The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-08-28 Planning & transportation commission Summary Minutes_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Action Agenda: August 28, 2019 2 Council Chambers 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 6:00 PM 5 6 Call to Order / Roll Call 7 6:12 pm 8 9 Chair Riggs: Alright I’ll call us to order. It is 6:09. Welcome to the August 28th version of the 10 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto. Let’s do a roll call? 11 Oral Communications 12 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 13 14 Chair Riggs: Alright any oral communications? Any individual in the public want to speak to 15 things that are not on the agenda? Ok, I have no cards and seeing none. Seeing none? Ok. 16 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 17 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 18 19 Chair Riggs: Mr. Planning Director, any additions chances, announcements before we get 20 started? 21 22 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: No changes. 23 City Official Reports 24 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 25 26 Chair Riggs: Alright so our first item is Director’s report with kind of a schedule and assignments 27 I believe. Anything to report? 28 29 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: So just a couple of 30 announcements. One just to let the Commission know that we went to the City Council I think it 31 was last week, maybe the week before, and got some direction on the North Ventura 32 Coordinated Area Plan. So, we had some good dialog and feedback and general support to 33 move forward with some slight changes to the schedule and adjustments to the scope of work 34 with our consultant. We’ll be returning to the Council at their next meeting or the one 35 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. thereafter with a scope of work to study the possible options for naturalizing the Matadero 1 Creek within this discreet study area. And then thereafter we’d have another scope of work 2 change for Perkins Wheeler [note- phonetics], our prime consultant so that’s coming 3 forthcoming. 4 5 The last meeting, I introduced Assistant Director Rachael Tanner and Rachael will be 6 transitioning into the role that I’ve been serving with the Commission for the past several years. 7 She will now serve as the Planning and Transportation Commissioner liaison so you will see her 8 bright face here on Wednesdays and at a website blasting live across the universe. Don’t be 9 nervous about that. 10 11 And then I want to also introduce Vinhloc Nguyen who has joined us and he was the one who 12 pronounced the roll call this evening. Vinhloc is a new employee and he will have the 13 responsibility of not only serving the Planning and Transportation Commission but also the 14 Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and our Director’s Hearings. And so, 15 with that, he has the responsibility of our public noticing, preparing the Packets for the 16 Commissions and the Boards, making sure that the meetings have been set up and the 17 teardown, follow through with the minutes and a whole variety of other work. And he still 18 comes to work with a big smile on his face and so we’re totally excited about that but this is his 19 first meeting so we’ll see. Once we run him through the gauntlet of all those meetings we’ll see 20 if he’s still smiling. Alright so that’s the end of the Director's report. 21 22 Chair Riggs: Riveting. Yeah, sorry, I just… no, thank you very much, that’s great. 23 24 Study Session 25 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 26 2. Introduction of New Chief Transportation Official and Overview of Transportation 27 Priorities. 28 29 Chair Riggs: So, I guess we should move onto our second item which is a study session. Public 30 comment is permitted, 3-minutes per speaker, but I believe before we do that, we have an 31 introduction of the new Transportation Director… new Chief Transportation Official. 32 33 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: Great so yeah, Philip Kamhi, 34 Chief Transportation Planning Official, right? No. 35 36 [note – many Staff members started speaking at once off mic] 37 38 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Lait: Transportation Official, sorry. I tried too… see how I tried to bring you into the 1 Planning side again? You just… we just separated you guys now you’re… ok… alright. Philip, take 2 it away. 3 4 Mr. Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official: Actually, Chantal will kick us off. 5 6 Ms. Chantal Cotton-Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager: Sure. Good evening Chair Riggs and 7 Commission. My name is Chantel Cotton-Gaines, I’m an Assistant to the City Manager here for 8 the City of Palo Alto, and up until Mr. Kamhi arrived last week, I’ve been filling in leading the 9 Transportation Office upstairs. So, we thought it would be fitting for the two of us to give this 10 presentation today, just an overview of where transportation is, and the future of 11 transportation in Palo Alto with Philip and items that we’ll be bringing forward to the PTC over 12 the coming months. So, it’s really an introduction item today. 13 14 So, I wanted to give… which some of this may be redundant to some of you if you’re following 15 the details of transportation but I think it helps to bring everyone to the same place. I wanted 16 to give an overview of where the Office of Transportation is right now. As you are aware, we 17 previously had them within the Planning Department so Planning and Community Environment 18 and transportation was a division. And the City Council has prioritized transportation in form or 19 another over the past 6-years as one of their Council’s stated priorities each year and this year 20 they really want to put more emphasis on transportation. And in the response to that, the City 21 Manager pulled transportation out of Planning to make it its own office to really match the 22 level of attention that the Council has been putting on transportation over the years. And in the 23 Budget adoption for… in June this year for the FY-2020 Budget, the City Council official made 24 the Office of Transportation. And so, the Chief Transportation Official was leading a team of 25 about 14 others Staff members now and reporting directly to the City Manager. 26 27 So, I just wanted to give a little more context there. In the Budget we… the shift to moving it 28 out we set a purpose, mission, and goals for the Office of Transportation. In previous Budgets, 29 transportation had one performance metric in the community or Planning and Community 30 Environment Department’s Budget Pages. So, this was our opportunity to really just describe 31 but transportation does and to set some metrics. So, it was 12-pages now focused on 32 transportation in the Budget and I wanted to read the mission and purpose if I could to you 33 guys right now? So, the mission for the Office of Transportation: Office of Transportation’s 34 mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of the Palo Alto residents, visitors, and 35 businesses by providing efficient and cost-efficient transportation services for all modes of 36 transportation. And our purpose: The purpose of the Office of Transportation is to improve the 37 safety of the users of all modes of transportation, reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, 38 address congestion, and reduce through traffic and non-resident parking in Palo Alto 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. neighborhoods, leading to an integrated transportation system that serves local, regional, and 1 intercity travel. 2 3 In the Budget as well as we set a goal to focus on Staff retention. As you know we’ve had quite 4 a bit of turnover in our Transportation Team over the past couple of years and so we really 5 wanted to emphasize that the people really make the office work. And we have requested in 6 the Budget some additional management positions and the City Council did approve those. So, 7 we have a Parking and Shuttle Manager that was added as well as a Senior Engineer. The idea is 8 we need more people to help really meet some of the priorities set by the City Council. So those 9 were included in the Budget as well with focus on developing our Staff. 10 11 And then just two more quick points before we get into some of the things that will be coming 12 to the PTC. So, we have… actually one more quick point. The City Council approved those 13 managers positions and we are actually actively recruiting for them. So, the two critical 14 positions we have just filled are the Chief Transportation Official who you will hear from in a 15 second as well as a Senior Transportation Planner. And the two new positions we are actively 16 working on getting the recruitments actually out on the ground so that we can get those people 17 in. So, with that, I’ll turn it over to Philip to talk about some items that will be coming to you 18 guys soon. 19 20 Mr. Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official: Alright thank you, Chantal. So, I’m Philip Kamhi, 21 I’m the new Chief Transportation Official here. I’m very pleased to be here before the Planning 22 and Transportation Commission. 23 24 So, I’m working to get a better understanding of all of the projects that are ongoing. This is 25 really… this is the start of my second week here but… and also working on prioritization of 26 projects within the Office of Transportation. But I’m going to give you a list of some of the items 27 that we really anticipate will be coming to PTC over the next coming months. One of those if 28 Parking Management which is something that I worked on in my previous role at the City and 29 we've complied a Parking Work Plan. And that Work Plan came from the work of Wayne Tanda 30 who was a consultant with the City and it says that there are about nine recommendations that 31 we’ll be working on with the PTC coming from that Work Plan. Also, the RPP which is also 32 something that I worked on in my previous roll here with the City. And going back to the 33 purpose I thought about underlining this as Chantal said it but the Office of Transportation, one 34 of our purposes is to reduce through traffic and non-residential parking in Palo Alto 35 neighborhoods. So RPPs are a program that do work to address that and tonight you’ll be 36 hearing from our Parking Operations Lead, Mark Hur, on the RPP for Old Palo Alto. Traffic 37 calming measures, as projects come up and I do anticipate we’ll have some projects coming up 38 similar to the Middlefield North Project which came here in the past. We’ll have policy changes 39 regarding Level of Service to Vehicle Miles Traveled as required by state law as it relates to 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. CEQA. And also, policy changes regarding to Transportation Demand Management and with 1 that, I’d believe we’d be happy to take any questions. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Congrats. I hope you know what you’re getting in for. We’re happy to 6 have bodies and seats to move things along. That’s really good to hear. One of the questions 7 that I was going to ask is how many openings are left because I know you’ve been doing some 8 backfill? 9 10 Mr. Kamhi: We currently have two openings that we’ll be filling. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Ok so just the two she mentioned. That’s great. And the Council sent the 13 Work Plan to you with 35 recommendations on parking. So, did I hear that right that you’ve 14 narrowed it down to nine that we’re going to be working with you on and the other 20 15 something we won’t? 16 17 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, I believe that nine of them are items that should come to the PTC. Some of 18 them relate to Staffing, etc. And I’m sorry, to go back, correct… the correct positions that we 19 need to fill is 2.5. Sorry. 20 21 Commissioner Lauing: Ok so what you finished discussing the recommendations that nine need 22 to come to PTC and then the others won’t? 23 24 Mr. Kamhi: Yes, I believe so. 25 26 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: So, the 35 recommendations from Mr. Tanda’s report include some things 27 that are administrative changes. So just in terms of… I have the report with me as well but in 28 terms of things that have to do with house Staff rolls out different pieces of the program. So 29 those are less of bigger discussion and more of things that just need to happen. So of the 35 30 recommendations there are nine of them that are what Mr. Tanda recommended as things 31 where we know we need it more enhanced community and conversation around them because 32 it’s things like setting up parking occupancy percentage for threshold; where we see like this is 33 a parking issue versus its not if it’s less than that threshold. So that’s the example of one of the 34 nine that will come to PTC. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, yeah, I think I would speak for more than myself if I say that if more 37 nine you’d like to have help with, that they don’t have to come here, we’d be delighted to jump 38 in and help on behalf of the community and have hearing time for them as well. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Cotton-Gaines: Much appreciated. 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: The next question is how is this going to work in terms of liaison? Will 3 you also have a transportation liaison in addition to the planning liaison to this Commission? 4 5 Mr. Kamhi: That’s a good question. I’ll have to get back to you on that. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: In the past in my 3-years almost to service on this Commission now, 8 there was sometimes a gap because there just wasn’t somebody that… and this is not a 9 reflection on Planning Staff what so ever. But it would be more communicative to us and 10 perhaps we could give you earlier feedback on some issues if there was a separate person. I 11 understand that’s more workload. Jonathan will tell you it’s really fun. That’s all. 12 13 [note – male speaker]: Thank you. 14 15 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: I also wanted to say thank you to Chantal and welcome to Phil in this 18 new role. We’re really excited to have you here. As Commissioner Lauing noted, we would love 19 to see even more transportation projects. It’s been lite on that front so we’re eager to help and 20 I think there’s also a community interest that we have another opportunity input on several 21 types of projects around the City. So hopefully we’ll be seeing more of your smiling faces and 22 excited to have you on board. Thank you. 23 24 Mr. Kamhi: Thank you. 25 26 Chair Riggs: Well, I’ll chime… I’m actually still disappointed. I have to say I was expecting more 27 out of this even based on the conversation that we had before. The priorities that were 28 mentioned, didn’t mention any… we’ve asked for data initiatives, we’ve asked to actually see 29 Mr. Tanda’s recommendations before they were finalized. None of that has been provided to us 30 so I feel like my fellow Commissioners are being kinder. I provided a warning from the dais that 31 I thought this was a bad idea to pull transportation out of planning. I believe that was a year 32 and a half ago. The liaison suggestion is not only important, it’s essential. I thought we would 33 get a little more update of what’s happening with a lot of the rail crossings issues. I didn’t hear 34 reference to the Circulation Element once. So, I think there’s some really deep-rooted issues 35 here where we’re in pulling planning away from transportation initiatives. We’re actually 36 setting ourselves up for conflict with our General Plan. So, I would… I think there’s a lot of work 37 to be done. I was expecting a little more and I think I even said this in the pre-meeting. I was a 38 little caught off guard that we weren’t having a more robust discussion today. So, I guess I’m 39 encouraged we have a warm body in the position now, not that… Mr. Gaines, you’ve been 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. amazing to work with but I guess you have a lot on your plate doing basically two jobs but we 1 have to up our game in transportation. And I’m not sure that… I think you have seven people 2 here that have been asking for stuff and we haven’t been… we’re underutilized in terms of our 3 expertise and our willingness to work on this issue. 4 5 Commissioner Summa: I’ll make a brief comment. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Commissioner Summa. 8 9 Commissioner Summa: Well, thank you for coming and talking to us today. And thank you for 10 the update and I’m looking forward to us getting into these issues. And thank you very much 11 Mr. Kamhi for coming back to Palo Alto so let’s just take it from here, I think. Thanks. 12 13 Chair Riggs: Alright seeing no other lights and comments from… I think we’re done with this 14 item. 15 Commission Action: No action was taken by the Commission. 16 17 Action Items 18 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 19 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 20 21 3. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council 22 adopt a resolution to implement the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking 23 (RPP) Program as a one-year pilot 24 25 Chair Riggs: Moving on to our two action items for this evening. Our first Item, Item Three, is a 26 recommendation to the City Council… and thank you both. I’m assuming you’re sticking around 27 but we have a recommendation to City Council to adopt a Resolution for Old Palo Alto 28 Residential Preferred Parking Program as a 1-year pilot. I believe we have a presentation from 29 Staff and then we’ll open it up for comments. I do have two comment cards for this agenda 30 item. If there’s any more if you could get them in with… if you can just hand them to me that’d 31 be great. 32 33 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m going to step out for this because I’m within 500-feet of the 34 district. 35 36 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: That sounds good, Commissioner Waldfogel is recusing himself based on his 1 residential location. 2 3 Mr. Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official: Ok, once again I’m Philip Kamhi, the Chief 4 Transportation Official, and tonight I’m going to be introducing to you Mark Hur who is our 5 Parking Operations Lead. I believe I mentioned him in the last item. Mark was here previously 6 when I was here in my former role working on parking behind the scenes and doing a lot of the 7 good work in order to make sure that the RPP’s have timely implementation. As such tonight 8 he’s here to assist the Old Palo Alto with their own RPP District. 9 10 Mr. Mark Hur, Parking Operations Lead: Good evening Commissioners. Tonight, we have a short 11 presentation on the proposed all Old Palo Alto RPP with the goal of reviewing the programing 12 and hopefully formalizing an item to bring before Council on September 16th. 13 14 We will start with providing some background on the program and how we got to this particular 15 date in the program development. The City-wide RPP Ordinance requires neighborhoods meet 16 a certain level of steps to initiate the development of an RPP Program. Examples outlined in the 17 ordinance include that non-residential vehicles substantially interfere with the use of on-street 18 parking spaces by neighborhood residents. That resident – at the interference by non-resident 19 vehicles occurs at a regular interval, that non-resident parked in an area of the proposed district 20 create traffic congestion or other disruptions that disrupt neighborhood life. Residents of Old 21 Palo Alto also submitted a petition which met most if not all the requirements of the ordinance. 22 23 There’s a brief timeline of the Old Palo Alto RPP. Back in August of 2018 City Staff received a 24 formal petition from residents in Old Palo Alto. On March 27th of this year, we brought three 25 petitions to PTC to prioritize the districts that have requested RPP with the Commission 26 prioritizing Old Palo Alto as the first and the highest priority. In the month of April, City Staff 27 collected initial data regarding parking occupancy and parking simple in Old Palo Alto. In May 28 City directed… the City directed Staff to initiate program development. In June and July, the 29 Office of Transportation began program design, modifying the perimeters to meet… while 30 meeting with the residents in community workshops. In the month of August residents were 31 surveyed and based on the supporting feedback we are presenting for your review and 32 recommendation to adopt a Resolution for a 1-year RPP pilot program in Old Palo Alto. And 33 with that recommendation Staff presents an Action Item to Council on September 16th. With 34 Council’s approval our anticipation program start date is 11… on November 1st. 35 36 City Staff participated in a number of community engagement exercises. Once receiving the 37 petition in August of 2018 up until the PTC meeting earlier this year we had been in regular 38 communication with the residents defining processes and possible solutions to their parking 39 intrusion. On July 31st City Staff hosted a community workshop by Jerry Bowden Park to discuss 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the proposed program boundaries and other items related to the program. And City Staff 1 mailed individual surveys to residents on August 6th. 2 3 This will cover the data collection that City Staff had accumulated over the past couple months. 