosque. 3
That's a violation of the First Amendment and we believe that the law itself is problematic in that 4
way, but again the issue for us isn't that. 5
6
We think this was, this that the CUP is proper. We think that there are conditions that could be 7
imposed on the school to stay at that location, but again we are willing not to be in a fight. All we 8
ask is that and I you’ll have to ask the City Attorney, I know the City Council has the power to that, 9
I don't know if you can to tell the code enforcement folks to give us the time. We've asked for 10
what I asked for was right between the three in the six months, four and a half months, so the 11
end of October with the right to come back and we can come back here if we can prove that 12
we've been diligent doing everything we can, but for something outside of our control we need 13
another short period of time just to get the build out done and we'll be gone. Because we don't 14
want to fight, we don't want to be adverse to the City, we want to run the school. We want the 15
school to be an amenity to Palo Alto. We want the kids to have continue to have this great 16
education and we want to support the small businesses. 17
18
So again I don't know so if it's not within your power I can tell you I know so my background 19
personally in my other life is I spent I live in Foster City. I spent four years as a Planning 20
Commissioner. I'm now in my eighth year on the City Council. I’m currently the mayor of Foster 21
66
City. And I’ve faced issues just like you're facing now when there's code regulation and staff 1
doing its best job to stick to the letter of the law, but the job of planning commissions, the job of 2
city councils is to [add sense] to some practical reality, some compassion, some understanding, 3
some humanity into that process and that's what we're asking for. We don't want to fight. So if 4
the City Attorney says it's not within your purview to stay the code enforcement action then what 5
we would do is we'd recommend that you make that recommendation to the City Council 6
because I know they can. 7
8
Fortunately I didn't use up all my 15 minutes, but again I really want to thank you for your time. 9
The school loves being here in Palo Alto, has loved being here in the church. We understand the 10
frustration of the neighbors. We understand the position of the City. All we ask is for some 11
reasonable amount of time to be able to go to a location where everything is just fine. So thank 12
you very much. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. We're going to open it up to public comment now, but I suspect that 15
Commissioners may have some questions for the applicant later so stick around please. The first 16
speaker card I have is from Sarah Burgess. Please come up and then after Sarah will be [Tim 17
Cain]. I'm going to provide you with five minutes. 18
19
Sarah Burgess: Thank you. I live (buzzer) 20
21
67
Chair Alcheck: Hold on. 1
2
Ms. Burgess: Thank you. Just to quickly go to the issue of more time I live around the corner from 3
the church. I'm aware from some of the other neighbors that this matter was first brought to the 4
City's attention in 2016. I think it was it's in the records, but it was early in 2016 and it's been 5
extended. I got involved when I got a notice of the application for the permit that's here today. 6
That was in February and at that time I know that Claire in her email because I went through and 7
reviewed the file had notified the school that they were inclined to not allow the permit process 8
and this was strictly on the basis of it being as a school. So it's been at least now four months that 9
the school has known that it was unlikely that the City was going to recommend allowing of the 10
permit. 11
12
But if I can speak to the problems that we have they've been ongoing and they've been getting 13
worse. And it's a problem with traffic and it's a problem with parking. It's easy to say that it's just 14
very few students, but most of the students that come the parents drop them off and they 15
appear to wait during their lessons sitting in the car reading. And so if you have 20 cars you have 16
20 cars at drop off and at pick up and they're overlapping. So that's 40 cars just from the Mozart 17
School of Music. The church has a very small parking lot, it's really only five spaces; the three 18
spaces in the back belong to [Nitze which] to Palo Alto Community Childcare which owns the 19
property separately, but I do believe has the allowance for the church to use their spots on the 20
weekends. And out of the eight spots that are remaining three are marked off one for disabled 21
68
parking, one for the pastor, and one for a psychologist who uses the building. So there are only 1
five spaces there at drop off and pick up which is prime music lesson time for the preschool. 2
3
All the cars for the parents trying to come in and go through have to go through this space 4
through the parking lot. The result is that none of the Mozart School of Music parents park in the 5
parking lot. Even if there were any spaces they don't. They all park along North California. It's a 6
prime bike route to and from Jordan for middle school kids. It connects Bryant the bike 7
boulevard for all the high school kids who are going back and forth to school with Middlefield, 8
another artery, with all the bike routes that have been prepared by the City now. And it's 9
extremely dangerous cars pull in and out they double park. I've seen cars just sit a parked 10
sideways through the bike lane. They sit on the corners. They sit up and down all the artery 11
streets. They come around the corner into my block and park on my block as well. So it's an 12
unbelievable number of cars and its impacting the neighborhood. We bought our house 25 years 13
ago around the corner from a church and we thought that was lovely, but no one in the 14
neighborhood bought a house around the corner from a school or a community center. Thank 15
you. 16
17
Chair Alcheck: [Tim Cain]. 18
19
[Tim Cain]: Thank you. We moved in over 25 years ago three houses away from the church and 20
I've seen a lot of change in that time. It seems that there has been quite a bit of increased traffic 21
69
on South Court which tees into North California right at the church parking lot. It's very difficult 1
to find space to park our own cars. The curb space is almost always completely dominated and as 2
a frequent dog walker I'm very aware of the comings and goings and the general activity in the 3
neighborhood and I was never aware of the actual moving in of the school. I don't know what 4
buildout delay may have taken place before they could move in. Didn't seem like there was much 5
build out to do at all. It seems like it's generic room space to me and I don't know if that's in 6
grave shortage in the County or whether that's hard to find, but it didn't appear to my eyes that it 7
was difficult for them to move in. And so I wonder if it should take four to six months for them to 8
find another place that is zoned properly for the kind of traffic that they generate. Thank you. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is [Mahendra Rancho]. Ok. There isn't a process for 11
yielding an individual's time. Are you declining the opportunity? Ok, that’s fine. Our next 12
speaker is Becky Sanders. Oh, I’m so sorry. Our next speaker is [Laura Citel]. 13
14
Laura Citel: Thank you, my points have already been made. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Well then that concludes our public comment. Oh, please hand us your card. 17
Hand one of the staff members your card and they’ll give it to me. Thanks for speaking up. If 18
there's any other speaker cards on this item please bring them forward. You will have five 19
minutes to speak. This is Rick is that Mixon? 20
21
70
Rick Mixon: Mixon. I'm the landlord. I am the Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. I am 1
not a CEO and I have certainly not legal expert. I'm a pastor so I apologize for whatever gaffes the 2
church has made in this process, but we don't want to do anything but be good neighbors. The 3
people who have spoke tonight I have never actually met before. I this afternoon at my own 4
effort downloaded a 75 page document from the City that I was able to at least scan through this 5
afternoon, but from the church's standpoint there are dozens of issues that I'd like to raise, but 6
I'm not I'm going to try to focus on the fact that this is a very complex and convoluted process 7
that’s been taken I think out of context. I think the cart got before the horse in terms of the New 8
Mozart School. I think the City needs to look seriously at our entire use and put the New Mozart 9
School in in that context before you make a decision on what to do about the New Mozart School. 10
11
There are significant issues of… Well, let me put it this way, the church’s survival we’re a small 12
congregation with a large public building which we are responsible for keeping in good shape and 13
keeping open and available to the public, keeping keep it up as part of a expensive neighborhood 14
and we don't have the resources to do that without renting our space or sharing our space. And 15
that's the reality of churches in this age 2017. So the what I've seen from the documentation of 16
the City is that we're really dealing with a kind of outdated code that doesn't recognize the reality 17
of church life in this area in this day and time. 18
19
I think the neighbors’ complaints that I read there are some really legitimate complaints and 20
concerns. We're concerned about some of those same things, but I think we definitely need time 21
71
I'm saying for the as far as the church is concerned this is really basically all new to us and we 1
need time to look at this whole processing, this whole concern in context of the churches in need, 2
of the neighborhoods need, we want to be good neighbors. I think some of the things that can 3
that have been raised can be resolved. There is significant misinformation and 4
miscommunication that's gone on in this process. There was a misunderstanding that Charlie 5
somehow represented the church so all the communications between the City and then the New 6
Mozart went to Charlie. I never saw any of them until today. So I would really urge you to find 7
some way to postpone making a decision on this and to look at it in its entirety. Thank you. 8
9
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Our I have an additional speaker card from [Margie Cain]. 10
11
[Margie Cain]: Thank you. I live close by too, just three blocks with [Tim Cain]. I mean three 12
houses, sorry. And I just have three points. One is I've lived there 25 years and you've never 13
introduced yourself to me either so I've never met you too; it kind of goes both ways. We were 14
happy to have a church down the street we moved in. I know this church has been struggling and 15
I would think that this would be a good time to work on strengthening the congregation as 16
opposed to renting out rooms. I'd really like to see that. I think it would do more for the 17
neighborhood. 18
19
My biggest complaint is I think it's an accident waiting to happen. If you're there between four 20
and six o'clock as Sarah mentioned there are cars parked all along California. The biggest thing is 21
72
they park on the corner and they block visibility for all drivers. There are kids running back and 1
forth across the street unsupervised and I almost witnessed a little boy being hit by a car. So the 2
longer you wait you just need to consider that there is an accident potentially very close to 3
happen. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok. The applicant now has time to respond. 6
7
Mr. Bronitsky: Thank you. Again as I said we don't want to fight. We just need a reasonable time. 8
Staff acknowledged to me on the telephone getting this done really takes three to six months. If 9
we could do it sooner we would do it sooner. So they're in the process and staff's aware of this 10
they're in the process of reviewing and another lease hopefully will be signed very soon because 11
again we really don't want to fight. We don't want to disturb the neighbors. I understand this 12
from a personal aspect and I explained why I understand it from your perspective so my personal 13
perspective is where I live my backyard is a school. And the kids they don't mean it, but they 14
throw garbage over on [unintelligible]. Sometimes they throw food and I have dogs and you got 15
to be careful with dogs where what kind of food they throw. People park in my driveway, but 16
unfortunately that's a burden of living in a community that we all share. We live near churches, 17
we live near schools, we live near all different kinds of things that create traffic. 18
19
Everybody right now is hating traffic, but again as the pastor said there's other uses here and our 20
use is pretty limited. And if the gentleman who spoke didn't know when the school moved in the 21
73
school's been there a while and so that would look tend to lead one to believe that they're not 1
causing the impact, but that doesn't really matter. We want to go and all we're asking for you 2
and for the residents is a few more months of compassion and then we won't be there anymore. 3
So that's the resolution and again how you fashion that we would leave to you and to the City 4
Attorney, but that's all we ask for is please don't destroy this small business and don't put those 5
kids out in a place where they can't. 6
7
If there's some conditions to this, I see I’ve got to sum up, there are some conditions to do this to 8
deal with some of their more significant traffic issues let's put them in place. We'll get the notice 9
out to all the parents make sure they don't do any of those things that they're concerned about 10
to the extent we can, but please. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Ok, the format I want to follow for this item is that I want to sort of clarify a few 13
items and then I'm going to open it up to the Commission and I encourage you to either ask 14
questions of staff, if you have a question to the applicant you can address the applicant. So I just 15
a quick clarification: is it staff's view that the current perspective of staff is a relatively recently 16
adopted one? 17
18
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, that's correct. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 21
74
1
Ms. Hodgkins: We I mean we recognize that it was a personal service use at some point and 2
recently made the realization that that use in and of itself is not a permitted use; however, we did 3
identify that in the deny, in the tentative denial that this was a personal service use and that's 4
based on the very specific definition outlined in the definition sections of the Palo Alto Municipal 5
Code. Yeah. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Ok, so I just want to clarify a few timing issues so I understand what everybody was 8
saying. Was it like a sort of staff initiated suggestion that they file a CUP? 9
10
Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, yeah. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 13
14
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, I think it was. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: And then at what point did staff decide that that wasn't actually a good idea? 17
18
Mr. Lait: Well so I think after the Director's determination letter went out and we were 19
(interrupted) 20
21
75
Chair Alcheck: I'm just curious the date? 1
2
Mr. Lait: I don't know the date. I mean it's we can look at the record, but it's within the last six 3
weeks or so. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok and then my last question is: is there is it your impression also that there's been 6
some sort of miscommunication with the church ownership? 7
8
Ms. Hodgkins: No, it's that's not our impression. They (interrupted) 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Is there a reason to think that the church ownership hasn't been informed of this 11
whole process until very, very recently? 12
13
Ms. Hodgkins: So to be clear Charles who just spoke is the applicant on behalf of New Mozart 14
School of Music. They made, they submitted the application with their name as the contact and 15
that application was signed by the property owner or the landlord on behalf of the property 16
owner indicating that this person should be our point of contact throughout this application 17
process. As calls started coming in from residents identifying other issues on the site in addition 18
to this use we called in the landowner to discuss those other uses that were happening in 19
addition to this. With that same idea that was brought up by the landowner that it's very difficult 20
if not impossible for us to make a positive recommendation on this project without 21
76
understanding what the other ongoing uses are at the site. 1
2
Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. So that helps clarify a few things. With that I want to open it up. Who 3
wants to kick it off? We're going to go down the line so go ahead, Commissioner Gardias. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So just for my understanding what are those other uses? Can 6
we just at least just could you just give up a couple, looks like there is many. 7
8
Ms. Hodgkins: Well we have identified a few other potential uses happening at the site based on 9
Google searches, other dances that seem to be going on, the iSing Music School was brought up 10
by a number of different residents, potentially the psychologist use of the site. What we have 11
asked I think it was on May 30th we sent a follow up letter to the landowner requiring that within 12
two weeks they provide a complete list of other uses of the site so that we can have a better 13
understanding separate from this process of exactly what is happening at this site. What uses are 14
part of a church use, what part what uses require CUPs, what uses are not allowed at the site. 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Just a moment. And when this information was requested again? 17
18
Ms. Hodgkins: Many times. I believe that our meeting was our first meeting with the landowner 19
was I want to say in April and we requested follow up after that. In the last couple of weeks at 20
the end of May we actually issued a Notice of Violation requesting that information. 21
77
1
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, if you don't mind I'd like to just ask either the representative or the 2
pastor about what's why there cannot be response provided to the staff on such a simple 3
question. It seems like a technicality. 4
5
Mr. Mixon: Three things I think related to this. One is that the document I signed that Christine 6
asked me to sign she just put a document in front of me [and said] in order for our attorney to be 7
able to talk to the City you need to sign off on this. That's all I understood I was doing. I didn't 8
realize that I was involving the church other than giving her permission to use an attorney in this 9
process. I was I met with the City with Amy French and this is these are examples of what I mean 10
about misinformation and miscommunication. I met with Amy and Claire and James and one 11
other person on March 29th here at the City. My understanding again was that I was a meeting 12
to discuss the New Mozart School issue. I subsequently was told by James that I agreed at that 13
point to provide a list of all the use that was going on in the church. I have no memory of 14
agreeing to do that, but it may be that at my age I forgot. There was no other reminder, nothing 15
else from the City until we got a letter on June 1st from the City threatening fines and putting this 16
into a litigious adversarial position. The church would have been very happy to talk with anybody 17
in the City to provide any information about what goes on in our building at any time. All it would 18
have taken was a simple phone call that said you forgot to give us that list you said you give us. 19
The list now is demanded by this Friday and the list will be provided to the City by this Friday. 20
21
78
Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So I think that so just by just Friday so I understand that the list can 1
be provided by this Friday. It shall be. Ok, very good. That addresses at least one item, right? 2
Just by the way I mean people dance at churches, right? I saw them dancing and I just I was not 3
invited, but if I saw the door open next time maybe I stopped by and I just if you guys accept guys 4
like me I just be happy just to dance with you. And just that's fun I guess and I think it's just that's 5
what people do in church, right? 6
7
Then I'd like to just ask about the comment that the pastor or your representative made here that 8
there is the school is looking into the, I mean I’m sorry, representative of the school, music 9
school, you said that you're looking to sign at lease very soon. Did I understand this correctly? If 10
yes could you clarify this and just precisely are you negotiating some other lease and then yes 11
what's the horizon to have it agreed upon? 12
13
Mr. Bronitsky: So that in part what creates the problem. So we're looking at another lease. We 14
have the lease, but in order for that lease to happen she and Paul have to guarantee it. So they 15
have to guarantee a $1.5 million lease and if you shut the school down now there won't be a 16
school, there will just be a $1.5 million lease liability. So yes they are within the next week if not 17
sooner they will be ready to sign a lease. They are they’re ready to go, but they're petrified that 18
what's going to happen is there’s going to sign this lease, they’re going shut down, all the kids are 19
going to scatter, and they're going to have no school and and they’re going to have to pay a lease 20
in another place. 21
79
1
Commissioner Gardias: Understood. And is the lease in Palo Alto? 2
3
Mr. Bronitsky: Yes. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: Very good. There should be more music schools here. 6
7
Mr. Bronitsky: I agree. 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: Also there is a so I think that this clarifies some questions. Is there 10
something else that needs to be clarified or I just was going through the list of the open issues so I 11
just want to make sure (interrupted) 12
13
Mr. Lait: Well so with respect to the open issues what we're tracking at on our own administrative 14
process through the code enforcement efforts really the question that's before the Commission 15
here tonight is do you, can you make a findings to support the CUP and our argument is it's not a 16
conditionally permitted use and cannot be approved. And so I mean to us it's a pretty singular 17
question that we're asking you. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: I totally understand, but like with any other aspect there is always a 20
dimension of time and I asked those questions to understand pretty much if by extension of time 21
80
when this was mentioned in a couple of comments we can just help with the process, right? 1
Looks like pretty much there is they are very close to closing on the other lease so if that's 2
possible just to give them a couple of weeks, maybe months or how much time is needed if the 3
neighborhood would allow for this I think that I would be open just to support this extension of… 4
to support denial of the CUP in the later term. Maybe just say this word, ok? 5
6
Mr. Lait: So again I that speaks to the administrative processes related to code enforcement and 7
that's really not the purview of the PTC. The, those matters will be addressed by staff through 8
the regulations set up by the City. The question, again the singular question that is before the 9
Commission this evening is whether to grant the CUP or not. 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: Understood. So then there is also a couple of items that I want to clarify. 12
Safety there was a person here too that mentioned here the safety because their cars are parked 13
and there was a kid that was nearly hit by the car. So it looks to me that this may need to be 14
addressed immediately pretty much tomorrow regardless of denial CUP or some other action. 15
Has been any steps taken to remediate this risk immediately? 16
17
Mr. Bronitsky: So thank you. So if staff tells us what they want to do with that because I'm not 18
really very familiar with the problem. So if staff can discuss it with the neighbors and tell us what 19
restrictions if they we can work together. We'll put together a letter telling parents where they 20
should park, shouldn't park, do stuff, not do stuff. We’re perfectly acceptable to doing that and 21
81
to doing that very promptly, but I would like to address one of the things the Deputy Director said 1
which is actually what this the Commission's job is today is to make a recommendation to the City 2
Council on this. And amongst the things City Council can recommend is to consider a stay so of 3
the enforcement. So thank you. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Commissioner just let's do ourselves a favor, if we have a question specific for the 8
applicant let's address the applicant specifically and if you don't mind let's keep our responses 9
