Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-26 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: July 26, 2023 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:04 pm 7 Chair Summa called the meeting to order. 8 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, conducted the roll call and announced all 9 Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lu. 10 Oral Communications 11 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 12 Chair Summa invited members of the public to share comments they had with the Commission 13 for items not on the Agenda. 14 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, announced there were no public speakers 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 17 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, announced Staff had no Agenda changes. 18 [The Commission moved to Action Item 2] 19 City Official Reports 20 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, noted in the Packet was a list of items for the 22 upcoming meetings. The item titled Implementation of Housing Element Programs was to be 23 removed from the August 30, 2023 agenda and moved to September. Council was to return to 24 session on August 7, 2023 where they would discuss the Castilleja School final Traffic Demand 25 Management (TDM) Plan. 26 Rafael Rius, Senior Transportation Engineer, shared that the Bicycle and Pedestrian 27 Transportation Plan Update was underway and the Planning and Transportation Commission 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. (PTC) was to be a key stakeholder in the process. Staff anticipated the project would take 1 between 18 to 24 months. With respect to the Alma/Churchill Intersection and Railroad 2 Crossing Improvement Project, the project was moved to Public Works which would soon begin 3 construction of the project. 4 [The Commission continued Action Item 2] 5 Action Items 6 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 7 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 8 2. 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: 9 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Development Agreement, 10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning to Planned Community Zones, and a 11 Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions to the Private Street Width to Allow 12 Redevelopment of a 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park 13 Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. Environmental Assessment: A 14 Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated 15 September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available 16 for Public Review on May 15, 2023. A Revised Final EIR was Made Available for Public 17 Review on June 2, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement and Associated 18 Actions is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-19 Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact 20 the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 21 Chair Summa informed that Commissioner Hechtman would be leaving the meeting for a brief 22 time but would return. She invited the Commissioners to share any disclosures they had. 23 Commissioner Templeton, Vice-Chair Chang, Chair Summa and Commissioner Akin had no 24 disclosers. 25 Commissioner Hechtman shared he watched the video of the July 12, 2023 meeting. 26 Commissioner Reckdahl echoed he also watched the video. 27 [The Commission moved up to Item 1, Director’s reports] 28 Chair Summa indicated no public hearing would be held because of the hearing of a 29 continuation. She invited Commissioners to ask clarifying questions of Staff. 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. Commissioner Reckdahl noticed the Tolling Agreement indicated that Concept 3 for 1 naturalization of the creek may not be possible. He inquired why the parking prevented the 2 naturalization of the creek. 3 Mr. Albert Yang, City Attorney, answered the applicant felt the parking spaces were necessary 4 to properly park the structure because the parking across the creek was not a reasonable 5 feasible use. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if Concept 3 for the nebulization went outside of the easement. 7 Mr. Yang confessed he was not familiar with the details of the various concepts. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the Audi building could be used for mixed-use and if so, would 9 the Planned Community (PC) have to be reopened. 10 Ms. Claire Raybould, Planner, believed the applicant would have to submit an updated plan for 11 the ordinance. 12 Mr. Yang concurred each PC incorporated the Development Plan and any changes would 13 require a change to the PC. 14 Commissioner Reckdahl understood the process the PC would come to the PTC, Architectural 15 Review Board (ARB) and the Council. 16 Mr. Yang clarified minor changes would not go through the whole process but major changes 17 would go before the PTC, ARB, back to PTC and then the Council. 18 Ms. Raybould noted that multi-family residential was an allowed use for the Audi site. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl asked who decided if a structure should be on the State or Federal 20 Register of Historic Resources and what was the pros and cons of being on the list. 21 Ms. JulieAnn Murphy, historical consultant, explained the California Register of Historic 22 Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. If a property is selected to be placed on 23 the National Register, that structure would automatically be listed in the California Register. If 24 found appropriate, a nomination would be prepared. That would then be reviewed and 25 approved by a State body. 26 Commissioner Reckdahl asked where the pros and cons of being on the list. 27 Ms. Murphy mentioned the registers were largely honorific, but the control came from the local 28 level. The local government may require additional review but also local benefits such as being 29 able to use the Historical Building Code. 