4 Parking Occupancy Data was collected by City Staff on April 16th, 17th, 18th, and the 24th at 5 various hours of the day listed on this slide; which includes 9:00 am, 12:00 pm, 3:00 pm, and 6 6:00 pm. On this slide, you will find the results of our collections. The blocks included are street 7 segments outlined in the original RPP petition. The streets included, shaded in blue, had a 8 parking occupancy between 0 to 50 percent, orange blocks 51 percent to 74 percent, and finally 9 red with a parking occupancy of 75 percent or higher. And as you can see the areas with the 10 highest parking intrusion are those closest to the California Avenue underpass. 11 12 Shortly after the community workshop Staff surveyed residents in the areas where the 13 parking… with the highest parking intrusion; those streets that are red and orange from the 14 previous slide. Information on the survey includes the number of permits per household, 15 permit fees and proposed boundaries of the RPP district. Residents were given 14-days to 16 respond with their support or opposition to RPP restrictions. Here you will find the results of 17 the survey, as of August 19th Staff received 55 out of 93 surveys with a return rate of 59 18 percent. Out of the 55 returned surveys, 49 residents supported RPP restrictions while 6 19 residents opposed; 98 percent of the returned surveys support of the program was well above 20 the 70 percent requirement outlined in our guidelines. 21 22 This is our recommended program design. The boundaries of the pilot or core of the district is 23 highlighted in Red. Street segments in blue may petition the Office of Transportation to be 24 annexed into the program after the initial rollout of the program. Residents who reside outside 25 of the proposed district are not eligible for parking permits. 26 27 The Old Palo Alto program will release resident permits available to those who live within the 28 district. Annual hang tag permits will be issued for this particular district at $50.00 per permit, 29 with five permits per household. Residents may also purchase visitor or daily hang tag permits 30 at $5.00 a permit, and they are limited to 50 per year which expires at the end of the program 31 year, and we are proposing employee permits for this district. 32 33 Next steps, we hope to bring a program before Council on September 16th and receive direction 34 on whether to move forward with the RPP Program. With Council’s approval Staff will move 35 forward with permit sales and signed installation in October and out anticipated launch date is 36 early November. And then during the pilot year, the program Staff will monitor parking patterns 37 and continue working with the residents to refine the program. This concludes our 38 presentation; we’re welcome to any questions or comments from the Commission. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Thank you. Any questions or comments from our Commissioners? Commissioner 1 Templeton. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton: Hi. Thank you for this presentation. I really appreciated your clear 4 charts and maps about the areas that will be affected by the permit. One technical question I 5 have is under survey you indicate that you didn’t do any surveys past… I’m sorry, I’m looking at 6 this slide. Not that survey, the audit of parking. 7 8 Mr. Hur: Yes. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton: That you didn’t do any surveys past 6:00 pm but in the Findings on 11 Section 1A which is on Page 3A or Packet Page 17, you say that the parking patterns indicated 12 that the evening was so lightly parked that it was clear that there was a difference. How did you 13 find the difference if you didn’t survey it in the evening? 14 15 Mr. Hur: We saw a significant drop in occupancy (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Even by 6:00? 18 19 Mr. Hur: Essentially after 5:00 pm in which most of the vehicles have been leaving the area. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton: Can you quantify that? 22 23 Mr. Hur: Oh, this was done by manual counts by City Staff during those times. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton: Did you have a number of like it went from this at noon to this at 26 6:00? 27 28 Mr. Hur: We have those in multiple documents so we’d need some time to review those 29 numbers. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton: Oh, that’s ok. I just wondered if you had it handy, it would be helpful 32 to make that Finding. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I just want to note that the PTC made this in our referral the 37 number one priority and we actually asked for a pilot to accelerate this and then Council 38 approved that. So, I think we’re right on track and consistent with where we had been before. 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So, we can continue the discussion but I’d just like to get a motion on a table to support the 1 recommendation as [unintelligible](interrupted) 2 3 Chair Riggs: Sorry, we’re not ready for that yet. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Oh ok, sorry, sorry, ok. My only question is if there was a hard stop… 6 how do I ask this question? For example, one block of Washington in that circular block wasn’t 7 included and another one was. Was there hard data there or was that more of a judgment call? 8 9 Mr. Hur: There is data that supports the drop-in parking occupancy. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. That’s all. 12 13 Chair Riggs: Sorry, the microphones are tricky, if you leave them on it’s actually hard to hear. I 14 don’t know if you guys have actually noticed that. I had a couple of questions. The… in the 15 Occupancy Survey are you specifying the data based on block-face? I… it’s not clear how you’re 16 specifying this data in your visualization. 17 18 Mr. Hur: So, the occupancy counts include both sides of (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Riggs: No, no, no but this is by in individual block face? Clearly, a percentage requires a 21 calculation so it is by individual block that you’re doing the calculation? 22 23 Mr. Hur: It’s a combination of both sides of the block. 24 25 Chair Riggs: So, the… both sides of the block are not decoupled from one another? 26 27 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: It’s by block. 28 29 Mr. Hur: It’s by block, yes. 30 31 Chair Riggs: Alright so if the north, south, or east side were any different we wouldn’t know? 32 33 Mr. Hur: Yes, that’s correct. 34 35 Chair Riggs: Is there a way to segregate that data or are they just (interrupted) 36 37 Mr. Hur: We would need additional time to review that collection. 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Alright so in… I guess the second question because that visualization is poor. Why 1 three cohorts? I mean there’s 74 percent to 100 percent is a big range as is 51 percent to 74 2 percent. Can you unpack that at all? Can you tell me based… in a histogram what that means in 3 terms of is there… are we… the average… is the mid-point around 60 percent? I can’t affirm 4 much from this data. 5 6 Mr. Kamhi: Do you know what the average was? 7 8 Mr. Hur: Not off the [unintelligible] 9 10 Mr. Kamhi: I think… you know I can take this question. I can’t really provide you with the 11 answer that you’re looking for but I think what I can say is in the future we can bring back a lot 12 more data charts for the RPPs; different times as was requested and an average occupancy by 13 the zone. I think that’s a reasonable thing to provide. 14 15 Chair Riggs: But can you anecdotally say which block is 74 percent and which block is for 16 example 95 percent? 17 18 Mr. Hur: Yes, we can, we do have the data that represents those [unintelligible]. 19 20 Chair Riggs: Ok, can you provide that for us maybe at some point this evening? That would be 21 great. 22 23 Mr. Kamhi: We can see if we can pull that together but I guess to give you the basic assumption 24 we would have is that the closer that you get to Caltrain tunnel the higher the occupancy is. 25 26 Chair Riggs: Yeah, we just don’t see that here and if there’s (interrupted) 27 28 Mr. Kamhi: I completely (interrupted) 29 30 Chair Riggs: You know, you’ve worked in parking before, you know if you’re operating 85 to 95 31 percent you can still squeeze more occupancy out of your inventory. Clearly, 95 percent is 32 effectively full so we… if you tell me that most of these blocks are 74 percent, I think there’s not 33 an acute issue. So, I just… I can’t say anything… I can’t infer anything from this data. 34 35 Mr. Kamhi: Your point’s taken. 36 37 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: And while he’s pulling it up I will make a plug back to the recommendations 38 as well that one of them, this is kind of that conversation about having a set Parking Occupancy 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. threshold as well because then it’s something to link back too; which is a discussion we’ll have 1 in the future. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Alright so I have one more question that I’m just going to put out there. What’s the 4 rubric for the policy proposal? Number of cars? I don’t see any connection back to the 5 Circulation Element or back to other policies. It just seems random. 6 7 Mr. Kamhi: Well so this is resident requested. 8 9 Chair Riggs: Right but the City is approving it so how’s it connects to our Circulation Element? 10 How’s it connects to our City goals? You just stated the City goals, is it consistent? I think we 11 have to make that judgment. I see no rubric in terms of assessing that number. You can just say 12 no, there wasn’t a rubric. Is that the answer? 13 14 Mr. Kamhi: So, I guess… I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking to… but that said I also will say 15 that I’m not sure I’m best equipped to answer this at this time because I’m reviewing this item 16 after it’s already somewhat published. So yeah, I’m not sure that… at this time I’m not sure that 17 I can fully answer your question but I’m not really sure what your question is. 18 19 Chair Riggs: Sounds good. Any other questions? Seeing no lights, I will enter the public hearing 20 piece so I have four speaker cards. If anyone else would like to speak please give me a card. 21 First, we’ll have Barbara Carlitz, you have 3-minutes. Don’t worry Barbara, we won’t start you 22 until you get up here and behind Barbara, Elizabeth Shepard. 23 24 Ms. Barbara Carlitz: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity. Really, I’d like to thank both the City and 25 our neighborhood for setting a quick time schedule and more amazing sticking to it. I’ve been 26 very impressed with the Staff and the way it’s proceeded in a fairly rapid fashion and that the 27 fact that our neighborhood received our survey requests on a Monday and they needed to be 28 back the next Monday. And we managed to get that many people to return them in August was 29 a very good sign of the enthusiasm. I encourage us to keep up this pace and send the 1-year 30 pilot to the City Council in 2-weeks and implement it in November as suggested by the Staff 31 report. I’ve lived in this corner of Palo Alto for nearly 50-years and I can certainly attest to that 32 fact that the problem has grown steadily worse during that time. I’d add that since the 33 Mayfield/Evergreen RPP began and computer… not computers, excuse me, commuters, 34 employees, and customers can no longer park in that neighborhood on the other side of Alma 35 and Caltrain from us. Our situation has become much more dire and the comments about the 36 closer you get to the underpass, the more dense the parking is certainly true. I’m happy that we 37 have a chance to discuss, evaluate, and tweak this pilot program in a years’ time after we have 38 had some real-time experience with it; which I think should make all of us more confident as we 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. go forward. That we are not setting into absolute concrete something which we would prefer to 1 be able to change. So, with that, onward. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Thank you, Barbara. Elizabeth Shepard followed by Rod Miller. 4 5 Ms. Elizabeth Shepard: Hi, Elizabeth Shepard, I’m a homeowner in the affected area in Old Palo 6 Alto. We are continuing to see day parkers and it is having a big effect on the quality of life. I’ve 7 lived there for 9-years and I’ve seen a huge change in the last 2-years. Just this evening before 8 coming over here I was trying to unload my elderly dog in front of my house because I have to 9 carry him in and out of the car. There was a car parked just in such a way it was difficult for me 10 to pull up in front of the sidewalk. I’m very happy with the program that the transportation 11 division has come up with. I think they did a really nice job. I’m willing to pay for it so I’d ask you 12 to please support that and allow it to go forward to the Council for implementation. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Riggs: Thank you Elizabeth. Rod Miller followed by Chris Robell [note -phonetics] 15 16 Mr. Rod Miller: Could we go back to the criteria slide, please? I have a problem with the bottom 17 item. To me, that sounds like we’re giving up on alternatives in the RPP and making the RPP a 18 permanent program which in my mind is only going to expand. Anything that’s permanent just 19 gets bigger so maybe that’s poor wording on the slide but it sure gives me some heartburn. Any 20 response? Are we letting the RPP be permanent and not… giving up on trying to find 21 alternatives? 22 23 Mr. Lait: So just as a (interrupted) 24 25 Chair Riggs: Point of order. 26 27 Mr. Lait: In terms of just the process, this is your public… your opportunity to speak and it’s not 28 really a time for questions but the Chair could refer those questions to Staff. 29 30 Mr. Miller: I’m sorry, ok, I didn’t understand the process. 31 32 Mr. Lait: So yeah, you’ll want to complete your public comments and then we’re going to 33 continue with the public meeting and the Chair (interrupted) 34 35 Mr. Miller: Alright, ok (interrupted) 36 37 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 38 39 Mr. Miller: I made my comment so I’m done. Thank you. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: Thank you. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Mr. Robell [note- phonetics] 4 5 Mr. Chris Robell [note –phonetics]: Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak 6 and I’ve been working very closely with the City; Chantal and Mark and team on this getting 7 setup. And I appreciate the partnership and the effort to move this along. I did want to first of 8 all just underscore that this has been happening for… I mean I have emails from 2017. So, this is 9 something that we’ve been working a long time, it’s not something that’s a new initiative from 10 2018. And I secondly want to say that so the point is we really need to get parking relief. This is 11 something that I know many of you have said that we want to get a pilot sooner and I want to 12 underscore that. There was extremely strong consistent desire to have this done so I think we 13 have among the highest participation rate and favorable rate of any of the RPPs. Just to give 14 you an example the Evergreen/Mayfield was only a 20 percent participation rate whereas we’re 15 at a 59 percent and we were at 72 with the survey. And they had a 68 percent support and we 16 have an 89 percent according to this but it’s even higher because we’ve had people that have, 17 after the 19th, said that they wanted to do this. There’s only… we really only had 1-week in the 18 middle of August and we didn’t know when exactly when we’d get the survey and we had 1-19 week from the time it showed up in our mailboxes on Saturday prior to the 19th. So, it was 20 really a 1-week and 2-day turnaround. So bottom line is I’m really asking for this to please just 21 pass. Please, please just pass this as it is. This is a pilot, let’s get it off the ground. I don’t want to 22 do anything to disturb or jeopardize the November 1st date. I know that they’re short on 23 resources and I really want to again thank the team that we’ve gotten this far. We have a… like I 24 said I think it’s something that we just ask that you prioritize and not make perfect the enemy 25 of good. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Riggs: Alright any other comments? Any other public… speakers from the public? Ok, 28 nobody? Seeing none the hearing for that item is closed. We’ll bring it back to the Commission 29 so maybe we can give… I’m going to take questions as they come and I’ll let you know. I have 30 two… alright, I’m going to take comments from the Commissioners as they come, but maybe 31 we can get… if Staff wanted to provide an answer to Mr. Miller in terms of where the last bullet 32 comes from and the exact meaning of that bullet. That would be helpful. 33 34 Mr. Kamhi: That bullet I believe comes directly from the Code. 35 36 Chair Riggs: Right so that is directly from the ordinance? 37 38 Mr. Kamhi: Yes. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Alright and so nothing else to add Director Lait in terms of… ok. So, I have two lights 1 on, if… I’ll have Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair] and Commissioner Templeton. I’ll 2 take them as they come. Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair] 3 4 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Good evening. Allow me to lighten the mood. Welcome, we are excited to 5 have somebody in your position at the top that is going to be available to us and accountable to 6 the City and we’re eager to work with you. I think this is a tough night to sit in the seat and just 7 so you know, that if… I suggest that there’s some opportunities here to sort of address issues. 8 Those are just those opportunities I think rather than from my perspective disappointments or 9 anything. 10 11 I appreciate Commissioner Lauing’s eagerness to move on this item. I want to take a step back 12 though and have a little bit of a dialog. It is true on March 27th this year we did formally 13 recommend that the Council direct Staff to begin. I want to suggest to you that my perspective 14 is we directed Staff… we recommended that Council direct Staff to begin the process of 15 evaluating the merit of an RPP Program in this neighborhood. One of the themes of those 16 meetings that we’ve had in the past with respect to RPP, whether it was this specific one or the 17 one that we did before, I think we even did one… I can remember once having a sincere debate 18 with Eric… Commissioner Rosenblum at the time, a prior Commissioner, about what is the 19 vision for the City’s off-street or on-street parking utilization? What is the goal? Is it 50 percent, 20 is it 85 percent, is it 95 percent? I would suggest to you that one of the themes of the evening 21 on March 27th is that we need to understand that. That we need… it’s not so much that every 22 RPP has to have the same execution but RPPs should be approached with some level of 23 consistency in terms of how we evaluate it. It is entirely clear and very Palo Alto by the way that 24 the process to engage the protocol has been very well thought out. If you look at the report and 25 you kind of take a look at Page 9, Packet Page 9, the steps a neighborhood has to go through 26 are very clear. Someone has clearly walked this process through; E is problematic; E is the crux, 27 right? So, after they do this step and then this step and then you do this and you do this and 28 you do this. We get to E and we have to make a recommendation. We don’t have criteria. 29 That’s in my opinion highly problematic to continuing… to making a motion tonight and the 30 reason why I’ve struggled with the other RPs is for the same reason. And every time we get into 31 this situation with RPPs we suggest we need the logic and the responses. Well listen, we’re 32 going to try it as a pilot and then we’re going to come back with logic and we need more time 33 or we’re under Staffed. I feel like that’s not working anymore from my perspective and it would 34 be a bad idea to start like that again. I think there’s a lot of neighborhoods wondering how this 35 evaluation takes place. I’ll ask a few questions. We did the analysis on April 18th, right, the 36 Parking Survey? Do I have that right? 