specific to the questions ok moving forward. 10
11
Mr. Bronitsky: Yes, thank you. Sorry. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: No, it’s alright. 14
15
Commissioner Gardias: Very good. Thank you very much for now. Thank you. 16
17
Commissioner Lauing: Actually my questions were almost exactly the same. It sounds like the 18
tenant has agreed to leave, correct? 19
20
Mr. Bronitsky: Yes. 21
82
1
Commissioner Lauing: And the question is when. 2
3
Mr. Bronitsky: As I said we asked for October 31st because that's what it takes to build out I mean 4
they're aware of the, staff’s aware of the space. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, right. And the other question was actually also safety. In my read of 7
this and understanding I would support City staff on that. There is a CUP violation at this point. It 8
needs to change, but and I also respect the fact that we're not the law enforcement group. But it 9
would be nice if we didn't put a tenant out on the street. So I'd be in supportive of your 10
recommendation. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Summa would you like to continue? 13
14
Commissioner Summa: I think most of my questions have been answered. Oh, I do have a 15
question for staff. Could you I know a lot of people give music lessons out of their homes if they 16
are piano teachers or something. How is that process differentiated from an actual music school? 17
18
Mr. Lait: The municipal code has a provision for home occupation and I can pull up the 19
regulations. Ok so there are some standards in the code. So it is permissive for that kind of a 20
operation on a limited scale. 21
83
1
Commissioner Summa: Ok. And for the applicant just very briefly how long has the school been 2
there? 3
4
Mr. Bronitsky: Probably about 10 years or so, maybe more. I'm not… 12 years. 5
6
Commissioner Summa: Ok. That's all. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Rosenblum. 9
10
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah I don't have that much to add, just a quick statement. So I had a 11
child taking lessons at New Mozart. We're very happy for the facility. It is indeed difficult to find 12
other music schools like this in Palo Alto so I do recognize that putting a tenant out and having 13
disruption would be a poor experience for the kids taking lessons and I assume given the nature 14
of music lessons that the majority them are from Palo Alto. I also agree with the staff report. 15
They're in violation of CUP. I don't see a way around this. 16
17
So the discussion really is around what length of grace period is there. Like my colleagues and so 18
kicked off by Commissioner Gardias I agree that it should be a reasonable length of period, period 19
of time. I don't know the time that it takes to build out a facility for music lessons. I would also 20
agree that the current set up there seems fairly minimal in terms of custom build out and so I 21
84
would accept staff’s recommendation on what the reasonable length is and that there's an 1
amicable transition period worked out whereby the kids don't have disruption of lessons and that 2
the tenant can move on to their new facility in a smooth way. 3
4
Chair Alcheck: OK. So I'll start off with so where I stand on what sounds like a consensus here. 5
Yeah I would like to see, I would recommend that City Council grant the applicant the requested 6
time. I wouldn't defer to staff’s view on what was appropriate. I think that as a City we bear a 7
little bit of the burden here for falsely guiding the applicant and I mean that with all respect. We 8
initiated this suggested process and I can only imagine what the legal fees cost, but everybody's 9
time involved in going down a path that actually was unacceptable is really unfortunate. And I 10
apologize to you personally because I know how difficult the process working in Palo Alto can be 11
even when you're following all the rules. And it can be really hard when staff suggests a path and 12
then reverses course. 13
14
I'm also familiar with build outs. It’s there's a hundred different pieces in. There could be a 15
current tenant the needs to I mean it's complex. Maybe they need to soundproof the rooms so 16
that the offices next door don't hear it. I mean who knows? So I think we should based on sort of 17
the testimony or whatever you want to call it, the presentation today, I don't think there's a 18
reason to doubt that your efforts to relocate are in earnest and sincere. And I would encourage 19
Council to do everything possible to help this business succeed in this City and if not in this City in 20
any City within close proximity to this place. So I will support that Motion when it comes up. 21
85
1
I want to have a conversation about uses. Everything's R-1 in this town. Schools, our local 2
schools are R-1. And so as a result of that it's hard to say oh well, it's a residential neighborhood, 3
it's R-1, what business does a music school have there? It's hard to I would also support Council 4
reviewing whether or not a church facility located in an R-1 district could conduct classes like this. 5
I actually think that this is an acceptable use within R-1. Now the question about whether or not 6
the facility can handle the traffic that's being generated by the current user that's a different 7
story, but I think there should be a CUP process and the language that you describe look none of 8
us here are sufficiently knowledgeable enough to hear your legal arguments or even references 9
to legal cases and be able to really make sense of it. But we are in a position to have good 10
discussions about land use policy in general and we frequently encounter a language in our code 11
that is outdated. 12
13
I'd be really surprised if every if first of all look it’s not just the churches that are looking for extra 14
revenue it's our local elementary schools which are also in R-1 that run camps and run after 15
school care. And so I guess I do have one question for you the applicant and this I guess is in your 16
analysis what uses and I'm not asking for the stretch here, what uses do you think are permissible 17
under the interpretation staff has? 18
19
Mr. Bronitsky: Well so if it would be for public education it I mean it's sort of speaks for itself. 20
Anything that's required by the law to be that could be taught (interrupted) 21
86
1
Chair Alcheck: You know what actually let me rephrase, let me redirect the question. Staff what 2
uses under the public education do you think are acceptable? What's an example of a few just so 3
I can, just so we can appreciate what is permissible. 4
5
Ms. Hodgkins: [Unintelligible-off microphone]. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: So in theory they could run an entire school. If they could (interrupted) 8
9
Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney: That’s a conditionally permitted use and that's 10
(interrupted) 11
12
Chair Alcheck: That’s a conditional? 13
14
Mr. Yang: Yeah. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: That would fall under a CUP? 17
18
Mr. Yang: Yes. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: So the distinction is how many subjects they're teaching? I guess I'm trying to 21
87
understand is it what differentiates their request from any other educational CUP? I let me 1
rephrase the question. I want to understand under what CUP would you have entertained? Just 2
this is a hypothetical question. I want to understand how we approached this land owner in this 3
particular R-1 district with his church. What uses would he be permitted? That are you know… 4
5
Mr. Lait: Ok, so if you're asking what are the conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 zone? 6
7
Chair Alcheck: What would we entertain? I'm not asking for all of them, I just need an example so 8
that I can sort of create an understanding in my own head. 9
10
Mr. Lait: Land uses… ok. So an R-1 zone is intended to has a very, you know what the purpose of 11
an R-1 zone is, I don’t need to tell you that. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Right. 14
15
Mr. Lait: The types of conditionally permitted uses that are allowed there are limited because you 16
don't expect a whole lot of activity in these areas. A church is a CUP use. So establishing a church 17
requires a CUP. If you wanted to have the private schools that we talked about that's a CUP. 18
Community centers are a CUP. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: I'm sorry. You know what? Maybe I'm asking this question improperly. I guess my 21
88
question is: how do you go about defining what activity is ancillary to I guess services a church 1
could host? That's sort of what I'm trying to get at. 2
3
Mr. Lait: Great. So right, that is a different question. And clearly there are ancillary church 4
related uses that we would that would be under that umbrella of church functions that are taking 5
place. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Let me ask a quick question. If the church offered its members music school, I 8
shouldn’t even say that. If the church offered music classes to its membership would that be 9
permissible? 10
11
Mr. Lait: You know I think that (interrupted) 12
13
Chair Alcheck: [unintelligible]. 14
15
Mr. Lait: So Chair I guess what I would say is that that's one, that's not the request that's before 16
us today. Two, if the church does want to sit down and meet with staff I mean there's a number 17
of land uses that are taking place at this property. We've identified some that we believe is not 18
consistent with church related activities. There may be some that are and we're happy to sit 19
down with the church owner and talk about what those uses are and how they are consistent 20
with the definitions of the code and what we think is permissible. We're not saying nothing can’t 21
89
take place here, but what is taking place here right now with respect to the music school is not a 1
permitted land use and it needs to cease. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Well that's a fantastic answer and I’m satisfied with that. I my sort of final 4
comments on is that I it's regrettable that there hasn't we haven't succeeded at communicating in 5
this whole process well and I would encourage the ownership to get involved and find out so that 6
this that we can resolve all the issues. And I think I would encourage you to be more to be 7
proactive at this point because the onus is on you really to sort of figure this out as opposed to 8
waiting for staff. 9
10
Mr. Lait: And I don't know who you're looking at. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: I'm just directing some comments to the owner. 13
14
Mr. Lait: Ok. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: To suggest that look, this (interrupted) 17
18
Mr. Lait: No, that’s fine (interrupted) 19
20
Chair Alcheck: [Unintelligible] want to address the fact that there is this sense that I'm getting 21
90
that he feels very uninformed and at one point he relinquished some rights in his mind and it's 1
unfortunate that there isn't more sort of oversight from the from the landlord on this job, on this 2
situation. I want to encourage people to sort of contact the staff and be more proactive. That's 3
all I'm suggesting. 4
5
Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you. And I think that the administrative record shows that there's been a lot 6
of communication on this issue. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 9
10
Mr. Lait: The other thing I'd like to mention because there's been some conversation about 11
recommendations to the City Council about some kind of negotiated timeframe with respect to 12
the code enforcement effort. That is actually not a function that the City Council has authority 13
over. That authority of these administrative regulations are vested with the City Manager. The 14
City Manager is the one that directs the department heads and the department heads direct the 15
action of City staff. So on an issue of extending or being involved in a code enforcement case the 16
City Council would not be engaged in that. There are elements at some point way down the line 17
where the Council may have to get involved in a case where there's maybe a legal issue, but at 18
this stage of the status of this Notice of Violation this is handled at an administrative level 19
through the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 20
21
91
Chair Alcheck: Got it. So let me ask a question in the interest of on behalf of the Commissioners 1
that brought it up would making a Motion for a CUP that was limited until October 31st be one 2
way around that problem? 3
4
Mr. Lait: So I don't see how that could be granted given that it is not a permitted land use for the 5
R-1 zone. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: No, I don't disagree with you. Well alright, let me ask you this question. Are you 8
suggesting that City Council couldn’t do that? 9
10
Mr. Lait: That's correct. The City Council have to amend its rules, the municipal code, in order to 11
allow for music schools to take place in the R-1 zone. 12
13
Chair Alcheck: Ok so I mean look will you provide a little direction to us for those interested in 14
recommending some time what would be the most appropriate way to do that to City Council? 15
16
Mr. Lait: I think your deliberation here this evening has communicated that already. 17
18
Chair Alcheck: Ok, well In that case would anybody like to make a Motion on this item. 19
20
Woman in audience off mike: Excuse me; is it possible to address one more comment 21
92
[unintelligible]? 1
2
Chair Alcheck: Unfortunately no. 3
4
Woman still off mike: Alright. There is something related to time that hasn’t been address that 5
I’m concerned about because it’s a factual matter that’s in the file and no one seems to be aware 6
of it. the first notice of violation was February 2016. 7
8
Mr. Lait: You said [unintelligible]. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Here’s what I’d like to suggest, I'm not suggesting that we don't want your input, 11
but what I would recommend you do is if you wouldn't mind is putting any items that you'd like to 12
communicate to us in an email and sending it to the Planning Commission and you can include 13
City Council because of course this recommendation will be reviewed by them and a final decision 14
will be made by City Council. So there's still an opportunity to sort of clear up any issues. So can I 15
get a Motion? [You’d like make more] [unintelligible]. No, I know. Would you like to make more 16
comments before the Motion? Ok, go ahead. 17
18
MOTION 19
20
Commissioner Summa: So I think unfortunately this is a pretty clear cut case and nobody likes to 21
93
close down a small business or hurt a church or keep kids from having their music lessons and 1
unfortunately I think our hands are tied here. And I would note that this business has been in 2
operation for I guess about 10 years at this site so… 12. So I think that the neighbors who have 3
considered these uses unwanted nearby them have probably been pretty patient and I 4
understand there were some mistakes made, but I think we're pretty limited as a Commission and 5
what we can do. And I don't think we can as much as we'd like to help a school and a small 6
business and a music school I don't think we can even contemplate recommending that they get a 7
CUP that is just illegal. I mean so… so understanding that this is a sad situation that we wouldn't 8
want to have to confront I will make a recommendation that we deny the CUP. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Can I get a second? 11
12
SECOND 13
14
Commissioner Rosenblum: Second. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Is it safe to assume that you don’t want to speak to the Motion? Ok. Alright, 17
we have a Motion on the floor. If there are any amendments please let me know otherwise I'd 18
like to put it to a vote. Oh, oh please do. 19
20
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 21
94
1
Commissioner Rosenblum: So I’d like to suggest this as a I mean I can make it a Friendly 2
Amendment first which is that as part of our Motion we ask that the City Manager consider giving 3
an appropriate extension so that there is a smooth transition of operation to their new lease site. 4
5
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 6
7
Commissioner Summa: That I would accept that as long as it's legal for us to make that kind of 8
recommendation. 9
10
VOTE 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Alright, with that I'd like to put this Motion to a vote. All those in favor of 13
supporting the Motion on the floor please raise your hand and say aye. That's five in favor. It’s 14
unanimous. Ok. I think that concludes this item for the evening and then let's move on to 15
agenda item… I'm so confused because of the order. It's now Agenda Item 4 which is the study 16
session on downtown parking. Ok what we're going to do is we're going to take a few minutes 17
and let everyone out and we’ll reconvene in about five minutes. Thank you. 18
19
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Vice-Chair Waldfogel and Commissioner Monk absent) 20
21
95
[Note-The Commission took a break] 1
2
Commission Action: Motion made by Commissioner Summa, seconded by Commissioner 3
Rosenblum to: 4
1. Deny the CUP based on staff report findings 5
2. Ask the City Manager to extend an appropriate stay of enforcement 6
Motion passed 5-0 (Monk absent, Waldfogel abstained) 7
8
Study Session 9
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 10
11
4. Study Session on the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study 12
Implementation Plan 13
14
Chair Alcheck: I would encourage anybody who would like to continue talking to exit the room. 15
Our next item is Item Number 4. It is the Downtown parking management implementation item. 16
So would staff kick us off please? And if anybody has speaker cards that they'd like to turn in. 17
18
Phillip Kamhi, Transportation Programs Manager: Good evening, Commission. Thank you for 19
having us here. I’m Phillip Kamhi, Transportation Programs Manager here with the City of Palo 20
Alto and joining me tonight is Julie Dixon of Dixon Resources Unlimited. She's going to do the 21
bulk of the talking tonight and present the Downtown Parking Management Study. So I'm just 22
going to do a brief introduction and then hand it over to her, but Dixon Resources Unlimited is a 23
parking consulting firm that is focused solely on parking management and strategies and all of 24
that specifically supporting municipalities. She can better describe her consulting firm. 25
26
So you've probably heard this before at multiple different meetings, but we’ll talk again about the 27
96
three legged stool which consists of parking management programs like Residential Preferential 1
Parking (RPP). This study that we’ll be talking about tonight, the Downtown Parking Management 2
Study, transportation demand and reduction which are things like the Palo Alto Transportation 3
Management Association (TMA), the shuttle, and also parking supply measures which are the 4
new garages and the valet assist programs. 5
6
So this is our tentative short term action plan based on the recommendations of the study. 7
Tonight will really be focusing on the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), but this 8
PowerPoint actually covers all of these items and includes really eight recommendations and I'll 9
get into that. So for purposes of tonight this is the June meeting here at the top and PTC will be 10
doing the study session tonight on the Downtown Parking Management Study, but we'd like to 11
return to you. This tentative schedule here says August. I believe that we'd be looking at possibly 12
the August 9th meeting to refine the recommendations and recommend phasing and an 13
implementation plan. 14
15
So the study objectives, the first part of this study began in early 2016 and Julie Dixon and Dixon 16
Resources Unlimited and also her staff Patrick Smith who's here sitting behind us first worked to 17
identify parking utilization and parking patterns and occupancy throughout the City of Palo Alto 18
and Downtown. And that's the first part of the study and it's in your attachments. The second 19
part and the third part was to recommend parking management strategies that maximize the 20
supply and utilization. And the third part was to develop recommendations for a parking 21
97
management study that includes paid parking. 1
2
So earlier I mentioned that tonight Julie will be going over the eight recommendations, general 3
recommendations. These eight general recommendations are also broken up and organized for 4
you tonight to the different groups that we're going to want to have review these 5
recommendations. And so they'll be titled before each subject to let you know which ones we 6
really want to have you weigh in on and that will be at the second meeting, but of course tonight 7
we'll give you the overview. And with that I will turn it over to Julie. 8
9
Julie Dixon, Dixon Resources Unlimited: Thank you, Phillip. As Phillip mentioned my name is Julie 10
Dixon. We actually started our engagement with the City of Palo Alto last year about April and 11
the first thing that we did was we actually focused on the data collection and in your hand outs 12
and as well as you can see up on the slide the study area really consisted of the color zone areas. 13
And you can see the colors zone areas outlined on the map that's up there and we actually did 14
data collection over a three month period. We started in May and then we actually waited until 15
school came back into session and did the other two comprehensive data collection sessions in 16
September and October. We’ll talk quite a bit about the stakeholder engagement that we also 17
did, but I want to highlight that the data collection was done on Thursdays and Saturdays and we 18
also conducted extensive field surveys and interviews with stakeholders throughout the 19
Downtown area and we’ll come back into that stakeholder engagement aspect. 20
21
98
So the stakeholder engagement really started at the onset and we had a very active group of 1
stakeholders that represented residential as well as business owners. We had City staff engaged 2
and throughout this entire project we kept the stakeholders involved. We actually came back 3
with the data results after each data collection. We talked about the findings. We also talked 4
about the initial recommendations as well as the development of those recommendations 5
throughout the entire process. We had a very vocal and active participating group and we 6
actually got some really good debates going on. So when you see the recommendations that are 7
outlined here today they really were very thoroughly vetted from a public aspect of evaluation 8
and really the vetting of your business owners as well as residents to get that feedback for where 9
we should be going. 10
11
As well as the field surveys that were actually conducted as well not only did we actually go out 12
and actually walk the Downtown area and go into the different businesses and the different 13
restaurants. We interviewed hourly staff as well as business owners. There was also an 14
opportunity via an online survey that was conducted. What was really great is one of our key 15
stakeholders actually put it up on Nextdoor.com. We got a significant response out of that 16
Nextdoor.com posting as well so we really tried to be as comprehensive as possible because we 17
really were looking for as much feedback as we could obtain because one of the challenges 18
typically when it comes to parking is it's usually an issue of perception and now rather than 19
perception we'll talk about the reality of what's really happened here in Palo Alto. 20
21
99
Because you do have this information we’ll kind of go through the data collection pretty quickly, 1
but I'd like to highlight some of the key findings from the data collection and we'd really like to 2
jump into the recommendations. But for the study area you can see is that it's no surprise where 3
the real core on key congestion really occurred really right there around the University Avenue 4
area and the opportunity for vehicles to continue to circle and look for those key parking spaces 5
and we'll talk about the people that we're juggling between those spaces as well. When you talk 6
about the blue zones that we highlighted the fact that we did collection on Thursdays and 7
Saturdays you'll notice that we did four data collection period times for every single one of the 8
time zones whether it be morning, afternoon, midafternoon, and evening and you can see that 9
the occupancy actually stays very consistent. In fact the average for both all three time 10
collections as well as the time of day the average was about 68 percent occupancy. 11
12
I want to highlight at this point that the industry standard basically is 85 percent where if you're 13
looking at about 85 percent that basically means you're full. The industry target is to try to 14
basically be below 85 percent because you want about one to one and a half parking spaces 15
available per block face so any time you start to reach that occupancy level it's an area when you 16