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. Raybould added that a substantial renovation or demolition of a historic structure would 1 have to follow a similar process as the proposed project. A potentially eligible and designated 2 property would be protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 3 Council would have to make findings for Overriding Consideration. 4 Commissioner Reckdahl stated the step that had the biggest impact on a property owner of a 5 historic structure would be a local designation because that controlled the zoning. 6 Ms. Raybould clarified it came down to the local level in terms of what was in the Zoning Code 7 about what resources are protected. 8 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, mentioned Title 16.49, the Building Code, addressed 9 any Category 1 or 2 local historic inventory that was outside of the downtown area. 10 Commissioner Reckdahl queried how many historic buildings Palo Alto had. 11 Ms. French approximated that over 160 were labeled as eligible resources with many listed as 12 historical on the local registry. 13 Chair Summa clarified what was controlled by the historic designation was the exterior of a 14 structure. It did not prevent any changes to the interior. 15 Ms. French noted that was true for single-family homes, but that did not apply to public 16 buildings. 17 Chair Summa asked if regulation over the interior applied to many buildings or if was it for 18 special cases. 19 Ms. Raybould commented there were character-defining features on the interior of the 20 Cannery building. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards addressed the elements of a building 21 as a whole and not as individual pieces. 22 Chair Summa believed that applied to the ARB’s discussion of wanting more visibility to the 23 trusses and the monitor roof. 24 Vice-Chair Chang understood a registered historic structure could use the Historical Building 25 Code. 26 Ms. French confirmed that was correct. 27 Vice-Chair Chang recalled the proposed project was included as a Housing Element Pipeline 28 Project with 91 townhomes. She asked what penalties were there if those 91 housing units 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. (units) were not built during the 8-year timeframe. She acknowledged that the project had 1 been reduced and the Development Agreement included 74 units. 2 Ms. Raybould shared that the Housing Element only claimed 74 units in the pipeline because 3 there were two projects, the proposed and the original Senate Bill (SB) 330 project, at the same 4 time. 5 Ms. French added generally, if units are not constructed then the City would use the buffer 6 units listed in the Housing Element. 7 Ms. Raybould clarified the Housing Element claimed 59 units as an opportunity site for the 8 dedicated affordable housing sites, but the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did analyze up to 9 75 units. 10 Commissioner Reckdahl commented that the Housing Element covered the whole City but any 11 underdeveloped property listed in the Housing Element would require the City to transfer in 12 units from the buffer. There were no penalties for doing that. 13 Mr. Yang echoed Commissioner Reckdahl and Ms. French’s comments. 14 Chair Summa commented the site being discussed was labeled as 91 units in the pipeline 15 category on the interactive map. 16 Mr. Yang said the map had stopped being updated 6 months ago and the adopted Housing 17 Element had 74 units. 18 Commissioner Akin recalled there were constraints on the site that had to be rolled over to a 19 future Housing Element. 20 Mr. Yang clarified a site identified for lower-income housing that was being proposed to be 21 reused for lower-income housing. The site would have to be rezoned to permit that type of 22 housing by right at specific minimum densities. 23 Chair Summa stated by right meant no local Development Standards but that only applied to 24 affordable housing projects. 25 Mr. Yang believed it applied to projects that provided a specific percentage of lower-income 26 housing. By right did not mean there were no local Development Standards but rather there 27 was no Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement. 28 Chair Summa requested Staff provide additional clarity on that subject either during the 29 meeting or offline. She acknowledged the process was usual because a Development 30 Agreement was already in place and it was drafted in closed session with the City Council Ad 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. Hoc. That agreement was causing doubt on whether what was being proposed was the 1 absolute best use of the site. With that said, she shared she struggle with the amount of 2 housing being proposed and that it could have been more. With respect to the EIR, the 3 reasoning behind allowing residential units inside the Cannery building was not adequate 4 because the EIR considered 231 units which were not reasonable. She liked the idea mentioned 5 by the public about using the portion of the Cannery building proposed to be demolished to be 6 used for parking. That would eliminate the need for the proposed above-ground garage, which 7 the Comprehensive Plan did not prefer, and have less impact on the building. This idea was 8 dismissed because alterations would have to be made to the outside of the building, but the 9 Development Agreement proposed to demolish that portion anyway. Another point was the CS 10 (Service Commercial) Land Use was not appropriate for the site because it did not allow the site 11 to be restored to a neighborhood configuration; as envisioned by the community and the North 12 Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). She felt CN (Neighborhood Serving Commercial) 13 zoning could be more compatible with what was envisioned. The Development Agreement 14 acknowledged that market conditions would determine if the development of the townhomes 15 would come to fruition. With that said, if the Cannery were demolished, there would be plenty 16 of surface parking. She asked if the construction of the above-ground garage could be 17 postponed until the townhomes are built. She mentioned she had concerns about the project 18 being not in sync with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Cycle. She wanted to 19 better understand the rationale behind the ratios for office and retail square footage. Lastly, 20 she requested that the project use bird-safe glass. 