Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-30 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: March 30, 2022 2 Virtual Meeting 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:04 pm 7 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director explained how public comments could be made using the 8 Zoom App. Written comments were encouraged to be submitted via email to the Planning and 9 Transportation Commission’s (PTC) email on the City’s website. The meeting was being held 10 both via teleconference, video conference and in person at the City Council Chambers. 11 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted the roll and announced all 12 Commissioners were present with the exception of Vice-Chair Summa. 13 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Planning and 14 Transportation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency 15 MOTION 16 Commissioner Chang motioned to adopt the resolution. 17 SECOND 18 Commissioner Hechtman seconded. 19 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, called the roll and announced that the motion 20 carried 7-0. 21 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0 -1(Summa 22 absent) 23 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Hechtman. Motion Passed 6-0 (Summa 24 absent) 25 Oral Communications 26 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 27 _______________________ 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 Lauing invited members of the public to address the Commission on items, not on the 1 agenda. 2 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, began calling speakers for oral communications. 3 Rebecca Eisenberg strongly encouraged the Commission to consider environmental 4 consequences when making decisions. Also, the Brown Act was clear that individuals 5 representing the applicant can only speak during their time and cannot speak as part of the 6 community. 7 Ms. Klicheva announced there were no more public comments. 8 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 9 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 10 Chair Lauing announced there were no agenda changes, additions or deletions. 11 City Official Reports 12 2. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 13 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, reported City Staff will begin to reoccupy City Hall and the 14 Development Center has in-person as well as virtual appointments available. Council recently 15 considered the Housing Element site selection and they motioned to adopt the sites. In their 16 motion, they also directed Staff to do additional work. Council also considered an ordinance 17 regarding Senate Bill (SB) 9 regarding lot splits and adopting Objective Standards. The 18 Commission will soon be considering the permanent ordinance for SB 9 at a future meeting. 19 Council directed Staff to identify properties that have been identified as eligible for listing on 20 the National and/or State Historic Registers and to evaluate if those structures should be listed 21 locally. The process would provide protections from SB 9 for those properties. Council did not 22 change the process of how a property becomes listed on a historic registry. Typically, a 23 homeowner of the historic structure begins the process but Council had directed Staff to be 24 more proactive. The City’s Code does not require a property owner to support the Historic 25 Resources Board (HRB) and the Council to explore and list the structure as a historic resource, 26 but the City will be pursuing a collaborative process with homeowners. 27 Commissioner Chang asked how delayed will the South Palo Alto Bikeways Project be due to 28 Council relinquishing funding and will the project team have to start from the beginning with 29 planning and outreach? 30 _______________________ 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. Tanner answered she was not familiar with how the reapplication process works for the 1 grant. If it took several grant cycles to receive the funding, the City may have to redo some of 2 the work to include all community members. 3 Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Manager, confirmed the work will help Staff complete the new 4 grant application. The grant that was relinquished was for construction funding only and the 5 City was funding the design of the project. Staff believed relinquishing the funding helped Staff 6 have more time to plan a better project. 7 Commissioner Chang inquired when will the City know it has received the grant. 8 Ms. Star-Lack mentioned Staff was exploring several grants. The City will apply to the Bay Area 9 Cycle Three grant in June of 2022 and should know by December 2022 if the City was awarded 10 it. 11 Consent Calendar 12 3. Staff Recommend the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopts the 13 2022-2023 Work Plan and Forward the Plan to Council for Consideration and 14 Approval. 15 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, explained the Consent Calendar was intended to have 16 routine items that capture the consent of the Commission and not be discussed. If the 17 Commission wanted to have a discussion, she suggested there be a vote to pull the item from 18 the Consent Calendar and then hear the item at the end of the meeting. She reminded the 19 Commission that a simple majority vote is needed to approve the Consent Calendar. If 20 approved, the Work Plan will be forwarded to Council who may wish to make further 21 refinements. 22 Commissioner Hechtman asked what the process is for asking questions regarding the Work 23 Plan. 24 Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed the Commission can ask questions now. He 25 recommended the Chair open the item for public comment before a vote is taken. 26 Commissioner Hechtman believed a vote was not needed to remove the item from the Consent 27 Calendar. 28 Ms. Tanner reflected Council’s process was to have a majority vote to remove an item from the 29 Consent Calendar. 30 Mr. Yang confirmed to remove an item required a motion and a second but no vote. 31 _______________________ 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 Hechtman stated the version of the Work Plan in the Packet was missing 1 information for Project Goals 2, 7, 12 and 13. Regarding Project Goals 2 and 7, the box for the 2 measure of success was blank. 3 Ms. Tanner apologized and remarked the Work Plan will be amended before it goes to Council. 4 Some boxes were left blank intentionally because the information did not apply to the item. 5 Commissioner Hechtman pointed out Project Goal 12, the last column regarding a yes, no or 6 not applicable was blank. 7 Ms. Tanner believed those should be marked yes. 8 Commissioner Hechtman commented Project Goal 13 was completely blank other than the 9 description of the goal. 10 Ms. Tanner confirmed that was an error. She noted all of the Staff Board and Commission 11 liaisons will be involved in a hearing with City Council to discuss the Work Plan. She suggested 12 Staff revise the Work Plan and bring it back to the April 20th PTC meeting. 13 Commissioner Hechtman recalled providing clean-up language for the face page of the Work 14 Plan at the retreat but none of those recommendations were reflected in the Work Plan. 15 Ms. Tanner noted a bullet was added at the end of the Mission Statement regarding land use 16 planning. 17 Commissioner Hechtman felt Staff could make the changes and the item would not need to 18 come back to the Commission for further review. 19 Commissioner Templeton believed the Commission should pull the item and discuss it. She 20 recommended the Work Plan be changed to a draft if Council had to see it before the 21 Commission had time to approve it. 22 Chair Lauing supported making the Work Plan a draft and discussing it at the next meeting. 