want to start to be worried about what those numbers look like. So when you start to get into 17
some of your other colors zones you can actually see that you're actually exceeding those target 18
thresholds. You might notice that the average may only be 81 percent, but when you talk about 19
over the time zones that are collected you can see during the midafternoon especially around the 20
lunch time and in the evening hours you guys are well exceeding the industry targets when it 21
100
comes to the lime zone as well as you can see the same in the coral zone where you're exceeding 1
those targets. 2
3
It's important also to highlight because something that will come up in the recommendations is 4
that you'll notice your occupancy levels at night which is great because it means you guys are 5
thriving, it means people are coming Downtown, they're going to your businesses, they’re going 6
to restaurants, but what happens is that you actually don't have parking enforcement services in 7
the evening hours and that was really evident by some of the occupancy numbers as well and 8
we'll touch on that when we get into our recommendations. You look at the purple zone maybe 9
not quite as popular as the other two zones, but you can definitely see that the peak occupancy is 10
there. And also to highlight this as you notice we highlighted the times that we collected for May 11
and September and October. The numbers are very consistent overall when you talk about the 12
time day and the occupancy levels as well. 13
14
Now when we talk about off street you see that the occupancy levels again fairly consistent from 15
the time of the year that we did the occupancy studies, but again you definitely in some cases are 16
exceeding those industry standards are very close to those. So these are the times where we 17
start to tell agencies that you really need to start to do some strategic decisions and start to do 18
some planning and make and implement some parking changes in order to address these 19
challenges. Now this is going to be really key when we start to talk about your permits. You'll 20
notice that for your permit areas that you occupancy levels are right there about 51 percent on 21
101
average. This is very important because when we talk about the value of your permits and what 1
the costs are you are very well below what the cost of a permit is in any of your comparable cities 2
or any of your neighboring cities. So what we have found is is that because your permits are such 3
a value the fact is that a lot of people just hold on to those because it's only a few hundred dollars 4
and so it's a guaranteed parking space when you come Downtown. So we're finding that people 5
maybe aren't necessarily utilizing those on an active basis, they're keeping a hold of them 6
because the value of that parking permit is actually so cheap. And we'll talk about that when we 7
get into the recommendations. 8
9
These heat maps that we highlight by time of day just really kind of just for a visual really shows 10
you where the density is and again it's really no surprise that core of where University Avenue is 11
and some of the surrounding areas where you can see the popular areas as well as the surface 12
lots and some of the parking garages as well. We'll talk quite a bit about the Webster/Cowper 13
garage and the fact that it is fairly underutilized. We think a lot of that goes into wayfinding and 14
signage and people knowing where it is available. You guys have a very walkable city and it's 15
something that we think can be very strategic in how we can promote the parking availability that 16
is out there and how we get people to park where there are available parking resources. So as 17
you go through again the different highlight heat maps you can see where the density really lies 18
and it is again fairly consistent throughout the day where you see the density really hits the 19
locations. 20
21
102
A couple of the key takeaways [that say] is again your core downtown area where you have the 1
highest occupancy no real surprise there, the hourly rates and civic center I can say just from 2
experience it's very challenging to get a parking space downstairs because people very much 3
utilize those spaces. The time zones are actively enforced and people are constantly out there 4
basically hopscotching between those areas and we'll talk about that in a moment. And talking 5
about the permits again it's an area where you're well below the threshold for occupancy in the 6
permit zones and we really want to talk about how to better manage those areas. 7
8
Now I've talked about hop scotching and I want to highlight this. When we did the data collection 9
one of the unique ways that we collect the data is we actually capture the license plates when we 10
capture the data in order to try to identify how long the cars were staying as well as if they were 11
moving within the zones. And while the number may not seem very high we actually identified 12
that there were about 300 cars that were doing what we call hop scotching between the zones 13
because currently your policy is that you can only stay in a certain color zone for two hours a day. 14
So what we found is that the wait list for some of your parking permits are so lengthy that a lot of 15
your service workers can't get parking permits while they would be happy to pay for those and so 16
what they're doing instead is they're hop scotching between the two hour zones. And when you 17
talk about 300 cars that are out there are circulating on a daily basis that's actually a real impact 18
on congestion especially in your Downtown area and something that we definitely want to 19
address. 20
21
103
I do want to highlight and this is written about in the report the color zones were very valuable at 1
the time that they were implemented and in fact there are some other agencies I might suggest 2
that it would be an effective solution for their parking challenge at this time, but I will say that 3
color zones have lived their life span here in Palo Alto and now it's time to consider the next 4
alternatives as we basically move into the next this next era which will now take us into the 5
recommendations. So Phillip mentioned that there's eight recommendations and we're going to 6
talk about some of these in further detail, but the real core of this really talks about introducing 7
paid parking solutions throughout Downtown Palo Alto and let's go ahead and jump into that. 8
9
And we talked about the parking road map only because of the fact that you can't do all of this 10
overnight. There's a very strategic and incremental plan that's very important when we talk 11
about anything parking related. I want to highlight that all of these recommendations would 12
include a very comprehensive outreach program. It's very important that there are no secrets or 13
surprises when it comes to parking. You want to be as transparent as public as possible because 14
you want to make sure people are educated and informed about all of these policies and all these 15
procedures. And so I just want to highlight that everything that we're talking about today would 16
be tied into that type of public outreach program. 17
18
So the first thing we want for you to consider is this aspect of paid parking whereas right now we 19
really focus on again the time zones. Your parking enforcement officers are out there basically 20
looking for vehicles that are overstaying the two hour time limit and what we're suggesting is that 21
104
you implement paid parking technology through the use of actually parking meter technology and 1
we'll talk about single space versus pay station technology and introduce what's called the 2
dynamic pricing model. And we'll touch on that in a little bit more detail here in a moment and 3
talk about what the tiered zones really introduce. So when you look at this map you'll notice that 4
we have the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. The proposal is is that because of the fact those heat maps 5
really identified where the very congested areas are is that you actually have the opportunity to 6
introduce a tiered rate model so that you would have your higher tiered rates for parking in your 7
Tier 1 area, your Tier 2 and Tier 3 could then be subsequently slightly lower. The study shows 8
that the people that aren't necessarily parking and walking and typically we find that people want 9
to park right outside the door that they're heading towards and so they'll definitely pay the 10
premium for that. 11
12
So the opportunity to introduce a rate structure like that and it's very important when we talk 13
about parking policies is that when we talk about off street parking we're talking about 14
introducing paid parking there as well, but you currently do have a daily permit that people can 15
purchase for your off street locations. And we're suggesting that you actually convert that model 16
to a rate structure that allows for hourly paid parking off street. And what you really much want 17
to do is make sure that the off street rates are lower than on street rates. The reason why is you 18
want your parkers to just head directly towards the off street locations, get them off street, park 19
in those locations if you're coming for a longer term period. That's always the goal for parking 20
because you don't want them circulating the block looking for that premo on street space. If you 21
105
know you're coming Downtown to come for a few hours we want the way finding signage and 1
information to direct them to a garage or to a surface lot where there is available parking. 2
3
So getting into this particular map this is going to talk about the solution typing. So most of you 4
are probably already familiar with the single space smart meters where you can slide the credit 5
card when you get out of your vehicle and there's also what is known as a parking kiosk or a pay 6
station. It's also known as a multi-species meter. What we're suggesting is in the core location 7
when we talked about that Tier 1 zone like around University Avenue the proposal would be to 8
put single space parking meters in that location because of the density in the turnover, the 9
convenience of those locations. And then in your outer perimeter zones the areas that we've 10
highlighted were maybe Tier 2 and Tier 3 that you consider putting the parking kiosks. The 11
reason why the parking kiosks are really great idea for those locations is it takes a smaller 12
footprint. It takes up less space, less street furniture; it has less of an impact in the Downtown 13
area. And it was something that the stakeholders were very vocal about when it came to the use 14
of pay stations versus the single space meters. Some of the I will highlight the fact that some of 15
the stakeholders were very adamant they wanted a single space parking meter in every single 16
parking space. And what we were also talking about is there is a cost and an expense to that 17
particular equipment and our recommendation was utilize a single space in the denser areas 18
where there's more utilization and take advantage of the value of putting in the pay stations as 19
well as that when it comes to that solutioning. 20
21
106
We also want to highlight the fact that when you talk about pay stations in most of the Bay Area 1
regions they use what's called the pay by space approach where the parking space is actually 2
numbered whether it be on the curb stop, on the ground or with some kind of sign marking that 3
says what space number it is so that when you go to the pay station you actually input the space 4
number and pay for your parking time limit and move on. And that's one important aspect that I 5
want to hit on is when I use the term time limit it's very important to understand for on street 6
parking our recommendation is that you actually implement and maintain your two hour time 7
limit for on street parking because again we're talking about your primary commercial area and 8
we want to encourage turnover. This was again an item that was debated amongst the 9
stakeholders. Some people wanted to take a pay to stay model, but the fact that we've learned is 10
that folks in Palo Alto basically would be willing to pay whatever premium they had to pay to take 11
that parking space on street and what we really want to do is make sure that we encourage 12
turnover and allow other customers to come in utilize the restaurants and utilize the amenities 13
Downtown. 14
15
This is just an example of the different technologies that we were talking about. On the left side 16
are the single space smart meters that would take credit cards and on the right side is an example 17
of what those smart pay stations or what are also known as kiosks. Important about the pay 18
stations is there's a number of vendors that are out there. Single space vendor there's probably 19
two or three that are really out there in the market. The nice value about either approach that 20
you take is that there's integration capabilities [via] opportunity all of that technology basically 21
107
works intrinsically the same. It's really about different buttons, different features, things like that 1
for consideration by the local community. 2
3
Important consideration for all of you is mobile payment. We encourage any program that's 4
going to implement any type of paid parking solution you want to make it is easy for people to 5
use and for easy for them to pay and make it simple. So we highlight the fact that introducing a 6
mobile payment feature is really important with any paid parking solution. That allows somebody 7
whether it be that paid by space location where you can input the space number use your phone 8
account and go about your business, but it really does keep it really simple. Just like most 9
programs the customer pays a small transaction fee, typically about ten cents. In some cases it 10
can be as high as thirty five cents, but most of the Bay Area customers pay about ten cents and 11
allows customers to set up a user account and be able to come and go as they need to in the 12
Downtown area and pay for their time. All of these services that I mentioned whether it be the 13
paid parking technology or the mobile payment solutioning there would be a solicitation and 14
Request for Proposal (RFP) that would be generated and we'll talk a little bit about that timeline 15
for that to go through a competitive procurement process. 16
17
Active monitoring, this is a very important part of this program as well as because of the fact that 18
when we talk a paid parking solution and we start to talk about this smart technology it's really 19
important to understand that parking is really a living process and it's something that needs to be 20
constantly monitored. And when we start to talk about dynamic pricing models it's important 21
108
that we check the utilization and occupancy on an ongoing basis because that's how you 1
determine if you need to adjust rates in some cases up and in some cases down. If you haven't 2
heard of a program called SF Park, SF Park was the first federally funded program for congestion 3
mitigation for on and off street parking and it was a very comprehensive program that was 4
conducted in San Francisco that really focused on the use of parking rates to adjust usage. And so 5
that's something that's really important to continue to monitor the usage and to look for that 85 6
percent standard that we talked about before is that really trying to find what will call is that 7
sweet spot to determine what the appropriate rate is for Palo Alto. And I will say that the starting 8
point that when we talk to Finance about what those rates should be it's something that will likely 9
need to be reassessed every six months to determine again what that rate model really should be 10
for Palo Alto. There's different ways to verify and to look at that data whether it be going out and 11
do data collection like we did last year or there's also parking technology that can go into parking 12
spaces like parking sensors. 13
14
Enforcement; I talked about this at the beginning and it’s very important when it comes to your 15
program is that when we talk about parking enforcement we're not really necessarily talking 16
about some enforcement state where they're just out there writing a bunch of tickets. Parking 17
enforcement is about compliance and it's something that we really want to encourage. When 18
you saw those statistics about the utilization that's at night time it's kind of haphazard at night 19
time. You have your police officers available to write parking tickets, but let's be honest they 20
have a lot of other priorities that they should be focusing on. So one of the things that we're 21
109
highlighting is here is that we really need to encourage that you have parking enforcement staff 1
during the evenings and also on the weekends. Saturdays are very popular in Palo Alto and 2
there's no parking enforcement staff on line and so we think it's very important that you actually 3
consider that. Even just from a safety factor we saw a lot of double parkers, wrong way parkers, 4
things like that that are safety hazards. So it's something that we definitely want to encourage as 5
well as the consideration of extending the pardon operations until 6:00 p.m. and that also 6
coincides with the RPP regulations as well. 7
8
The other thing that's important when it talks about the use of enforcement is some of the [tines] 9
that are come in with the comprehensive approach that we're taking towards parking is the use 10
of the hand-held technology that your parking enforcement officers carry as well as the use of 11
License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology. When I talked about the opportunity to use pay by 12
space technology it can also easily be converted to what is called pay by license plate technology. 13
We're going to talk a lot about the permitting program here in Palo Alto and one of the nice 14
features is is that we really want to go as virtual as possible over the next couple of years when it 15
comes to your parking program where your license plate basically becomes your permit. And so 16
the use of LPR technology is a very effective way to be able to go and manage that. We're talking 17
about a customer service friendly approach towards parking and when we talk about permit 18
management this will become very relevant, but LPR technology is really key towards 19
enforcement. 20
21
110
So now I've already kind of touched on permit pricing and this is something that will really focus 1
on with the Finance Committee, but I just want to highlight the fact that we are proposing an 2
increase to the parking permit program to make it more comparative to the industry standards in 3
local cities. More importantly, we want to make sure that the pricing is comparable with the 4
costs of transit. Is that we really want to encourage alternative transportation usages so we want 5
to make sure that that cost is very competitive with that and we want to ensure that we continue 6
that utilization of the reduced pricing, the reduced parking permit price for service workers and 7
low income employees so. 8
9
The off street infrastructure again this is something that we’ll take to the Finance Committee as 10
well, but we are proposing installing parking access control equipment at the garages. This will 11
actually make the garages more efficient and more effective and also access controlled for your 12
permits as well as for your hourly parkers. So when we talked about that rate model it will be 13
very easy for customers to use to get in and out the garages and pay for the time used. The 14
parking guidance and wayfinding program this is already a program that's already underway and 15
it's something that Finance Committee will also consider, but being able to utilize the signage as 16
well as parking availability to promote parking information throughout the Downtown this is very 17
critical when we talk about locations like Webster/Cowper garage because people don't 18
necessarily know that it's there and we want to find ways using signage to be able to promote 19
that information. 20
21
111
A centralized parking operation this will go to City administration for consideration. One of the 1
things that just being a parking consultant in Palo Alto trying to obtain and gather information 2
about the parking operation could be challenging because there's honestly so many departments 3
involved. And so one of the recommendations was to centralize the parking operation and really 4
have it fall under one house under one roof and to bring the entire parking operation for that 5
approach. We think especially for how progressive the City of Palo Alto is we think this is really 6
important to be able to provide that foundational requirement to really move forward and to be 7
very responsive to your customer and Downtown needs. 8
9
So coming back now to the comprehensive parking permit citation system; so right now we're 10
looking at all of the technology that we talked about we really want to tie it into one centralized 11
management system. And so being able to bring all of that under one data system and that's 12
something that we're actually working very actively with staff on right now. The intent is to 13
actually have an RFP out this summer that really addresses this comprehensive program so that 14
when a customer gets a parking ticket it doesn't matter if you've got the parking ticket in a 15
residential zone or if you got it Downtown, if you need to buy a parking permit whether it be 16
garage permit or residential parking permit we want people to be able to have one online 17
account to be able to register for that information and to be able to have a one stop shop for your 18
all your parking needs and this is basically the first step in that direction. And again when we 19
talked about LPR management and aspects like that those are all the tools that would go into 20
managing this particular aspect of the program. 21
112
1
So just talking about timeline for the recommendations that we outlined I already highlighted 2
that we're actually in the middle of the process for the parking permit solicitation process. The 3
hope is again that we can get the procurement going so that it's out this summer and actually 4
have something implemented by the goal would be by spring of next year. And then as we go 5
through these other implementation processes the overall goal would [have be out] paid parking 6
implemented by the end of 2018. There's quite a few steps and tasks that have to go into this 7
particular process including the solicitations for vendors and to be able to do all the public 8
outreach that we did highlight and mention, but this is basically an outline of that solicitation and 9
that suggested schedule. And overall the final recommendations that are outlined here are the 10
eight that we've talked about here and I'm going to turn the floor back over to Phillip. 11
12
Mr. Kamhi: Sure, so there is no formal recommendation. This is a study session; however, I do 13
want to remind you that we do plan on coming back in August to really refine these 14
recommendations with you. I just want to briefly mention some of the other efforts that are 15
related to this. One is that we're planning on doing a similar study for the California Avenue 16
parking. We're planning on doing a California Avenue parking study. We've got the two new 17
garages which were shown in the timeline there. We're going to be reexamining or we currently 18
are underway on reexamining valet operations. And as an ongoing basis we’re systematically 19
identifying opportunities to add additional parking. So with that happy to take questions or 20
comments. 21
113
1
Chair Alcheck: Thank you. That was a excellent presentation. I have one speaker card. If anyone 2
else would like to submit a speaker card please do so. Arthur Keller. You have five minutes. 3
Welcome back. 4
5
Arthur Keller: Thank you very much. A couple comments; firstly, if to the extent that we are 6
getting a new parking system we should think about requirements for it. We were told with 7
respect to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that our parking system for giving away permits did 8
not allow us to only give permits to a parcel and not to new ADUs on existing parcel. So that 9
should be a requirement for the parking permit program. It also should be a requirement for the 10
parking permit program that new fully parked buildings, those new buildings [that must be] fully 11
parked to the extent that that's correct then they should not be eligible for parking permits and 12
that should be doing that. And another thing that you should allow is that if a business is not 13
registered with the business registry they should not be eligible for parking permits. And all of 14
those could be done under a new system so I think those should be requirements that should be 15
added. 16
17
The next thing is that there are some flaws that I notice. There's no analysis that I could see 18
about potential for pushing parking into neighborhoods since there are two hour parking allowed 19
in the Downtown North and Downtown South, south of Forest. And since those are two hour 20
parking you could hopscotch through the neighborhoods. There’s little zones in there. I don't see 21