21 Commissioner Akin supported the majority of Chair Summa’s comments and announced his 22 support of the recommendations made by the ARB and the Historic Resources Board (HRB). He 23 emphasized the community’s vision for the area was mixed-use and recommended a clear 24 statement of intent be drafted to guide future development in the area. The Staff Report 25 indicated that intention could be memorialized without impacting the proposed project. 26 Commissioner Reckdahl invited Staff to describe the ramifications between CN and CS. 27 Ms. Raybould explained the existing surrounding zoning was primarily CS and that zoning it 28 such would not create an island effect. CN was mainly used for areas along El Camino that had 29 retail as well as small commercial shopping centers. It intended to facilitate more 30 neighborhood-serving offices and it did not speak to research and development uses. 31 Commissioner Reckdahl questioned if it mattered what the underlying land use was if the 32 zoning was PC. 33 Ms. Raybould stated the underlying land use must be consistent with the zoning and the 34 existing Multi-Family Land Use designation did not comply with research and development and 35 office uses. 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. Vice-Chair Chang understood that because the site was being redeveloped, everything must be 1 brought into conformance. 2 Ms. Raybould said if the proposal was trying to legalize it through the Development Agreement 3 then the new legal complying use must align with the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Vice-Chair Chang asked if there was a way to leave it as a legal nonconforming use. 5 Mr. Yang believed that was possible in theory but believed the applicant would not be 6 supportive of that. The reason the City and the applicant discussed and drafted a Development 7 Agreement was because of the uncertainty around the legal non-conforming status of the 8 property. One reason to make them conforming uses was to eliminate the constraints placed 9 on non-conforming uses. 10 Commissioner Reckdahl stated he still did not understand the differences between CS and CN 11 and believed they both applied to the project. 12 Ms. Raybould remarked Staff could explore it further but the CN Land Use was less clear about 13 having research and development uses that were not neighborhood serving. Also, it was not 14 undesirable to have an island of one zone surrounded by a different zone. 15 Ms. French added that traditionally CN was associated with lower-density residential whereas 16 CS had higher density. 17 Chair Summa noted CS had Development Standards that were significantly more impactful and 18 CN zoning was more compatible to abut R-1 zones as well as it was more aligned with the goals 19 of the NVCAP. The overarching goal of the NVCAP was to produce a neighborhood with 20 neighborhood-serving businesses and provide housing. If zoned CN, future development 21 projects would align more with what was envisioned by the NVCAP than the CS zone. 22 Ms. Raybould corrected there was a difference between land use designation and zoning. 23 Chair Summa apologized and clarified that the CN Land Use Designation would provide a better 24 reflection of what was envisioned for the area. 25 Vice-Chair Chang echoed Commissioner Akin and Chair Summa’s comments regarding that land 26 use designation. She stated this was the biggest concern she had because for more than three 27 decades the community had voiced they wanted to see the area turned into multi-family 28 residential. Based on the Comprehensive Plan definition of CS, the land use was not consistent 29 with what was envisioned for the site. She acknowledged that the site abuts other CS zones, but 30 she did not believe the City should continue to extend the zoning into a neighborhood. Staff 31 indicated that they also considered the Mixed-Use Land Designation and the Mixed-Use 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. definition in the Comprehensive Plan to fit perfectly with the NVCAP vision. She asked why that 1 land use designation was not being recommended. If the rationale was due to Floor Area Ratio 2 (FAR), she invited Staff to explain that further because based on her calculation there was no 3 inconsistency. She stated the Mixed-Use Land Use was more aligned because of how the 4 Mixed-Use Land Use was used elsewhere in Palo Alto and its description. 5 Ms. Raybould concurred Staff considered Mixed-Use, but decided CS was more appropriate 6 because it aligned with the surrounding land use designations. Also, the Mixed-Use may apply 7 to the totality of the site, each parcel was being subdivided and would have different uses. 8 Vice-Chair Chang recalled the public park would have a different land use as well as the 9 townhome parcel. 10 Ms. Raybould confirmed that was correct, which bolstered the argument that mixed-use was 11 not happening on individual parcels. 12 Vice-Chair Chang stated because the Comprehensive Plan was a long-term planning document, 13 she wanted to see the land use align more with the vision of the NVCAP. The Development 14 Agreement was to sunset after 10 years and then the City could decide not to have an office on 15 the site. So, land use should align with the long-term planning vision instead of the short-term 16 vision. 