23 Commissioner Templeton confirmed she would second a motion if another Commissioner 24 wanted to pull the item from the Consent Calendar. 25 Ms. Tanner reiterated the Commission could pull the item from the Consent Calendar and if 26 there was not enough time at the end of the meeting to discuss the item. The Commission 27 could take up the item at the April 20, 2022 PTC meeting. 28 MOTION 29 _______________________ 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 Hechtman moved to pull Item Three, the PTC 2022-2023 Work Plan from 1 Consent and continue it to the April 20, 2022 meeting. 2 SECOND 3 Commissioner Templeton seconded. 4 Mr. Yang recommended the Commission open the item for public comment and then take a 5 vote. 6 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, called on the first speaker but after having technical 7 difficulties she moved to the next speaker. 8 Rebecca Eisenberg explained the Consent Calendar procedures and agreed with Commissioners 9 Hechtman and Templeton to remove the item from the Consent Calendar for further 10 discussion. Also, the Work Plan was an incompleted draft and needed further refinement. She 11 recommended the Commission discuss the prioritization of the Work Plan initiatives. 12 Ms. Klicheva announced the next speaker was Jochen Profit but acknowledged that Mr. Profit 13 continued to have technical difficulties. 14 Ms. Tanner suggested Mr. Profit call into the meeting. 15 VOTE 16 Chair Lauing requested a roll call vote on the motion. 17 Ms. Klicheva conducted the vote and announced that the motion passed 6-0. 18 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0 -1 (Summa 19 absent) 20 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Templeton. Motion passed 6-0 21 (Summa absent) 22 Action Items 23 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 24 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 25 4. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL/LEGISLATIVE: Review of the Castilleja School's 26 Requested Conditional Use Permit and Variance per Council Direction March 29, 27 2021, and Review of a Draft Ordinance per Council Direction Amending Section 28 18.04.030 Regarding Definition of Gross Floor Area in the R1 Zone for Below Grade 29 _______________________ 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. Parking Garages. Zone District: R1(10,000). Environmental Review: The Final 1 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 30, 2020 and the Draft EIR was 2 Published July 15, 2019 3 Chair Lauing read the title of the item into the record and then invited Commissioners to share 4 their recusals. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl announced that per direction from the City Attorney’s Office, he would 6 be recusing himself from the item. 7 Commissioner Hechtman reminded the Commission that the item was not only quasi-judicial 8 but also legislative due to the adoption of the Text Amendment. 9 Chair Lauing inquired if the Commissioners had any disclosures they would like to make. Seeing 10 none he remarked the process was to receive Staff’s presentation. Then Commissioners will be 11 allowed to ask questions and then public comment will be opened. The intention was to 12 continue the item to the April 20, 2022 PTC meeting. 13 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director introduced Amy French, and Osma Thompson, the Chair of 14 the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and noted Office of Transportation Staff. 15 Amy French, Chief Planning Official, remarked the goal was to hear public comment and the 16 applicant’s rebuttal to public comment. The item will be continued to April 20, 2022, to enable 17 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to discuss and make a recommendation to City 18 Council. On January 19, 2022, PTC meeting, the Commission conducted 10 straw polls on seven 19 topics. Seven of the polls were unanimous and two of the polls were split votes. There was 20 consensus that the PTC did not need additional information regarding the Residential Parking 21 Program (RPP) and the alternative campus, which left five topics which are coming back now to 22 the PTC. These included the Text Amendment, enrollment increases, Traffic Demand 23 Management Plan (TDM), parking options and special events. She invited the ARB Chair to 24 summarize the ARB’s reviews. 25 Osma Thompson, Chair of the ARB, commented the ARB was directed to review the façade 26 facing Kellogg Avenue and the parking garage options. The ARB recently acquired two new 27 Members and those members could not vote on the project. They provided their feedback and 28 engaged in the discussion. With respect to Kellogg Avenue, the ARB unanimously voted to 29 revert the right side of the Kellogg façade to the original elevation and that the applicant study 30 a hybrid option for the middle section. With respect to the parking garage options, the ARB 31 supported a hybrid approach between Options D and E. They supported the relocation of the 32 pool in Option E but the larger parking garage in Option D. 33 _______________________ 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. French moved to the Gross Floor Area (GFA) Text Amendment and noted Staff provided 1 their response to the applicant’s January 12, 2022 letter as Attachment F. PTC recommended 2 Staff study a broader GFA Ordinance and this broadening is discussed in the body of the Staff 3 report. Staff highlighted discussion about broadening the ordinance by reducing the threshold 4 of acreage for the Text Amendment. If reduced to a 2-acre threshold to broaden, that would 5 affect 16 R-1 Zoned properties in non-residential use. A 3-acre threshold would affect seven R-1 6 Zoned properties in non-residential use. A 4-acre threshold would affect 3 properties, and 5-7 acre threshold would affect two properties. Staff requested the PTC to determine the 8 appropriate acreage threshold. With respect to phased enrollment, Staff provided a table that 9 outlined yearly increases in enrollment over time and the table assumed 100 percent 10 compliance with reporting targets. Also, provided in the Staff report was a hypothetical 11 schedule for corrective actions if Castilleja did not meet the targets. Staff encouraged the 12 Commission to come to a consensus on enrollment to help Council make its decision. Staff did 13 not support the concept of Castilleja coming back to the City for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 14 amendment each time they wished to increase enrollment. If Council approved the CUP, 15 Castilleja will be allowed to increase its enrollment to 450 for the 2023-2024 academic year. 16 Attachment A, the applicant’s submittal attached to the Staff report, graphically showed the 17 enrollment increases as well as a two-phased approach before and after attainment of 18 maximum enrollment; reflecting the maximum 383 AM peak hour trips and 1198 Average Daily 19 Trips. With respect to the TDM plan measures, the TDM included revised language as 20 recommended by PTC for page 26 (word cumulative adjusted) and revised conditions that 21 shifted authority to the City’s Office of Transportation and Planning Directors to identify and 22 require additional TDM measures to address violations. Also, a new condition, Condition #33, to 23 establish the TDM Oversight Committee that will be activated if there is an enrollment 24 exceedance of one of the metrics found in Condition #22. With respect to special events, PTC 25 requested Staff provide clarification on which events were evening/weekend events. That 26 information was provided in the Staff report along with work responsive to Council’s direction 27 that Staff explore other Bay Area high schools and their special events. With respect to the 28 parking garage options, Staff is on record as supporting