37 38 Mr. Hur: Correct, four days in April. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Alcheck: Do you know what date the City parking lot off of Paige was closed and 1 construction began there? 2 3 Mr. Hur: I do not. 4 5 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Are you aware that there’s a parking lot that’s no longer accessible? Do you 6 know how many spaces are in that parking lot? 7 8 Mr. Hur: Approximately there’s 300 spaces, yes. 9 10 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Here’s a big problem. You did an analysis in April; we don’t understand or 11 appreciate how the problem has maybe gotten worse. Especially considering that you did the 12 surveys in August which for sure we know that the… am I right? You did the surveys in August? 13 93 surveys? I know the lot was worked on then so too what extent is the neighborhood’s 14 response to this issue affected by the influx of having to share that street as a result 300 spaces 15 being taken from Cal. Ave? That may… my sense is that you appreciate that that’s kind of a big 16 deal. Maybe you don’t. I feel like it’s a huge deal. I’m not opposed to us instituting RPPs in this 17 City but without a logical framework where I can understand what is the City’s goal and I’m not 18 suggesting that I need to align my own views with that goal. I need to understand if the City’s 19 view here is that these blocks are for the exclusive use of the residents and that’s what this 20 purpose is. Is the purpose of RPP to make this asset, this parking asset, exclusive to the 21 residential neighborhood or is our purpose to make it easier for the residential parcels to enjoy 22 that public parking asset in conjunction with their neighboring business’s employees? 23 24 There’s sort of a different issue here which is Caltrain. I understand that there are a lot of 25 Caltrain users that may park in this neighborhood. I am also under the impression, and this is 26 not something in your report, that the Caltrans lot is often not full which is shocking that it’s not 27 discussed in this report because that deficiency should be apart of the analysis. If you were to 28 say to me that on a daily basis in your survey you found that the Caltrans lot was 75 percent full 29 and you told me that there where… I don’t know, do you know how many spaces there are in 30 the Caltrans lot? I mean I’m just being hypothetical here just so I can keep my hype up. If it’s 75 31 percent full and there’s 300 spaces then we’ve got a lot of spaces there. Then the question 32 becomes how do we make it… I’m familiar in Redwood City, for example, they were considering 33 a development of a new parking structure. And in lieu of doing that they created some digital 34 street signage that identified how many… just how many spaces were actually available in the 35 parking structures that they already had as a way to see if they could address the problem 36 because they had so much space. And then they decided ultimately not to build the garage 37 because they woke up to the underutilization of their garages. So, the question is, number one, 38 from my perspective I can’t move… I cannot support a recommendation at this time. If I were to 39 support a motion tonight it would be to continue this item so that we could number one 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. understand what is the purpose of our RPP. Are we… I think I made that one clear. You got 1 that? And then the second would be we really need to understand number one, how is the 2 problem impacted by the 300-parking space taken off of Page? Number two, to what extent are 3 we underutilizing what we already have there for Caltrans? 4 5 And then I would suggest to you that the third issue that I struggled a lot with was the 6 determination that every household is entitled to five hanging permits. Our Downtown RPP I 7 believe allows for two. Our Crescent Park RPP allows for two. What is the logic that an Old Palo 8 Alto resident… what was the logic that went into the determination that Old Palo Alto residents 9 should have five cars parked on their…? I mean I’m assuming you have a street with 10 houses. 10 If the ten houses all park 50 cars on their street, I mean where did we come up with that 11 number? How does that even seem rational? 12 13 Mr. Hur: The number of permits per household was discussed at the community workshop on 14 July 31st and we had originally proposed two permits per household, but based on the feedback 15 that we received from the majority of the residents they had asked for additional permits. 16 Similar to Downtown and then Evergreen Park/Mayfield which was five permits per household. 17 18 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Mayfield has five permits per household? 19 20 Mr. Hur: Correct. 21 22 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok and Downtown? 23 24 Mr. Hur: Downtown is five as well. College Terrace RPP and Crescent Park and OP only allow 25 two permits per household. 26 27 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Two, ok. Look, if you were to tell me that I can’t park on my street for more 28 than 2-hours at a time without a hang permit, I would tell you I’ll take 20 permits. I’ll take as 29 many as you can give because if I’m going to… why… they’re transferable. 30 31 Mr. Hur: Correct. 32 33 Vice-Chair Alcheck: It's not a fair question to ask a resident how much do you want to be 34 impacted by this highly restrictive policy. The answer is going to be zero, I’d like to have no 35 impact. So again, we have to fall back, what approach to parking and transportation do we 36 want to encourage in this City? What’s in our Comp. Plan suggests that we want residents in 37 Palo Alto to park five cars on the street? That just doesn’t make sense. I think a much more 38 appropriate… one data point would be, from my perspective, how many cars are in this 39 neighborhood? How many cars are owned by the residents in this neighborhood? If most of the 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. residents own cars are, they anticipating utilization of these parking permits by Staff members 1 of their household that come during the day and that’s why they need five each? Maybe 2 neighbors could share them since they’re transferable and each neighbor can get two and if you 3 know you’re going to need some, you go next door and we encourage some sort of community 4 engagement. I’m a little uncomfortable with… I guess what this boils down to is it’s another 5 component of the execution of a policy that doesn’t have a logic. So, it’s simply because the 6 feedback suggested that they wanted five. I think if you were to poll the Crescent Park 7 community, what they thought, they’ll tell you they want five too. 8 9 Those are my comments. If… I’ll summarize again in conclusion that I think we have to stop 10 moving things forward without the foundational approach that gives the whole City an idea of 11 how we accomplish this process. Not just what you have to do by March 1st and November 1st 12 but how we make this assessment because it seems to me like it’s catching in every 13 neighborhood and I anticipate every year we’ll have another one. This is the third or fourth one 14 that we’ve done now and I’m worried that if we continue to approach this with approval of ok, 15 start another pilot program. The next one will be just as complex and sort of without the right 16 level of strategy. So, my… I would support a… I’m not going to make a motion but I would 17 support a motion that we continue this item, come back in a month, understand how the 18 construction has affected the issues, understand what… maybe develop a strategy that 19 articulates how we feel about the street so that we can begin applying that uniformly 20 everywhere, and third maybe we have a logic about how we evaluate which neighborhoods get 21 five permits per household and which neighborhoods get two. Ok that’s it. 22 23 Chair Riggs: Ms. Gaines. 24 25 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: Yes, thank you so much. 26 27 Chair Riggs: Cotton-Gaines, sorry. 28 29 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: It's ok. Both of them are technically my name. I did want to point out one of 30 the things related to the recommendations that came from the MRG report from Mr. Tanda is 31 really hitting at the emphasis that we need uniformity and consistency amongst RPPs. So that 32 when that report went to Council, the direction they provided to Staff was continue moving 33 forward on the RPPs that had been prioritized based off the work that came from PTC, but then 34 also start working on these bigger recommendations; which really are asking those base 35 question. What’s the purpose of our (interrupted) 36 37 Chair Riggs: You know, I’ll suggest that you’ve had that information from Mr. Tanda for a while 38 and just been sitting on it. So, I respect that and yet I can quite easily dismiss it so thank you 39 (interrupted) 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: Just sharing for [unintelligible] 2 3 Chair Riggs: I appreciate you bringing it up but it… I think it underscores Commissioner 4 Alcheck’s [note – Vice-Chair] point. Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Roohparvar. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I am wondering… well, first I should say that I’m inclined 7 to take some action either now or when we decide this to support the request from the 8 neighbors. So that you guys understand that I think you… we’ve heard a lot of support this time 9 and last time for the neighbors. I think there’s a slight process issue that we need to make sure 10 that whatever decision we make is solid so that’s where some of these questions are coming 11 from. 12 13 For me, my questions where around the transition. We’ve described this as a temporary set up. 14 I’ve seen no information about what the transition would be like, how it would be decided, if 15 it’s going to be continued or if we’re going to end it? So, understanding the scope of the 16 commitment would help I think many of us come to a decision. You even heard members of the 17 community question about what… how do we know this won’t go on forever and that’s because 18 the report doesn’t describe any transition or decision-making process whether to extend or 19 terminate it. So, can you speak to that? 20 21 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, the pilot does not continue past the… whatever it is. The… I can’t remember if 22 it’s… October 31st date without approval. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: But what does that… how does that approval work? Is there a 25 trigger? Are we going to have another survey? Are we going to have another assessment 26 analysis? 27 28 Mr. Kamhi: Well yes, first of all, we will do another Occupancy Study during the year to 29 determine what the occupancy levels are. Second it does… I can’t remember what occurred in 30 the past, if it goes to Council or if it comes to PTC but somebody needs to… one of the Boards 31 needs to approve it. Sandy, do you remember if its (interrupted) 32 33 Commissioner Templeton: But it’s not included in the Resolution I guess is my concern. None of 34 that description. 35 36 Ms. Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Yes, so the Code does say that the pilot period can be 37 up to 2-years and what we have historically done is have a 1-year pilot period. And then after 38 that pilot period, the item does go back to Council for a determination on whether to adopt a 39 new Resolution continuing the RPP Program. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Templeton: So, it’s just agendized but there’s no… is there any commitment 2 from the Staff to provide more information to Council at that time so that they can make a 3 decision? 4 5 Mr. Kamhi: Well I will say that historically we have. Yeah, we provide all the occupancy data, 6 members of the public typically come speak on it, it’s… so yes. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: But it’s not going to be written down or some… it's not part of what 9 you want us to weigh in on tonight? 10 11 Mr. Kamhi: I believe that’s part of the ordinance so you’re talking about what item we would 12 bring back or are you talking about the process? 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: How do you know… yeah, so I’m suggesting that if you… it might be 15 better to add a line in here that says what the criteria are, they’ll be revisited when it goes 16 before Council, and just be very explicit about it because then we know that it’s not arbitrary or 17 cryptic. It would be great if you can also include that when it comes back to us, to Planning 18 Commission before going to Council. Thank you. 19 20 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar… sorry, are you done? 21 22 Commissioner Templeton: Yes. 23 24 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar and Commissioner Summa. 25 26 Commissioner Roohparvar: Thank you. I have a few questions so I want to better understand in 27 terms of each resident getting five permits. On top of that, they own… they have their own 28 parking spots in their own driveways so we’re talking about between seven to nine parking 29 spaces per household. That kind of doesn’t make sense. What… why did you choose five and 30 what do other RPP Programs have and what was the process between five for this area, two for 31 another area, three for another area or is it arbitrary? 32 33 Mr. Kamhi: So, I think all the RPPs, if I can speak for Mark and he’ll kick me if I’m saying this 34 incorrectly but all of the RPPs that have been recently initiated have been five. So, this is to 35 keep some consistency with all the recent RPP Programs it’s been five. So, it’s a resident elected 36 thing so there was community engagement with the residents that determine that they wished 37 to have five. That said, historically in most areas, the residents do not purchase all five permits 38 that they’re allowed. It’s just what we’ve evidenced from the other RPP districts we’ve 39 established that do allow five per residences. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Roohparvar: How many recent ones have there been that have gotten five? 2 3 Mr. Hur: Three. 4 5 Mr. Kamhi: Evergreen Park/Mayfield, South Gate, and Downtown. 6 7 Commissioner Roohparvar: So, four and then how many totals do you have RPP Programs that 8 don’t have five; all in? 9 10 Mr. Kamhi: Just Crescent (interrupted) 11 12 Mr. Hur: Two. College Terrace and Crescent Park are only allowed two permits per household. 13 14 Commissioner Roohparvar: Another issue that I just wanted to reiterate. I’m left a little bit 15 concerned as to the data and the results presented because of the issues raised about the 16 garage and whether that was taken into consideration. And the point Commissioner… the 17 garage on… the parking lot that Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair] raised and was that 18 taken into consideration. And also, the fact that what Chair Riggs raised about the 75 percent to 19 100 percent. Where exactly on the street there’s more traffic or less traffic and the issue about 20 the Caltrain lot being not full because at first blush you would think well it’s all that overflow 21 Caltrain parkers that are parking on these streets and causing traffic, but then you’re telling me 22 the lots not full. I don’t know if you want to comment on that, that was just a point of 23 (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah so if I can (interrupted) 26 27 Chair Riggs: It’s paid parking. 28 29 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah that’s exactly what I was going to say. 30 31 Chair Riggs: It’s $5 a day. 32 33 Mr. Kamhi: If I can in my prior role here and Mark has actually worked with them more 34 recently. We’ve tried to work with Caltrain to get them to fully utilize that parking lot. We’re 35 actually even leasing a portion of that parking lot right now to mitigate some of the impacts of 36 the parking garage being closed in California Avenue. So that is a paid lot, we actually expect 37 that if this is enacted that during this pilot period, we’ll probably see a jump in parking in that 38 area. That’s one of the things we’ll want to measure… we’ll want to monitor is whether more 39 people start parking in that Caltrain lot. And in addition to that, the California Avenue garage is 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. being constructed and losing parking there. We believe that it probably is having an impact in 1 that neighborhood, we think that that’s likely, and we think that will probably be something 2 that resolves once the garage opens. Although… do you know the opening date? 3 4 Chair Riggs: [unintelligible – off mic] 5 6 Mr. Kamhi: We should, yeah. 7 8 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: The other thing is I wanted to look it up to make sure I was accurate. The 9 garage broke ground on April 22nd so it was after the Occupancy Studies were conducted. 10 11 Commissioner Roohparvar: Ok thank you. 12 13 Vice-Chair Alcheck: (off mic) Do you know if it's closed? 14 15 Chair Riggs: Ok so, hold on, hold on, just hold your question Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-16 Chair], Commissioner Roohparvar isn’t done. 17 18 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yeah, I had two more questions. What about… I understand that 19 there was some businesses that are located in this area. I think a dental, medical office. Do they 20 also get hangtags or are they just… even though they are in the area and they’re residents are 21 they just kind of out of luck? 22 23 Mr. Kamhi: So, because they… the… I think it’s two businesses that are in the district, they 24 actually have their own parking, and they did not have desire to purchase or become enrolled 25 in this. So, it makes the program a lot easier to implement not having to deal with the 26 employees that are within the district. 27 28 Commissioner Roohparvar: And then one final question, I think it was public comment by Mr. 29 Miller and I thought I understood him as asking at to Point D [note – E]. We’re required to find 30 the other alternative of parking strategies that are not feasible or practical. Can you tell me 31 what alternative parking strategies were considered and why they were found infeasible and 32 impractical? 33 34 Mr. Hur: Oh, we’re just following Council’s direction when we brought that item to them in May 35 but we did not provide any additional alternative options for Old Palo Alto. 36 37 Commissioner Roohparvar: Ok, thank you. That’s it. 38 39 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Summer followed by Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Summa: So, thank you, everyone, who came out to speak. Thank you for Staff. 2 I’m not as concerned about any potential effects from construction on the Cal. Ave parking 3 garage. Everybody who spoke and even more people spoke at our last meeting indicated that 4 this has been a growing problem for some time. And in addition to leasing part of the Caltrain 5 parking lot so part of that is not available to anyone but the rather large apartment building 6 there. They use that parking too. And also, the City restriped the other parking lot where the 7 police stations isn’t going to go… is going to go eventually to hold many more cars so I’m not 8 worried that’s going to be a big problem. And being in College… living in College Terrace I can 9 tell you that not everybody does have adequate off-street parking, especially older houses. I 10 don’t know anybody ever who has bought all five permits in my neighborhood. People don’t 11 want to spend more than they have too and most people do not have cars. I worry a little bit 12 that a future tenant of the office building in that area, which I believe is one building but two 13 business uses, that they might want to participate in the future and how we’ve handled that in 14 other neighborhoods like South Gate is different. So, I appreciate five permits and your 15 explanation that that’s for consistency sake. I am ready to and I think the neighbors in this 16 location are ready to move this forward and I would be happy to do that after… make that 17 motion after everyone has talked tonight. 