17 Ms. Raybould reminded the whole neighbors were subject to be rezoned as part of the NVCAP 18 process. If after 10 years there was a different use proposed, a legislative action would have to 19 be submitted to change the PC zoning. In parallel a land use amendment could be submitted to 20 align that future project with the land use. 21 Vice-Chair Chang noted because memories are short and for over 30 years the citizens of Palo 22 Alto wanted to see the site developed into housing. Now was the time to codify a land use that 23 memorialized the vision of having more housing on the site. 24 Chair Summa reminded that Staff proposed to amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding “but 25 may exceed this threshold in a Planned Community zoned” and that same language was in the 26 CN Zone definition. 27 Commissioner Akin echoed Vice-Chair Chang’s comments. He referenced Packet Page 16 and 28 stated that the rationale to use CS designation because it aligned with the surrounding 29 designations was not the intention that the NVCAP or the Community had wanted. 30 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the discussion and appreciated that the Commission 31 wanted to be more in alignment with the NVCAP. She acknowledged that the NVCAP process 32 was fraught and there was no universal agreement. That may be the reason why Staff was not 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. trying to fully align with the NVCAP. She encouraged Staff to explain their rationale behind not 1 proposing to use the Mixed-Use Land Use Designation. The Commission was seeking a proposal 2 that made sense now and in the future. She also requested that Staff explain the NVCAP 3 timeline and how it correlated with the proposed project. 4 Ms. Raybould explained if the Development Agreement is approved, the NVCAP would have to 5 be realigned to accommodate the Development Agreement and its proposals. The 6 Development Agreement prohibited the City from changing the land use and the zoning for any 7 properties listed in the Development Agreement for 10 years. 8 Commissioner Templeton reiterated that the properties in question would remain in status for 9 10 years regardless of what is in the NVCAP. 10 Ms. Raybould confirmed that is correct but the City could rezone after the sunset of the 11 Development Agreement. If the City rezoned, the uses would become non-conforming and the 12 City would then have to begin an amortization process. 13 Commissioner Templeton asked why the Development Agreement was being proposed 14 separately from the NVCAP. She predicted the Development Agreement was already being 15 discussed and drafted before the NVCAP was considered. 16 Mr. Yang confirmed that was correct and the Development Agreement did not need to conform 17 to the NVCAP. 18 Commissioner Hechtman found the conversation odd in the context of the meeting. The 19 Commission was to consider a project that had been refined through many public hearings with 20 many Boards and Commissions. The conversation being held was a discussion about how to 21 align the parcels to the NVCAP in 10 years after the Development Agreement concludes. He 22 reminded the Commission that the NVCAP being considered by Council was not the plan the 23 Commission recommended to City Council a year and a half ago. Once the Development 24 Agreement concludes, the PC zoning will remain and if changed then there will again be legal 25 non-conforming uses on the parcels. He invited Mr. Yang to explain the amortization process 26 because it was not an easy solution to put into motion. After the conclusion of the 27 Development Agreement, the applicant will have a substantial investment in the properties and 28 may not want to change them. He believed now was the time to consider what future projects 29 and future scenarios there may be and align the land uses with those instead of the proposed 30 project. With that said, he encouraged the Commission to focus on the project before them and 31 consider how it will improve the area for the foreseeable future. 32 Ms. Raybould reminded the Commission that the NVCAP had not been adopted yet and the 33 project, nor the City, did not have the benefit of it for the majority of the deliberations of the 34 project. 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. Commissioner Hechtman announced he was leaving the meeting and left at 7:15 p.m. 1 Commissioner Templeton commented she understands Staff’s responses to Vice-Chair Chang’s 2 questions regarding land use. She found it frustrating but understood why Staff was looking at 3 the area parcel by parcel instead of as a whole. She encouraged Staff to consider future 4 planning for large areas as a whole instead of on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Planning on a parcel-5 by-parcel basis did not reflect the objectives and goals of what the community wanted to see 6 for an area as a whole. With respect to El Camino, she considered the proposed project to be in 7 proximity to El Camino Real and she invited Staff to provide more detail on why they believed 8 the land use should follow the land use of the surrounding sites. 9 Ms. Raybould explained Staff feels the Service Commercial Land Use Designation was where a 10 lot of the City’s mixed-use is located. The Comprehensive Plan referenced the South of Forest 11 Area (SOFA) area as being Mixed-Use but in fact, it was not designated as Mixed-Use and only a 12 handful of parcels in the City had the Mixed-Use designation. Ultimately, many of the existing 13 Mixed-Use designation areas were located in CS areas. The City wanted the CS designation to 14 be associated with higher-density housing with retail components. Lastly, the CS designation 15 spoke to the proposed uses on three of the parcels and the other land use designations being 16 discussed did not speak to the research and development or office use. She agreed the 17 definition for CS included car-oriented references and that aligned with folks who would have 18 to commute to the office or research and development uses. That did not preclude the City 19 from requiring a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan or that the parcels be transit-20 oriented. 