Option E which shows 89 spaces (with 29 52 spaces below grade) and requires a parking adjustment of 14.4 percent or 15 spaces below 30 the code-required 104 spaces. Attachment H of the Staff report was a California Environmental 31 Quality Act (CEQA) review of the two parking options, Options D and E as compared to Project 32 Alternative Four that meets the Code’s requirement of 104 on-site parking spaces. The slides 33 showed distribution of trips as the garage would handle 38 percent of the total am peak trips 34 and will serve as a drop-off and parking location. Neither Option D nor E increased adverse 35 impacts, they further minimized the impacts. Option E protected tree #155 due to ramp 36 removal and pool adjustment and included five additional on-site parking spaces at the Bryant 37 Street parking lot and six more spaces near Emerson Street. Also, Option E met Council’s 38 direction of having no more than half of the required parking spaces below grade. Staff 39 reviewed code requirement for parking spaces based on teaching stations and grade levels of 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. students, the existing spaces on the site that include tandem spaces that aren’t counted toward 1 required spaces and clarified about existing asphalt parking near tree #89 and trellis over 2 equipment so not counted as floor area. Finally, staff showed a chart shown previously in 3 December 2021 about how the TDM program affected parking demand. 4 Chair Lauing invited the applicant to proceed with their presentation. 5 Nanci Kauffman, Head of School for Castilleja, announced the goal of the project was to update 6 the campus, reduce neighborhood impacts and expand educational opportunities for young 7 women. She remarked the application for Castilleja was in alignment with Palo Alto’s 8 Comprehensive Plan and over the past 9-years the school had proved it can reduce traffic trips 9 through TDM. Also, the proposed building conformed to R-1 height limits, reduced GFA and was 10 compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. The application reduced at-11 grade parking, increased green space and met the City’s sustainability goals. She highlighted the 12 summary in the Staff report that stated increased enrollment would not be detrimental or 13 injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Also, the increased enrollment was not 14 detrimental to the public, health, safety, or general welfare. The proposal was built on 15 compromises between the school, neighbors, and the City. She introduced the applicant team. 16 Mindie Romanowsky, land use counsel for Castilleja School, requested that PTC honor City 17 Council’s motion from March 29, 2021, that was prescriptive and narrowly tailored, by not 18 introducing new concepts for the parking garage or adding new conditions related to 19 enrollment. With respect to parking, the below-grade parking garage was an environmentally 20 superior way to reduce surface-level parking and was strongly encouraged by the City’s 21 Comprehensive Plan. Castilleja supports the hybrid parking solution the ARB recommended. 22 She emphasized that there is no correlation between the size of the garage and the number of 23 cars coming to the campus, noting if Castilleja violates stringent car trips in the EIR and 24 conditions of approval, they will be subject to penalties including reducing student enrollment. 25 With respect to the Text Amendment, she noted the Text Amendment restricted underground 26 parking which conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan. Previously, the City approved an 27 underground garage for non-residential use in an R-1 Zone and did not count it towards floor 28 area. Also, the March 29, 2021 City Council motion did not recommend a broad GFA Ordinance. 29 She encouraged PTC to not recommend the Text Amendment because it was not legally 30 necessary and was arbitrary and confusing. With respect to enrollment, the school would only 31 increase enrollment if it can comply with trip caps as an appropriate method. Castilleja can be 32 trusted with trip thresholds, as monitoring reports submitted twice yearly over nine years have 33 demonstrated compliance. If approved, the project will be subject to a highly stringent and 34 detailed set of conditions with checks, balances, and penalties. 35 Adam Woltag, WRNS Studio and architect of the project, articulated that the new campus 36 maintains or improves existing setbacks and the central campus circle has been reduced inside 37 _______________________ 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. and repositioned. The new buildings also respect the height restriction of 30-feet, where the 1 current building on site is taller at 34’6”. Parking Alternative Four proposed a below-grade pool 2 location and service drive that allowed trash and deliveries to be done underground. Parking 3 Option E moved the pool over and placed service delivery at grade, and eliminated the need for 4 the below-grade driveway. He briefly reviewed the elevations for the structures from Bryant 5 Street, Kellogg Avenue and Emerson Street. He highlighted that the staff preferred Parking 6 Option E will include an acoustic screen wall along Emerson Street to reduce noise and take in 7 solar energy. With respect to GFA, the new design has less above grade GFA than the existing 8 facility. Both Options D and E for the parking garage protect the redwood trees along the south 9 side of the playfields and both require parking adjustments. He noted the ARB’s hybrid parking 10 was an elegant solution which blends the below grade parking spaces from Option D’s 11 (requiring less parking adjustment), and the above grade tree preservation measures of Option 12 E. The new campus has many elements to improve sustainability and help the City reach its 13 sustainability goals. He shared a 3-D video of how the new campus will look. 14 Ms. Tanner inquired if the application has a 3- minute rebuttal period after public comment? 15 Mr. Yang confirmed that is correct. 16 Chair Lauing invited the Commissioners to ask clarifying questions of Staff or the applicant 17 team. 18 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned he will hold his questions until after public comment. 19 Commissioner Chang asked what trees will be impacted by the larger underground hybrid 20 parking option. Also, which trees are positively affected by shifting the pool in Option E. 21 Ms. French mentioned trees #89 and #87 will benefit from the pool shifting over and Option E 22 also saved tree #155. Option D was closer to the trees along the playing field than Option E. 23 Commissioner Chang inquired what the distance is between the trees near the playing field and 24 Option D vs Option E. 25 Ms. Romanowsky mentioned even though Option D is larger, the garage still fell outside of the 26 Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) for the trees along the playing fields. 27 Mr. Woltag added Option E was 20-feet farther away from the TPZ than Option D. 28 Commissioner Chang mentioned tree #6 and tree #22 and inquired if Option D would be up 29 against their TPZ. 30 Mr. Woltag confirmed that is correct. 31 _______________________ 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 understood the parking hybrid option would still conform to less 1 GFA on the site than existing conditions. 2 Ms. French answered that is correct, for the above grade gross floor area. 3 Mr. Yang mentioned there is a question about what gets counted as GFA and if the hybrid 4 option exceeds 50% parking spaces, the below grade garage would be counted as GFA. Then 5 the hybrid would not supply more above grade GFA, but if Council sticks with will supply more 6 GFA which may pass existing conditions. 7 Commissioner Roohparvar inquired if the hybrid option exceeded the Council’s direction of 8 having 50 percent of the parking underground. 