18 19 I did have one question for Staff on Packet Page 10 which is Page 3 of the Staff report at the 20 bottom. It says College Terrace is the only other resident-only parking program and right before 21 that it says that the Staff received a petition from the Old Palo Alto neighborhood for a 22 Resident Only Parking Program. Is it possible for a neighborhood to request a Resident Only 23 Parking Program because I think other neighborhoods might have done that before? So, I 24 appreciate that we’re being more consistent in some ways but in other ways we’re being less 25 consistent. And the stated goals in the Comprehensive Plan and the Findings all mention 26 protection of neighborhood character and residential streets and those sorts of values; which I 27 don’t know how we apply those unequally across different Palo Alto neighborhoods. That being 28 said I’m delighted to wholeheartedly support Staff’s recommendation for Old Palo Alto but I 29 think we might want to think about the problem of protecting certain neighborhoods 30 differently than other neighborhoods and just think about that more. So, I’d be happy to make 31 a motion but I want to hear from all my colleagues first. 32 33 Chair Riggs: Yeah so, I have Alcheck and Templeton but I want to hear from Commissioner 34 Lauing before we do that. And I’d also like to see if you have an answer to my question from 35 earlier if you are able to provide that but Commissioner Lauing. 36 37 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, excuse me, yes can I first address a question to Commissioner 38 Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]? I just want to get the Chair’s permission. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: You discussed the questions around… I don’t know if this is the correct 1 word but sort of the purpose, the strategy of an RPP. Can you articulate on what it is because I 2 think from a laymen’s perspective it’s to relieve a parking crisis but if you could just articulate 3 for my ears at least what would be different than just that’s laymen’s definition? 4 5 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah so, I… look, this kind of goes back to one of the themes of then 6 Commissioner Rosenblum’s which was when you don’t price street parking… if you make street 7 parking free it will always win the competition against a paid lot. And so, we have this 8 underutilized lot that costs $5 a day for example and individuals are not surprisingly parking on 9 the other sides of the tracks and walking under it. And so, there’s sort of two questions… 10 there’s two answers to your questions. The first is I’m… I don’t have a vision; I don’t have the… I 11 can’t articulate to you what the City should be doing. My question is what is the City’s idea of 12 its goal? And what I mean by that is, is the goal of an RPP Program to take what is typically 13 viewed as a public asset, the on-street parking and essentially make it exclusive to residential 14 homeowners regardless how close they live to business districts or is the goal… or should the 15 goal of an RPP be to elevate some of the difficulty associated with living within close proximity 16 to a business district? 17 18 You know we’re talking about 75 percent; should the goal of the RPP be… here’s why. They said 19 they’re going to do a study at the end of the period. What’s it going to tell you? How will you 20 evaluate your survey at the conclusion of the pilot? There is no answer to that question 21 because there’s no rubric that says if we’ve achieved 45 percent we’ve succeeded. We don’t 22 have a way of saying 45 percent is our goal because that’s not… the City hasn’t articulated its 23 goal. So, is our goal that during the day the street is empty? If that’s the case just put up a sign 24 that says no parking on the side of the street. If the goal is that the street be half parked so that 25 residents can get some access then maybe we should allow businesses to buy street specific 26 parking like I think we do… I don’t know if we do that in the Downtown RPP but it was 27 something we discussed. You know is the idea exclusive, not exclusive so that’s sort of what I 28 meant by what is the strategy? I don’t… I can’t articulate that strategy on behalf of the City. My 29 point was because it hasn’t been articulated on behalf of the City, we are left sort of 30 floundering. That was my point. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: Ok but that’s the case with all the current RPPs. 33 34 Vice-Chair Alcheck: (off mic) That has been the case with RPPs that we’ve reviewed. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: Right. 37 38 Vice-Chair Alcheck: We keep saying how do we continue to do this and we keep pushing it 39 down the road. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Ok so I get that because it’s hard to evaluate if you don’t have the goal 2 in mind so I totally understand that. I’m also quite sympathetic to the issue which has a lot of 3 precedents we just heard that a resident can buy five passes. In general, I don’t think that’s the 4 ideal so that’s something that we should just look at across the board as being changed. I’m not 5 sure that we should try to be baking that into this one right now. And as also I’m very 6 supportive of comments that ask for more data so that we can make better decisions as 7 Commissioner Riggs [note -Chair Riggs] just outlined. It was a much more detailed question 8 than the one I asked which is, is their data to support why there’s no spot here but we’re kind 9 of on the same point. And that’s been frankly a chronic problem in the issues that we’ve gotten 10 on parking. That there’s just not enough data there nor is there a valid goal. 11 12 The issue, however, is that at least some of us asked last time for a pilot and by definition, a 13 pilot is or a prototype incorporation or whatever you want to say. Is it is a way to get data in a 14 real live setting as opposed to speculating what might happen? So, the question also that was 15 raised about… excuse me… about when we get to the pilot which is set up here in the 16 recommendation to be 1-year which is frankly a short amount of time in Palo Alto but I actually 17 agree with that 1-year. By definition there has to be an evaluation period before that so I guess 18 it would be helpful for us to know when is that? After 9-months or 8-months or 6-months 19 because you have to get data and process it like you’ve had to do to get here. So, it may be that 20 after 6-months you have to start doing another analysis to get to a recommendation on 21 changes to be made in the pilot so it doesn’t just automatically go away at the end of October 22 of 2020. So, I’m not sure if it’s again something that we should wait on or that we should 23 demand that goes into this particular pilot but I do agree it’s debatable. 24 25 The other thing… the common thread here is that this has been a years ongoing problem. It’s 26 getting worse because the Caltrans situation and to me the risk of having the 1-year pilot not 27 perfect is a lower risk than not doing anything for 6 or 12-months while we continue to study 28 this. 29 30 Chair Riggs: Alright so I have the second… no, I get the floor. 31 32 Vice-Chair Alcheck: [unintelligible – off mic] 33 34 Chair Riggs: I have some questions. I’ve been polite the first time around. So, I have Alcheck, 35 Templeton, Summa. Alright, I have a couple questions. I wanted to see… if you feel uncertain 36 just kind of going off with data, I’m totally happy to say we don’t want to do that but if you do 37 have a little more finesse data you can share (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Kamhi: Yes, we do [unintelligible] (interrupted) 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: That would be great. 2 3 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, we do have some data available to share with you. 4 5 Mr. Hur: Yeah so if there’s any particular block that you were interested in and we have 6 information available on the occupancy for the particular day and time but nothing as a 7 comprehensive report at the moment. 8 9 Chair Riggs: But so, as you’re looking at it, I mean so… I mean are we saying that some of 10 these… I mean I’m sorry, I’m not looking at anything but some of these streets near your orange 11 54 to 74 percent are closer to 74 percent to 100 percent. 12 13 Mr. Kamhi: So, if I can (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Riggs: I’m assuming there’s a bigger map here. 16 17 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah so, I’ll just give you some numbers. North California on the northside, Alma 18 and High (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Riggs: [unintelligible] slower. 21 22 Mr. Kamhi: We’re at 100 percent occupancy. I’m not sure what this time… this is at noon on the 23 24th. 24 25 Chair Riggs: Just keep them all consistent. 26 27 Mr. Kamhi: North California, High and Emerson we’re 100 percent. Nevada at High and Emerson 28 we’re at 80 percent. Nevada at High… wait Nevada at Emerson and Ramona 67 percent. 29 Nevada, High, and Emerson on the south side… sorry I should be saying sides… that’s 100 30 percent. Nevada on the southside at Emerson and Ramona 75 percent. Maybe I’ll just give you 31 the 100 percent if that’s alright. This is going to be a long list. 32 33 Chair Riggs: No, no, so I have enough. I have enough information. That’s fantastic, that would 34 have been really helpful (interrupted) 35 36 Mr. Kamhi: I concur. 37 38 Chair Riggs: And I think in the future, yeah, we need more tranches in that or just give us a 39 histogram or something that actually shows where… what the spread is. So, I guess I have a 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. comment that I see… I definitely see a couple blocks where there is a queue problem but what I 1 don’t see is creativity in the solving the queue problem and I think this gets at kind of the 2 Findings we had to make. That we didn’t have data to make when we heard this the first time 3 so the fact that we’ve exhausted all possible solutions and all possible tactical deployment 4 solutions that we could actually go out and do tomorrow. We have not and that’s my… from a 5 practitioner standpoint we could create paper hang tags and give them to people on the block 6 and do that tomorrow. And I don’t know why we aren’t exploring potential solutions that 7 actually would deal with the acute issue as opposed to this cumbersome policy where the issue 8 of occupancy degrades pretty quickly. We have 75, 60, 67 percent within two blocks of the 9 Caltrain Station. There are… we ran a program at UC Berkeley when I was a Transportation 10 Program Manager there and we basically allowed for employees… it was employee paid parking 11 with a block face allocation. So basically, you can sell the… you can sell a certain number of 12 permits to employers per block face and still preserve a certain amount of that block face to be 13 protected for residents. And so, I don’t know why… I guess if we’re coupling something that 14 with enforcement, I don’t know why we wouldn’t explore other creative solutions as opposed 15 to something that’s not rubric-based. And so, I guess I’m really struggling with this because 16 what I see is, from based on data, is actually not as cute… as acute of an issue as we thought it 17 was except for basically a two or three-block radius. And I don’t think people will overflow into 18 Caltrain, I think they’ll park further out. That’s really just the way it works. Unless you do RPP 19 everywhere, you get spill over into the parts of Old Palo Alto. So, I think that people are 20 rational, they’re not going to pay $5. If they did, we’d price all parking everywhere because it 21 would just like this wonderful world where we’d make money off of parking in residential 22 neighborhoods. It just doesn’t work like that so I just don’t by it. And I think that… I worry that 23 we’ve not explored like really tactical, creative opportunities here that would not only benefit 24 neighbors but wouldn’t… would not follow this antiquated and I think Ad Hoc process. So, I 25 think that’s… I don’t need a response. It’s just I… but if you could provide data… maybe more 26 data next time around that would be very appreciative. 27 28 Mr. Kamhi: Will do. 29 30 Chair Riggs: Alcheck, Templeton, Summa. 31 32 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I generally accept the premise that perfect is the enemy of good and I 33 support recommendations that may not be perfect in an effort to sort of achieve some 34 objective and hopefully tweak it as we move forward. That’s not really how I feel about this 35 one. I feel like this one is not just imperfect, it’s like good (interrupted) 36 37 Chair Riggs: Vice-Chair Alcheck, just speak into your mic, please. 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, that’s… I feel like we’re not at good yet and that’s my concern. 1 There’s a part of me that feels like you have 300 spaces that are off the street right now under 2 construction. So, are we choosing one of the most inopportune times to create an RPP because 3 where are those people suppose to go if 300 spaces aren’t…? I mean we’ve always known Cal 4 Ave “congested”. So, if there are 300 spaces not available now, where are these people going 5 to go? 6 7 I’m really surprised that not a single business sent us a letter and it makes me wonder whether 8 resident… whether parcels on the other side of Alma really understood what we’re doing here 9 tonight to be perfectly frank. I don’t know, maybe they were noticed, maybe did 500-feet, 10 maybe businesses and commercial parcel owners are two different things. 11 12 Chair Riggs: [unintelligible – off mic] 13 14 Vice-Chair Alcheck: So, there’s a concern there because they may wake up in a month and go 15 whoa. That’s a different calculus for the Caltrans user. I guess I would be a little bit… let’s say it 16 costs you $5 a day to park in the Caltrans lot and you suggested that you would allow non-17 residents to buy permits for the equivalent of $30 a week. When we talk about alternative, 18 would a bunch of day-long parking meters work around this park? Would that have encouraged 19 those people to maybe drive to the other side and pay $5 instead of $8? I think we don’t have a 20 strategy that bifurcates the Caltrans rider and potentially an employee of a business that 21 creates a benefit for all residents in Palo Alto to some extent by operating. 22 23 And we’ve been on this Commission together now long enough and I think as a group we feel 24 pretty strongly that Cal Ave’s retail charm is pretty important. And the number one thing we 25 heard from businesses typically is that they can’t find people who are willing to make the 26 commute and that parking is a very big challenge. And so there… I am a little worried that 27 because our strategy doesn’t really identify… because of the strategy, the non-existent strategy 28 doesn’t really identify those two parkers separately. We don’t have a good way of alleviating 29 the challenge we’re creating by the lack of parking spaces on… taken away from… by the garage 30 construction. 31 32 So, I… let me put it to you this way, often times when we have a decision that may have impacts 33 that are complicated like this one, we take a little more time. And I’m not suggesting that we 34 take this off the table. What I’m suggesting is that we create an incentive for Staff to come back 35 to the table in 30-days or maybe it’s 60, I don’t know how long this should take, with answers to 36 these questions so that we can say one of two things. Number one we found the answers 37 adequate and we support this parking RPP and we recommend that Council do so or two, we 38 don’t necessarily find these answers antiquate, we don’t support the RPP, and that’s our 39 recommendation to Council and Council can do what they see fit. I just think a recommendation 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. based on our current information is not good. It’s not perfect, it's not good and I really think we 1 can create an opportunity here to make it better if we just take a little more time. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Thank you. Commissioner Templeton and then Commissioner Summa. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I just have a process clarification based on some of the 6 comments I’ve heard today. On Packet Page 10 there’s the Municipal Code is sited, Section E 7 refers to the process for the RPP, that it needs to be seen by the PTC no later than September 8 and then forwarded to the Council no later than September 30th. If we were to continue this so 9 that you would have time to prepare responses to the questions that have come tonight, would 10 it be possible to have it back on the PTC agenda in September and still meet this timeline or is 11 that off the table? How does the timing work? Sorry guys, I know that’s kind of a technical 12 question but I want to make sure that we all understand as we make this recommendation 13 what the implications are if we don’t act tonight. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Was it Section D on Page 10? 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: E on Packet Page 10. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Oh, E. 20 21 Commissioner Summa: That’s a good one. 22 23 Ms. Rachael Turner, Assistant Director: Maybe I’ll ask if Philip wants to speak to the possibility 24 of bringing it back. I think we have the time to possibly agendize it. I don’t know if we’d be able 25 to answer the questions. I’d ask Philip to respond to that. And I don’t know if Sandy, you know 26 the impact of if it somehow did not come back by September if that evaporates the work or if it 27 can continue and go to Council at a later date? I’m not sure about that. 28 29 Chair Riggs: I think there were two questions that you were asking so maybe we can take the 30 legal question first or the evaporation question first. 31 32 Ms. Lee: So first let me take the non-evaporation question which will need transportation to 33 weigh in on more specifically but from a Code and legal perspective you can certainly continue 34 it for 30-days. It's just the matter of whether or not administratively and logistically that’s a 35 sufficient time for Staff to provide some sufficient additional work to satisfy the Commission’s 36 desires. 37 38 So, it doesn’t evaporate the work if the Commission does not act by 30… by September 30th. I 39 think then there is a question of whether or not… what the Commission might want to do is 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. forward a recommendation to Council not to adopt or deny the RPP but instead to further 1 study and get some additional information. So, because the Code does say the Commission 2 shall forward a recommendation to Council by September 30th, I would suggest that the 3 Council… that the Commission take some action but that recommendation could be do some 4 additional study and come back later in the year. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton: Ok and as long Council has it in their hands by September 30th are 7 you still able to make your November 1st timeline or is the timeline impacted? 8 9 Mr. Kamhi: No, the timeline… I think any action other than approval tonight would probably 10 impact the timeline for implementation. I’m not sure about the… how the ordinance plays into 11 that but it would certainly hold… because we would need to begin ordering signs and 12 developing contracts for enforcement and all that. Stepping back, the other question that I 13 would have is what things the PTC would like to see if they saw this revisited because I will say 14 that 30-days could be reasonable for us to provide more data, such as Chair Riggs requested, 15 that we have. We just would need to comply and organize better. Potentially to go out and 16 redo surveys in order to understand better what the impacts of the garage at this current date 17 are or this current time, but things like developing a Parking Occupancy Standard which is 18 something that I’d love to have in association is a trigger for when these RPPs and all that. 19 That’s a great policy discussion that needs to occur. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. I appreciate anything that helps clarify the decision and 22 recommendation we’ll be making. 23 24 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Summa followed by Commissioner Lauing. 