114
why this would not cause hopscotching in the neighborhoods for free if parking is charged 1
Downtown. 2
3
The next thing is to respect the Cowper/Webster garage. I try to avoid parking in the 4
Cowper/Webster garage because they have there are too many compact spaces in this garage 5
and too many big cars that don't fit. And therefore what needs to happen is restriping that 6
garage so that the central core which is basically open is for regular cars and then you'll see it fill 7
up. So restriping that would make it be better utilized and I think that's an easy thing to do. It 8
uses a, it loses a few spaces, one probably about I think it's a five or six level garage so that will 9
lose about a dozen spaces, but if that can increase utilization that's a great tradeoff. 10
11
I think that the idea of having paid parking in order to avoid hopscotching is a sort of like trying to 12
solve a problem the only solution you have is if the solution you have is a hammer it's best to 13
think of anything else as a nail. If the problem is hopscotching then why not create one zone 14
Downtown? One zone, not four color zones, one zone Downtown. You can park for two hours 15
Downtown period in the street or you can park for three hours in the parking garage total per day 16
and you could park in 30 minute spots and I think there should be more 30 minute spots for 17
people who want to come down drop of a package, pick up something maybe at Walgreens or 18
whatever, you pick up something you get there and leave. So I think we need more short term 30 19
minute spots and I think that the issue of hopscotching will be eliminated by if you had one big 20
zone with two hours total. It would just that problem would go away and that's a simpler 21
115
solution to making the problem go away and also you have to follow have a simple thing that says 1
you can't hopscotch in Downtown North and South of Forest because if you don't do that you're 2
going to cause that problem. 3
4
I do think I do agree with the idea that if you have a parking charges that on street should be 5
more expensive then off street. But I think that part of the problem is the analysis here has a 6
whole bunch of cities, but not our competitors. The only competitor to our Downtown 7
neighborhood is Mountain View. No analysis of Menlo Park, no analysis of Los Altos, why? Those 8
seem to be our competitors. Our shoppers are not going to go to San Mateo, our shoppers are 9
going to go to Menlo Park or Los Altos or Mountain View or the Stanford Shopping Center which 10
will continue to be free. And if to the extent that you do decide to charge for parking then we 11
should make sure that there's a mechanism for validations from vendors, I mean from stores. So 12
if I go to a store I can get a validation for parking. I go to San Francisco I have dinner there I can 13
get validation for my parking at certain places. That's a way to get people to still shop at your 14
retail, but I think that the consideration is that unless you consider the issue of pushing parking 15
into the neighborhoods because that's free and this is now could be charged or the issue of 16
pushing our business into surrounding cities unless you do that this project of charging for parking 17
is incredibly flawed. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Alcheck: Wow, nice work on the buzzer. Alright, Commissioners let's start at the other end. 20
Do you mind? Ok, we're going to go down line if you have questions/comments let’s put it all 21
116
together. 1
2
Commissioner Rosenblum: So first I want to thank I always thank everyone for their reports, but I 3
think this is really a well done report, very clear, very comprehensive, logical framework, easy to 4
follow, so thank you, well done. All of the recommendations seem quite logical to me and all of 5
or I'd say most of Mr. Keller's recommendations also seem on the specifics very logical to me. So 6
first I want to thank you as well. I think that those were great additions and great 7
recommendations. A couple questions I have; did you consider or analyze unbundling? 8
9
Ms. Dixon: Just to clarify when you say unbundling can you just confirm what you mean by 10
unbundling? 11
12
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so buildings are required to be parked. So many of the buildings 13
that I've worked in in Palo Alto or been in in Palo Alto are actually the parking is underutilized 14
because it’s only available for people in that building and if there were a chance to open that to 15
the public in some way that you could create a lot of supply, but we're not allowed to. So if there 16
were a way to separate the parking from the building then potentially that's a better use of 17
liquidity in our City. 18
19
Ms. Dixon: Sure, so the data collection only included the public parking locations to highlight that 20
and so one of the ideas has definitely been discussed was what we call shared parking 21
117
agreements. And so from that aspect of the unbundling I just wanted to make sure we were 1
talking the same language. It's definitely something that I will say the City staff has been 2
considering and something that other cities are also actively considering. It really comes down to 3
some of yours zoning challenges as well as the willingness of the private owners to also share 4
those locations. And so I will say that it takes a very proactive campaign to get out there and 5
identify those locations and get them willing and interested to it. I can say the City of San Diego 6
has very successfully implemented a shared parking agreement. There is a reduced a release of 7
liability that's really important when you start to talk about those opportunities, but I will say that 8
this particular study focused really on the public assets and the areas within the study zone so not 9
the again the private areas. 10
11
Mr. Kamhi: And now that I understand what you were talking about apologies I didn't jump in, but 12
that is definitely something that falls within our other efforts of systematically looking to add 13
additional parking and we currently are engaged in that effort. And we're currently talking with 14
other garages and trying to see if we can add capacity. 15
16
Commissioner Rosenblum: That's great. And so one thing I would recommend is in the spirit of 17
this being a study session and things to look at the future one of the areas that's missing to me is 18
a philosophy of parking liquidity and I guess that’s the only way of that I could I know it’s not very 19
eloquent, but what I mean by that is whenever we have a building in Palo Alto the big controversy 20
is is it fully parked or not. And we have people come in and show that based on their calculation 21
118
not fully parked and if they implement such and such Transportation Demand Management 1
(TDM) measure whether or not they can reduce the parking requirement, etcetera and 2
meanwhile in places that I find it easier to park they seem to have pooled their funds to build at 3
scale or scaled shared facilities. 4
5
And so in many ways I think in Palo Alto we have often the wrong argument about each building 6
having full parking requirement that then because it's not unbundled or because it's only 7
available to that building often becomes underutilized or it’s illiquid. And so one thing that I 8
would recommend as part of this report about our strategy for parking in the future if it's if it 9
belongs in this report that's great. If not if there's a separate report on kind of our overall 10
overarching parking regimen I think that's really important. We pursue individual properties to 11
have calculation based on what they should have and in some in many cases you do need onsite 12
parking, but I think we've gone quite far and away from shared facilities which can be better 13
utilized. A couple specific questions about your report; what are the privacy and civil liberties 14
implications of LPR and is this something that the City has already started to look at and how 15
comfortable are we with scanning license plates? 16
17
Ms. Dixon: I'll talk about the technology then I'll let Phillip tackle the City's approach towards it. 18
Important about the LPR it's something that the Big Brother clause we hear that a lot. The fact is 19
is that the information that's recorded is simply a license plate. The information is not retained 20
unless a citation is issued. There is no Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) information looked 21
119
up. The only time DMV information is accessed is once a citation has been issued and the 1
delinquent basically kicks in so that if you have to send a notice to somebody who hasn't paid a 2
parking citation. And so LPR technology has been used for years and years including automated 3
enforcement systems, etcetera, etcetera. And so the fact is is that it's an information resource 4
tool and there's nothing really attached to it until again which time a citation has been issued. 5
Did you want to talk about the City's approach towards it at all or any considerations? 6
7
Mr. Kamhi: I’m not really sure that I have much to add to that. I was tried, looking down to see if 8
Albert might have anything to add to that, but… oh, Hillary is. 9
10
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Thanks, Hillary Gitelman the Planning Director. I promised 11
Josh that I would sit in this evening in case there were questions I could help with. I think the 12
answer to your question about the privacy concerns is this is still an area that the City Council and 13
the City as a whole is grappling with. I don't think there's been a decision that LPR is something 14
we want to use extensively, but I think we're hoping that this study and the opportunities to 15
improve our parking enforcement is will create a opportunity to have that conversation. So I 16
think it probably will happen starting here and at the Finance Committee and just as a general 17
discussion it’s happening and also at Policy and Services so. 18
19
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Yeah, I just wanted to register a comment that I think this is the 20
benefit of LPR is pretty obvious in terms of the flexibility, convenience, but there are some really 21
120
controversial implications of deploying it and I just want to make sure that so if it's on the agenda 1
and it’s being vetted this is a lengthy discussion I would guess in a community like ours. And 2
there was just a hearing on Monday about full notification of surveillance, etcetera. And I would 3
say this falls in that same category. 4
5
Ms. Gitelman: I think you're absolutely right to raise that question and I think it's incumbent on us 6
to figure out how we can put a box around this issue and can create limitations and protections to 7
make it more palatable to the community. 8
9
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. And my last question is around wayfinding. And so based on the 10
report let me just make sure I understand this. Is it as simple as there are just signs that says 11
parking this way or is it more active than that? Saying like this garage is at 20 percent utilization, 12
this garage is full? 13
14
Ms. Dixon: So the intent, sorry there Phillip. Do you want to? Well so the intent for wayfinding 15
it's as simple as it sounds, finding your way. So it can be as simple as a static sign that shows 16
parking in this direction also the social media aspect of applications, web applications ,things like 17
that, but also the intent is to have a vehicle counting systems to tell you how many spaces are 18
actually available. That information would actually also feed out to potential external signs as 19
well as a variety of applications. A lot of your mapping applications are actually tying into that 20
information as well so that you don't necessarily have to have a standalone park Palo Alto app, 21
121
you can actually utilize it from again Waze and different apps like that, Google maps are all going 1
to start to tie that information in as well. So everything from digital messaging, static signs as 2
well as electronic media I think will be relevant for that. 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah that was going to be my comment. I find that the current if the 5
wayfinding system is just saying parking to the left/parking to the right it's I don't find that 6
experience to be useful because it basically says every block there is parking, but without giving 7
me any information about the size or probability of me finding a place. To the extent that we are 8
building a whole new infrastructure with application program interface (API) that could link into 9
Google or Waze or others I think that's a good use of our time. 10
11
I said that was my final thing, but actually I did have one more quick thing. So to the extent that 12
we can have an integrated system you mentioned that you want this to be integrated with 13
existing fare systems. What is the most likely candidate for that? Is this part of Clipper, is this… 14
what is, what are you talking about when you want to have an integrated fare system? 15
16
Ms. Dixon: No that's absolutely right. The intent is well Clipper 2.0 is coming soon and so the 17
intent would be any solicitation that we ran from a technology aspect is that you're going to look 18
for an integration allowance for Clipper. Anything it's again consistent with even San Francisco 19
the fact that you can use your Fastrak fast pass to pay at the parking garages. It's anything that 20
you can do to provide a user convenience is really imperative to the process so anything that we 21
122
can tie into that solicitation to allow for the vendors to provide that type of availability. And I just 1
also want to highlight when we talk about wayfinding these payment methodologies when we 2
talk about first mile/last mile I think that that's really an important aspect of everything that 3
we're talking about for Palo Alto is we want people to plan their trips before they leave their 4
homes so that they can look at the alternatives and options and potentially jump on transit, jump 5
on the bus, whatever the case may be, but also to understand that if they do tend to drive then 6
where they can find parking availability through all of the different planning methodologies that 7
are out there. 8
9
Mr. Kamhi: And if I can add to that the thought of payment and although it is singular to this 10
project the commuter wallet it is mentioned in here under the one of the three legged stools. 11
That commuter wallet the thought of the vision is that you could buy your transit passes on there 12
or you could buy a parking space on there. You could figure out your commute if it's getting an 13
Uber or it's taking a bus or it's buying your parking space and really if this is really a full holistic 14
system you're buying perhaps even at an exact location where your space is from that and it’ll tell 15
you this is how you get to that space. And so that's kind of what our hope is with the commuter 16
wallet. That's kind of a separate project. That's the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Mobility 17
on Demand sandbox grant that City of Palo Alto was awarded. 18
19
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. 20
21
123
Commissioner Summa: Hi. Thanks for the presentation and thank you to former Commissioner 1
Keller for his thoughtful comments. So at a high level I'm concerned about negative impacts on 2
retail from some of the things we're doing here and also potential exacerbation of free two hour 3
parking in which I think Mr. Keller mentioned in neighborhoods. So those are kind of and then 4
obviously we want to do what we can to improve commuter parking and without harming 5
residential parking so I think the idea of having enough 30 minute parking spots in front of certain 6
businesses is really important like dry cleaners and things like that. And is the whole Downtown 7
going to be two hour parking only? Is that what you said? 8
9
Ms. Dixon: The intent right now with the different tiered zones is to start it off with potentially 10
two hour, but you have the opportunity by creating the different zones that's the reason why we 11
suggest that is that you could actually end up potentially manipulating the exterior zones could be 12
three hour they could be four hour for that matter, but by being able to create those segments it 13
gives you that flexibility with the system. 14
15
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so you're not talking about adding more than two hours at a different 16
rate maybe a higher rate or something? You're talking about different physical areas of the 17
Downtown. 18
19
Ms. Dixon: It could actually be either for that matter. I mean you could basically do you could 20
change the time limits, you could also change the rates technically and I think that that's basically 21
124
something that from a policy decision will be one of the opportunities for the City to consider. 1
But what we're just suggesting is that you segment the areas so that you have that flexibility 2
based on impacting utilization so that you might find that in your outer tier zones that either 3
having a lower rate and a longer stay versus in the maybe inner core it's a shorter stay potentially 4
a higher rate. You have a lot of flexibility with that and that's something that we're just saying by 5
segmenting it into those zones it gives you that flexibility to really kind of manage the resource. 6
7
Commissioner Summa: Ok, so it could be managed in a variety of ways? 8
9
Ms. Dixon: Absolutely. 10
11
Commissioner Summa: Ok and then I did want to say that it seems like the problem of 12
hopscotching in this color zones could be solved by through a law that said you can't do it and/or 13
maybe having just one zone there so I'm a little hesitant to commit to all the single meters and in 14
all these areas or in some of these areas if we could solve the problem without all of that. 15
However, it seems like you can do it in a really quickly time, really quick time for the City by next 16
spring so that's kind of exciting. 17
18
Let's see… and yeah, I do think that we should look at the impacts of not parking ADUs and also 19
consider that new buildings that are fully parked really maybe shouldn't be able to get commuter 20
permits because maybe they're going to hedge their bets sometimes. Maybe they are some of 21
125
the people that are buying ones and not really using them because they're so cheap. So those are 1
some of my initial observations. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: Good evening. So I want to also acknowledge that I thought the presentation was 4
excellent. Very, very effective and I appreciate you giving it. 5
6
So let me piggyback on something Commissioner Summa said about retail. One of our goals as I 7
think you stated should be eliminating hopscotching. Anybody that's working Downtown that has 8
to hopscotch we need to help them. I don't consider the hopscotcher an offender. I consider 9
them like a victim of a poor system and I assume the hopscotch is an employee of some business 10
Downtown. And one of the ideas that you mentioned was raising the rates in our Downtown 11
parking garages in an effort to encourage people who aren't utilizing them well to abandon them 12
if they're not really needed. Maybe they're hanging on to them longer than they would otherwise 13
and if they did that then the wait list would go down. I would encourage in our next meeting you 14
to explore the notion of the rates for service employees in the restaurant and retail businesses to 15
be different than the rates for any other commercial employee. I imagine that our office 16
employees have a great deal higher threshold for rates versus our employers who have 17
restaurants and retail just are essentially continuing to struggle. 18
19
I do think that we will have an immediate loss of retail to Stanford. I just I think I'm skeptical 20
about paid parking in Downtown. I'm also skeptical of general restrictions that make it harder for 21
126
our retail establishments and our restaurants to find accommodations for their employees. And 1
my concern is that we have to be really careful to continue to hit all three legs of the stool at the 2
same time because if we are unevenly doing it then we may see one group suffer more than the 3
other and I and sometimes when that happens it's not reversible. As you know it's not something 4
oh, that wasn’t great let's accommodate retail or our restaurants in a different way and then 5
suddenly they're not coming back. 6
7
You talked a little bit about pay stations and single so let me I want to operate from the premise 8
that I’m generally very skeptical about this adoption. I’m scared to support it and to encourage it. 9
That's not to say I can't get behind it. One of my biggest complaints about both paid space multi-10
space and single-space is that you have to stripe the spots. We already do stripe the spots. 11
Downtown Mountain View stripes the spots. I don't know if you've been to Downtown Mountain 12
View. You could fit three Fiat's in one of the spots that they create for paid parking. And I always 13
think to myself like wouldn't it be great if just the whole block was a spot and if you wanted to be 14
on that block you had a multi-meter and you paid and if you could fit your car on that spot then 15
that was your spot. It's we will lose sort of some opportunity if we create single meters because 16
we have to create these 18 or 20 foot long spaces that might accommodate in two spaces three 17
and a half cars if they were smaller. And I guess despite the last few years I still think that cars 18
will continue to get smaller. So I would like to see if there is some approach the next time we 19
meet for accommodating a more flexible use of the street parking in both models. I don't know 20
that single… actually I should say this, I highly doubt that the single meter paid meter could do it, 21
127
but maybe there is a model of the multi-meter that would. 1
2
I also I know I understand why two hours is I understand why that's the position that you're 3
taking in your recommendation. I tend to think that two hours is really short time to grab a bite. 4
I know that sounds crazy. I mean if you ask like some if you ask a Parisian they'll be like two 5
hours, I can't get through my appetizer in two hours. You ask a New Yorker maybe they'll say it 6
takes me 15 minutes to have four lunches so it's sort of depends on who you ask, but my broader 7
point is that I would suggest that for a lot of our establishments that bring an individual parker 8
Downtown they those all those establishments whatever they are, I mean let's say it's a high end 9
restaurant like [unintelligible] or let's say it's a particular yoga studio or whatnot. If the amount 10
let's say you're I’ll get perfect example yoga class is 75 minutes long. And you get in there you got 11
to change and you've got to whatever and by the time you're out it's been an hour and 35. The 12
time you have left on your meter will help determine how much time you're willing to linger on 13
the street. 14
15
And so all the other retail establishments that are ancillary to like whatever you came down for 16
benefit when you are willing to linger longer. And so for that reason I would encourage a three 17
hour time at minimum because it's always between two and three. It's never between one and 18
two. I'm always wishing that I had a little bit more time before I could run back to my meter and 19
hopscotch or feed it again or if that isn't even an option and I have to leave then unfortunately 20
my shopping experience ends. And again I think a lot of the, a lot of my emphasis and sort of 21
128
reviewing this is how do we continue to encourage those businesses to thrive in sort of an ever 1
increasingly difficult area? 2
3
I laughed when he said it, but you have to sort of wonder when the Palantir guy says that LPR is a 4
concern. I didn't even think about that, but anyway so that was an interesting comment and I’ve 5
never I didn't occur to me and I would like to sort of follow that discussion and find out what 6
some of the real decision makers sort of feel about that. And maybe there's some reading that 7
we can do about. 8
9
What I did think about when you talked about license plate reading was car share and how does a 10
car share program operate inside of a license plate reading program? I don’t know. It's 11
something there I'm sure there are households in our town that share a car that may not, I don’t 12
know. Actually I should rephrase. There’s probably two cars per person in Palo Alto, but that 13
model may change as we start to rely more on ride sharing like Uber and Lyft people may end up 14
saying we can get by with one car instead of one each and then the question will rise how does 15
LPR work with respect to that. 16
17
Ms. Dixon: Are you concerned about the way the permits would work for that? I'm just not sure I 18
just want to clarify. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: I'm saying that the flexibility I'm not driving a car that's registered to me and I'm 21
129
not associated with the wallet that's connected to that license plate, but I am using the car and I 1
want to pay. And so… 2
3