9 Ms. French articulated Option D had 69 spaces below-grade of the 104 total required spaces. 10 Option E had 52 spaces below grade and Option E met the Council’s direction that no more 11 than 50 percent of the required spaces shall be below grade. 12 Chair Lauing wanted to know which option Staff supported. 13 Ms. French confirmed Staff supported Parking Option E because it met the Council’s directive to 14 only put 50% of the required spaces below grade. 15 Mr. Yang expressed that Option E saved more trees compared to Option D, and Option E had 16 the same tree protections as the hybrid option. 17 Chair Lauing invited the Chair of the ARB to explain why the ARB felt a hybrid option should be 18 created. 19 Ms. Thompson stated the ARB recognized Option D underground did not appear to affect the 20 trees and therefore favored the underground portion of Option D over Option E because they 21 took to heart that the Comprehensive Plan advocates for more parking to be below grade, but 22 wanted to merge it with the tree-protective aspect of Option E. 23 Chair Lauing asked if there is a risk of queuing if the drop-off is done inside the garage. 24 Ms. Romanowsky clarified Project Alternative Four used a distributed drop-off with drops inside 25 the garage as well as at strategic locations around campus. The alternative was studied and was 26 deemed environmentally superior due to its less than significant impact on queuing. 27 Ms. Thompson noted the Kellogg driveway would have drop offs. 28 _______________________ 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. French highlighted that Kellogg Avenue circular driveway would receive 30 percent of drop-1 offs in the morning, Bryant Street circular driveway would receive 32 percent of morning drop-2 offs and the parking garage driveways would receive 38 percent of the morning drop-offs. 3 Commissioner Chang inquired if the ARB’s recommendation regarding changes to the façade 4 along Kellogg Avenue changed the GFA for the project. 5 Ms. Thompson mentioned the changes proposed pertained to glazing which doesn’t effect GFA, 6 as well as retaining the trellis and the planter. 7 Ms. French confirmed there would be no volumetric difference regarding the proposed height 8 change by ARB. 9 Ms. Romanowsky stated there would be no GFA change. 10 Chair Lauing asked what measures can be implemented if the TDM fails. 11 Kathy Layendecker, Associate Head of School for Castilleja, articulated many elements can be 12 changed if trip caps are exceeded, such as more shuttles, and off-site parking facilities. 13 Commissioner Chang highlighted there is a potential to lose Impact Fee revenue if the Text 14 Amendment is approved and she asked for a range of how much that would be? 15 Ms. Tanner mentioned Staff has not calculated the fees. 16 Ms. French clarified Impact Fees are calculated for additions of GFA and there was no new 17 above ground GFA proposed in the project. If the parking option D were to be counted 18 towards GFA then Staff would have to calculate the Impact Fee. 19 Commissioner Chang highlighted she wanted to understand the impact of the ordinance if 20 approved on revenue to the City. She requested that information be presented at the next 21 meeting. 22 Ms. Tanner cautioned about bringing back new information to the next meeting. 23 Ms. French stated if the ordinance is broadened, then it would affect more parcels seeking an 24 underground garage that go over the 50 percent of required parking underground in an R-1 25 Zone. Those parking garages would be counted towards GFA. 26 Commissioner Chang recalled enrollment increases were once proposed to be tied to the 27 construction schedule. She asked how does the construction schedule overlay with enrollment 28 increases? She predicted that increased enrollment and construction trips would push the 29 school over its trip cap. 30 _______________________ 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. French confirmed the original proposal did have enrollment increases tied to milestones of 1 construction. Council later approved Castilleja to go to 450 students after the CUP is approved. 2 Commissioner Chang asked how were the TDM monitoring timeframes chosen. 3 Ms. French encouraged Commissioner Chang to reference Condition of Approval #23 which 4 included specificity regarding the timeframes. 5 Mr. Yang predicted that $320,000 would be lost in Impact Fees if the garage is not counted 6 against GFA. 7 Commissioner Templeton inquired if Impact Fees should be discussed at this time. 8 Mr. Yang understood Commissioner Chang’s questions regarding Impact Fees related to her 9 consideration of the Text Amendment. 10 Commissioner Templeton understood if the Text Amendment is broadly applied then the PTC 11 can consider the general impact on the City. She encouraged Staff to interject if the 12 Commission goes outside of scope. 13 Commissioner Roohparvar asked if below-grade parking facility is defined elsewhere in the 14 Code. 15 Mr. Yang stated below-grade parking facility is not defined independently. The Code does 16 define at-grade and below-grade and also defines parking facility. 17 Commissioner Roohparvar requested a summary slide that highlighted the focus areas for the 18 next meeting. 19 Mr. Yang affirmed Staff has a summary slide. 20 Chair Lauing invited members of the public to provide their comments. He noted individual 21 speakers will have 3-minutes to speak and groups will have 10-minutes to speak. 22 Bill Burch, who represented a group of five people, spoke in support of Castilleja’s proposed 23 project. Castilleja is only a few years younger than the City of Palo Alto and its campus has been 24 frozen in time. Other schools in the City have been allowed to update their facilities as well as 25 many homes. He supported Castilleja’s efforts to become a more environmentally sustainable 26 facility. The proposed changes decreased the size of the school and mitigated the school's 27 impacts on the neighborhoods as well as the environment. Since 2013, the school has reduced 28 daily car trips by 31 percent and will be required to remain at the reduced level for the future 29 no matter how many students are added. Also, Castilleja has reduced the number of special 30 events by 30 percent, limited hours of operations and worked under a very restrictive CUP. 31 _______________________ 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. Regarding the scale, activities are drawn into the center of the campus and buildings are pulled 1 away from neighboring homes. Rooflines are lower and keep the scale and shape of the 2 neighboring homes. Regarding GFA, the proposal includes smaller structures than existing and 3 fell below the current permits. The school pre-dated zoning, current residents and was 4 requesting to change, not grow. He mentioned Council directed PTC to find a path for 5 enrollment increases from 450 to 540. Not to deliberate a different number and/or create a 6 new process for applying for a CUP amendment for every enrollment increase. The 7 accountability measures for enrollment were built into the Conditions of Approval and CUPs 8 should not become annual processes. He urged the PTC to support the project. 9 Jeff Levinsky, who presented a group of five people, explained Council directed Staff and PTC to 10 consider exempting a specific size of the underground garage from GFA or to consider more 11 GFA. He mentioned per his calculation, the Impact Fee amount presented by Mr. Yang was very 12 low and requested Staff provide a breakdown of how that amount was calculated. With respect 13 to the Variance, he mentioned a Variance is only required for special circumstances. In the Staff 14 report, Staff referred to Castilleja as being an R-1 (10,000) Zone when it is located in the R-1 15 Zone. If approved, Castilleja would be allowed to build more floor areas than other R-1 lots. 16 Castilleja requested a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.48 but 0.48 FAR did not qualify for a Variance 17 because no other property is allowed that amount in an R-1 Zone. The Code also expressly 18 excluded personal circumstances of the property owner which disqualified it from the Variance. 