25 26 MOTION #1 27 28 Commissioner Summa: So, a couple things, we already established that since one of the parking 29 lots is not available that Staff has found other parking spaces so it’s not like we’re out 300. And 30 the public had come… there may be no one in the room that thinks our RPP Ordinance is 31 perfect but the public has a right to come forward and request this. They have met all the 32 conditions and continuing it in a way that makes it impossible for them to get this program this 33 year seem frankly punitive. I think there’s a misconception that the goal is empty streets. I can 34 tell you as someone living in the first RPPP in Palo Alto on a street which is… the other side of 35 my street is a mixed-use zone; it’s zoned CN. There is no expectation of empty streets ever 36 because I live quite close into the business community, it was a chose I made, I’m always going 37 to have more 2-hour parking. Every single RPPP allows 2-hour parking and if you underestimate 38 the need for both residential and businesses to have short term parking and circulation of that 39 short-term parking it’s a grave mistake. Businesses will go out of business near me if they 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. couldn’t park on my street, especially restaurants and dental offices and medical offices. There 1 are times when I come home and I still have no parking on my street and that’s after 8-years of 2 what I consider a very successful RPP. So, it is never the goal to not have the closed streets 3 provide the same kinds of services that they did to help businesses and the residents with short 4 term parking. Residents need it too, businesses need plumbers to come, businesses need 5 shredding services to come. It’s… the expectation of empty streets is not what this is about. So, 6 I am ready to make a motion to move Staff’s recommendation. 7 8 Chair Riggs: So are you making a motion or (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Summa: Yes, I am making a motion to move Staff’s recommendation. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Do I have a second? 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I’ll second it and I have some comments. 17 18 Chair Riggs: Ok, motion and a second. You’re up Commissioner Lauing anyway. 19 20 Commissioner Lauing: So just trying to figure out a way to split the baby and still keep them all 21 alive. One option would be to have you give us a hard date that you could come back with some 22 of these things that we talked about that are I’ll call it incomplete. One of which is sort of the 23 goals for this RPP. We couldn’t be solving that for all RPPs, it would have to be (interrupted) 24 25 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing, I just want to make sure that you understand. I don’t believe 26 that was the motion that was made so the motion on the floor is not that. So, if you could just 27 make sure in your comments that you’re clear. 28 29 Commissioner Lauing: No, I’m trying to consider if there should be any amendments to this. 30 31 Chair Riggs: Yeah so, I just want to make sure that you’re understanding because I’m looking 32 over here and seeing Commissioner Summa… I’m sensing that… she’s not. So, I… please, 33 proceed. 34 35 Commissioner Lauing: So, what I’m saying is I think that this is valid and as we always say the 36 minutes are going to record some of the concerns we have. We make the recommendation and 37 note the concerns and go straight to Council. And I see the main concerns as being goals, a 38 specific… I mean by definition there has to be an evaluation but you haven’t told us what it is 39 which is a quite valid comment. And so we would need to know when that timeline was to be 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. started or Council at least needs to know when that timeline would start, how you would make 1 the decision that we should move forward after the pilot or not, and the third thing, the impact 2 to this garage and the fourth thing, consideration of reduction from five to three on the hang 3 tags. So, we could either ask you to come back with that or we could add those comments in 4 our recommendation. 5 6 So, I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Templeton’s question because I wasn’t sure 7 that I heard exactly how soon you could come back with answers to those questions. 8 9 Chair Riggs: So, I think that’s just a question for Staff and Philip if you could get those items that 10 were mentioned. I think… I’m going to go out on a limb, I think that you included all those in 11 your comments to us with the exception of the what I call the rubric for the number of hang 12 tags provided or the number of spaces provided, but you could respond to that one. Alright, 13 Staff, do we need… can we continue our dialog while you guys are doing that? Ok so I have… 14 Commissioner Lauing do you have anything else whether dialog on this? 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: Not till I hear the answer to that question. 17 18 Chair Riggs: Alright so any other comments pertinent to the motion on the floor? I have a light 19 from Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]. Is this pertinent to the motion on the floor? 20 21 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I mean it’s pertinent to you comment which I think is in support of the 22 motion on the floor which is that maybe it’s just that I’m skeptical of the idea that local 23 government will take an action. And then after that action takes place, they’re going to tell you 24 by what rubric you should evaluate its success. So, we’re talking about this review that will take 25 place in 9-months or at the conclusion of the pilot. And that review will tell you how the street 26 is parked and because no one has ever articulated what our goal is for how much parking 27 should be on the street, there… let’s say in 7-months they come back and say our goal is exactly 28 what we achieved. Kudos. The question is… and he mentioned it, it’s a policy idea, we have to 29 figure out this idea. 30 31 My big concern is the justification for five parking spots is that we’ve done it two times. By the 32 way, those two times happened at the same time and so essentially the reliance here is that the 33 precedent we are setting is the reason for we continue to do what we’re doing. And that is a 34 little self-serving because I would argue to you why don’t we try two permits? And the logic 35 there would be we don’t have a logic so why continue to set a precedent if none of us feel 36 comfortable with it? There’s a lot… I think making the recommendation that we come back on 37 September 30th with as much as you possibly can and then at that point making the call 38 whether or not we want to make a recommendation to Council would be a wiser choice. It’s 39 just 30-days. It gives them an opportunity to do some of the work. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: Alright thank you Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]. I think Chief 2 Transportation Official, do you want to weigh in? 3 4 Commissioner Summa: He’s been here 2-weeks. 5 6 Chair Riggs: Philip, did you have something you wanted to get a word in? 7 8 Mr. Kamhi: (off mic) I… yeah, probably. Sorry but I’m struggling to remember what… I think that 9 anything that the PTC does, as long as it’s forward to the Council by September 30th, I think 10 we’re ok. Sorry, am I not catching the mic enough? I think as long as it’s forward to the City 11 Council before September 30th, we’re ok. As far as implementing the program it will, however, 12 delay the start of this program likely till March. Is that right, March? 13 14 Chair Riggs: Ok I see no lights. Commissioner Lauing did you have additional comments based 15 on your questions to Staff? 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I mean I’m quite disturbed at that answer because I don’t know-18 how if they came back within 30-days we would be postponing the implementation by 4-19 months. I still haven’t had my question answered. Could you be back here in 30-days with 20 addressing the four items that I noted which is the goal and your judgment for the Palo Alto… 21 I’m sorry, for the Old Palo Alto RPP, the timeline and criteria for evaluation, and any impacts on 22 the garage being down, and why it’s five instead of two hang tags? It’s really when can you be 23 back with that information is the question. 24 25 Mr. Kamhi: I’m sorry can you clarify the evaluation criteria and timeline? Are you talking about 26 for the pilot what the (interrupted) 27 28 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 29 30 Mr. Kamhi: Ok. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: And we can’t do an evaluation if it was successful until we know what 33 the goal was. 34 35 Mr. Kamhi: Yeah, understood so that would not be a problem. None of those items are things 36 that we could not bring back in 30-days. The reason for the delay until March is because we 37 order our permits at set times during the year. There’s economies of scale, there’s a large 38 process in actually processing and preparing all the permits. So, we do all of our RPPs at the 39 same time in order to be consistent, same time every part of the year. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Summa: Can I (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Riggs: Ok we have a motion on the floor. I… can I… I think… Commissioner Summa, it’s 4 fine but let’s try to keep to the motion and I think I’d like to (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Summa: I am speaking to my motion (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Riggs: Call the question. 9 10 Commissioner Summa: Which I haven’t done yet. So, if you look at the Findings that are set 11 forth in 10.50.3.0 of the Municipal Code for Designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone 12 and the Policy implications from the Comp Plan that were quoted. The goal lies in there. We 13 don’t need a specific goal for this neighborhood that is any different. I mean legally they are 14 allowed to ask to be included in this, they have done so, and they have fulfilled the 15 requirements to do so. I don’t understand what further goal we need other than the policy 16 implications from the Comp Plan and the Findings from the ordinance itself. I think we should 17 just call the vote. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: So, Chair? I’d like to suggest to the maker a friendly amendment and she 20 can accept or not. 21 22 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 23 24 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 25 26 Commissioner Lauing: So, the amendment would be that we would approve this but upon 27 presentation to the Council Staff would have to identify the evaluation criteria to continue the 28 pilot and they would have to comment on the garage being down. 29 30 Commissioner Summa: So, in the interest of (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: Wait, wait and the third one is that and they should justify five instead 33 of two hang tags. 34 35 Commissioner Summa: I will not accept five instead of two. I will accept the other amendments. 36 37 Commissioner Lauing: Ok then I withdraw number three in the interest of moving this along, 38 but you’ll accept A and B? 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: I will accept moving Staff recommendation and with a suggestion that 1 you provide… Staff provides more information to the Council when they consider our 2 recommendation and this item. And as I understand it it’s implications of the parking garage 3 (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: No, the… we need to be really clear about this so we have it in the 6 record. The number one thing is that they have to tell us how they’re going to evaluate the 7 success or failure of the Old Palo Alto RPP to decide whether or not the pilot should be 8 continued because by definitions of the pilot which means it may not be continued. 9 10 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: And the second thing is implications of the parking garage issue there. 13 14 Commissioner Summa: I will accept those two in the interest of moving this along. Although I 15 think the construction of the garage is temporary and I believe it has been alleviated, but that’s 16 fine. And I’m assuming Staff would have a set of criteria to evaluate the success of the program 17 would largely be informed by how the residents feel it has worked but we can leave it in there 18 just so we can go ahead a vote. 19 20 Chair Riggs: I believe Commissioner Templeton has a comment and then I think we’re going to 21 call the question. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton: Yes, I don’t know if it’s in order for me to try and make one more 24 amendment. Is that allowed? 25 26 Commissioner Summa: Yeah. 27 28 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 29 30 Commissioner Templeton: Ok so I appreciate the inclusion of success criteria for the pilot when 31 presented to Council so thank you for suggesting that. The other suggestion I would include is a 32 commitment by Staff to investigate the creative alternatives in the intervening year before the 33 presentation for renewal request. Would you be willing to (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Summa: Can you say it again? 36 37 Commissioner Templeton: For Staff to agree to investigate the creative alternatives that 38 Commissioner or Chair Riggs suggested in the intervening year during the pilot. So that when 39 we are looking at renewal 1-year from now, that those creative alternatives are included. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Summa: I’m a little uncomfortable with that and the reason is because nobody… 2 none of the other neighbors that have RPPs were held to that standard. I just… I don’t know 3 legally how we can provide something to one neighborhood and not another. And I think that 4 the Staff has made some strides forward in doing that tonight by allowing them to request five 5 the other neighborhoods have theirs still. Some things that I don’t find equally applied across 6 the City but I don’t… I mean I’m assuming we’re going to have more broad policy discussions 7 about TDM and other creative parking policies. I don’t think that needs to be a condition of the 8 approval of a well-established ordinance that other neighborhoods across the City have used. 9 So, I would prefer not to include that one, I’m sorry. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: One quick response. Just respectfully, Commissioner Summa, it’s 12 part of the ordinance to investigate other alternative parking strategies. 13 14 Chair Riggs: I’d like to move us to a vote. We have a motion on the floor, we have a second, 15 we’ve had plenty of dialog. (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Summa: I haven’t finished. Since it is part of the ordinance and you pointed that 18 out to me, I will accept it. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. 21 22 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 23 24 VOTE 25 26 Chair Riggs: Alright so ready for a vote? So, all in favor say aye? All opposed? So, I’m assuming 27 the motion does not carry? Ok, so motion fails. I’ll entertain another motion. 28 29 MOTION #1 FAILED WITH A VOTE OF 3(Lauing, Summa, Templeton) – 3(Riggs, Alcheck, 30 Roohparvar) WITH COMMISSIONER WALDFOGEL RECUSED. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]. 33 34 MOTION #2 35 36 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok I move that we continue this item to our next meeting or I should say 37 our… the meeting after our next meeting to give Staff an opportunity to come back and answer 38 some of… as many of the questions as you possibly can. And I think the ones that Commissioner 39 Lauing had suggested are at the heart of this but as many… you took a bunch of notes. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Everything that you could possibly… so I would move that we continue the item to September 1 25th to give us an opportunity to approach this process with a strategy, with a goal in mind. And 2 at that time this Commission can once again determine whether or not we want to recommend 3 the RPPs… what do you call it? Approval to the Council. 4 5 Chair Riggs: Motion on the floor, do I have a second? 6 7 MOTION #2 FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND 8 9 Chair Riggs: No second. Is there a second? Ok. So, I don’t think that motion goes anywhere. Do I 10 have another motion? Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair] 11 12 Vice-Chair Alcheck: No, I didn’t, sorry. [unintelligible – off mic] 13 14 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll make a motion. 15 16 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar. 17 18 MOTION #3 19 20 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yeah although I don’t know if I can articulate this well but my 21 motion would be to approve the RPP Program but with all of the points raised by Commissioner 22 Lauing and all the points raised by Commissioner Templeton. 23 24 [note – a Commissioner spoke off mic] 25 26 Commissioner Roohparvar: But you just said no to the five to three hang tags. You said no to 27 that, I want all (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Riggs: Ok, no table… that’s not our protocol. 30 31 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yeah, that’s why. 32 33 Chair Riggs: I think it’s clear what Commissioner Lauing has said. Are you done with your 34 motion? 35 36 SECOND 37 38 Commissioner Templeton: (off mic) I’ll second it. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Roohparvar: If I don’t need to reiterate what Commissioner Lauing has said and 1 Commissioner Templeton, I’m done. 2 3 Chair Riggs: So, motion from Commissioner Roohparvar, seconded by Commissioner 4 Templeton. Any dialog on that motion? 5 6 Ms. Tanner: We just want to clarify it so we can capture the motion accurately. That it is 7 everything that Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner Templeton added which included the 8 three to five… three hang tags instead of five, is that correct? Two instead of five. 9 10 Commissioner Roohparvar: Do you want to reiterate? 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah two instead of five. 13 14 Chair Riggs: If I can maybe… I think that there was no specificity in what he was saying. It goes 15 back to my original question and if I’m mistaking what you’re saying I’m saying show us a rubric 16 for whatever that number should be because we’ve been using anecdote for far too long. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: That’s fine. I was just [unintelligible] to the maker of the motion. I don’t 19 think that one is material so I’m agreeing with you but she wanted that in the motion. So, if she 20 drops that (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. Tanner: I’m sorry, Commissioner (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Roohparvar: No, I want all the issues considered. 25 26 Ms. Tanner: Commissioner Roohparvar, can you clarify if you are recommending… your motion 27 is to recommend moving this forward to the Council with the additional comments by the 28 Commissioners. Is that correct? 29 30 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes, with all of the comments accepted in because again I think and 31 I’ll explain my reasoning. I think we shouldn’t just rely on precedent; this is how it’s always 32 been. We really do need to think through things and (interrupted) 33 34 Ms. Tanner: Right. 35 36 Commissioner Roohparvar: Understand why we’re making certain decisions. 37 38 Ms. Tanner: Right so I’m going to ask if Ms. Gaines can restate what we believe is the motion on 39 the floor. So that we can capture that, if that does pass and be sure to enact it properly. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: My understanding of the motion on the floor is to approve the RPP with the 2 additional recommendations. For Staff to come back with specific criteria, evaluation criteria 3 and the timeline for that evaluation to know about the success of the pilot program. To also 4 look at the impact of the parking garage construction and the parking garage itself on this RPP. 5 And also, to have a justification of some sort about the number of hang tags being five or two 6 to some degree. That one I can clear up a little bit but the original way you said is a possible 7 reduction of hang tags from five to two [unintelligible] (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Right but I think you missed… at least I didn’t hear the primary one 10 which was that there be a defined goal and timeline (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: Oh yes, yeah. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: For evaluation. 15 16 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: I mentioned the evaluation criteria and timeline for the pilot. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: Ok great. 19 20 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: That’s my understanding. 21 22 Commissioner Roohparvar: And Ms. (interrupted) 23 24 Commissioner Lauing: But (interrupted) 25 26 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: And I’m sorry, and Ms. Templeton mentioned also looking at creative 27 alternatives needed to be looked at by Staff during this pilot year. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton: (off mic) To satisfy this (interrupted) 30 31 Ms. Cotton-Gaines: To satisfy that bullet point to say what you said off your microphone. 