21 Commissioner Templeton recalled the area in question was divided when Oregon Expressway 22 was redeveloped and a large parking structure was built off of California Avenue. For the area in 23 question, there was no parking structure open for general use and the proposed garage was 24 located in a less-than-desirable area. There were many places where a parking garage could be 25 built that would not require the Cannery building to be demolished. She asked Staff to 26 elaborate on why a parking garage is needed and why was it being proposed in the place it was 27 being proposed. 28 Ms. Raybould explained the City has parking requirements but those are flexible because of the 29 PC zoning. The developer has an interest in parking their site and that the parking be adequate 30 for their projects to reduce impacts to the residents. The site was underparked but was 31 consistent with parking requirements when Fry’s Electronics was using the space. 32 Commissioner Templeton noted the existing parking is not where the proposed parking garage 33 is to be built. 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. Ms. Raybould agreed and explained the parking was being moved from the City’s parcel that 1 will be turned into a park to the proposed location. If that did not happen then the parcel 2 would be significantly under-parked for commercial and retail uses. 3 Commissioner Templeton summarized the discussion as whether the parking should be placed 4 in a location where a park was proposed to be, or should a historical building be demolished to 5 accommodate it. 6 Ms. Raybould commented those were the current options. Council expressed they wanted to 7 see as much of the building retained and that the remaining portions align with the Secretary of 8 the Interior's Standards. Staff completed that analysis, but the analysis was irrelevant in terms 9 of CEQA because any major structural change would result in the analysis deeming the building 10 as non-conforming to the standards. With that said, the analysis did conclude that the parking 11 structure would not be inconsistent with the standards. 12 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the explanation and noted that Staff usually had a 13 perspective on elements that were not touched in the Packet. She asked if Staff and the 14 applicant discussed having an underground parking structure with a parking on top of it. 15 Ms. Raybould answered that was not discussed but for various reasons. Council had discussed 16 naturalizing the area and that was still being explored. The site is located within the California 17 Olive/Emerson Plumb which would cause the construction of a below-grade parking garage 18 very expensive. 19 Vice-Chair Chang pressed if Staff had found the FARs for the site. 20 Ms. Raybould shared that the Cannery had a FAR of .54 and that aligned with the Mixed-Use 21 FAR allowances. 22 Commissioner Hechtman returned to the meeting at 7:31 pm. 23 Vice-Chair Chang commented the reason to explore the land use of the area was because it was 24 included in the proposal and the Development Agreement. It was the Commission’s purview to 25 consider those pieces and discover the long-range implications. Though she could not speak to 26 the Development Agreement components, she wanted to ensure that unavoidable 27 consequences would not come to light in the future with respect to land use. She shared that in 28 premeeting she asked if the applicant had any perspective on what the land use should be and 29 Staff shared they did not have a specific perspective on the matter. The land use was something 30 that the community could decide on. 31 Chair Summa mentioned both CN and CS land uses included mixed-use, all commercial or all 32 residential but with different Development Standards. With that said, she did not see using a 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. CN Land Use Designation as being inconsistent because the land use was mixed along El Camino 1 Real. 2 Vice-Chair Chang understood there could be different zones on top of land use. 3 Mr. Yang confirmed that was correct and that was what was being proposed because each of 4 the parcels would have a PC Zone. 5 Vice-Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Hechtman that the applicant would be making a 6 financial investment into the property but the Playground Global portion would be not changed 7 as well as the Audi and Ash building. 8 Ms. Raybould confirmed that was correct. 9 Vice-Chair Chang predicted the bulk of their investment would be in the townhomes and the 10 parking structure. 11 Ms. Raybould added the applicant was also dedicating a parcel to the City and providing $5 12 million. 13 Mr. Tim Steele, Applicant, shared that the approximate amount for the first phase was $40 14 million and another $40 million for the townhomes. That did not include the values of the park 15 parcel dedication or the $5 million. 16 Chair Summa asked if the applicant had considered not building the garage until the 17 townhomes were built. 18 Mr. Steele answered the bulk of the Cannery was on one parcel and the Development 19 Agreement allowed the parcel to be subdivided into one parcel. Property lines had to have no 20 structures on them. Phase one included rehabilitating the Cannery, constructing the parking 21 structure and undergrounding the overhead high-voltage line. Once completed, a portion of the 22 Cannery building could be demolished and a Parcel Map would be recorded that creates the 23 dedication parcel for the City and the townhome parcel. 