19 Also, the Code stated that any changes in size or shape of the subject property should be 20 excluded from the Variance process. Castilleja increased their property size in the year 1992. 21 Special privileges are not allowed per the Code and Castilleja was requesting a FAR of .048 22 when many surrounding properties were subject to 0.45 FAR. The Variance should not be 23 approved for those detailed reasons. He expressed confusion about the sentence in the ARB 24 Staff report that pool equipment would be in an area below grade under a portion of the 25 bleachers. There has been no discussion of bleachers above ground and the noise impacts they 26 will have on the neighborhood. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not consider above-27 ground bleachers and it stated that loudspeakers at the pool would be evaluated after the CUP 28 has been granted per Mitigation Measure (MM) 8A. He suggested the proposal clarify where 29 the bleachers will be located. Also, to fix MM 8A to study the combination of the loudspeakers 30 and the noise from the bleachers and pool. He recommended changing the CUP language 31 regarding the pool noise and that monitoring begin on the day the pool opens. 32 Mary Sylvester, who spoke on behalf of five people, shared she is a neighbor near Castilleja and 33 was concerned about the proposed project. She indicated the project proposed 50,000 square 34 feet over what was allowed per the Municipal Code. The proposed pool posed a threat to Palo 35 Alto’s groundwater. None of the proposed parking options were ideal for the neighborhood. 36 The underground garage will greatly impact the environment by removing the soil, disrupting 37 the groundwater and having tons of cement, producing Greenhouse Gas emissions, to be 38 poured into the ground. The traffic plan as proposed by Castilleja did not have a net-zero 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. carbon impact as it will increase car trips to the school. She shared that the existing campus’s 1 GFA was not accurately counted and was currently over the limit of allowable GFA as outlined 2 in the Dudek report. With respect to enrollment, the school has a history of violating 3 enrollment caps. She recommended Castilleja be held to 450 students for some time to 4 demonstrate they can follow the law. The neighbors have had to struggle with Castilleja and 5 City Staff to save tree #89 and the grove of redwood trees. 6 Andie Reed, representing PNQLnow.org and a group of five people, shared she is a neighbor 7 near Castilleja. She stated PNQL supports the school’s effort to modernize its campus but within 8 Code and within reason. Neighbors have not been included in the process at all. Comments 9 made by the neighbors are never addressed and the CUP included conditions that benefited 10 Castilleja and not the neighbors. Many neighbors came together to discuss and draft their own 11 CUP for the project. This was presented to City Staff in August of 2019 and planning Staff never 12 responded nor included neighbors in the drafting of the proposed CUP. She expressed again 13 that the neighbors reported the school to the City for over-enrollment, not Castilleja self-14 reporting it. With respect to special events, neighbors have complained about events at the 15 school. Staff has never asked neighbors about their experiences with events and how events 16 impact them. She could not support allowing Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to use 17 Castilleja’s campus and not have those occurrences count towards events. She pointed out 18 TMD #20 which stated that the TDM will be finalized 60-days after Council approval. She 19 requested that the TDM be finalized before the item goes to Council. She highlighted that the 20 comparable schools listed in the Staff report were not apples-to-apples comparisons. Castilleja 21 is far denser than other schools within the City. 22 Neva Yarkin, a neighbor of Castilleja, believed that increasing enrollment to 540 would lead to 23 more traffic congestion in the area because many of the students come from outside of Palo 24 Alto. She urged PTC to limit the expansion of Castilleja School. 25 Hank Sousa understood that the existing 89 parking spaces are enough to allow Castilleja to 26 increase enrollment without building an underground garage. He recommended leaving the 27 pool where it currently was, Castilleja retain the existing parking and modernize the buildings 28 with no underground garage. 29 Rob Levitsky, the homeowner of a property adjacent to Castilleja, was disappointed to hear that 30 the Urban Forestry Department was not represented at the meeting. He confirmed the Urban 31 Forestry Department has approved Option E for the underground parking garage to protect the 32 trees. Tree roots go where the water is and where not contained in the circle outlined on the 33 plans. He expressed concern about the impacts of having underground classrooms with no 34 access to light and air. An ARB Member remarked that he did not support having skylights be 35 the source of light in the underground classrooms. 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. Rebecca Eisenberg urged PTC to deny the project and use City and Staff resources for other 1 projects greatly needed in the City. She noted that the Municipal Code stated that CUPs cannot 2 be granted if the applicant will result in potential harm to the health, safety or convenience of 3 the vicinity. 4 Lorranie Brown emphasized the application is a campus modernization, not an expansion. It 5 was inaccurate to state that the existing school was over its allowable square footage when the 6 school operated under a CUP. Castilleja's existing FAR was 0.51 and the proposed FAR was 0.48. 7 She mentioned that the enrollment of 540 students was contingent upon the school being 8 successful with its TDM. She urged PTC to make a final decision and approve the project. 9 [The Commission took a short break] 10 Jochen Profit reminded the Commission that 540 students was not just a number but individual 11 women seeking an education. The school will only be allowed to enroll 540 students if the 12 school can successfully implement its TDM plan and keep car trips under the cap. He did not 13 support a process where the school would return each year for a CUP amendment to increase 14 enrollment. 15 Roger L. McCarthy, who spoke on behalf of a group of five people, supported Castilleja’s 16 proposal and urged PTC to approve it as expeditiously as possible the proposal. Through the 17 long and drawn-out process, many young women have missed the opportunity to receive an 18 education from the school. He mentioned he had no connection with Castilleja and his interest 19 in the school was to promote more women to go into the science, technology, engineering and 20 math (STEM) fields. Many studies have concluded that young women can develop and grow 21 leadership skills faster in an all-girls school environment. Castilleja can play a role in educating 22 more girls to help increase the presence of women in the drastically overpopulated male STEM 23 fields. Castilleja’s project has been delayed every time they reach a compromise with the 24 neighbors and the City. He agreed that the school must remain under the trip count cap to 25 increase enrollment to 540 students. He highlighted that PTC already once recommended 26 approval of the underground garage and the Council denied the approval. This action delayed 27 the project once again. With respect to square footage, the City has done its diligence to count 28 exactly what the existing square footage is on the parcels. The new arguments about square 29 footage were another tactic to delay the project yet again. He summarized the underground 30 garage is permitted under the current Municipal Code, the new building’s square footage is 31 below the allowable GFA and enrollment was contingent upon strict traffic limits. 