32 33 Commissioner Lauing: Wait so I think I’m the seconder to this, is that… oh sorry, Templeton. 34 Ok, then I’ll stop. 35 36 Ms. Lee: [unintelligible – off mic] need to clarify this. Ok, alright, so actually the motion is to 37 move the Staff recommendation, not to approve the RPP because the Commission doesn’t 38 approve the RPP. It just recommends approval and are you asking that the Staff come back 39 during the pilot period or determine in the pilot period what the success criteria are or are you 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. suggesting they provide some success criteria when they forward the item to Council for the 1 approval of this Resolution? The maker of the motion. 2 3 Commissioner Roohparvar: When it goes to Council. When it goes to Council. 4 5 Ms. Lee: Ok. 6 7 Commissioner Roohparvar: Not after, yeah. 8 9 Ms. Lee: Ok but then during the pilot period that they would… Staff would look into 10 alternative… creative alternative methods to address the parking issues in that area? 11 12 Commissioner Templeton: Correct, what I’m suggesting is when it goes to Council that it will 13 include a commitment written in the Resolution that Staff will (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton: Before it’s renewed have something for us to consider that meets 18 that ordinance criterion. 19 20 Ms. Lee: Ok, yes, yes, I understand. And then with respect to the number of hang tags, are you 21 suggesting that they include a justification for the number of hang tags when this item is 22 presented to Council for the pilot period? Is that correct? 23 24 Commissioner Lauing: That’s up to the maker. I just think it should be looked at but it depends 25 on what she wants in the motion. If you just say review the number of hang tags in the context 26 of our prior discussion tonight. 27 28 Ms. Lee: Ok, a review at some point during the pilot period the number of hang tags. 29 30 [note – many people started talking at once] 31 32 Chair Riggs: I think I’m misunderstanding now too. I understood her motion to be and maybe 33 (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Roohparvar: Go ahead, go ahead. 36 37 Chair Riggs: That all of this… all of those fives’ things would be completed and presented to 38 Council. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes. 1 2 Chair Riggs: If I misstating you (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Roohparvar: No, that’s exactly (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Riggs: Then please (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Roohparvar: Yes, that’s exactly right. 9 10 [note – unknown female:] No, no. 11 12 Chair Riggs: I think you should make that excruciating clear. 13 14 Commissioner Roohparvar: Clear. That was the whole point. Everything needs to be evaluated 15 before (interrupted) 16 17 Ms. Lee: No, no but what (interrupted) 18 19 Commissioner Roohparvar: We can’t recommend it. 20 21 Ms. Lee: Commissioner Templeton clarified was that the… it will be presented to Council but 22 not at the time that the… this Resolution for the pilot is it goes to Council. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: I’m sorry, clearly there’s a misunderstanding, let me try again. I want 25 what is presented to Council in September to include writing that describes how the roll-off will 26 happen. That will reflect… be reflected in success criteria, there… it will be included in the 27 presentation, the Resolution presented to Council. It will also be… the Resolution will also 28 include text that says part of that roll off criteria will be to provide data that we don’t currently 29 have. In other words, if we’re going to do a provisional approval of the RPP request from this 30 neighborhood without information that we need, we want to ensure that we have it a year 31 from now. 32 33 Ms. Lee: Ok. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton: Does that make sense? 36 37 Ms. Lee: Yes. 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: So, the text will be included to go to Council, the research will be 1 done before the renewal. 2 3 Ms. Lee: Right, ok, that’s what I understood. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton: Ok sorry, thank you, sorry about that. 6 7 Chair Riggs: Ok I think we’re done with clarification. I have Commissioner Summa followed by 8 Commissioner Alcheck [note - Vice-Chair]. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton: (off mic) Should we speak to our motions? 11 12 Chair Riggs: Oh. 13 14 Commissioner Summa: To be clear I’m still confused. Are we recommend… do you want to 15 recommend only two hangtags or do you want to recommend that Council look at the number 16 of hangtags…permits? 17 18 Commissioner Roohparvar: I want to recommend that Council look at the number of permits 19 but understand why we’re going with five as opposed to what we would… maybe two or three. 20 Does that make sense? 21 22 Commissioner Summa: Does the ordinance provide a legal right for them to have up to five 23 permits per household? 24 25 Ms. Lee: No, it doesn’t. 26 27 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 28 29 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Alcheck [note - Vice-Chair] and then I believe I didn’t give 30 Commissioner Templeton a chance to speak to her second. 31 32 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I just… I’m struggling with this and I think in the same way you might be and 33 I need you to help me understand this. But I think there’s a presumption here that we can ask… 34 that we can make a recommendation that somehow conditions… like we recommend that this 35 RPP be approved but that Staff has to present to the City Council this criterion before City 36 Council makes their determination. For example, the goal criteria and it is my understanding 37 that there is no power for us to dictate what Staff does. Staff can simply put a paragraph in the 38 report that says this was their motion and Staff doesn’t have to do any leg work with respect to 39 the criteria or the goal. And so with all due respect, the notion that they’re going to come back 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. in September to City Council with this information is… this is… City Council is basically going to 1 get this recommendation and say the Commission asked for this and presumably they’re going 2 to say well did you get a chance to do that? I mean how does this work? Does the… can you 3 help me understand? Do we have any authority to dictate how this gets presented to City 4 Council? Could we, for example, say we recommend approval but you have to explain the 5 criteria by which you will evaluate this? 6 7 Ms. Lee: The Commission cannot direct Staff but the Commission can certainly make a 8 recommendation to Staff and it’s likely that the Council will ask why they did not follow through 9 with those recommendations if Staff does not. 10 11 Vice-Chair Alcheck: So, the premise of this recommendation is that in 30-days whenever this 12 goes to Council, Council will then put the squeeze on Staff and then maybe in its high esteem 13 send it back to us in another month this the direction that Staff do the things that we’re asking. 14 That’s the best-case scenario here (interrupted) 15 16 Ms. Lee: No, I… that’s not what I heard from Staff. 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: No, no. 19 20 Ms. Lee: I mean it sounded like Staff said that they could come back with some of this 21 information even to the Commission. And so, it wouldn’t be my assumption… this isn’t a legal 22 opinion but it wouldn’t be my assumption that they are going to ignore the Commission’s 23 recommendation and not provide the desired information to Council if they can obtain it. 24 25 Vice-Chair Alcheck: But Staff doesn’t have to agree with the Commission’s perspective and they 26 can present their own opinion. 27 28 Ms. Lee: Sure. 29 30 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok so my biggest concern here is that the feedback that we get is that we’re 31 understaffed and not enough time. And we’re under the gun and there’s always an opportunity 32 to save money on some economies of scale. There’s too many opportunities… I’m a little more 33 skeptical that… of this which is why continuation buys more time but I just wanted to 34 understand. I wanted to [unintelligible – shut mic off] 35 36 Chair Riggs: Lord have mercy. Commissioner Summa followed by… oh sorry, Commissioner 37 Templeton. Thank you so much, I’m off my game tonight. 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: That’s alright, we’re having fun. I wanted to speak to the second 1 because I think it’s really important based on the feedback we got from Staff tonight that we 2 make a recommendation to Council and keep with up with our timeline because the community 3 members have expressed that they have been suffering and we need to address it. This is an 4 opportunity for us to take a risk, yes, it’s a risk, but it’s a small risk. It’s only a 1-year pilot and if 5 we can have good faith in our new team members that they will include justification for some 6 of their recommendations so that Council can pick where we have identified gaps. I think then 7 we can move forward and try this out. So, I hope that that good faith is well placed and I trust 8 you guys to come up with reasonable, short, specific, measurable success criteria. And to… and 9 take the year to investigate how we could do something better as some of the Commissioners 10 have suggested. So, in the meantime, we do need to provide some relief for our community 11 members. 12 13 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Summa followed by Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner 14 Roohparvar. 15 16 Commissioner Summa: I have a suggestion and that is just because it’s the maker's intention to 17 move Staff’s recommendation to keep it simple and leave it at that and in the minutes, they will 18 see all of the things that we were concerned about and read about them. I just think it keeps it 19 simpler and better but. 20 21 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing followed by Commissioner Roohparvar. 22 23 Commissioner Lauing: I mean just commenting on that last comment relative to the motion. 24 The idea here is to get something very specific in terms of the core recommendations after our 25 deliberation given the lack of stuff… lack of data etc. that we got. And to focus on that and 26 we’re requesting as was articulated by counsel that Staff just have this prepared for Council 27 instead of us because we’re trying to stay on target for the benefits of the residents and for the 28 benefit of Council. The default position is essentially that we already have acted and we sent 29 the 3-3 motion with one recusal and then they do have to read 40-pages of minutes. So, I think 30 the focus on these four key things and our asking a request for Staff and staying on point here 31 with the target is… makes the motion supportive… supportable. 32 33 Commissioner Roohparvar: I don’t have a comment. You know (interrupted) 34 35 VOTE 36 37 Chair Riggs: I think we’re getting close to being able… I also struggle with this similar to Vice-38 Chair Alcheck. I can’t find the Findings; I can’t make one of them. I felt differently when this was 39 here before but now that I have data in front of me, given the data that I have, I would have 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. preferred to see us continue this and I would… I think that we’re making a decision in a vacuum. 1 And I’m surprised no one was willing to second Commissioner Alcheck’s [note-Vice-Chair] 2 motion and I would have been willing to bet that that’s usually the role of the Chair. So, I’m 3 going to ask if there’s any more comments. Ok seeing none I’d like to get us to take a vote. All 4 in favor? All opposed? 5 6 MOTION PASSED 4(Roohparvar, Templeton, Summa, Lauing) – 2(Alcheck, Riggs) WITH 7 COMMISSIONER WALDFOGEL RECUSED. 8 9 Chair Riggs: Motion carries 4-2. I think Commissioner Alcheck [note - Vice-Chair] would like to 10 speak to his descent. 11 12 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Look I’ll just say this. We’re an unelected body, we’re an appointed body, 13 and when we put the City Council in a position to have to sort of weigh in on an issue that 14 privatizes what is otherwise a public asset, we’re setting them up for failure if we don’t do the 15 work. Of course, I think we have to address the RPP issue in this neighborhood, but we need a 16 system that doesn’t simply benefit 50-residents at a time at an expense that we cannot 17 measure. We have no way of addressing whether this will create an immediate problem 18 because of all the construction that’s happening on California Avenue. We don’t even have a 19 date for when that garage is going to be complete. Wouldn’t it be nice if it was completed 20 before this happened in March but it probably won’t be because they haven’t really made that 21 much progress. So and I think it’s a missed opportunity if we don’t utilize our apolitical natural… 22 our appointed apolitical nature to be insulated from the public in some regards and as the 23 tough question about what is it that we want our streets to look like before we dictate what 24 they’re going to look like which is private. Does it matter for example that there’s a park in this 25 little area? Do most residents use parks for 2-hours at a time in the middle of the day? I don’t 26 know. It just seems to me like without a vision we’re not doing the City Council any favors. 27 We’re just putting them in a position to make a political vote and I can tell you how it’s going to 28 go. Old Palo Alto is going to get an RPP before the end of the month and the reason why is 29 because there’s nobody in this room to argue otherwise. And they’ll probably get five permits 30 because that’s what we’ve done the last two times and I really wonder what encouraging five 31 permits does for our vision of discouraging single-occupancy vehicles in Palo Alto. There’s just… 32 none of it makes sense in putting them… putting a political body in a position to make this sort 33 of… have this sort of… we’re… what we should be doing is forcing Staff to make this 34 Commission the epicenter of the conversation about what the streets should look like. Of 35 course, I have faith in you guys to be good partners. You are not insulated from the politics of 36 the community. When residents complain about the Transportation Official, which they have 37 done relentlessly in the past, that is a heavy burden. You shouldn’t be the bad guy. We should 38 have a debate on this dais about what it should look like. We should get input from everybody 39 in the community. It should be driven by our Comp plan and then and only then should we then 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. establish RPP. And the question is how many more of these are we going to set up before we 1 force Staff to have that debate? And by the way, you can’t force the City Council to tell them to 2 do that for us because they get to make their own decisions and again, political bodies are 3 unlikely to make those tough decisions; especially in anticipation of an election year. 4 5 Chair Riggs: I want to speak to my descent. Streets are real estate, they are public real estate, 6 but they’re not for storing cars. They are to a certain extent but they can be so much more. We 7 even had a robust policy dialog that’s consistent with our Circulation Element about this. We 8 have these climate goals and the decisions we make about RPP have induced demand 9 implications. I question whether or not this type of decision as it continues whether or not it’s 10 in conformance with our Climate Element. So, we have these climate goals that… do these 11 types of decisions are they consistent with them? We’re seeing the gradual assetization of 12 public real estate and the transition over the private real estate. I think Commissioner Alcheck 13 [note-Vice-Chair] made a very compelling case that this a policy discussion that’s not being had. 14 It ought to be had. I mean maybe we should eliminate all the parking; they should all be 15 parklets. Why are we not talking about those types of solutions? Maybe we should… I mean 16 there are any number of creative opportunities that could have mitigated some of the 17 neighborhood concerns a long time ago without even going down the path of RPP because I am 18 sympathetic to many of the people that have talked about some the acute issues within the 2-19 blocks. But beyond that, this is not… the data and the data issue and what we’re shown here 20 doesn’t illustrate in my mind and interestingly this is my research area. It doesn’t… it does not 21 illustrate an endemic need to have policy action. It basically needs a creative and tactical 22 solution to an acute issue for a couple blocks. So, I think that we’re taking a kind of what… not 23 thought out process-based band-aid and putting it on something that could have a lot more 24 elegant and sophisticated solution. 25 26 And with that said I’ll… I have one recommendation because I am concerned about one 27 comment that was not addressed by Staff and was brought up on the dais is the noticing for 28 this project. My back of the envelop calculations shows that 500-feet does not include the bulk 29 of California Avenue. I think this should be a 1,000, if not 1,500-feet. I’m assuming… I’m not 30 sure if you’ve done a buffer-based math but I’m pretty sure 500-feet barely makes it to over the 31 top of the Caltrain parking lot. So, I think you just need to take a look at that going into the 32 Council hearing. I think that concludes this item. 33 34 Chair Riggs: You know what? Can we take a 10-minute break? Is that ok? 35 36 [note – unknown Staff member:] [unintelligible – off mic] 37 38 Chair Riggs: What’s that? 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. [note – unknown Staff member:] [unintelligible – off mic] 1 2 Chair Riggs: Can we take a 10-minute break for us to use the restroom and (interrupted) 3 4 Mr. Lait: You’re the Chair. 5 6 Chair Riggs: I think we’re going to take a 10-minute break. 7 8 1. Commission Action: Motion to Move the Staff recommendation and include all of the 9 following in the report to City Council made by Commissioner Roohparvar and Seconded by 10 Commissioner Templeton. Motion Passed 4-2: 11 a. Include the RPP Pilot evaluation criteria and timeline for the evaluation of this RPP in 12 the report to Council; this needs to be included in the pilot program. 13 b. What is the impact of the garage construction and garage on this (needs to be included 14 in report to Council)? 15 c. Number of hangtags: need to include a justification for the number of hangtags during 16 this pilot period; wants Council to decide number of permits but they need a 17 justification of why. 18 d. Staff needs to review creative alternatives to this RPP; Text will be included in what goes 19 to Council and the evaluation will be done within the pilot year. 20 21 [The Commission took a 10-minute break] 22 23 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 874 Boyce [18PLN-00030]: Recommendation on 24 Applicant’s Request for Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Title 21, Chapter 20 to 25 Allow for Creation of a Flag Lot Where the Residence on the Subject Lot to Be 26 Subdivided Would be Protected Under a Historic Covenant as Well as 27 Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to 28 Subdivide One Lot to Create Two Lots. The Exceptions Are to Allow for A Narrower 29 Front Lot Than Is Allowed Within the R-1 Zone District and To Allow for the 30 Easements Serving the Rear Lot to be Greater Than 100 Feet. Environmental 31 Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 32 (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Protection of the Environment) 33 and 15332 (Infill Development). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For 34 More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at 35 Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 36 37 Chair Riggs: So, if you guys want to… you all ready? I think we’re ready to let our… let… give 38 Claire some relief. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Great. Good evening Commissioners. I’m Claire Hodgkins 1 and I’m the project planner for this project. The project before you today is 874 Boyce Avenue. 2 So, this is a property located within the R-1 Zone District near the 3-way intersection of Homer, 3 Seneca, and Boyce Avenue. 