Ms. Dixon: Got it. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: I'm just a little if I used a Zip Car how would that car pay? Maybe that's already 6
figured out. I'm just curious to know (interrupted) 7
8
Ms. Dixon: It's like when you get a parking citation in a rental car, it's just like that. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Got it. 11
12
Ms. Dixon: So you have the your own liability would be you being the owner as the temporary 13
driver so like if you get a parking ticket in a rental car you get the ticket ultimately. It’s kind of like 14
that. 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Ok. Alright. And then I think I'm sure everybody feels this way, but I think the 17
vehicle count systems are really, really great and I wish we had more of them. And I, but I do 18
strongly believe that the wayfinding whatever sort of ideas we have for wayfinding if they 19
included parking counts I think they would even be more effective. And then you talked a little 20
bit about this commuter wallet. 21
130
1
Mr. Kamhi: I'm sorry, if I can really quickly that is already a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 2
project. It's already underway in design so that is going to include space counts and potentially 3
lights at every single stall. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok. You talked a little about a commuter wallet. I guess I'm confused because 6
how is that… I'd love to learn more about that and I'm curious to know like why is that third party 7
concept better than just like your mobile wallet, your Apple Wallet or your Google you know 8
whatever it is? Why have a third party system in place as opposed to just or let me put it to you 9
this way; if that is, if we do if we utilize some sort of Clipper card or commuter wallet and it 10
sounds to me like you're open to it, this notion of just like integrating all forms of payment 11
because the Caltrain is a perfect example. You just want to… 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Yep. Tap and go. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 16
17
Ms. Dixon: If I could just touch on that. The reason why it's so relevant is because the City is 18
looking at some very progressive solutions and we talk about incentive based opportunities in 19
order to encourage people to take transit, take Caltrain, whatever the case may be the 20
opportunity to tie this whole program together and that's really where the commuter, the 21
131
commuter wallet comes into play. I think we're still at the infancy of the approach, but the 1
opportunity to really tie in some of those benefits we're trying to relook at alternatives so that a 2
person can buy an alternative parking permit, things that are kind of really creative that are out 3
there that maybe you have a reduced fee and you only buy a couple of days a month. It's just 4
different opportunities and that's where the commuter wallet really comes into play is that there 5
are some really innovative ideas that are going to come along with that that are very much in 6
their infancy and you're going to hear a lot more about those. But I think what I said earlier about 7
parking needs to be simple, it needs to be easy and when you can provide as many opportunities 8
to people as possible so that they can pay and just go that's really the approach that you want to 9
take when you're managing parking especially these days. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Ok. And then I’ll just do a few more. We're down two Commissioners tonight and 12
I’m going to vocally encourage them to sort of reach out so that when we come back if they've 13
got some specific questions those answers have had an opportunity to sort of be reflected by you. 14
So I'm going encourage them to reach out to you. 15
16
Ms. Dixon: Sure. 17
18
Chair Alcheck: And then I want to echo my other Commissioners acknowledgement of Arthur 19
Keller’s comments. We're down two, but it's like we're up one. It's nice actually to have you here 20
providing input. I feel the same way he does about striping in this garage. I don't even have a big 21
132
car and I'm I don't understand how anybody parks in half the spots in this garage. And I pass 1
open spaces a lot because and again I’ll say it, I don't particularly have a strong affinity to my car 2
doors, but I still pass a lot of open spots because I’m just like how am I going to get into that spot 3
without screwing that guy’s car? So I think that that's a really valid point and I've never sort of 4
thought about the tradeoff. And it would be interesting when we come back to sort of 5
understand well what would it take to get a little bit more space to accommodate cars which is 6
funny, ironic because I just made the argument that on the street we should have more flexibility, 7
but this is width versus length so there’s a difference. 8
9
Ms. Dixon: Sure. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Ok, that's all for me. 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Commissioner [Note-Chair] if I could just address the one thing you made mention of 14
at the beginning it would be doing a program a disservice if I didn't highlight the fact that the City 15
actually does have a very active low income employee reduced parking permit program and it's 16
something that they have actually are continuing to make improvements to the program. And it's 17
something that is really out there and it's a reduced fee, substantially reduced fee. It's available. 18
You can bring in basically proof of income to qualify for that permit. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Right. No, I'm familiar with that. 21
133
1
Ms. Dixon: Yeah, perfect. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: I'm actually suggesting that you it's not so much based on income it's based on 4
type of business. So it we we've spent some significant time working on what we call retail 5
preservation and what can we do to kind of keep our retail vibrant and any burden that we can 6
eliminate regardless of income. 7
8
Ms. Dixon: Ok. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: I mean if the owner of that restaurant or the chef who may make more than the 11
minimum should still qualify for potentially a lower cost permit. If, if our intention is to preserve 12
those establishments ahead of office which I believe is a goal that we've repeatedly stated. I 13
before I forget I want to sort of double down on the comment of the analysis of the effects of 14
adding paid in the core without solving the issue of potentially people moving into the… and I 15
agree I mean there's a breaking point where you won’t go that far to hopscotch, but that was an 16
interesting point that I think should be addressed. 17
18
Ms. Dixon: And we do know that staff is looking at that very actively. And just because of the fact 19
that a couple of you have mentioned the concerns about paid parking the one thing that I really 20
want to advocate and say and this has really became very prevalent in the stakeholder meetings 21
134
was that we don't you cannot quantify how many people aren’t currently coming Downtown 1
because there's no parking available. And I just really want to make that point because that was 2
something that was very relevant in the conversations that we had with the stakeholders and also 3
through the different surveys that we did is that that's something that you really can't gauge is 4
how many people don't come Downtown because there is not available parking. 5
6
And also to your comment about the space markings one of the things so I go to municipalities all 7
over the country and Palo Alto actually on street all of the spaces are currently marked with the t-8
bars and they're actually quite well done. I would say that it's something like from a space aspect 9
of how wide the spaces are I think that your street engineers did a very fine job in those markings. 10
When you talk about removing the markings and trying to squeeze as many cars as you can onto 11
the street location I can tell you from experience that the challenge with that is is that it starts 12
with the first car that parks that day that is going to determine the rule for the rest of the day. 13
And it's something that can significantly impact and some days there’s good days and a lot of days 14
there's bad days. And so one of the things that you've done very well currently is your street 15
engineering the spaces actually are marked quite well and I wouldn't say that it's one of those 16
situations like you described. And so I just really want to advocate for the fact that your markings 17
are unlike most City streets and they're actually done quite well and they're actually very 18
conducive for whatever parking regulations you have because of the fact it's very clear where 19
your cars are supposed to park as well. 20
21
135
Chair Alcheck: Ok. I appreciate that. Thank you. Ok, Commissioner Lauing. 1
2
Commissioner Lauing: Thanks. I've been reading your book for a lot of the last day, 3
[unintelligible] five days. It was very, very detailed, very helpful. 4
5
Just a couple of overall kind of big picture questions, objectives or motivators. A lot of time in 6
here you’re talking about and we can make a lot of money to put into our TDM program. I don't 7
know how big of a motivator that is, but it certainly shouldn't be the primary one obviously. 8
You're trying to eliminate congestion and get circulation and so on, but I guess I would encourage 9
just not to get too carried away with that not the least of which is we could be kind of optimistic 10
in what we're going to get with it. 11
12
And the second one is basically saying it in a different way, but are we really trying to keep some 13
cars from not coming Downtown? Or the merchants would say are you trying to send people to 14
Stanford? So we got to be really careful about that and some of the other comments that my 15
colleagues made kind of speak to that. There may be other ways than putting up meters and 16
charging all the time for everything. 17
18
Just also I [unintelligible] has a few assumptions so I was really impressed about the dynamic 19
pricing and the quickness with which you can do that. Is it usually when you install is it pretty 20
easily understood and accepted? And how frequently do you want to change it? Because if you 21
136
go to your favorite spot and it's two bucks and then oh my god it went to $3.50 and I was only 1
here yesterday it seems like it would probably be infrequent. Is that a good assumption? 2
3
Ms. Dixon: San Francisco currently has a model where they are changing rates basically every 90 4
days. They have the opportunity to change rates. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 7
8
Ms. Dixon: And in the case of the ordinance in San Francisco I believe that the increase can be no 9
more than 50 percent, fifty cent up or down. And so I think that that's very important when you 10
talk about a dynamic model is with the exception of special events which special event rates are 11
also pre-established and pre-determined a great example is up at the AT&T Park around the 12
Giants baseball games the special event rate is determined at the onset of the year and the Giants 13
schedule is published and you know that if you're going to park within that colored zone or that 14
region you're going to pay that flat rate after whatever time of day. But I would suggest that 15
there be a methodology associated with that other than special events and a time scale for when 16
you look at what those rate models and those changes are. I will tell you the technology does 17
allow you, you could change the rates honestly on a very frequent basis, but you want to make 18
sure again parking is about education and information. So you want to make sure that people 19
understand and are clear you don't want that message to be I paid $2.00 yesterday and today it’s 20
$8.00. 21
137
1
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 2
3
Ms. Dixon: Yeah. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: Also I was stunned it almost defies now defies intellect that for changing it 6
by a quarter can have that much of an impact. 7
8
Ms. Dixon: Surprising. 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Is that something… It is stunning to me. Is that something that's 11
dependent on the demographic? 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Well I mean your demographic I have to say is pretty consistent I'd say with most of 14
San Francisco. And I can tell you if you're familiar with the neighborhoods there the Marina 15
Green there along Chestnut Avenue and those areas to Union Street they were able to show that 16
just there's a half a block over and there's actually almost I think a $2.00 difference. And I mean 17
we're talking about a half a block, but what I mentioned earlier is that most people want to park 18
right outside of the location that they're going to and that's the issue with congestion and 19
circulation and so very interestingly they have noticed that that can be that big of a differential in 20
people because they want to park right outside of where they want to go. 21
138
1
Commissioner Lauing: But I mean does a quarter the other direction deter somebody from 2
parking there? 3
4
Ms. Dixon: It can. What I will typically say in areas just like yours and San Francisco alike is that 5
it's been my experience that I find a parking space and I don't really care what I'm going to pay 6
because I found a parking space. And I have to say that that's kind of what I call the Bay Area 7
mentality and a lot of the neighborhoods like yours you're just stoked to have a parking space and 8
you really don't care what it's going to cost you. It's unfortunate, but true. And it's something 9
that I think is very commonplace in our current society so that no matter how much messaging, 10
no matter how much signage and information you put out there, the fact is if I get that space I'm 11
just happy to have it. And now I got to make sure I don't get a parking ticket so what do I got to 12
pay? 13
14
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so then there are a couple of another assumption that use [regular aid] 15
I know it's sort of industry standard is this 80 percent maxim and doesn't apply mostly to 16
Downtown areas as opposed to neighborhoods? 17
18
Ms. Dixon: So for the neighborhoods I mean there's definitely different measures that go into 19
play, but when you are talking about commercial areas, areas where you want to experience 20
turnover and transition, where you want to ensure that there is available parking for consumers 21
139
to come down and partake, you want to look for a one to one and a half space ratio per block of 1
available spacing. And that's where the studies have shown that the trends are between 80 to 85 2
percent you'll typically have that one to one and half spaces available. And that's it has proven I 3
mean there's been a lot of studies and a lot of statistics to go with that. And I think that from Dr. 4
Shoup that model has been basically adopted and accepted worldwide for that matter. 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. In Mountain View it must be 180 percent. And when I was looking at 7
your I’m interested in what you call the afternoon time frame starting at lunchtime. So to me 8
that’s lunchtime which is a whole different matter entirely. But even at that case in some of the 9
stats that you showed there it can be over 100 percent, but sometimes it's still only 80 percent. 10
And when you do the interviews with people the people say actually parking was pretty easy 11
today. It only took me five to eight minutes. So obviously it makes us question well how big a 12
problem we have here? I'd try to park on University, worst case scenario park on University to go 13
to a restaurant there at most I have to do a block and a half away, even at lunch? I mean that's 14
not so bad. So if I guess the question is if your surveys show that people aren't all that upset are 15
we really just dealing with the circulating traffic in really in the Downtown core as the core issue? 16
17
Ms. Dixon: [Unintelligible] got it so it's again where is available parking? How do people figure 18
out where that available parking is? I think that's having done a lot of the interviews myself and 19
talked to these folks I think that was the real head scratcher for folks was trying to know where to 20
go and not knowing where to go and then what was really acceptable. For your locals and the 21
140
people that came down frequently it was one of those oh yeah, I drove up and down University a 1
couple times couldn't find a spot so like I know where I can go and find parking I had to walk a 2
few blocks it wasn't so bad, but then you had the folks that were visiting and hadn't been here 3
before and were just bewildered by where was I supposed to park and then trying to figure out 4
how to find their location (interrupted) 5
6
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah although that could be wayfinding not more parking spaces or pay 7
more for it. 8
9
Ms. Dixon: Potentially. 10
11
Commissioner Lauing: Right. So I'm not naïve. I'm not going to say there's no parking problem. 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Sure. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: But I think you've done consumer surveys and a lot of them are saying it's 16
not that bad, I'm ok here. 17
18
Ms. Dixon: We have quite a few folks that basically just kind of did the shoulder shrug of this is 19
Palo Alto, this is what I've come to expect. 20
21
141
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah and then the other thing I was intrigued by of course this is not 1
somebody voting, this is somebody I mean voting with their wallet. It’s voting with a survey, but 2
in a couple surveys here 54 percent in one objected to paying for convenience, 64 objected to 3
paying at all. Do we conclude that that's good because therefore they're not going to come and 4
we're keeping people away? And again I'm concerned about we don't want this to have the 5
opposite effect of having people stay away because it's looking like it's not a place to park. And 6
obviously we all know friends/relatives that say that right now. 7
8
Ms. Dixon: Right. 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Oh, have you been to such and such restaurant? No way I'm not going 11
Downtown. 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Right. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: So. 16
17
Ms. Dixon: And that's why I mentioned the comment earlier of not knowing how many people 18
don't come Downtown because of the impacted parking area. 19
20
Commissioner Lauing: Right, right. 21
142
1
Ms. Dixon: And I think that that's something that's very relevant to Palo Alto for sure. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: A lot of detail questions, but I don’t think we have, need to go into now 4
because I think time (interrupted) 5
6
Ms. Dixon: I think my colleague wants to add something. 7
8
[Mr. Patrick _____]: If I could just add one thing to your comment regarding people's length of 9
time to find a space and versus what the occupancy actually showed. We interviewed a lot of 10
your employees Downtown at their businesses and typically those businesses open up during the 11
morning which is when your occupancy is far less than the afternoon or midafternoon, those 12
employees are typically already at work. So those we associated with being the people that 13
found parking within one to five minutes or in a shorter period of time. So I just want to make 14
that observation. 15
16
Ms. Dixon: But I could also add because we talked to (interrupted) 17
18
Chair Alcheck: Are you saying that their survey response is like it's not that bad skewed that, is 19
that what you’re saying? 20
21
143
[Mr. _______]: That in terms of whether there’s, whether or not there's a parking issue and the 1
fact that people were responding that there that they found a space in a relatively short amount 2
of time so it really wasn't that bad. Those are more likely those that are arriving for work during 3
the morning hours when occupancy isn't bad Downtown so therefore finding a space is much 4
easier. 5
6
Ms. Dixon: And talking to the folks that were on swing shift I can tell you that the reaction was the 7
extreme opposite in the respect that there's no chance they could find parking and the frustration 8
levels I can tell you from experience I had two service workers that were in tears when I was 9
talking to them about parking. And I just it just goes to show I mean the extremes of the 10
experience and it depends on especially time of day. And I think what Patrick highlighted is really 11
relevant because you come you can see by the statistics you come Downtown in the morning you 12
all know it's no problem there's ample room, but the folks that arrive to work at two, three 13
o'clock in the afternoon which there's a substantial group that does there's no resource, no 14
availability for them for parking. 15
16
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, one other thing is that I noticed that Council actually amended the 17
Motion before it was passed and they're now talking about alternatives to paid parking. And the 18
alternatives would include shuttle services in and so on so I don't know where that is in the 19
process, but I'm sure I hope it's going to actually be evaluated. And I actually have a bunch of 20
process issues, but we should probably do that at the end in terms of what our involvement 21
144
should be and timeline and so on. 1
2
But at the end of the day obviously easy you know this, but I'm just kind of digesting for myself 3
ease of use and customer friendly the new regulations on how to operate things that's just got to 4
be right up there, constant communication to the public has got to be up there, lots of outreach 5
and everything needs to be a pilot and then a rollout. So I think we should be cautious on some 6
of these things that my colleagues have already raised here before we start restriping and so on 7
let's give it a go. If it doesn't work boom we can with this dynamic pricing and dynamic building 8
we can just we could just shut it down. So I do want to come back to process because we need to 9
see what our involvement’s going to be in the calendar and who's going to do what. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Ok so I'm just going to suggest if it's ok maybe going over... I’m not, I don't need to 12
participate in a second round of comments. I don't know about everyone else, but I would 13
encourage you just to delve into some of your questions so that we can (interrupted) 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: Right now you mean? 16
17
Chair Alcheck: Yeah just so I'd like to be as… 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, great. 20
21
145
Chair Alcheck: Effective as possible (interrupted) 1
2
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I’m [unintelligible] except for those (interrupted) 3
4
Chair Alcheck: With one round. Yeah, I’d like to do it in one round so we can move on to the next 5
item. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, great. So the there’s a proposed deadline here. This is I guess 8
questions to staff now. There's a proposed deadline of fall of 17 and coming also starting to come 9
back to us in August. So I think we’re supposed to have our what do we call those things? 10
Refined recommendations to Council, but I'm not clear how much of those are ours versus staff. 11
In other words how much are we going to interact on this? Should we get involved in committees 12
to start looking at the various kinds of parking meters to compare them, that kind of thing? So 13
how to process that and what we're expecting two weeks from now at the end of August and 14
then also how much on more ongoing outreach is going to be done? So it's kind of five sub 15
questions there. 16
17
Mr. Kamhi: And if I can just step back a little bit about the Motion of the City Council I wasn't 18
exactly clear what you were asking about the or stating about the Motion of the City Council. It 19
didn't really directly mention anything about… they didn't directly mention anything about 20
looking into shuttles or at least that wasn't in the Motion as amended. 21
146
1
Commissioner Lauing: At the top of package Page 171 the Motion and amended restated. So 2
they sent it to PTC, Finance Committee, and staff to refine recommendations related to 3
introduction of various parking management strategies. 4
5
Mr. Kamhi: Yes. That's actually the bulk of this. These are the parking management strategies 6
(interrupted) 7
8
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 9
10
Mr. Kamhi: That's referring to. 11
12
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. I thought I understood that there was going to be an alternative like 13
looking at shuttles instead of meters in certain cases. 14
15
Mr. Kamhi: Well the shuttles just to make it clear the shuttles are part of that three legged stool 16
that we referenced earlier. 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Right. 19
20
Mr. Kamhi: So that is part of the (interrupted) 21
147
1