32 Stewart Raphael expressed frustration that the enrollment increases were still being discussed. 33 The school has proven over several years that it has been successful in reducing car trips to 34 campus with its existing TDM plan. He pointed out the EIR assessed traffic and found there will 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. be no negative impacts on traffic related to the underground garage as long as there is a 1 distributed drop-off/pick-up plan. 2 Priya Chandrasekar commented that because Palo Alto is at the epicenter of innovation, the 3 City should shepherd all forms of education in the Community. She commented that a small 4 group of residents are opposing the project and they should not stand in the way of educating 5 more women for the future. She encouraged a collaborative approach to make the community 6 stronger and thrive. 7 Jason Stinson found asking any school to reduce its event is detrimental to the student 8 wellbeing and positive student outcomes. The COVID-19 Pandemic highlighted this and showed 9 that teens and young adults need these experiences. He mentioned the many benefits the 10 project will have for students, the neighborhood and the community. Building for the future 11 required compromise and Castilleja has compromised many times over the years. He 12 encouraged PTC to recommend approval of the project 13 Ms. Tanner inquired if the Chair was interested in closing the list for public comment. 14 Chair Lauing approved closing the list for public comment. 15 Ms. Tanner requested speakers to raise their hands and the list will be closed shortly. 16 Julia Ishiyama acknowledged that the Commission has heard from many of the public speakers 17 before and has received the same feedback again and again. Castilleja’s proposal abided by the 18 Comprehensive Plan, helped further the City’s sustainability goals, reduced car trips, 19 maintained the character of the neighborhood and will enrich the community. The proposal 20 also preserved existing landscaping and will plant 103 new trees. She supported and 21 encouraged PTC to again recommended the approval of the project to City Council. 22 Maya Blumenfeld supported the project and highlighted Castilleja’s commitment to TDM. The 23 underground garage will remove cars from the streets and view. 24 Kimberley Wong proclaimed that even after all the revisions to the plans, Castilleja was not 25 proposing a safe or environmentally friendly campus. The safety of students, Staff, residents 26 and neighbors still needed to be addressed. The underground garage posed huge 27 environmental concerns, cars coming across the bike lanes to exit the garage was a safety 28 concern, students walking under the sew line through a tunnel exposed them to environmental 29 hazards and underground classrooms to light and air would impact students' physical and 30 mental states. She requested the PTC recommend the project be tabled until the safety 31 concerns have been addressed. 32 _______________________ 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. Bill Ross aligned his comments with Mr. Levinsky’s comments with respect to Staff’s incomplete 1 analysis regarding the Variance. He believed there was no substantial evidence to support 2 granting the Variance and the Staff report did not explain how the specific standards of a 3 Variance are to be granted. He recommended the City provide an objective analysis of whether 4 the Variance standards have been met. 5 Susie Hwang, a former Castilleja parent and a neighbor of Castilleja, expressed her appreciation 6 for the school for its education and supported the application if it adheres to the same rules 7 that are applied to other applicants. She noted she did not support Castilleja’s requested 8 enrollment increase because the increase was inappropriate for a modest residential parcel. 9 She mentioned 1-year before Castilleja admitted being over-enrolled, parents often discussed 10 the violation. There is a lack of transparency between Castilleja’s Board and parents on 11 increased enrollment. 12 Bill King, spoke on behalf of a group of five people, shared he is a near neighbor to the school 13 and supported the project. He encouraged the PTC to support ARB’s proposal of the hybrid 14 option for the parking garage. Castilleja recently changed the proposal and reduced the square 15 footage so that it conformed with its current CUP. The new structures resemble the character 16 of the neighborhood and respect the setbacks. He agreed that the application contained a 17 lower FAR than the existing facility and he did not find the argument that the facility should 18 follow R-1 construction requirements applicable. He questioned why the City would apply R-1 19 residential zoning requirements to a structure that will improve the lives of many people. He 20 highlighted that there were no guarantees that the school will reach its desired enrollment of 21 540 students because it has to prove it can keep car trips down before increasing the student 22 body. 23 Kathleen Foley-Hughes hoped the PTC saw both the sincerity and teeth behind the MM. She 24 agreed the school will have to prove that it can limit car trips before it is allowed to increase 25 enrollment. The Comprehensive Plan encouraged TDM Plans and collaborative efforts between 26 applicants and the City. The proposed parking structure was such collaboration and followed 27 the Comprehensive Plan. 28 Lian Bi supported a parking option that moved more cars below grade and away from the bike 29 boulevard. She encouraged the PTC to recommend the hybrid parking option to Council for 30 consideration. 31 Tony Hughes remarked that change, development and growth are not always bad. Castilleja 32 creates benefits for the City and young women. He supported the project as presented. 33 Roy Maydan requested PTC support Castilleja’s project. He supported the hybrid option for the 34 parking garage as well as the pool location recommended by the ARB. 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. Alan Cooper shared that as a neighbor to the school he has witnessed impacts from daily traffic, 1 dense neighborhood parking and school-related noise. He recommended PTC expand the TDM 2 to include vehicles providing services to the school and modify the CUP to limit activities. He 3 was concerned about how traffic will be measured during construction. He requested 4 enrollment not be increased until construction is completed. 5 Ms. Klicheva announced there were no more public speakers. 6 Chair Lauing thanked all of the public speakers for their comments. He invited the application to 7 provide their rebuttal. 8 Ms. Romanowsky emphasized that the findings for both the Variance and the CUP are well 9 documented and supported by substantial evidence. If approved, the proposal will bring the 10 school into further compliance with the Municipal Code. With respect to the pool and noise, 11 the noise was studied and a mitigation measure has been put in place to reduce noise to less 12 than significant. With respect to Impact Fees, per Council’s motion Impact Fees would not be 13 charged because there was no new GFA if it is less than 50 percent. She reminded the 14 Commission that the project was a product of compromise between the neighbors, City and 15 Castilleja. 