4 5 The purpose of the proposed project would be to create a flag lot in order to allow for an 6 additional housing unit will also preserving the existing historic structure at the front of the 7 property. The project includes multiple components including a request for a Code Text 8 Amendment which would amend Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 21.20 which is our 9 Subdivision Ordinance. It also includes a subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels. The 10 existing parcel is oversized for this zone district and exceeds the R-1 requirements. The two 11 new parcels would each meet the minimum code requirement for parcel size of 6,000-square 12 feet or exceed it. And the project would require two Exception to the Preliminary Parcel Map. 13 One would be allowed for a lot width that does not meet the 60-foot Minimum Lot Width 14 requirements in the R-1 District and the second one would be for two Access Easements that 15 exceed 100-feet in length. Under Title 21 typically it’s the Easement needs to be 100-feet in 16 length and the applicant is requesting one that’s approximately 120-square feet [note – just 17 feet] and one that’s approximately 128-square feet or sorry feet. I do want to note that the 18 proposed Map Exception for these easements was reviewed by our Fire Division and then they 19 confirmed that they would allow for up to 150-feet for the Easements while still meeting fire 20 safety requirements if each Easement is only surveying one parcel at the rear. 21 22 So, in terms of process, a Preliminary Parcel Map is required for any subdivision creating less 23 than 5-parcels or units but creating more than one or two new parcels. Exception… it also 24 includes an Exception for the lot design which may be requested in accordance with Chapter 25 21.32 of our Code. It requires PTC review and Council decision for the Preliminary Parcel Map 26 with Exceptions and Code text amendments, other than Zoning Code amendments, typically 27 only require Council review. However, because the map is being reviewed by the PTC, the Code 28 Text Amendment is also included in this request. 29 30 So just some Comprehensive Plan policy considerations, so encourage historic… this project 31 encourages Historic Preservation which is consistent with Policy L-7.1 of our Comprehensive 32 Plan. It also encourages additional housing units which is consistent with Program H-2.1.2 of 33 our Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 34 35 And Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission take the following 36 actions. Find the project exempted from CEQA, recommend approval of the proposed 37 ordinance to Council, and recommend approval of the proposed Preliminary Parcel Map with 38 Exceptions to Council based on Findings and subject to Conditions of Approval as outlines in the 39 Staff report. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And with that, I’ll turn it back to you. I wanted to let you know that the applicant is here today. 2 They’re not planning on giving a presentation but they’re available to answer questions if you 3 have any. 4 5 Chair Riggs: Alright thank you. Any Commission… questions from Commissioners and I think 6 that is Commissioner Templeton? Yeah. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton: Hi. Thank you for this great report and presentation, Claire. I have a 9 question on Page 4, Packet Page 26 about the Easements. Can you clarify what… how much of 10 these exceptions and changes are being requested in order to avoid the private street? Second 11 paragraph under Easements if other people are trying to find it. 12 13 Ms. Hodgkins: Can you repeat your question really quickly? 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Sure, sure. It… the report states that some of these exceptions are 16 being requested in order to avoid having a private street. How much of what’s being requested 17 as an exception tonight is for that purpose? 18 19 Ms. Hodgkins: So, the Exceptions tonight for both the lot width and the Easement length would 20 not be required if you were to create a private street. The issue that if you… if you don’t do an 21 Easement serving one lot at the rear and it becomes private street then it deducts from the lot 22 area which would be detrimental to the adjacent property owner’s property and would not be 23 supported obviously by them. So that was one of the issues that came up and in reviewing the 24 project we determined that the definition of the private street was actually a voter initiative so 25 it’s not something that could be amended without going to a vote of the people. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton: Ok thank you. 28 29 Chair Riggs: Great so any other questions and I do have some speaker cards. So, if you have… 30 withhold your deliberations we want to hear from the public on this too. Any other questions? 31 Summa? Ok. Alright with that said we will open the hearing; I have two cards. I have Rod Miller, 32 is he still here? 33 34 (spoke from the audience off mic) He had to leave. 35 36 Chair Riggs: He had to leave, ok. 37 38 Mr. Leopold Vandeneynde: [unintelligible – spoke off-mic from the audience] 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Ok wait, would you like to come up and I just will need a card and maybe you can 1 provide some context. 2 3 Mr. Vandeneynde: I was just going to say he’s the neighbor at 876 behind the neighboring 4 home and he was just here just to give his approval. We’ve had multiple conversations with 5 him. I know you can’t take my word for it but as far as why he was here. 6 7 Chair Riggs: And just for the record I’m assuming you are the app… you are representing the 8 applicant? 9 10 Mr. Vandeneynde: I’m actually… I’m the architect. My name is Leopold. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Nice to meet you. 13 14 Mr. Vandeneynde: Yes. 15 16 Chair Riggs: Thank you, thank you for that clarification. So, Mr. Miller is not here but thank you 17 for providing some clarification. Herb Borock. 18 19 Mr. Herb Borock: Thank you and good evening Chair, Riggs and Commissioners. I urge you to 20 reject the recommendation. This is being brought to you by a family, Loops’ family, Chris Loops 21 is in a construction business with HRB long term member David Bower and he took over the 22 business. And a lot of… they did most of the Roger Kohler’s work, another HRB long term 23 member. Mr. Bower at 860 Boyce and Roger Kohler bringing through an application on 850 24 Boyce just last year. And the history is, is that the rejection that you can’t have the flag lot in an 25 R-1 district has been in the law since January/February 1989 and that it was amended 26 specifically for flag lots regarding historic property on the front parcel in 2009; December. And 27 then the family came in and divided the property with full knowledge of the law creating this 28 separate lot that could not have a flat lot. And they did that in 2012 so they’re fully aware of 29 what the law was when they did that division to get the advantage of building on the adjacent 30 lot by having the front parcel, 876, meet that historic criteria to enable to do flag lots behind it. 31 So notionally they just want to change the law that they already created a parcel that they 32 knew the law applied to them and this project is also being segmented. 33 34 That is, they’ve indicated in two study sessions before the HRB last year that they want to 35 increase the size of the house in front and to be able to do that. They want to make sure that 36 even with the Covenant they can do that. So really that should be apart of the application at the 37 same time. 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. In regard to the Easement, I don’t have a copy of the plans in front of me but I suspect the two 1 Easements are side by side and unless you permanently put a fence that nobody can take away 2 and that you’ll always know that it’s there and check every day. You essentially got the width of 3 a private Easement street… a private street that serves four lots. It’s silly to think that the 4 properties on one side are only going to be using a one-lane driveway on the one side and the 5 properties on the other side are going to be using the other one-lane. So, for that reason… for 6 all those reasons I believe you should reject this proposal. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Alright I don’t have any other cards so… seeing no other takers we’ll close the 9 hearing. So first up it looks like we have Commissioner Alcheck [note – Vice-Chair]. 10 11 MOTION 12 13 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Claire, thanks for your report. I found all of your analysis compelling. It 14 occurred to me while I was working on this item that in Minneapolis you wouldn’t need flag lots 15 anymore because they have eliminated R-1. I thought this is quite innovated way to create a 16 new parcel and a new residential unit. And I think it’s no surprise that we have to make these 17 adjustments in our Code to accommodate this because this is a unique situation that no one 18 anticipated probably when they wrote these Code sections. 19 20 So, I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say but with my time I’m going to move the 21 Staff recommendation and recommendation that City Council make the Finding and approve 22 the changes. 23 24 SECOND 25 26 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll second. 27 28 Chair Riggs: Alright so we have a motion, a second. Let… I… ok so there’s a motion on the floor. 29 I… then I’m going to be kind of structured than with this and I’m going to… what I’m going to 30 ask is we go in a structured way. If you want to speak to the motion but if you have other things 31 that you want to… questions that you want to ask or comments you want to make please do so. 32 So, Commissioner Waldfogel can I start with you, if that’s ok? 33 34 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’ll support the motion. I walked the block, looked at the conditions 35 on the block, this seems to be consistent with prevailing conditions. I also checked with several 36 previous City Council Members to see if there was any reason why we had a preference on the 37 historic unit being front lot versus backlot in a flag lot division. Nobody could recall any reasons 38 so apparently; we were just capturing the request at the time that that Code was written. So 39 just given those things I would… I’d support the motion. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Also, Claire, great slides, report. Really complicated. 2 3 Chair Riggs: I think we can all echo that your presentation was great. Commissioner Summa. 4 5 Commissioner Summa: I’m inclined to support this as well but I do have some questions and is 6 in the ordinance itself. Section 1 is about… it’s a definition of private streets. I was really curious 7 why this was included in the ordinance and there’s… because nothing is… there’s no strikeouts 8 or underlines. It’s exactly the same except for one word. Is that why you put it in, to add the 9 word homes in the first sentence? 10 11 Ms. Hodgkins: I honestly just included everything that was under this section, 21.23.0.1. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: So, I mean I was just kind of confused but also it does add the word 14 homes in which I’m sure was intended to be there. 15 16 Ms. Hodgkins: Oh, I sorry, sorry, I see what you mean. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: It just says… in the Code it says traffic to or from two or more, it doesn’t 19 have the word homes. So, I thought maybe that’s why you changed it. 20 21 Ms. Hodgkins: So, homes should be underlined then. Maybe our attorney did add that just 22 because as he was reading, he probably was thinking it was really clear. 23 24 Commissioner Summa: I think that’s right. It's kind of hard to compare two things like that. And 25 then I have a question on the City’s Planning Website it refers to Code 18.10.130 which is the 26 Historic Preservation Incentives and which does include R-1. Although when you got to the 27 Code (interrupted) 28 29 Ms. Hodgkins: Say that one more time, sorry. 30 31 Commissioner Summa: So, on the City’s Planning Website there is a page about historic 32 incentives and it has as one of its bullets Section 18.10.130 of the Code which is about the 33 historic incentives. 34 35 Ms. Hodgkins: Oh yeah. 36 37 Commissioner Summa: And it is about subdividing a lot to save a Historic Resource with the 38 same kinds of provisions to guarantee that same kind of Covenant but it does include R-1. So, 39 but in the Code R-1… so was R-1 left out, take out of that at some point? 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Hodgkins: I’m not sure the history but that’s why we ended up adding in this section under 2 (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Summa: The flag lot section. 5 6 Ms. Hodgkins: Under the flag lot section, yeah because we (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Summa: Ok so that seemed a little confusing to me and I didn’t know if it was a 9 mistake actually when the Code was… I mean I would look into, if you haven’t already, whether 10 that was inadvertently dropped from the actual historic code. Because also in what the flag lot 11 changes that you’re recommending do most of the same thing but there’s actually a minimum 12 in the Historic Preservation Section and there is no minimum lot here recommended. So, I think 13 its kind of inconsistent between… is that making sense kind of? 14 15 Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the 4,000-square foot minimum or something. 16 17 Commissioner Summa: Yeah so, I don’t know if you want to add a minimum in or if you want to 18 research whether R-1 was left out of 18.10.130 by accident basically. 19 20 Ms. Hodgkins: Ok we can look into those issues. 21 22 Commissioner Summa: And then look at having them not contradict each other because I think 23 that’s always bad when the Code does that. So also, I know there’s been two fairly recent R-1 24 Zone sites that subdivided for Historic Preservation reasons. One at 381 Lincoln and 1050 25 Waverley. It might be… you might be able… depending on what law allowed that, it was in the 26 last few years I think, it might help determining whether that other one dropped R-1 by 27 accident. So that is my only… that’s my main concern is that those two areas that address 28 Historic Preservation Covenant and subdivision be consistent. That’s all for now. 29 30 Chair Riggs: That’s greats so we will continue. I will encourage if you don’t really have anything 31 to add don’t do that, but before we get to you Commissioner Templeton I… we do… I forgot 32 one thing. We… this is a quasi-judicial action so we need to actually do disclosures. So, in the 33 spirit of fairness, I’m just going to go down the list and people say if they have anything to 34 disclose. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: No disclosures. 37 38 Commissioner Roohparvar: No disclosures. 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: You got to say it, Mike. 1 2 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Actually, I only have to announce if I have a disclosure so silence is 3 presumed (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Riggs: Ok, no. 6 7 Vice-Chair Alcheck: No really. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: No. 10 11 Vice-Chair Alcheck: It’s not an obligation to announce (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Riggs: You’re right, you’re right. 14 15 Commissioner Summa: No. 16 17 Commissioner Waldfogel: No disclosure. 18 19 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton: Hi. It looks like on this picture that they’ve already constructed a 22 fence and kind of done an informal subdivision of the property already, is that right? 23 24 Ms. Hodgkins: I think there is a fence there or was a fence there. Is there a fence? 25 26 Mr. Vandeneynde: (off mic) There is currently a fence [unintelligible]. 27 28 Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, it’s just an empty lot at the rear though. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton: Oh ok, ok. So, I’m also inclined to support this. I’m a little 31 uncomfortable with the lengths to which we’re going to work around the private street and I 32 don’t really understand the implications. And especially it would be especially valuable to me 33 for you to explain why it won’t have any long-term implications for other projects if we allow 34 this workaround to really literally change the Code. So, can you clarify why that’s the 35 recommendation? 36 37 Ms. Hodgkins: So, as I mentioned if it becomes a private street then it gets deducted from the 38 lot area. So, the current Easement runs down (interrupted) 39 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Templeton: So sorry, sorry to interrupt. I understand why the applicant wants 1 what they want. I’m trying to understand why we want to change the Code for everyone based 2 on this one application. 3 4 Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah so, I think the reasons why the City is willing or Staff is willing to support 5 this application is to support policies under our Comprehensive Plan that encourage Historic 6 Preservation and encourage the addition of more units. So, it doesn’t… it’s… the way that we 7 are changing this Code is in a way that would not change private streets and that also minimizes 8 the application of future Easements so that on future parcels and how that ends up getting 9 implemented. So that if somebody were to come back in the future and we start getting a lot of 10 lots that want to do this similar thing it gives the PTC and then Council another shot at looking 11 at those on an individual bases and seeing if they’re appropriate. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton: Ok thank you, that’s very helpful. Also, what… another question that 14 came to mind, I think this has an obvious answer but I want to ask it just for completeness. 15 Could the same building goals be accomplished with an ADU in that spot or do we need to…? I 16 guess the goal is to subdivide and sell off the property or how does that work? 17 18 Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, so we did encourage an ADU as an alternative to exploring these options 19 and the applicant wasn’t interested in that option. That would do the same thing in terms of 20 adding an additional unit in terms of our inventory, but it would not necessarily preserve the 21 historic property at the front. They could still… so under our Historic Preservation as a Category 22 Four structure, if they’re looking to do any Discretionary Application then CEQA would apply. 23 And therefore, we could protect the resource but under our current Codes, if they were looking 24 to do just a single-story residence, they could actually demo the home even though it’s a 25 Category Four structure and could rebuild with a single-story residence. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton: Ok so these changes will, as part of a trade-off as a benefit for the 28 City, will protect the Historic Resource in exchange for the… ok, thank you. 29 30 Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. 31 32 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Alcheck [note -Vice-Chair] anything to add? 33 34 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah so, a couple quick questions. We have a number of 6,000-square foot 35 and under lots in the City. Is there any, in your mind, policy discouraging subdivision of 12,000-36 square foot lots? 37 38 Ms. Hodgkins: Not that I’m aware of, I mean other than the minimum… well, minimum lot size 39 ensuring that we’re meeting the minimum lot size which anything over 12,000 presumably you 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. could subdivide. And I guess the only ordinance that would affect that right now is the one that 1 Commissioner Summa mentioned that specifically leaves out the R-1 but for reasons unknown. 2 3 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I think it’s safe… I wonder how you feel about this but or Staff… Staff feels 4 about but I think it’s safe to say that our Comprehensive Plan actually looks favorably on the 5 concept of subdividing lots that are in excessive 10,000-square feet because to do so would 6 inherently increase the number of residential parcels which increases the number of residential 7 units. 8 9 And the interesting thing about your question about ADUs that I think is compelling is that 10 there are restrictions embedded in our ADUs that limit who can occupy the unit. So, for 11 example, if you rent your ADU out to a family, let’s say you’re a Stanford Professor and you rent 12 your ADU out to a family. And then you go on some teaching program in another University in 13 another state, you can’t actually rent your house. It has to remain vacant because both units 14 can’t… one unit must be… one of the two residences have to be occupied by an owner. So, to 15 some extent our ADU doesn’t necessarily always encourage the greatest occupancy of 16 residences. So, I think to some extent this isn’t… like I said when I made my motion… a really 17 innovative way to work around a Historic Resource and also create an opportunity to create a 18 new parcel that meets our minimum qualifications. So, I just wanted to add that. 19 20 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar, anything to add? 21 22 Commissioner Roohparvar: I don’t have comments. 