24 Commissioner Hechtman restated the Development Agreement did not include a mandate that 25 the townhomes be built which projected an assumption that they would not be built. He invited 26 the applicant to explain why that flexibility was needed. 27 Mr. Steele explained the land dedication is required to take place first before beginning 28 construction on the townhomes. That was a significant investment upfront and delayed the 29 construction of the townhomes for 2 years. Townhomes was a product that were in high 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. demand in any economy whereas apartments were very sensitive to the fluctuation of the 1 market. He could not comment on what the demand would be in 2 years. 2 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if Mr. Steele had seen a market that was not conducive to 3 residential development in 8 years. 4 Mr. Steele concurred he had not seen that. He predicted a group of townhomes would be built 5 to see how the market responded to them but the Development Agreement allowed all the 6 townhomes to be built within the 10 years. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl wanted to understand the demand for condominiums and/or flats. 8 Mr. Steele answered on an ownership basis developers had been avoiding products with higher 9 densities because of their litigious nature and resale value. The rental market was more 10 sensitive to interest rates and the cost of construction. 11 Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned the ARB suggested higher density instead of townhomes 12 and it appealed to have higher density due to the proximity to the train station. 13 Mr. Steele restated discussion about what should be built and how to build it had begun with 14 the City in 2011. Sobrato entitled the Mike’s Bike’s for rental but once the entitlement process 15 was complete, the rental market disintegrated and Sobrato was forced to seek out other 16 alternatives. 17 Commissioner Reckdahl asked even with four or five stories of apartments it was more 18 profitable to have townhouses. 19 Mr. Steele stated it was profitable versus not being profitable. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if there was any consideration to having the neighborhood-21 serving retail at the Audi building site. 22 Mr. Steele answered there was no support for retail services in the area of any scale. With 23 respect to parking, the parking was reduced to a size that Sobrato felt could accommodate the 24 various uses proposed but the existing parking was located within the Santa Clara Valley Water 25 District’s easement. He recalled the creek restoration scenarios pertained more to the Portage 26 side of the creek. 27 Commissioner Reckdahl believed that was correct. He reiterated that Sobrato was not 28 considering neighborhood businesses at the Audi building site. 29 Mr. Steele answered no. He noted the building was fairly new and there was no desire to tear it 30 down to accommodate residential on the top floors. 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 Reckdahl asked if Sobrato was worried about rents or vacancies for 1 neighborhoods serving commercial uses. 2 Mr. Steele answered vacancies were the number one concern, but ultimately both. 3 Commissioner Hechtman asked if the Development Agreement could be amended to allow 4 more density if the market was amendable. 5 Mr. Yang answered the Development Agreement could be amended anytime. 6 Vice-Chair Chang referenced Page 17 of the Staff Report and noted Staff predicated the 7 monetary value of the public benefits was $27 million. She asked if the current Palo Alto 8 Development Impact Fees were labeled August 22, 2022. 9 Mr. Yang confirmed that was what was in effect now. 10 Vice-Chair Chang asked if the SB 330 project would have been subject to those same Impact Fee 11 amounts. 12 Mr. Yang believed that was correct. 13 Vice-Chair Chang estimated it would have been a monetary value of $36 million without the 14 below-market-rate units. Sobrato would have to pay $10 million in housing if they paid in lieu 15 fees based on square footage and approximately $3.4 to $4 million in the park in lieu fees. 16 Subtract that out of the $36 million and the City would receive $22 million over and above the 17 fees Sobrato would have had to pay in a development. The City had a choice between the SB 18 330 project that provided 91 townhomes, 15 moderate affordability units, $4 million in park 19 fees and whether the research and development use would have been allowed to continue; or 20 the current Development Agreement with an additional $22 million. She acknowledged it was 21 hard to determine what the value was for allowing the continued use of research and 22 development and the value of 160,000 square feet of office. 23 Commissioner Hechtman remarked the Commission, the City Council and the residents were in 24 an unusual posture because of the idea that if the proposed Development Agreement project is 25 not approved. Sobrato will move forward with the more undesired SB 330 project. He found 26 that the process the Development Agreement project had gone through with the various 27 Boards and Commissions had done a good job of exploring how far the applicant was willing to 28 go before reverting to the SB 330 project. He commended the applicant for being flexible in the 29 process and incorporating the recommendations made by the various Boards and Commissions. 30 He acknowledged the frustration that the Development Agreement was drafted in closed 31 session but explained the purpose of the close session was to maximize the City’s leverage and 32 that was to the benefit of all parties involved. While he appreciated the letters from the public, 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. he confessed he would have appreciated the public understanding that the City was 1 constrained. He supported the applicant’s proposal for the Cannery buildings and he supported 2 forwarding the Staff recommendation. 