Chair Alcheck: I think he's referring to like a shuttle to a parking lot, is that you mean? 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Like a out of… satellite parking. I think that's (interrupted) 6
7
Mr. Kamhi: That was certainly not anything that the City Council discussed. If that's something 8
you'd like us to look into specifically you're welcome to request that. 9
10
Commissioner Lauing: Well what they took out was the language that said paid parking in 11
Downtown Palo Alto and made it broader of various parking management strategies. 12
13
Mr. Kamhi: Yeah I think that was more to determine the demand for actual paid. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: I think it's a good suggestion. Maybe that topic should be broached in the next 16
meeting in August, off satellite parking with potentially parking shuttles. 17
18
Mr. Kamhi: Sure. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: I think that if it's not included then why don't we include it? How about that? 21
148
1
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. I mean… 2
3
Mr. Kamhi: Sorry, I didn't mean to backtrack us from your question, but (interrupted) 4
5
Commissioner Lauing: We could pay people to take those shuttles Downtown. 6
7
Mr. Kamhi: Sure. But sorry, back to your first question I believe was about timing and how we’d 8
like you to handle this. I mean I think the first step is this, you providing us some kind of high 9
level comments that will help us to refine recommendations and bring back to you some choices. 10
And I think that would be probably the way I would recommend us to move forward, but of 11
course open to your recommendations. 12
13
Commissioner Lauing: So you're not I’m asking questions I don't have a perspective on this yet. 14
You're not asking us to say get together in a couple committee meetings and look at stand-alone 15
meters benefits and drawbacks versus meters in a parking lot and what might better? 16
17
Mr. Kamhi: I think what we’d probably like to do and I'm looking at Julie here, but I think what 18
we'd probably like to do is bring you some things that we'd like you to make decisions on for us. 19
20
Ms. Dixon: We can definitely do that work for you and present those to you so that that way you 21
149
can evaluate the options. So when it comes to the different technology options kind of the pros 1
and cons of single space versus pay stations and a lot of that we really did vet with the 2
stakeholders too so to be able to share that information with you would be very easy to do. 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: And what about things like at some level of detail to be determined what 5
you should try first in the pilot areas at what price point? 6
7
Ms. Dixon: Yeah, for sure and we kind of call it a parking action plan for that matter. 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 10
11
Ms. Dixon: And everything you described about the incremental approach kind of dipping your 12
toes in those will definitely all be the matter of assessment. Different ways to approach the 13
different technology; vetting and assessment there's different methodologies, vendors coming 14
out and doing show and tells with the hardware, also doing site visits to some of your neighboring 15
communities, all of your neighboring communities have the plethora of the infrastructure that's 16
available so we could even work with staff on coordinating site trips and field trips for that matter 17
too, but we can coordinate with staff so that we can present those options to you. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so before the end of August you're not looking for anything more from 20
us. 21
150
1
Chair Alcheck: You know what? Let me just make suggestion. If you anticipate there is an up… 2
I'm going to ask staff to email the Commission as a whole and say let's take the next couple weeks 3
as an opportunity to send any other feedback that we think of in the next couple days especially 4
for the Commissioners that weren’t here, but if there are technologies that are local that we 5
could get familiar with simply by driving there and checking it out on our own I'd really appreciate 6
it if you put together a list. 7
8
Ms. Dixon: Sure. 9
10
Chair Alcheck: Made available to the public and emailed to us so that I guess I'm just paying 11
attention because (interrupted) 12
13
Ms. Dixon: Sure. 14
15
Chair Alcheck: I probably interact with them, I'm just not going to be thinking oh, this is the one 16
and I'll check it out. I’ll literally carry the list with me and every time I park somewhere I'll check it 17
off and I go yeah, I saw that one and this is what I liked and didn’t like. And I imagine that that 18
might be helpful for us as we prepare for August. 19
20
Ms. Dixon: Absolutely. That's easy to do. 21
151
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: That’s it. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Gardias, please. 6
7
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Thanks very much for coming and staying till what is it nearly 8
ten o'clock? Maybe another few minutes till I go through my questions. So thank you very much 9
for your presentation. 10
11
So first important item is pretty much the scope, we haven't had, we have not had opportunity to 12
look into the scope and I think that it just comes very often because some things are brought to 13
us later on where they are taking shape and then pretty much there is a missed opportunity of 14
just talking to us early and defining to discuss the scope. From this what I see pretty much the 15
scope has been defined to rectangle of the Downtown which I don't believe that this should be 16
the case. And I think that I would like to encourage you to look at the scope again. When we met 17
with Council over a month ago at least Eric Filseth and Mayor Scharff they encourage us explicitly 18
to pretty much look at the parking issue broader. And I think that comments and read out of the 19
comments from my colleague and read out of the Motion from the Council were reflecting this 20
desire to us look into this issue deeper. And I just don't believe that this is about the technology 21
152
and then containing everything within technology view within the one rectangle. It is pretty 1
much about managing the parking, but it doesn't exclude satellite parking or some other physical 2
parking in other areas beyond this rectangle. 3
4
So let me just give you a concrete example I believe that that there should be parking utilization 5
of all those commercial areas that are around the Downtown. They should be pretty much 6
subject of a controlled parking. If when the neighborhood starts that's a different story, but 7
commercial area pretty much it's not the rectangle, it's much broader. It expands, contracts so 8
it's different than this what's has been proposed. When you look at this maybe you will find 9
different inventory of the parking spaces and then maybe it will… I mean first of all it will give you 10
the larger inventory of the open space subject to the to this demand and supply management. 11
12
The idea that that Commissioner Rosenblum floated about short parking and open spaces of the 13
building of course we should just look into this from the same perspective of the scope look into 14
all the spaces where people pretty much people can park. It not only it's not only about 15
agreements like we have in San Diego and opening those to the parking Downtown which could 16
be by the way a great opportunity because you can say that if there are some residents of some 17
building if there is a building group with residents and some of those residents may be leaving for 18
the day so naturally somebody that works Downtown may be coming in and filling up the space, 19
but there are also some other spaces. There are spaces of there is Wells Fargo Bank that has a 20
number of the parking spaces so let's just include all of those in the scope and then we can see 21
153
how much was the truly our supply of possible parking. So this is just an example I would like to 1
encourage you to look at the scope and then also advise us what could be included in the scope. 2
3
And then couple of other items, so when you going to because you're going to present to us 4
you’re going to present also to the Finance Committee I would like to ask you to also include in 5
the documents financial revenue and expenditure. We talk about this at prior at the prior 6
meetings that some of the decisions although it's out of our scope should be also related to the 7
financial aspects although it's out of our purview it we can always relate to this. If you're going to 8
do this I would like to see a couple of considerations. One, number one is that that study that 9
would maximize revenue and in regards to the cost for this from the parking spaces to the City, 10
but also I would like to see the study that will just show profit and loss (P&L), profit and loss 11
statement that's going to be related to the retail area. I would like to understand what is the 12
parking management that is going to benefit the merchants? Those may be two different P&L 13
statements or some other financial statements because there may pretty much different fees. 14
How you're going to do this I don't know, but yeah, please. 15
16
Ms. Dixon: I can address so part of our scope was a financial modeling workbook. We're actually 17
going to be presenting that to the Finance Committee so that we can actually talk about that. So 18
being able to share that we come back the next time and it has all of the revenue projections, the 19
cost of the infrastructure, etcetera. In the part, in the report we actually talked about the sales 20
tax impacts and the focus specifically was on the San Francisco program as well that showed the 21
154
positive impact on sales tax by the use of the dynamic pricing model. And it's something that is 1
something that's ongoing from the assessment process as well, but to show that and then when 2
you so when you talk about that that's something that from a measure perspective I think that 3
the City would have the capability to be able to gauge that for the future is to be able to see 4
where you are now versus maybe where you are in a year versus two years. And that's 5
something that was very comprehensive for how San Francisco tackled that specifically to see 6
how dynamic pricing would affect the commercial areas too. So it's not necessarily something 7
that you can forecast today, but it's something that I think you can baseline with where you are 8
today and be able to use that as a measure for the future to see what the impacts of paid parking 9
are in your commercial areas as well. 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: I am not sure if I would agree with the comment that we cannot forecast 12
it today. I think that we have all the technology and your skills to do this for us, but what the 13
point that I was making that there may be two totally different financial statements because the 14
revenue to the merchants may include totally different length of parking and versus I don't know 15
some flat rate or maybe something that City would enjoy if it would… if we had maximized 16
revenue from the parking. So and then also it would allow us just to weigh those options. 17
18
In terms of the dynamic fees, it's a great idea and I think that it should be that those dynamics 19
fees pretty much should be not manually changed, they should pretty much reflect the current 20
demand for the spaces. This is like Uber, right? Uber prices go up if the demand is large, for 21
155
example when it rains, it goes down when it's sunny and people are spending time watching 1
football at their home. So can we have the technology that would pretty much reflect inventory if 2
it's a one vendor and if they have a database it may be very simple just to do this truly on demand 3
pricing within some ranges if there is a concern that they cannot be higher, but pretty much this 4
would allow us to keep the occupancy rate in the proximity of I don’t know, 80 percent or 5
whatever you think that they should be, right? 6
7
Ms. Dixon: So I was going to say off street operators, private operators, do that all the time. 8
That's where you pay for the demand. Typically municipalities don't do that. I will say that you 9
guys would be on the cutting edge if you took that approach to do what you called like surge 10
based pricing. And it's only because of the fact that to be able to educate and inform the public 11
and it's the example that you use is that when I pull in today and I pay $2.00 versus I pull in 12
tomorrow and pay $8.00 how do you inform the general public of that information? The 13
technology exists. It absolutely can be done. It's just really about the message that you're 14
putting out there to the general public and I would just say that that would have to be a 15
consideration of the City administration when it comes to an approach like that. The technology 16
can support it, it's just really very progressive in a different way to tackle municipal parking 17
resources. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: I understand this totally, right? I mean first of all just we're always on the 20
cutting edge and very progressive here so there should be no doubt, right? But then in terms of 21
156
this yes of course there may be a concern, but we would like to maybe buy capacity and or 1
capability rather and if we cannot use it today it may be on the shelf, but if the time comes we 2
pretty much just switch it on and pretty much the parking will be more dynamic than it's today. 3
But it would not cost the City a dime, right? So that's this thinking I would like to recommend to 4
you. 5
6
The couple of other items in terms of the parking measurement because I think that in your 7
presentation was that there would be that there would be semi-annual parking capacity review 8
which would be done by yourself or presumably, right? So I’d like to ask you just to propose a 9
solution that would remove this expenditure from the perspective with all respect to your work. 10
We've seen a number of the studies you produced number of the studies. We know that every 11
time when there is a parking study there is a consultant and they pretty much they look at the 12
occupancy and if there is as time goes by probably there is opportunity to cut cost and that there 13
must be technologies today that would allow I don’t know, somehow tap Google phones or 14
somehow just do big data or some other research that would allow us to replace this expense 15
with some model that we could also buy as a capability, put it on the shelf, and then the measure 16
whenever we want. 17
18
Ms. Dixon: We've actually identified it in the recommendations. The use of LPR technology will 19
allow you to establish a route where you can actually collect data on a daily basis so that you 20
actually don't have to pay for the expenditure of having a consultant like us come in and do this 21
157
work for you. The City would actually be able to collect that data and do their own analysis 1
internally. And that's actually the recommendation that we suggest that you utilize that because 2
that's when you start to make rate changes you really want to do… going back to your point 3
about kind of the surge pricing, you want to be able to use data to make those decisions and 4
determine what your utilization is and you actually can double purpose the LPR technology to 5
actually do that data collection and provide that information on a consistent basis. And we really 6
would encourage you that if you do utilize the LPR technology you take advantage of that solution 7
and that feature for that exact purpose and do it internally. 8
9
Commissioner Gardias: Very good. And then last small item I was just looking for a clarification. I 10
thought this was mentioned here tonight, how to connect the residential permits with those pay, 11
paid spaces in Downtown. So there should be some sort of some ability to for the residents that 12
buy those annual permits to utilize those Downtown parking spots if they wish to for the same for 13
the permit that they already purchased. That may if we just decide to do so if we decide to do so 14
then pretty much there may be also some impact on the price of those permits. And at least I 15
would like to understand what would be the impact if you could just research this if we allow, it 16
we connect those that Downtown area with the residential permits. 17
18
Ms. Dixon: So to be able to offer some type of perk to the residential permit holder in the 19
Downtown area? 20
21
158
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I mean if they are let's say that if they are in the proximity of 15 1
minutes’ walk then pretty much they can maybe park beyond the boundaries of their residential 2
area because of some reason, I don't know why what reasons that would be, but pretty much 3
then they would be relieving the space in on within their area block to some other parking needs. 4
And we would have to also take a look at this as well. Thank you. 5
6
Ms. Dixon: We'll take a look at that one. Thanks. 7
8
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you very, very much. I think that’s the end of the comments from us so 9
let's conclude this study session and we'll look forward to hearing from you and seeing you in 10
August. Ok, staff I'm going to suggest that we take a break only as long as it takes for you guys to 11
set up. So you guys have like 90 seconds, alright. If you need to go to the bathroom go to the 12
bathroom, but let's come back and get this done with. 13
14
Commission Action: None- Study Session 15
16
[The Commission took a break] 17
18 5. PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [17PLN-00464]: Consideration of 19 Legislative Actions and Project Approvals Necessary to Allow the Construction of a Four-20
Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 60 Units and One Level of Underground 21 Parking. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the 22 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More 23
Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at 24 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 25
26
Chair Alcheck: Alright sorry to cut this short, but I think you'll appreciate it in the end. Let's get 27
159
this started. This is Item Number 5. Staff we have a staff presentation and then we have 1
applicant presentation and then we'll take speaker cards and then do I allot time for the applicant 2
again? You got it. Ok, go ahead, kick it off. I’m sorry, I'm sorry. We have a recusal? 3
4
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Oh, we do. 5
6
Commissioner Summa: Yes so I (interrupted) 7
8
Chair Alcheck: One more second and you would have had to stay. 9
10
Commissioner Summa: I know. I will be recusing myself on this item tonight. Is that it? Thanks. 11
12
Chair Alcheck: Perfect. Ok. 13
14
Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Thank you. Good evening again, thanks for sticking with us. 15
Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner. So I wanted to just start out with a very brief overview of the 16
Council prescreening and comments from individual Council members. So key input from Council 17
Members primarily included support for the idea of multifamily housing at this location, the idea 18
of higher density housing as well as reduced parking. However, comments did vary regarding 19
appropriate floor area, parking ratio, and different design considerations for the specific project. 20
There was also interest in the idea of a narrow application of a combining district if we were to do 21
160
that. They supported the idea of workforce housing, but there was also a lot of questions about 1
how that would best be implemented. 2
3
So just a quick location map, this is on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino catty corner to Palo 4
Alto Square. Brief overview of the development, it's a four story building with 50 feet high with 5
sixty dwelling units and there are 65 parking spaces proposed. The project would require a 6
Comprehensive Plan amendment to address use of the site as well as the density proposed and a 7
zoning code text amendment and zoning map amendment would also be required as well as site 8
and design review. 9
10
Just briefly on the neighborhood context there are various different zones and uses adjacent to 11
the site. There's senior housing and condominiums to the north and west, retail and offices office 12
uses to the east, and Palo Alto Square and Mayfield Soccer Complex across from the site, across 13
Page, El Camino Real. So this just kind of briefly shows that this is the project site looking from El 14
Camino. This is looking out from the project site to Palo Alto Square and this one shows across 15
Page Mill from the project site. 16
17
So just briefly on the process tonight's a study session. We're seeking preliminary feedback from 18
Commissioners and there are several policy consideration, but we're still exploring. Some of 19
those include the parameters of the pilot program, density standards, basic development 20
standards, land use designations, and the regulatory and legislative review process. And staff 21
161
anticipates formal hearings in the fall on this project. So tonight the key input that we're looking 1
for from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) we're interested in information on 2
the your thoughts on the density, mass, and scale, project sighting including both the use of the 3
site and the building in context, parking circulation, access, functionality, and elements of what 4
the future Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan could or should entail, and other 5
policy considerations as discussed in the previous slide. And with that I'll turn it back to you. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'd like to invite the applicant to present. 8
9
Tod Spieker, Windy Hill Property Ventures: Thank you. My name is Tod Spieker with Windy Hill 10
Property Ventures; thank you staff and thank you Commissioners for giving our project thoughtful 11
consideration and feedback. Windy Hill Property Ventures is a small Palo Alto based real estate 12
development company. I'm here with one of my three partners, Jamie D'Alessandro. We 13
primarily work in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties with a strong focus on transit oriented 14
development sites. Within the last year we have entitled and built the transit oriented project in 15
San Mateo and entitled a project in San Carlos. 16
17
So as mentioned in the staff report this was the former Santa Clara Valley Transportation 18
Authority (VTA) site purchased by Pollack Financial in 2014. They then proposed a primarily office 19
project. As part of the feedback during the prescreening seven of the nine Council Members 20
mentioned either the jobs/housing imbalance and the need for more housing or this site being an 21
162
appropriate location for more housing in Palo Alto. So based on that [pete] feedback from 1
Council Windy Hill and Pollack Financial formed a partnership where Windy Hill would propose to 2
entitle this smaller unit housing project. So last September we had a prescreening with the City 3
Council where the majority of Council Members gave positive feedback for a dense housing 4
project on the site. 5
6
So what is this project? It is a four story residential project above one level of parking. This 7
building is comprised of 60 studio and one better units with an average square footage of 570 8
square feet (sf). These units are intended for single and in some cases double occupancy. These 9
are meant for people looking for a place to live close to where they work. As mentioned in the 10
staff report given these are smaller units by their nature they will be more attainable than a more 11
typical sized one bedroom or studio unit in Palo Alto. And also because of the size of the units we 12
can fit more units within the building envelope and that specifically helps meets the City's housing 13
goals. 14
15
The majority of the first floor is raised four feet above grade. And we did this to provide the 16
ground floor units with privacy and alleviate any safety concerns a tenant would have being on 17
the ground floor of an active intersection. This also allows us to make these parts of the 18
pedestrian walkway more pedestrian friendly. 19
20
The garage is one level partially underground accessed the El Camino. Originally we proposed 45 21
163
parking stalls, but based on feedback from the community and Council Members at our study 1
session we are now proposing an increase of 20 stalls to 65 stalls 61 of which are accessed 2
through parking lifts. This comes out to a 1.08 stalls per bedroom. Other newly approved and 3
newly constructed projects are in the same range. As a point of reference four recently 4
constructed projects in Redwood City: Marston, Franklin 299, Locale, and Indigo all range from 5
0.91 to 1.04 stalls per bedroom. Two newly constructed projects in Mountain View, Madera and 6
Carmel the Village are 0.81 and 0.00 stalls per bedroom respectively. 7
8
For bikes we're showing storage on both the garage level and first floor for a total capacity of 74 9
bikes. On the ground floor we have a bike kitchen. This bike kitchen will act as a bike storage 10