23 24 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing, anything to add? 25 26 Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thank you. It… have you done an inventory or to see if there’s any 27 other situations like this? I mean we’re changing this law. Is it just going to fit one case or are 28 there other situations/scenarios in the City where this might apply? 29 30 Ms. Hodgkins: I don’t have a full list but I know that there is… it wouldn’t be a one-off. There 31 are definitely other cases where there are lots. It's hard to tell exactly because it would depend 32 exactly on whether they could meet some of the Easement or private street requirements that 33 would be needed to allow for that subdivision; as well as on each individual lot. But there are a 34 number of lots that have a historic property that are in excess of 12,000-square feet. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: Ok so partly because of that, that is why you think that this is a better 37 way to go than a Variance or insisting on an ADU? 38 39 Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, I mean… yeah. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: So, you know, again this is 2 just one of these policy considerations like many of the items that we bring before you. It’s a 3 choice of how do we want to… there’s a couple of gains here; an extra unit. But it’s also I think 4 principally motivated by our interest in advancing our Historic Preservation policies in the 5 Comprehensive Plan and in our Zoning Code. But we recognize that there may be different 6 ways to approach it, we just also understand that if we explore and implement those, we may 7 not end up preserving the resource and that is a tradeoff. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: And the comment there about the possibility of raising the Historic 10 Resource as it’s currently in the Code, ineffectively not protecting that is very sad and a 11 discussion for a different day. This is not the agenda tonight so it just seems like we’re going 12 through a lot of hoops for one applicant and one situation. 13 14 Two Commissioners already covered very important questions that I was going to ask about 15 somethings so I won’t repeat that so I think that’s it. 16 17 VOTE 18 19 Chair Riggs: Sorry, I missed the it. I was… ok so any other comments? If not, I think we should… 20 we have a motion, we have a second, I think we should vote. Seeing none, all in favor? All 21 opposed? Any opposed? Ok motion carries 7-0. Thank you for being here. 22 23 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0. 24 25 Commission Action: Motion to move Staff’s recommendation made by Vice-Chair Alcheck, 26 seconded by Commissioner Lauing; motion passed 7-0. 27 28 Approval of Minutes 29 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 30 Chair Riggs: Ok so 2-minutes till 9 o’clock. Approval of the minutes, can I have a motion to 31 approve the minutes. 32 33 MOTION 34 35 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Motion to approve the minutes. 36 37 Chair Riggs: Do I have a second? 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. SECOND 1 2 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll second. 3 4 Chair Riggs: Alright, thank you all. Any questions, comments, announcements, and future 5 agenda items? 6 7 Vice-Chair Alcheck: We have to vote on the motion. 8 9 VOTE 10 11 Chair Riggs: Oh, do we have to vote on the motion? Do we have to vote on that, really? Motion, 12 second? Ok, all in favor? Any opposed? Any abstentions? No, movement is approved. 13 14 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0. 15 16 [note- no minutes to approve] 17 Committee Items 18 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 19 Chair Riggs: Take it away. You got nothing. Any announcements from… look ahead for our next 20 meeting. 21 22 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I got a quick question. Do we know when the (interrupted) 23 24 Chair Riggs: 40… 20-seconds. 25 26 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Draft EIR that we reviewed, do we have a date for that follow-up? 27 28 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services: Are you referring to the 29 Castilleja project? 30 31 Commissioner Summa: For Castilleja. 32 33 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, the item from last time. 34 35 Mr. Lait: No. 36 37 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Do we know is there a timeline? 38 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: We’re still in the public comment period. We’ve received probably hundreds of 2 comments. It’s going to take us quite some time to respond to those. 3 4 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok so the timeline closes (interrupted) 5 6 Mr. Lait: We do not have a timeline right now. 7 8 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok just checking. 9 10 Chair Riggs: Alright so we do have a discussion item but you haven’t gotten there yet and I was 11 wondering if there’s any other… so there’s no look ahead in terms of agenda items we have… 12 13 Mr. Lait: So, one question that came out (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Riggs: Yeah, we’ll get there. 16 17 Mr. Lait: That’s the one we’re going to get too, alright. 18 19 Chair Riggs: So, we do have a… thank you Commissioner Lauing for bringing up the Yom Kippur 20 is on October 9th. I think we need to decide as a group if we’re going to hold a meeting. I’m 21 seeing from two people that they would prefer not to hold a meeting on October 9th. 22 23 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Why don’t we do this a little easier? Is any… how many people are not 24 intending on attending on a meeting on Yom Kippur and then you can see if you have a 25 quorum. 26 27 Chair Riggs: How many people are not intending to come on the 9th of October? Alright, so we 28 have four. 29 30 Mr. Lait: It’s questionable. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: Four max. 33 34 Chair Riggs: Yeah, I think we’ll cancel October 9th. 35 36 Commissioner Lauing: Could we push it so we could be productive? Push it to the next week. 37 38 Chair Riggs: I don’t know that we have enough… we… ok, so should we do… before I cancel do, 39 we have an agenda that we can fill a meeting before you recommend, we just cancel. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: I think if you were to cancel it that would be fine. The 2 pending item can be adjusted to a different date. We already confirmed that with the Staff 3 which at the time is not present. 4 5 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton: I believe October is a month with 5-weeks in there so just letting you 8 know you have the ability to have different timing if you want. 9 10 Mr. Lait: I think we’re going to be ok. I mean it would be one thing if we had three items on 11 each of our Commission meetings that we needed to navigate that, but the only item that is 12 presently scheduled was a discussion having to do with the intersection of Charleston and San 13 Antonio or something. But that can… another transportation item but I’m not sure if that’s an 14 action or an update and it could move to the next meeting. 15 16 Commissioner Waldfogel: [unintelligible – off mic] 17 18 Mr. Lait: Yes. 19 20 Chair Riggs: Is that a part of the Charleston Corridor Plan? 21 22 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, I’m just [unintelligible](interrupted) 23 24 Chair Riggs: Yeah you just a messenger. Commissioner Lauing, you still have your light. 25 26 Commissioner Lauing: I just wanted to ask in terms of looking at the future agenda at the last 27 meeting you said that you would try to put together one for the whole year. 28 29 Mr. Lait: Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. 30 31 Commissioner Lauing: Sorry, go ahead. 32 33 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry for cutting you off. We still need to get together and hammer that out but we 34 are optimistic that there’s going to be some more meaty items for the Commission to weigh in 35 on and from a policy perspective just a couple of items to put out there. One is the Inclusionary 36 Housing component. We have a draft consultant’s report that we’re expecting in about 4 to 6-37 weeks’ time. And so, once we get that report our typical process might be to use that report 38 and then frame some kind of an ordinance based on that and other guidance that we have from 39 Council and our own perspective. But one thing that we’re thinking about is maybe sharing the 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. report with you before we prepare those recommendations and learn from the Commission 1 your perspective or areas of the report that maybe need to be refined before we come up with 2 an ordinance. So that’s one thing that we’re looking at. We earlier in the year talked about EV 3 chargers and how they need to address our parking standards so that is one that we want to 4 come back to and address. And there’s a conversation that we’d like to have hopefully before 5 the end of the year having to deal with TDRs and how might be able to use them to incentives 6 housing projects. 7 8 So those are just a couple things that we’re working on and I think there’s probably a couple 9 other ones. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Ok that segues to a related question and it’s a transportation question 12 that we’ve raised but I wanted to get it on the record to find out when and what kind of policies 13 were coming to us? My understanding from the Council, I haven’t reread the motion, but they 14 directed that Staff and PTC. And someone has edited out three-quarters of the 15 recommendations and saying that we don’t need to comment on those. I’d rather have 35 16 come to us and have us give an opinion on which ones we’d like to comment on and then have 17 transportation or whoever go ahead make that decision. But to look at nine 6-months or 18 whatever it was after it was recommended, I just don’t find that acceptable. And I understand 19 I’m talking to a planning guy now, not a transportation guy but it would apply to any other 20 things that come up that we could be helpful on. 21 22 Mr. Lait: Yeah absolutely and I recall that the Council did have the full list but there’s only a 23 subset of that list that they had differed to the Planning and Transportation Commission. 24 25 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I can’t remember the wording. I agree I can’t remember the 26 wording. 27 28 Mr. Lait: Yeah so, I just don’t know if it was nine or some other number. I imagine if they 29 referred… whatever the number is that they referred to the PTC we’re going to come back to 30 the PTC and have that conversation. You know Philips been on the job for 4-days I think so 31 there’s been a number of deficiencies in Staff… vacancies, I should not say deficiencies but 32 vacancies in our Staffing. We’re getting up to speed and we want to have those conversations 33 with the Commission but we just need a little bit more patience. 34 35 Chair Riggs: You know (interrupted) 36 37 [note- many people started talking at once off mic] 38 39 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Riggs: Yeah but I think in Commissioner Lauing’s defense, we’re been asking for this all 1 year and we canceled a lot of meetings over the summer. And I have… I really like Ms. Gaines 2 but like we… as Chair I have talked to her numerous times about bringing these priorities to us. 3 So, I candidly agree and I think it’s important to put it on the record. 4 5 Mr. Lait: Understood. 6 7 Commissioner Waldfogel: On a different topic, last year we passed the Housing Incentive 8 Program and I believe that not a whole lot has happened. Although I believe that there’s also 9 some impetus to bring… to extend that into a different district which is something that we may 10 see some time in the future. And I just wonder will there be any other thinking or just any other 11 analysis on what’s going on with that? What… is there anything else that we need to do relative 12 to that to make that successful? 13 14 Mr. Lait: So, the application that you’re… the project that you’re referring to is actually an 15 application that was filed by a private property owner to redevelop a property on San Antonio. 16 And part of that request was an extension of the HIP, Housing Incentive Program, to that 17 specific property. We had a pre-screening before the City Council where Staff had 18 recommended instead of just focusing on one property that it be extended between; I think it’s 19 Charleston and Middlefield. And so ordinarily, again this an opportunity for us to get the 20 Commission’s early involvement on this. Ordinarily we would do our analysis, come to you with 21 a recommendation of the… on the project and the ordinance as applicable. What we want to do 22 is come to you with the policy conversation first before we even drafted anything to hear if 23 there’s any early feedback about applying those standards to this stretch of properties. 24 25 Commissioner Waldfogel: I think that’s great. I think that’s (interrupted) 26 27 Mr. Lait: And that’s in the near future. 28 29 Commissioner Waldfogel: I think that’s fantastic and I think that if you also have any 30 observations about just how to make the program successful in general. That would be or 31 maybe that’s a different… maybe that’s a different topic but just we put a lot of work into that 32 last year and if there’s tweaks that we need to do, let’s tee up that conversation. 33 34 Mr. Lait: Ok we’ll get some thoughts to that. I think it might be a little bit early for us to have a 35 response to that but you’re right. There has not been any activity following the adoption of 36 that. Again, it was April 1st so it does take time for private property owners to develop plans 37 and submit them so we may be in that window. In fact, I do know of a couple of properties, one 38 in Downtown and one on El Camino where we’ve received contact from folks that are 39 interested in exploring that a HIP development. 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Riggs: Ok I have Commissioner Templeton but before I… oh ok, you’re good. So, 2 Commissioner Lauing, I just wanted to make sure you were done. [unintelligible] (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to ask if we could also schedule an ADU update at the 5 appropriate time. Just sometime this year. Statues on ADUs in terms of the numbers and how 6 many are actually starting construction. Sorry? By memo, that’s ok. 7 8 Mr. Lait: Yeah, we do a report to the Council. I thought I sent an email with a link to it but let 9 me send you what I have again and if there’s interest in a study session discussion we can have 10 that. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Alcheck [note- Vice-Chair]. 13 14 Vice-Chair Alcheck: The local press suggested that there had been movement on the promise of 15 housing on the Ventura area. And I’m not to suggest that that’s like a credible source for 16 information, but do you as Staff has any sort of idea about if… what… we haven’t ever really 17 discussed that area. And I know that there’s a community group and I’m just wondering if you 18 could shed some light on what happened at City Council that changed the way the City’s looking 19 at it? 20 21 Ms. Tanner: Are you referring to the (interrupted) 22 23 Vice-Chair Alcheck: The Fry’s site. 24 25 Ms. Tanner: The Fry’s site, yeah. So that last Monday we did take to City Council a report on the 26 NV Cap in the effort to have a Coordinated Area Plan there. The new information I think is two-27 fold. One is a little bit not as new which is around the historic nature of the Fry’s building, kind 28 of what that might mean for those who want to see if preserved in whole or in part. And then 29 the second piece of information was that we have learned from the representatives of The 30 Sobrato Organization that they are at present at least not interested in demolishing the 31 building. They would like to retain it on-site and we don’t have details of would it be the entire 32 thing or the historic portion. There are different phases of that building. They weren’t built at 33 all the same time, the building wasn’t, and so the question became well with the retention of 34 the building what is possible…. in the NV Cap area what is possible on that site in terms of 35 realizing the City’s housing projections? And would we be able to realize the assumed number 36 of units that could be on that site at least as it’s currently zoned? So, without trying to predict 37 the future which is dangerous, our position and what we’ve talked about with the Work Group 38 is that while that… the retention of the building could present some challenge to a scenario 39 where the entire site is housing in the way that people might have envisioned. It doesn’t 40 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. necessarily mean that there can’t be housing on that site that is significant or that in the NV Cap 1 are, which does include other parcels that have development capacity, that we couldn’t see 2 housing and that we should continue to pursue the development of the Coordinated Area Plan 3 with that in mind. So that we can think about how we might need to leverage the polices to 4 incentives and realize the housing there. Hopefully that answers your question. 5 6 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, no, that’s a phenomenal answer. A follow-up question is does that… is 7 there any change to the Work Group’s… so is that continuing or is that on pause? 8 9 Ms. Tanner: Yes, it is continuing. We are hopeful that we’ll return to Council in the last meeting 10 in September to bring forward the contract to expand our work… scope of work with Perkins 11 Will who’s the consultant who’s working with us on the NV Cap proposal. We’re hopeful that 12 Council will support that and we’ll continue that work. Again, don’t want to predict what they 13 will do but they were favorable in moving the motion to bring back that contract to them. 14 15 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Not that it’s not publicly available but would you consider just coping us on 16 when that presentation is created to Council just so that we can (interrupted) 17 18 Ms. Tanner: You know that it’s happening and what’s going forward, yeah. 19 20 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I’d love to read it. It sounds like we’re outside of the discussion which 21 is fine but I’d love to see what gets presented to them when you are guys are presenting to 22 them. I’m sure I could have found it but it would be nice to be copied (interrupted) 23 24 Ms. Tanner: It’s nice to have something in your email box pinging that it’s going forward. 25 26 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah that would be awesome. 27 28 Ms. Tanner: Yeah, that’s great, certainly can do that. 29 30 Chair Riggs: Any other questions, comments? I don’t see any. Alright seeing none, yep, I’ll do it. 31 It is… what time is it? 9:11, there we go. Finito. 32 Adjournment 33 9:40pm 34 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Vice-Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Commissioner Ed Lauing 6 Chair William Riggs 7 Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar 8 Commissioner Doria Summa 9 Commissioner Carolyn Templeton 10 Commissioner Asher Waldfogel 11 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 12 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 13 14 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 15 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 16 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 17 18 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 19 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 20 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 21 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 22 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 23 24 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 25 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 26 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 27 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 28 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 29 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 30 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 31 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 32 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 33