3 Chair Summa appreciated the process as well as Sobrato’s donation of land to the City. From 4 her understanding, the public was frustrated that the land use was not discussed in a public 5 hearing. She reiterated that there was not enough exploration on reusing the Cannery building 6 as a whole and that fell on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Cannery building was 7 not only a historic resource but a cultural resource. She was hopeful that the Council would 8 continue to refine the Development Agreement during their discussion. 9 Vice-Chair Chang agreed that the EIR was inadequate in that it did not do an apples-to-apples 10 comparison between adaptive reuse for the Cannery that included housing and the 91 or 74 11 townhomes; or retail, office, or parking adaptive reuse that did not demolish the building. She 12 recommended that Staff bolster the EIR to cover all the bases. With respect to the land use 13 designation, she supported Mixed-Use or CN. 14 Commissioner Hechtman announced he was ready to make a motion. 15 Commissioner Akin suggested the Commission have two motions, one for land use and one for 16 the remaining elements. 17 Commissioner Hechtman was amendable to that suggestion. He requested Staff clarify land use 18 designation and zoning. 19 Chair Summa confirmed there were both CN and CS Land Use Designations and CN and CS 20 zones. 21 Mr. Yang clarified when Commissioners are talking about land use, they are referring to the 22 Comprehensive Plan land use designations. 23 Chair Summa added the zoning proposed was PC and Multi-Family Residential. 24 Commissioner Hechtman asked if there was based zoning under the PC zoning. 25 Mr. Yang answered no, the Commission was tasked to determine what land use designation 26 listed in the Comprehensive Plan should be used for the site. 27 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if that issue was incorporated in all four bullets of the Staff 28 recommendation. 29 Mr. Yang believed the land use designation could be separated. 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. Commissioner Hechtman recommended the land use designation be determined first. 1 MOTION #1 2 Vice-Chair Chang moved that instead of the CS Land Use, use a Mixed-Use Land Designation as 3 specified on Page 33 of the current Comprehensive Plan, but modify the language of the 4 description of Mixed-Use such that it said “FARs between 0.15 and 1.5 may be used for 5 residential purposes” be changed to say “that up to 100 percent of FAR may be used for 6 residential purposes in a Planned Community Zone”. That would allow flexibility in a PC to limit 7 it to PCs. 8 Chair Summa inquired if Vice-Chair Chang wanted the motion to be limited to Mixed-Use and 9 not include CN. 10 Vice-Chair Chang confirmed that was correct. She inquired if Staff had any concerns with the 11 FAR limitations. 12 Ms. Raybould noted the townhome developed exceeded the FAR. 13 Vice-Chair Chang remarked that was not a problem because FAR above 1.15 could be used for 14 residential purposes. 15 Commissioner Templeton commented the motion was confusing when read out of context of 16 the entire definition of Mixed-Use. 17 MOTION #1 AMENDED 18 Vice-Chair Chang amended the motion to say instead of the CS Land Use, use a Mixed-Use Land 19 Designation as specified on Page 33 of the current Comprehensive Plan, but modify the 20 language of the description of Mixed-Use such that were it says “FARs between 0.15 and 1.5 21 may be used for residential purposes” be changed to “that up to 100 percent of FAR may be 22 used for residential purposes in a Planned Community Zone” and all other texts remain the 23 same. She also included in the motion that the sentence “as of the adoption of this Comp Plan, 24 the Mixed-Use Designation is currently only applied to the South of Forest Avenue Area” be 25 struck. 26 Ms. Raybould recommended CS be changed to Service Commercial Land Use. 27 Vice-Chair Chang agreed. 28 SECOND 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 Reckdahl seconded. 1 Chair Summa noted with the proposed land use designation, FARs could range between 2.0 to 2 3.0 if near transit corridors or multi-modal centers. She asked if the location in question was 3 considered to be located along a transit corridor or near multi-modal centers. 4 Ms. Raybould answered yes. 5 Vice-Chair Chang recognized that was a high density but noted it was zoned PC. Any changes to 6 the development envelope would have to go through a City process. 7 Ms. Raybould confirmed that was correct. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl asked why Chair Summa wanted to have a CN Land Use Designation. 9 Chair Summa answered CN was a mixed-use designation that was the most neighborhood-10 friendly land use and believed that was a more appropriate designation for an interior site. 11 Vice-Chair Chang commented she had no objections to CN. The definition of Mixed-Use, in her 12 opinion, captured the vision of the NVCAP and was more aligned with what the community 13 wanted. 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 15 Chair Summa suggested the motion be amended to include both CN and Mixed-Use. 16 Vice-Chair Chang accepted the amendment. 17 Ms. Raybould mentioned the CN zoning only allowed multi-family as a mixed-use development 18 and it did not allow research and development uses. The CN zoning aligned with the CN Land 19 Use Designation which was why the land use designation did not address office and research 20 and development uses. 21 Chair Summa mentioned the City historically did not enforce the distinction between research 22 and development and office. 23 Vice-Chair Chang supported letting Council decide which land use designation should be 24 between the two. 25 Commissioner Reckdahl accepted the friendly amendment but asked how the rest of the 26 language would change because it was tailored to the Mixed-Use Land Use Designation. 