16 MOTION 17 Commissioner Hechtman moved to continue the item to a date certain of April 20, 2022 and to 18 pick up the topic with Commission deliberation. 19 SECOND 20 Commissioner Chang seconded. 21 VOTE 22 Ms. Klicheva conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion passed 5-0 with 23 Commissioner Reckdahl recused and Vice-Chair Summa absent. 24 MOTION PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0 -1(Summa absent) -25 1(Reckdahl recused) 26 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Motion Passed 5-0 (Reckdahl 27 recused) (Summa absent) 28 5. PUBLIC HEARING / LEGISLATIVE. Recommendation of an Ordinance Amending Title 29 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.16 30 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.18 31 _______________________ 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. (Downtown Commercial (CD) Districts) and 18.30 (A) and (C) – the Retail and Ground 1 Floor Combining Districts to Update Definitions, Broaden Permissible Uses, Limit 2 Certain Uses and Update Thresholds for Conditional Use Permits for Some Land Uses 3 Throughout the City. Environmental Review: CEQA Exemption 15061(b)(3) 4 Chair Lauing predicted the item will be complicated and Council did not provide clear direction 5 on what they were asking PTC to review. He invited the Staff to make their presentation. 6 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, mentioned the item was on a tight timeline but the 7 Commission could continue the item to their April 27, 2022 meeting. 8 Sheldon Ah Sing, Planner, report Staff recommended the Commission recommend to Council to 9 adopt the ordinance amending the Zoning Code for certain retail use definitions, limiting 10 certain uses and relaxing conditional use thresholds for certain uses. To address the vacancies 11 that were seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Staff was directed to return to Council with 12 a temporary ordinance to help streamline the approval process for specific uses. Staff 13 presented a temporary ordinance to Council who expressed concerns about the proposal. The 14 Council directed Staff to explore six motion items on March of 2021. By April of 2021, all of the 15 actions were incorporated into the adopted temporary ordinance. The temporary ordinance 16 included definition changes and changes to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) thresholds. With 17 respect to the draft ordinance, Staff recommended maintaining the substantive changes from 18 the temporary ordinance as well as changing the eating and drinking establishment definition 19 to restaurant. Also, retain the CUP threshold regulated in different sections and maintain the 20 prohibition of nail salons and beauty shops on California Avenue. Staff suggested PTC 21 recommend that Council consider reducing the parking requirements for restaurants in the 22 future due to take-out becoming a more popular option than dining in. Regarding CUP 23 thresholds, Staff suggested moving regulations and standards from footnotes to applicable 24 sections. Regarding fitness studios and commercial recreation occupancy, Staff recommended 25 maintaining the threshold as the best way to define the occupancy and have a max square 26 footage threshold of 5,000-square feet before a CUP is required. With respect to beauty shops 27 being prohibited on California Avenue, all existing nail salons would be considered a 28 nonconforming use subject to Municipal Code Chapter 18.70. Staff conducted public outreach 29 through conversations with property owners, email blasts, newspaper advertisements and 30 notifications to property owners. Staff will present the item to Council on May 2, 2022 and 31 predicted the ordinance will be adopted and in effect by June 15, 2022. 32 Commissioner Reckdahl commented Council’s list of items they requested PTC to explore 33 further is very detailed and may take a substantial amount of time to discuss. He did not object 34 to providing an ordinance that duplicated the temporary ordinance. 35 Commissioner Chang inquired why the ordinance was temporary in the first place. 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. Ms. Tanner clarified the ordinance is considered temporary until it is heard by the PTC. 1 Temporary ordinances normally did not have timeframes but this specific one did. 2 Commissioner Chang remarked it did not make sense to take a temporary ordinance and make 3 it permanent without knowing if the ordinance was right. 4 Ms. Tanner believed the PTC could recommend to Council that they extend the temporary 5 ordinance to allow for additional time for applicants to come forward. 6 Commissioner Chang agreed to allow for more data and also, address the issues in concert with 7 the work of the new retail-focused Staffing positions coming online. 8 Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, agreed the PTC can make the recommendation to Council 9 to extend the temporary ordinance. 10 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to understand the timing if PTC does not recommend Council 11 extend the temporary ordinance. 12 Ms. Tanner confirmed if the item was continued to the April 27, 2022 PTC meeting. The item 13 would not be presented to Council at their May 2, 2022 meeting. With that scenario, there was 14 a possibility of there being a gap between the temporary ordinance expiring and the permanent 15 ordinance coming online. 16 Chair Lauing mentioned another option was to have a subcommittee work with Staff on the 17 ordinance in parallel and then bring that work back to the Commission for discussion at the 18 April 27, 2022 PTC meeting. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl found Chair Lauing’s proposal to be optimistic. 20 Commissioner Hechtman agreed with Commissioner Chang that the Commission should have a 21 thorough discussion of the permanent ordinance. He expressed concern about recommending 22 extending the temporary ordinance and Council not agreeing to extend it. Then there is a risk of 23 no decision being made in time and the temporary ordinance expires with no new ordinance in 24 place. He asked if Staff could explore if Council would consider extending the temporary 25 ordinance to allow more time. 26 Chair Lauing agreed and mentioned he could discuss the topic with the Mayor. He reiterated he 27 does not understand what Council was asking PTC to consider. 28 Ms. Tanner added she can talk with the City Manager to understand what Council may think of 29 extending the temporary ordinance. 30 Chair Lauing invited members of the public to provide comments on the item. 31 _______________________ 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. Charlie Weidanz, CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged that the business 1 community in Palo Alto had been struggling since the pandemic hit. The Council had economic 2 recovery as a priority for the year 2022. The City needed to develop policies that created a 3 vibrant downtown that retained and attracted employers and employees. The Chamber of 4 Commerce requested the PTC prioritize a review of the entire Retail Zoning Ordinance with the 5 goal to remove all impediments. 6 Chair Lauing suggested the Commission postpone the item to a date uncertain to allow for time 7 to gauge the temperature of the Council. 8 Ms. Tanner inquired if Council could extend the ordinance without a recommendation from 9 PTC. 10 Mr. Yang answered yes, the Council can extend the temporary ordinance. 11 Commissioner Hechtman inquired what information Staff was able to understand from the 12 discussions with stakeholders. 13 Ms. Tanner explained at the time, the discussions focused on helping retailers stay in business. 14 She agreed it would be beneficial to have further discussions with stakeholders to understand 15 their situations now. 16 MOTION 17 Chair Lauing moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow for time to consult with 18 the City Manager and Mayor. 