location with other bike amenities. In addressing the feedback for ground floor retail we are 11
open to having the bike kitchen available to the public and possibly leased given to a Palo Alto 12
based bike shop where they can sell supplies, advertise, and provide their services to the 13
residents as well as the general public. 14
15
This site receives a walk score of 83. A walk score is calculated by measuring the proximity to 16
amenities such as grocery stores, restaurants, and other retail as well as measuring the proximity 17
to transportation options. For a point of reference the newly constructed apartments called the 18
Carmel Village located at El Camino and San Antonio has a walk score of 79 and the eight story 19
project on Everett and Cowper here in Downtown Palo Alto North has a walk score of 87. 20
21
164
We are continuing, we are currently preparing a comprehensive TDM plan as well. As we 1
continue to refine the plan we are finding that we are able to effect a substantial reduction in 2
vehicle trips and parking demand with the implementation of the following measures: Caltrain Go 3
Passes and VTA Eco Passes for all residents, unbundled parking meaning pricing separately for all 4
parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium 5
on those who want to guaranteed parking in a transit oriented environment, bike parking and 6
bike kitchen, information kiosk and information boards VTA, San Mateo County Transit 7
(samTrans), and Marguerite Shuttle and Caltrain schedules and an onsite transportation 8
coordinator. 9
10
So as part of our proposal we are deeding a portion of our property to the City of Palo Alto along 11
Page Mill for a future right hand turn lane that the City has said that they really want and need. 12
This will greatly improve the flow of traffic at this intersection. Our environmental approach that 13
we will be building to a Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Silver equivalent. 14
Some of our features are an all electric building with the exception of water heaters, drought 15
tolerant water light landscaping, electric charging stations, a comprehensive robust TDM package, 16
and remediation of the contaminated site. 17
18
So finally why? Why do we want to build this project in this location at this time? We have all 19
heard it a thousand times, the jobs/housing imbalance. That voice is getting louder. For the 20
City's most recent data there are 3.05 jobs in the City of Palo Alto per one employed resident. 21
165
That means on any given day we have over two people coming from outside of Palo Alto into Palo 1
Alto causing traffic and parking congestion. In 2016 the City of Palo Alto conducted a poll of 2
residents regarding a variety of issues and one of the questions was regarding housing; 76 3
percent of those polled said housing was a problem here in Palo Alto. Obviously this project will 4
not fix the problem, but it can help bring 60 plus people working in Palo Alto looking for a place to 5
live close to where they work. There are more than 23,000 jobs across the street in the Stanford 6
Research Park, we are looking for 60 of them. Based on that data alone we are open to giving 7
preference to people currently working or living in Palo Alto as long as we are in compliance with 8
fair housing laws. 9
10
In closing we feel we are implementing what the Palo Alto leadership has asked for, but the 11
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and the City Council are working on adopting an updated Comp 12
Plan which you guys discussed earlier and as part of that Comp Plan the City has identified sites 13
within amenity rich and transit approximate areas that would allow for adding up to 14
approximately 5,000 housing units over the next ten plus years. Our site is within the area 15
identified in the updated draft of the Comp Plan. There may be debate about how much housing 16
Palo Alto should be responsible for building, but there is a consensus that some level of housing is 17
needed so why not here? With the walk score of 83 this is the perfect place for a moderately 18
dense housing project with smaller units in Palo Alto. Tonight we have our architect, landscape 19
architect, structural engineer, TDM consultant, our parking lift consultant, and environmental 20
consultant here with us should you have any questions for them. Thank you. 21
166
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok, we have one speaker card. Actually no, I'm sorry, that's not correct. We have 2
two speaker cards. First speaker is Becky Sanders followed by Arthur Keller. You guys will have 3
five minutes each. 4
5
Becky Sanders: Great, thank you. Thank you very much. When this item came before Council 6
let's see, back in September there were a lot more people here speaking out and I wish their… I 7
wish that they were here this evening. It’s just you and me tonight Arthur. So my concerns with 8
this, I'm Becky Sanders, Moderator of Ventura Neighborhood Association. 9
10
My concern with this project is the same it was last year and the same the year before that the 11
public facility zoning it just sends a really clear message to everyone that our zoning is for sale. 12
That if we upzone from PF to anything else we are basically handing the owner a windfall. I mean 13
I don't see how you can interpret it as anything other than that. I'm really concerned because the 14
AT&T property near [Bowl] where Park is coming up for sale and so we're all scrambling around 15
trying to put together a public/private partnership to get that piece of land should it be true truly 16
come for sale and add it to our under-served park land stock in Ventura. Make sense? So that's 17
the zone public facility. So when you set a precedent of reasoning when you recommend that 18
something be rezoned then that property is gone forever. In fact Council Member Filseth said 19
that in the big packet. He just said yeah, we have to be really careful about taking PF away 20
because once it's gone it's gone. 21
167
1
I have a lot of other aesthetic problems with this. I think it's massing out of proportion. It's 2
conveniently located half a mile from transit which is what they're asking for this new zone to be 3
created for to sustain or to accommodate, but this is pretty much the exact same project that was 4
submitted last year. And the applicant is bringing it back with some changes of lipstick, but 5
there's really no difference. I am concerned also about the applicants’ aspirational designs that 6
you can't really legislate that you will rent to workers. And there's no guarantee that these 7
workers won't have children who will impact the schools or they will bike to work and will not use 8
their cars. They have a lot of wishful thinking, but obviously there's no way that this can be 9
legislated and it shouldn't. 10
11
So anyway if for some reason it doesn't make sense to take away the PF zoning I think we need to 12
get something for that in this City. That's a public facility zone. I know you know that, so let's 13
provide real value to the citizens. Yes, we need housing. Will this solve the housing problem? 71 14
percent of the people said housing was a problem they said affordable housing is and there's a lot 15
of people who are under housed, under-served in this community. Seniors, service workers, I 16
don't see any of them being able to afford to live here. So I don't think, I think it's wrong. It 17
doesn't pass the Rotarian Four-Way Test. Is it truthful, is it fair, can we all get behind this, does 18
everyone feel really good about it, does it build community, does it build friendships? So I'm not 19
actually a Rotarian, but I think I saw that somewhere so I'm rambling, but I thank you for your 20
time. I thank you for your service. Please do not upzone this and get nothing for it for our 21
168
citizens. Thank you. 1
2
Arthur Keller: Hi, so I have two sets of comments; one about the site and separately about the 3
project. And part of the problem is that [the size or what] sorry, one about the zoning and 4
separately about the project. And you're considering both of those and considering a generic 5
zoning concept which is part of this needs to be considered independent of the site because it’s 6
also applicable to other places. And by binding the two together there you may be making 7
decisions about this the kind of zoning that may or may not make sense for this site in other 8
places. And I think and particularly since there was talked about doing it on a pilot basis if you're 9
creating generic zoning for a single site that can be problematic. 10
11
Firstly, if you're going to be making any particular kind of generic zoning you should make a rule 12
that you cannot apply the housing density bonus on top of whatever is being done here. Because 13
I could just imagine what this project would be with housing density bonus on top. Secondly, the 14
issue is that if you're going to be applying a thing like this in terms of a super dense zoning and I 15
don't think that since this is RM-40 is the densest zoning we have in Palo Alto for a standard 16
zoning. This is way more than RM-40 and so the idea of calling this moderately dense I think is 17
not correct. This is super dense for Palo Alto and granted we don't have any housing in Palo Alto 18
zone that has two point more than 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). So this is super dense in terms of 19
FAR, super dense in terms of the number of units per acre. So that's all consideration. 20
21
169
I know that we have been allergic to Planned Community (PC), but this is actually a site where PC 1
does make sense. And in terms of that with a PC you should think about what's going on. So first 2
of all [unintelligible] this if you're going have this super dense zoning it should be for 100 percent 3
affordable housing not for housing that is not affordable at all. I mean there’s no requirement 4
that any of those housing be affordable because it’s rental. There’s not requirement for any 5
rental housing to be affordable within Palo Alto. So this should only be applied for 100 percent 6
affordable housing this kind of zoning. 7
8
Another issue is that this consideration of whether these people could park in the neighborhood. 9
Yes, they can park in the neighborhood. And if you tell me that they can't get residential parking 10
permits because it's a new kind of construction I understand the law may prohibit us from not 11
allowing people who live in a neighborhood of getting Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) 12
permits even if their house, the construction that was done is under parked. So they may say ok 13
we're unbundling parking and therefore there's plenty of parking available in the garage, it's half 14
empty. That's because they're parking on the street for free or for cheap permits. So we have to 15
be careful about that thing. 16
17
I think that this site from independent I’m not talking about this particular proposal. This site is 18
actually an excellent place for 100 percent affordable senior housing, ok? The Maybell project 19
some people liked it, some people didn't like it and there were other issues with it, but that site 20
did not have a very good walk score for seniors. This site has an excellent walk score for seniors. 21
170
And so this is a site where 100 percent affordable senior housing actually makes a lot of sense 1
here. It's next to the Sunrise facility which is four stories, but the condos next door are three 2
stories not four stories. So there's an issue there. 3
4
Also I remember when this was being talked about as a PC one of the benefits being proposed 5
was that there was going to be a free right turn lane. There was going to be an extra carve off so 6
that there would be a right turn lane so you could turn right onto El Camino not a mixed lane. 7
Because right now there's a right turn mixed line that may be lengthened, I’m not sure, but the 8
issue is you the proposal originally when it was a PC was a right turn lane. 9
10
I also want to observe that most of the parking spaces in this garage are for lift systems. I guess 11
the handicapped ones aren't, but I'm wondering the compatibility of the lift systems and electric 12
vehicle charging infrastructure. I don't think we understand that enough and I'd like to 13
understand that better for this particular parking thing. 14
15
And two final things; one is that from the 2005 Census data which is the latest available only 2.6 16
percent of Palo Alto residents who work anywhere do not have access to a car, 2.6 percent. 17
That's very few and so I'm wondering how many people here are they going to go to drive I mean 18
they're going to take Caltrain? They’re taking Caltrain they're taking that to San Francisco so 19
we’re providing housing for San Francisco not for Palo Alto. So the proximity to Caltrain means 20
they're going to San Francisco not that they're working in Palo Alto. 21
171
1
Finally, the issue is in terms of the data of how many people who live in Palo Alto and are 2
employed work in Palo Alto the latest data from 2015 shows that other than people who work at 3
home which is about 8 percent, 26.3 percent of Palo Alto residents work who work, work in Palo 4
Alto. Which means it's more likely that about three quarters of people who live will probably live 5
who work live in Palo Alto actually work elsewhere. And so that's an interesting question of how 6
many of these people will actually live within Palo Alto will they be driving, will they be parking in 7
the neighborhoods? I think that's a big bunch of open questions and I think that we need to 8
understand that better. I think seniors however are less likely to work, less likely to need cars if 9
they are. That not means they won't have cars, but they're less likely to use cars and that's why I 10
think that from that point of view less parking actually might make sense for senior housing. Just 11
for a point for things to think about. I'm not saying what exactly should be built here, but I'm 12
giving some sort of suggestions on what to consider. Thank you. 13
14
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Alright, before we jump into it I just want to highlight one specific 15
issue which is the and I because I have a feeling it’s going to come up. The way we sort of talk 16
about affordable housing is different when it applies to for sale housing and rental housing. And 17
this particular project is a rental project and so I think as we… just bear that in mind as we begin 18
to discuss. If you have questions I'm sure we can get some guidance, but it's not it works a little 19
differently. Ok, anybody want to kick us off? Go ahead. 20
21
172
Commissioner Rosenblum: So I have a couple questions for staff. So I went through the minutes 1
of the previous of the Council meeting and there were some questions I wanted to see if you’ve 2
made progress on. So Pat Burt had asked about benchmarking other small residential 3
developments in Downtown Palo Alto and he brought up Alma Place specifically and he said that 4
he’s frustrated, he's asked this several times, and he thinks that by now you should know. So has 5
there been progress on understanding their parking utilization versus number of units, etcetera? 6
So he was I think specifically looking to understand relationship between unit size, location, and 7
parking utilization. 8
9
Ms. Hodgkins: And unfortunately I don't have the information, but I have discussed with 10
Transportation Division to try and get that information and I hope to have that information 11
before we come back to you. 12
13
Commissioner Rosenblum: I think he brings up a fair point and I would say also there was a 14
speaker I think Herb Borock brought up the point that that might not even be a great comp that 15
that’s because it's aimed at low income that you might have a high percentage of public transit 16
users, etcetera. And so that, but I think that the community opposition has to do with the parking 17
ratio or part of the community opposition will after the parking ratio and so as much information 18
as we can have around comparable building parking ratios would be very favorable. And the 19
applicant brought up a number of projects that have lower comparable parking ratios and so it 20
would be good to understand the situations of those buildings and the surrounding areas. 21
173
1
And related that I have a question that Arthur Keller just brought up the point that although it's 2
claimed that residents would not be able to buy neighborhood parking permits they really would 3
and they would be able to park on the street willy-nilly. I'm curious about this. Is that true, i.e. is 4
there a giant loophole that residents that have unbundled parking would be able to forego their 5
parking space for some kind of benefit and then just park on the street without consequence? 6
7
Ms. Hodgkins: Not that I'm aware of. They have not this site has not been included as part of the 8
R, the boundaries of the RPP program for this area. 9
10
Commissioner Rosenblum: So they would not be eligible to purchase? 11
12
Ms. Hodgkins: Exactly. 13
14
Commissioner Rosenblum: I see. There were there was also I think Scharf had asked about the 15
consequences of not achieving their TDM goals. And the applicant at the time during the Council 16
meeting said they’re open to penalty clauses, etcetera. And I'm wondering if there had been any 17
additional thoughts by staff of how to measure compliance and what penalties would be assessed 18
for noncompliance? 19
20
Ms. Hodgkins: I think we're still evaluating that at this time. 21
174
1
Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. So those are all my questions around this what the previous 2
discussion. Now some my new points; I love the idea of this project. So I like that we're 3
experimenting with this. Our City has a housing crisis, we're trying things, I do agree with the 4
applicant that this is exactly in the spirit of many of the discussions that we're having around 5
trying provide smaller housing units in the right areas. So I like the idea of what we're doing. 6
7
The parking proposal of 65 spaces which was increased is still substantially below the 90 to 120 8
spaces that would be required based on our code depending on how you classify this building. 9
And 90 to the difference in spaces is something like $1.5 million to $3.3 million in construction 10
costs based on $60,000 per space. And so for Caltrain Go Passes for all residents so assuming 11
there are two people per room for example, per unit is at $190 per Go Pass is a drop in the bucket 12
compared to the savings from not building all those spaces. And so one thing I would like to see 13
so the purpose of the study session is with that windfall the thing that would make this really 14
interesting is a really aggressive TDM program. 15
16
So while I agree with Arthur Keller that giving that if the point of this is to get folks that are 17
working in Palo Alto into this building the main tool that's been used by successful TDM measures 18
like Stanford's which is to give Go Passes to everyone who’s coming into Stanford doesn't apply as 19
fully here because they’re supposedly living and working in Palo Alto. And it's a benefit if you’re… 20
very small apartments I would assume are aimed at very young and very old and particularly for 21
175
the very young to have a free way of getting from your location to San Francisco, etcetera will be 1
viewed as a net benefit. It's less valuable than your main mode of work every day. So things like 2
making sure that the building is part of Bay Area Bike Share for example, make sure there's a 3
station. Things like a lot of TDM measures are aimed at workers coming inbound. For residents 4
going outbound I haven't seen as much research so i.e. is it more important to have grocery 5
delivery services? So what generates trips for you if you're a resident? A lot of TDM programs 6
I've seen are how to get workers to your site without them having to get in their car. I've seen 7
much less around what do you do for residents going out and therefore I would love staff or the 8
applicant to benchmark other developments just because I think a lot of times when I think of 9
TDM it's around how you handle a workforce that has to come into your area. 10
11
The final set of questions for staff that I have let me make sure this is actually final. Yeah, the 12
final set of questions I had was around the legality and the operational possibility of limiting this 13
to certain classes. So Class Number 1 would be people living or working in. Palo Alto. And then 14
Class Number 2 would be other favored classes so service workers, teachers, professionals that 15
we want to be able to have as part of our community. Has staff made progress in understanding 16
legal basis and the possibility of enforcement for these kinds of for these situations and it wasn't 17
clear to me at that Council meeting if we had all the answers for that at that point, but this is also 18
one of the critical points is that if we want this to be successful and to get public support to be 19
able to have some mechanism for favoring first I think Palo Alto workers and then subcategories 20
of workers if possible. 21
176
1
[Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney]: So that's something that we are still looking into. I 2
think that we have some ideas in terms of how to impose those sorts of conditions or how to get 3
those sorts of obligations in place, but we still need to put more thought into kind of making them 4
effectively enforceable. 5
6
Commissioner Rosenblum: Thanks. So those questions I had that really resulted from the Council 7
meeting I think again for the purpose of this study session to make this something that people 8
can understand I think all those questions were important and then we really should be making 9
progress on all of them. I'll just finish with a statement. I'm personally really supportive of the 10
idea of this project and I think that the parking that's being proposed if it goes through there’s 11
such a windfall of funds that we'd be foolish not to ask for quite a lot in return. And to make this 12
a really good laboratory this is where I would love to see that residents of this area in exchange 13
for going car light have the kinds of services that many of us would really love. So I a budget for 14
Uber or Lyft, car sharing services, they don't have to have their own car and they can use that on 15
demand. Don’t have the anxiety of having to have a car. The Go Pass for the weekend trips into 16
the City. On site grocery delivery, dry clean pick up, so things that are subsidized by the building 17
with this windfall that if you decide to have that lifestyle that it is a different lifestyle and that we 18
could have an experiment in Palo Alto to show that if you do have a and this building is 0.6 miles I 19
think walking to Caltrain. So I think it's a good site for it. I know that probably triggers something 20
bad because it probably should be 0.5 but, on Google Maps it seems to be 0.6. But it's a to me it's 21
177
the ideal place for this kind of experiment and so what I'd ask the applicant to really think through 1
is how to make this a really meaningful experiment with this windfall. And that to me is some of 2
the public benefit is getting a example of how to get the kinds of residents we want to be able to 3
afford to live in our City with a car light lifestyle. 4
5
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Let me start by just articulating that I appreciate this effort. It's no 6
small thing to try to build something in Palo Alto these days. Maybe it's always been that way 7
and I'm just really young, but it takes incredible I think bravery to decide to invest any amount of 8
money into the process because there's a lot of unknowns now. And I see you've got your whole 9
team here and it's probably by no small expense and I'm very happy and I hope that I'm very 10
happy to see that there are still entities in the Bay that are sort of willing to put in the effort for 11
this sort of thing, particularly in this example where we're really sort of it’s a... this is a, this is very 12
experimental. And it will take that sort of approach to pave the way to kind of come up with 13
more creative solutions for creating housing. So thank you. 14
15
I want to suggest that as I approach the reviewing this project I don't I’m not a huge fan of 16
workforce housing. That term means nothing to me. I shouldn’t say it doesn't mean anything to 17
me. It just doesn't have it's not defined well enough for me to use it as sort of a common term. I 18
really love the idea of providing some access, some preferential access to local employees. And 19
I'm not just… everybody in this room should sort of if they don't know should know that it is not 20
uncommon for our local employers to pick up apartments and make them available for their 21
178
employees. It's happening in every apartment complex in the area where a local company might 1
rent out a unit through a service and then make that unit available for their employees. And so 2
the typical process for that tenant is different. They're not necessarily applying to the apartment 3
complex; they're going through their employer who's identifying a location for them. Big 4