19 SECOND and VOTE 20 Commissioner Chang seconded. 21 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 22 passed 6-0. 23 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0- 1(Summa 24 absent) 25 Commission Action: Motion by Chair Lauing, seconded by Chang. Motion passed 6-0 (Summa 26 absent) 27 Approval of Minutes 28 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 29 _______________________ 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. 6. December 15, 2021 Draft Verbatim Meeting Minutes 1 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, noted Commissioner Roohparvar was absent from 2 the meeting. 3 MOTION 4 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the December 15, 2021 verbatim meeting minutes 5 as revised. 6 SECOND 7 Chair Lauing seconded. 8 VOTE 9 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 10 carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Reckdahl and Commissioner Roohparvar abstaining and Vice-11 Chair Summa absent. 12 MOTION PASSED 4(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Templeton) -0-1(Reckdahl and Roohparvar 13 abstain)- 1 (Summa absent) - 14 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lauing. Motion Passed 4-0-2-1 15 (Reckdahl and Roohparvar abstain) (Summa absent) 16 7. January 12, 2022 Draft Meeting Minutes 17 Commissioner Hechtman asked why the item was titled draft meeting minutes when it included 18 both verbatim and summary minutes. 19 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, clarified the December 15, 2021 summary minutes 20 had already been approved. 21 Commissioner Hechtman understood the January 12, 2022 and January 19, 2022 meeting 22 minutes included both summary and verbatim minutes. 23 Ms. Klicheva confirmed that is correct. 24 MOTION 25 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the January 12, 2022 draft meeting minutes both 26 verbatim and summary as revised. 27 _______________________ 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 Commissioner Roohparvar. 2 VOTE 3 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 4 carried 6-0 with Vice-Chair Summa absent. 5 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0-1 (Summa 6 absent) 7 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Roohparvar. Motion Passed 6-0 8 (Summa absent) 9 [The Commission moved to the January 26, 2022 draft minutes] 10 8. January 19, 2022 Draft Meeting Minutes 11 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, mentioned the January 19, 2022 meeting minutes 12 were included in a link in the Packet. Both summary and verbatim minutes were included. 13 MOTION 14 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the January 19, 2022 draft meeting minutes both 15 verbatim and summary as revised. 16 Ms. Klicheva reminded the Commission that Commissioner Reckdahl was recused from the 17 meeting. 18 SECOND 19 Commissioner Chang seconded. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl noted he was only recused for the Castilleja portion of the meeting. 21 Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, explained Commissioner Reckdahl did not have to abstain. 22 VOTE 23 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 24 carried 6-0 with Vice-Chair Summa absent. 25 _______________________ 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. MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0 -1 (Summa 1 absent) 2 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Motion Passed 5-0-1(Reckdahl 3 abstain) (Summa absent) 4 [The Commission moved to the February 9, 2022 draft minutes] 5 9. January 26, 2022 Draft Meeting Minutes 6 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, announced Commissioner Templeton was absent 7 from the meeting. 8 MOTION 9 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the January 26, 2022 draft meeting minutes both 10 verbatim and summary as revised. 11 SECOND 12 Commissioner Chang seconded. 13 VOTE 14 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 15 carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Templeton abstaining and Vice-Chair Summa absent. 16 MOTION PASSED 5(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar,) -0-1 (Templeton abstain) 17 -1 (Summa absent) 18 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Chang. Motion Passed 5-0 (Templeton 19 abstain) (Summa absent) 20 [The Commission moved back up to the January 19, 2022 draft minutes] 21 Commission Action: 22 10. February 9, 2022 Draft Verbatim Meeting Minutes 23 Commissioner Hechtman understood only verbatim minutes were available. 24 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant confirmed that is correct. 25 MOTION 26 _______________________ 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 Hechtman moved approval of the February 9, 2022 draft verbatim meeting 1 minutes as revised. 2 SECOND 3 Chair Lauing seconded. 4 VOTE 5 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 6 carried 6-0 with Vice-Chair Summa absent. 7 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0-1 (Summa 8 absent) 9 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lauing. Motion Passed 6-0 (Summa 10 absent) 11 Committee Items 12 Chair Lauing announced there are no Committee items. 13 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 14 Commissioner Hechtman commented that during Zoom meetings, it was nice to see how many 15 participants were attending the meeting and how many hands were raised for public comment. 16 He inquired if Staff could explore having that information on the screen for Commissioners 17 attending the meetings in person at City Hall to see. 18 Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director, confirmed Commissioners can bring laptops and sign in to 19 the meeting via Zoom. She noted she will check with the IT Department to see if an iPad can be 20 issued to Commissioners for meetings. 21 Chair Lauing announced the Mayor will be holding a Commissioner/Chair meeting on April 12, 22 2022. 23 Ms. Tanner announced April 9, 2022 will be the State of the City address. 24 Chair Lauing requested that the downtown in-lieu parking ban be removed from the agenda for 25 the April 20, 2022 meeting. 26 Ms. Tanner commented she would check with Staff to see if the item can be moved. 27 _______________________ 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 Lauing recommended canceling the July 27, 2022 meeting. 1 Commissioner Templeton suggested canceling the July 13, 2022 meeting as well. 2 Ms. Tanner confirmed that Council will also be on break for July. 3 Commissioner Hechtman supported canceling the meeting before or the meeting after the 4 canceled July 27, 2022 meeting. 5 Chair Lauing asked when school goes back into session. 6 Commissioner Roohparvar agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. 7 Ms. Tanner mentioned August 10th and 11th, 2022 were the first days of school. 8 Chair Lauing suggested canceling the July 27, 2022 meeting and then discussing later what 9 other meeting should be canceled. 10 Commissioner Templeton remarked the Commission has been flexible in its meeting schedule 11 to hold special meetings for urgent matters. 12 MOTION 13 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC canceled the scheduled meeting for July 27, 14 2022. 15 SECOND 16 Commissioner Chang seconded. 17 VOTE 18 Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion 19 carried 6-0 with Vice-Chair Summa absent. 20 MOTION PASSED 6(Chang, Hechtman, Lauing, Reckdahl, Roohparvar, Templeton) -0-1 (Summa 21 absent) 22 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Lauing. Motion Passed 6-0 (Summa 23 absent) 24 Chair Lauing adjourned the meeting. 25 _______________________ 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. Adjournment 1 11:00 2