companies Downtown and bigger companies in Mountain View are doing this. And they have the 5
capital and they have the funds to sort of protect and create housing for their employees. 6
7
What I would love to see and I don't know that it's the most welcome suggestion, but I would love 8
it if there was a way we could create preferential access for our for City employees and like 9
teachers. And maybe that's maybe the correct term there is for district employees. And I'll be 10
honest I don't necessarily think that has to be should restricted to Palo Alto. If we were providing 11
housing to teachers in Mountain View or Redwood City that wouldn't necessarily offend the goal 12
of providing housing to the individuals who are struggling to find it within the radius that makes 13
sense to sort of keep these institutions well-staffed. I don't know what the process is to make 14
that possible, but I would like to suggest to the applicant that they shouldn't rely on staff to come 15
up with it. 16
17
Staff we have a great staff, but they don't necessarily have the bandwidth to go out there and try 18
to figure out what is the best way that we can create a benefit for this local community in this 19
housing. And honestly it shouldn't be a win-lose. Ideally it's a win-win. I think there's enough 20
people at the right rate that are interested in housing that it doesn't it won't feel like Section 8 or 21
179
some sort of discounted program that puts you in a... The more you invest time in figuring this 1
out I think the better. Let me just put it that way. 2
3
I want to respond to some of Commissioner Rosenblum’s comments about TDM and resident 4
centric TDM. It's interesting because when you right when you… as you were saying it I thought 5
ok this is interesting and then I had this notion like ok what can we do to keep them in their unit 6
which is so small? Right. And I think that this notion of the walkability score is very appealing and 7
should consistently be raised. 8
9
There is this notion that we would be providing housing for San Francisco workers. Arthur Keller 10
brought that up. I don't think that's true. I think that the Caltrain isn't I mean not to say that it 11
wouldn't be used potentially by individuals who work in San Francisco, but the idea is that if you 12
live close enough to the Caltrain then San Francisco becomes an amenity. And it's let me put it to 13
you this way, San Francisco is an amenity to me. And I typically go there at least once a week and 14
the cost for me to go there typically involves driving which means I either have to come home 15
earlier or I can't partake in beverage consumption or I have to pay for Uber, right? The notion 16
that you would have access to Caltrain means that you have access to an amenity at a lower cost 17
to you personally so that we shouldn't forget that. 18
19
And I think that this the idea of I think that the community will grapple with this notion of 20
converting the PF the zone or upzoning, but I think that we will grapple with that discussion in if 21
180
the context of the housing is somehow made community centric. I mean community available. I 1
don't like the idea of the housing being available for individuals who live in Palo Alto. I like the 2
idea of the Housing being available for people who work in Palo Alto or within maybe you create 3
a radius, 15 miles. I think there is this notion that the that housing that infill housing or density 4
housing is designed to take cars off the road right outside the house and it's not. It's we are and I 5
want to sort of say this my perspective is is that we operate within a Bay Area and what we can 6
do to eliminate cars off our freeways is the goal. It's not to eliminate the trip from the housing 7
unit to Downtown. Nobody's trying to stop me from coming Downtown. We want you to come 8
Downtown and ideally if you can get there without driving that would be great, but we really are 9
trying to eliminate the trips on the major arteries. 10
11
So we're not here to sort of provide formal direction, but I am I want to just suggest that this 12
Commissioner is particularly I find it particularly appealing the density and the high density 13
approach and the micro unit approach. And I think there's a place for that in Palo Alto and I think 14
that this particular site is an excellent location for it. I also think that it might make sense for staff 15
or the applicant to help us understand that why in San Jose for example is there basically no 16
parking requirement? They've eliminated the parking requirement and they have a strategy and I 17
don't think anybody's really presented it to us. It's not our strategy currently, but it is theirs and 18
someone should make… we should under… the next time we meet I mean I would love for staff to 19
sort of play devil's advocate if you will and go look, this is what San Jose is doing and this is the 20
bet they're making and so that when we evaluate our what the site should be parked we're not 21
181
evaluating it based on what we what our code requires we're basically evaluating from like here's 1
the spectrum of what people are doing. The comparable units he meant the comparable sites he 2
mentioned may have 86 or 0.86 or 0.94 or something 1.04, but there are sites also that are at 3
zero or close to it. And I think it would be helpful to understand what how they decided to sort of 4
approach that. 5
6
Ok, I'll just make one more comment because Arthur Keller mentioned it which is about the PC 7
zone. I think the biggest constraint there is this we've never had a defined public benefit. No one 8
ever responded to that request by the Planning Commission that you sat on which was please tell 9
us how you would like us to define a public benefit and what are the parameters we should use. 10
And if and that's unfortunate actually because had we had better parameters that could have 11
been a zone that we could have used that could have had better utilization if you will, but that's 12
the big hurdle. The hurdle is that there's not a shared definition for public benefit and until there 13
is the PC zone really won't be an option. Ok, that's it for me. 14
15
Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thanks. So this is definitely the kind of project and pushing the 16
envelope that we need to be considering here for a bunch of our housing issues in Palo Alto. 17
There's some creative ideas here and I concur that we have to be flexible on zoning up to a point. 18
Looking at the specifics of course right now it violates the Comp Plan, it violates zoning, it's under 19
parked for residents, there's no guest parking, and it's already a high traffic area. So what's not to 20
like, right? So from there we got to get down to the specifics and I think just what we've been 21
182
asked to comment on tonight I think because of the small space there that it is a very large 1
building sort of jammed into a pretty small space up against the senior citizens facility which is a 2
nice facility. 3
4
In terms of visibility because it's a corner that always seems to put a higher bar on what needs to 5
be there for kind of visibility and openness. And as the show, as the slide show showed from 6
Claire the views right now are pretty good there. There's all three corners are open even though 7
one’s a parking lot over at the Page Mill area it's nicely landscaped and you've got one story retail 8
across the street from that. So to put up a very tall building that comes out to the edge of both 9
streets seems quite massive. I think one Council Member in the minutes according to minutes 10
said a project on such a corner like this needs to be a great project and it makes me wonder if the 11
corner is the right space for this kind of project. 12
13
The other thing I want just really want to emphasize here as we do our planning and thinking and 14
so on is this is always this is in a documentary called a pilot. Well, I've done with dealt with a 15
number of pilots selling things to corporations like in software and pilot there is or proof of 16
concept is you put it in there and you try it out and if the customer doesn't like it you take it away 17
and they go hire a competitor product or they stay with what they've got. There are a lot of 18
things that are being locked and loaded and built in concrete on this as a “pilot.” So if it doesn't 19
work for any number of reasons then we need to have some sort of a backup plan for what are 20
we going to do there because otherwise we could be creating something that's constantly in 21
183
violation and not working. There are a lot of assumptions on the people that are moving in there 1
aren’t going to have kids. Well, they may not even plan that, but that could happen. They don't 2
want cars, well maybe they do. You know etcetera, etcetera with a lot of the assumptions. So 3
when you're doing a pilot it's a test market. In this case you've got a building so the test that 4
building at least isn’t going to come down. 5
6
So what I get over to what might make it better and some of these things are going to sound very 7
simplistic, but I think less massive on the given site so it doesn't sort of cram out the 8
neighborhood. I think that even for practical reasons I don't on rainy days these people who 9
don't have cars have to have a place for the Uber to stop and pick them up or if they're going to 10
get groceries delivered the truck has to go and unload somewhere. I might have missed it, but I 11
don't see where that is whereas if the setback was much bigger in the front and you had a drive 12
up driveway like a hotel that solves a lot of those problems. Not all of them if they're all going to 13
get their Ubers at the same time. 14
15
I think guest parking has to be taken more seriously because if there's a single guy in there mom's 16
coming from San Francisco or Atherton or wherever you can't force her not to bring a car. So 17
Mom has to have a place to park when she gets there. I'm sort of restating this because I think 18
it's so important, there has to be backups for if the pilot fails. One of them probably needs to be 19
a little bit more parking then it’s already there because if it has to revert to a different kind of 20
structure in whatever kind of zoning then it needs to have more parking built in. Be nice if you 21
184
could build up some more draw for pedestrians given that it's a nice walking score, but there's 1
kind of nowhere to go there. So if only a coffee shop downstairs or something like that otherwise 2
there's just not much to go. 3
4
I think that Council feels it's comments on Page 294 and 6 in the transcript are very compelling 5
and a couple of people have already commented on that so I think we should investigate that. 6
Particularly the issue of a PF zoning is rare or unique. They just aren’t around and once they go 7
away they go away. So that is something that the community has to get some value back for and 8
a good way to do that is the payoff of some of the suggestions that my other colleagues have just 9
made. So I'm not sure that this is the best site for it. I think there are better places for something 10
of this size or scale it back and of course I can’t make a comment on what that does to the 11
commercial value. But if we get involved in looking at city workers, etcetera the it's not going to 12
be market rate. I think that's a good thing because we need to be solving more for folks that 13
need to work here that are in retail and services and that kind of thing then just to have great 14
apartments which these are going to probably be where somebody can easily afford $2,500 for 15
them. So I think that again just referencing without any more comment some of the ideas that 16
Council Member Filseth has I think make a lot of sense and something we should be investigating 17
very thoroughly. Thank you. 18
19
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation and thanks very 20
much Claire for reviewing this project with us. So let me just start with parking because I think 21
185
this is there are a couple of layers here. So I just want to refer you to the meeting that we had 1
and some of you were watching our deliberation about the parking, Downtown parking. There 2
was a point I'd like to remind you that my colleague Commissioner Rosenblum made about 3
sharing parking spaces and with this perspective I'd like to have this site pretty much fully parked. 4
There is a to the point to of detaching this from the when you think about this whole concept you 5
can just pretty much detach the parking area from the building above and just pretty much treat 6
them as two separate items. And then if you if we agree with the concept that pretty much that 7
underground parked, underground parking area would be available for any other public to buy to 8
use for a fee then pretty much you would first of all make money on this and then there would be 9
a purpose of truly build 102 parking spaces as opposed to I don't remember how many, but 20 10
less I believe, right? So from the perspective of this concept I'd like to see this area being fully 11
parked to have 102 spaces and participate in the garage or underground parking open program to 12
allow for others to use this this area. That's number one. 13
14
Number two this is truly a tricky area because it's on the corner lot and when you look at this I 15
mean it’s really hard to get to it from any side because it's at the crossroads of Page Mill and El 16
Camino. If you also add to the perspective another dimension which is pretty much the typical 17
test on any building if you just think your architects and developers and then sometimes you may 18
be thinking what would I build here in the absence of restrictions? Would you truly build this 19
structure with the gates facing El Camino? I would not design one like this and I'm sure that you 20
would have retail or some stores in the at the ground level. And I think that having in mind the 21
186
concept of the Grand Boulevard, El Camino being Grand Boulevard it's king's highway and having 1
the entrance to the to the underground parking facing this Grand Boulevard I think this is missed 2
concept. What I would like to see I would like to see pretty much retail at the ground level at 3
least facing El Camino if not pretty much wrapping around the entire building. There is always 4
number of the pedestrians passing this area, there are folks that work in this in neighborhood 5
either offices or some other areas and they would they walk here frequently and there is number 6
of the software companies across the street. So I'm sure that this retail area would be utilized. 7
When I look at this project it’s pretty much missed opportunity, there should be a retail area all 8
over this building. 9
10
So when you think about this there is a contradiction because of course it's hard to please those 11
both sides of the argument so I understand that there is some challenge. But I think that this 12
should be considered for this project: fully parked 102 spaces, participating in the parking 13
program and as you heard that those consultants that were here they would be looking into 14
California Avenue. Probably they may look into this property because it's in the proximity of 15
California Avenue. 16
17
Another aspect is the public gain from this zoning. I really think that there should be some 18
benefit that public would be getting and I don't really know how we can do this, but clearly when 19
I was reading the municipal code this element is clearly missing. So I don't understand how come 20
how we came to the project where there is no public benefit of some sort. 21
187
1
Ms. Hodgkins: Just to be clear there is no requirement for a public benefit because it's not 2
identified as a PC. 3
4
Commissioner Rosenblum: No, I understand, but when you look at the code it clearly says that PF 5
public district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and 6
community service or recreational facilities. And then it talks about protect the public health, 7
safety, and welfare so none of those is incorporated in this project. 8
9
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, exactly. The application is to actually amend that to allow for this and I think 10
the idea part of the benefit of what we'd be getting is housing in the City of Palo Alto close to 11
transit. 12
13
Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, but who has benefited this? Because I just don't see, I see that I 14
think that maybe we have a different definition. I think that a benefit, public benefit is it's not is 15
the common benefit, it’s not the private benefit. That's the way I see it. 16
17
Mr. Lait: Right, so I don't so I hear your comments and we’ve in this Commission we've had a lot 18
of conversation about public benefits in the context of the PC ordinance and so forth. I think 19
we've heard some comments along these lines of I could understand why Commissioners would 20
be interested in wanting to position the City in a way where all the upside doesn't just go to the 21
188
applicant on this. And where is the even if it’s not a public benefit by definition of the PC what is 1
the upside for the City also because as we heard from the Chair there should be some kind of a 2
win-win here. 3
4
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, exactly. 5
6
Mr. Lait: There's a balance though because this is not a PC application, it is a legislative request 7
along with some discretionary entitlements. And so I think hearing these comments and your 8
ideas is part of the study session discussion and, but we don't necessary want to get into a debate 9
as to what (interrupted) 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: No, I understand, but from other projects, right, we will get like for 12
example, this one across Page Mill that it will be built very soon there were a low income housing 13
nine units because we allowed of course we allowed to increase the area if I remember. We 14
reviewed this couple of years ago. Here there is no low income housing. So but we are 15
committing this lot to the rental needs that we have no control whatsoever and then truly if I 16
think about the public benefit it would be low income housing because we have legislative 17
requirements to meet certain obligations. So a project like this would help us to meet those 18
requirements. As you remember we have to just have a pipeline of the low income housing being 19
constantly full at certain number of units. So if some number of those units would be converted 20
to low income housing it would help us to build that pipeline. Ok? So I think those are my 21
189
comments. Thank you. 1
2
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I want to make another suggestion that came to me. It's not 3
surprising that among many of us in sort of the commissions and councils in this community are 4
not as familiar with micro and higher density housing. And I think that it would help if the 5
applicant it's hard to get demographics from rental housing, but I suspect that you may know 6
some people in the multifamily business and to understand who is living in a micro unit space and 7
how to the time line. For example, average length of tenancy or average it may be very difficult 8
to sort of get this information, but I think it could really help because it would help to eliminate 9
some of the assumptions that we make on our own like who would be living there and how would 10
the utilize it. 11
12
I think Commissioner Rosenblum started he suggested tonight that it's often young people and 13
old people. I think it would help us if we understood sort of the lifespan of a tenancy in that style 14
unit and so that we understood like who would be utilizing this and then we can better appreciate 15
their needs in terms of TDM or whatnot. So I would encourage you to see if there was a way to 16
provide some of that information or at least collect it and allow us to review, share it with us. So 17
that as we review your project you can respond to this questions or statements like well what 18
happens when somebody has a kid? I suspect that in the micro unit space those people move. In 19
the rental housing space for sure, but it would be great to sort of know for sure or at least 20
understand what the percentages are and that goes for everything basically. 21
190
1
I mean as you approach this the more information, the more information you provide that has 2
fueled your assumptions on how to build it are really important for the people on this dais and for 3
the rest of the Council. Because when you take for granted the knowledge and experience that 4
you guys have as you build these sites we tend to be less familiar with it. And so I think that 5
would help. That would definitely help us. So go ahead. 6
7
Commissioner Gardias: Just one more comment because we, at this Commission we discussed 8
also the concept of a mobility and Commissioner Rosenblum chimed about this when he was 9
talking that he would be open to consider I don't remember exactly what was said, but very much 10
considering a under parked building in this area. And theoretically I'd be for it as well and I agree 11
with this concept. I think that mobility is the concept that should be considered that is superior 12
over the physical parking space, but the reality is like this that once we allow more to be built in 13
Palo Alto and also there’s more build in the adjacent municipalities public transportation is pretty 14
much is it's not keeping up with the changing environment. And the reason is that pretty much 15
had it been otherwise probably I would have not made this request to have it fully parked, but 16
the reality is not like this. There is there hasn't been not much of the improvement since the 17
bullet train was introduced I think it's been over several years ago and I think that the congestion 18
on the roads is also related to the to a lack of the improvement in the fabric transportation. So all 19
of this pretty much backfires on the building like this that at least I would be looking for to be fully 20
under parked to meet the parking demand within the City. Thank you. 21
191
1
Chair Alcheck: Ok, I think with that I'm going to conclude this study session. Thank you for your 2
time. I apologize for the late night, but hopefully it was worth it. 3
4
Commission Action: None-Study Session 5 6
7 Approval of Minutes 8
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 9
10
There are no minutes requiring approval at this meeting. 11
12
Committee Items 13 14 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 15
16
Chair Alcheck: Staff do we have any items that we need to go over? Ok, do we have any minutes 17
to approve? Alright, well with that I am going to adjourn the (interrupted) 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: We have questions, right? 20
21
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, absolutely [unintelligible] go ahead. 22
23
Commissioner Lauing: I just and I’m very respectful of the late night. Just we had raised before a 24
couple times including at the study session about maybe starting to take a look at Cal Ave. and we 25
it was decided that we did not a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for that. So what has to 26
happen to kind of get that thing going, right? 27
192
1
Commissioner Gardias: So I can speak to this. 2
3
Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 4
5
Commissioner Gardias: I actually I took it as my auction item, but I was waiting to talk to Hillary 6
and I just talked her tonight about this. So it was we were talking mainly about Fry’s area, 7
California as well I'd be interested, but I think that the most important is Fry’s Electronics area. 8
9
Commissioner Lauing: That was the next thing I was going to ask about. 10
11
Commissioner Gardias: Exactly and since it was my action item I was going to send an email and 12
to also to Mayor Scharf who was supportive, who supported this idea as well as Karen Holman, 13
but from this what we know the staff is applying for VTA grant very soon and that grant may be 14
available in the fall and then once the dollars are granted to us we can immediately start working 15
on the area plan for Fry's Electronics. So that's where we are. That's my update on this action 16
item, but I will also send an email to the Council Members. 17
18
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you actually for that update. Jonathan will you do me a favor? Will you 19
coordinate an email to have the Commissioners respond with any meetings that they anticipate 20
missing based on the schedule for the summer? You have that list? 21
193
1
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: We sent that email out and we’ve got responses. 2
3
Chair Alcheck: Ok would you mind sharing it with us? 4
5
Mr. Lait: Yeah. 6
7
Chair Alcheck: The results? Is it listed somewhere and I just haven't seen it? 8
9
Mr. Lait: We'll put it on the packet. 10
11
Chair Alcheck: Oh, ok. Alright that’s good to know. Ok, alright with that let’s adjourn. The time is 12
11:23. 13
14
Adjournment 15
• 11:23pm16
194
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Michael Alcheck
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner Susan Monk
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum
Commissioner Doria Summa
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.