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. Mr. Yang suggested the Commission allow Staff to modify the language of the motion offline 1 instead of doing it on the fly. 2 Vice-Chair Chang agreed. 3 Commissioner Hechtman supported allowing Staff to modify the language of the motion for 4 both CN and Mixed-Use. With that said, he could not support the motion because he was not 5 comfortable moving a motion that did not have a strong recommendation to Council with 6 respect to land use. He announced he could support a motion with just Mixed-Use. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THE MAKER 9 Vice-Chair Chang decided not to accept the friendly amendment made by Chair Summa and 10 reverted to the original motion. She emphasized the reason to use Mixed-Use was to 11 accommodate the development while memorizing the vision of the area that had been 12 expressed by the community through the NVCAP process. 13 Commissioner Reckdahl believed CN and Mixed-Use would result in the same outcome. 14 Ms. Raybould asked if Vice-Chair Chang was moving the original motion with the specific 15 language she recommended. 16 Vice-Chair Chang confirmed that was correct. 17 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 18 Commissioner Hechtman recommended including the following language: “To further modify 19 the language as appropriate to ensure consistency of the project defined in the Development 20 Agreement with the Comprehensive Plan”. 21 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 22 Vice-Chair Chang accepted the friendly amendment. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl accepted the friendly amendment. 24 Commissioner Hechtman believed the motion should start with “Having considered the EIR and 25 EIR Mitigation Measures in Attachment M” and then proceed with the motion. 26 Chair Summa asked if Commissioner Hechtman intended to show that the motion was 27 consistent with the EIR. 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. Commissioner Hechtman answered no, the EIR must be considered before a recommendation 1 could be made and that was what the language was saying. 2 VOTE 3 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, conducted a roll call vote and the motion passed 6-4 0 with Commissioner Lu absent. 5 MOTION PASSED 6 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Summa, Templeton) -0 -1(Lu absent) 6 MOTION #2 7 Commissioner Hechtman moved that having considered the Environmental Impact Report and 8 EIR Mitigation Measures in Attachment M, the PTC recommends that the Council approve the 9 Development Agreement in Attachment B; the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan 10 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in Attachment C; the ordinance amending the zoning 11 district from RM-30, General Manufacturing, Commercial Services and Single-Family Residential 12 to Planned Community zoning district in Attachment D; and the Record of Land Use Action in 13 Attachment E including findings for architectural review and for a Vesting Tentative Map with 14 Exceptions and Conditions of Approval of the proposed project. All of which are modified to the 15 extent applicable by Motion #1 and further subject to any minor typographical errors and other 16 fill-in-the-blank corrections that Staff finds in their final processing of these documents as they 17 move to Council. 18 SECOND 19 Commissioner Reckdahl seconded. 20 Vice-Chair Chang asked when should she make a motion that Council not certify the EIR. 21 Mr. Yang recommended that the motion be made offer the current motion on the floor has 22 been voted on. 23 Vice-Chair Chang reiterated the Development Agreement was Council’s effort to preserve the 24 historic resource. Since those discussions, it was discovered that the Cannery building was 25 beyond repair and Council had not discussed that. Also, many Commissioners wanted to see 26 more housing. She encouraged the maker to include language in the motion that the Council 27 considers exploration of those components for the historical resource and housing. 28 Chair Summa suggested Vice-Chair Chang propose an amendment. 29 Vice-Chair Chang declined to propose an amendment. 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. Commissioner Templeton believed Vice-Chair Chang’s concept was out of scope and may push 1 the applicant to move forward with the less preferred SB 330 project. 2 Commissioner Hechtman suggested Vice-Chair Chang vote no and if the motion fails, to put 3 forth her concept in another motion. 4 VOTE 5 Ms. Dao conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion passed 5-2 with Commissioner Lu 6 absent. 7 MOTION PASSED 5(Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Reckdahl, Templeton) -1(Summa no) – 1(Lu absent) 8 Chair Summa stated she could not resolve many of the concerns she mentioned during the 9 discussion. 10 MOTION #3 11 Vice-Chair Chang moved that the PTC recommend that the City Council not certify the EIR 12 because it did not provide alternatives that satisfied the requirement of CEQA to void or 13 substantially lessen the significant effect of the project which was namely the unavoidable 14 impact on the historic building. 15 SECOND 16 Chair Summa seconded. 17 Vice-Chair Chang believed the EIR did not consider options for the Cannery building like parking, 18 office, or other adaptive reuses. 19 Chair Summa agreed and noted that the housing option explored for the Cannery was 20 significantly denser than the SB 330 project or the Development Agreement project. 21 Commissioner Templeton appreciated the intent of the motion but could not support it 22 because all of the feasible and practical alternatives were considered. Based on her personal 23 experience, the buildings were not suitable for any uses mentioned by Vice-Chair Chang. 24 Vice-Chair Chang believed the EIR should be bolstered because the EIR could be contested and 25 that would hold up the process. 26 Mr. Abe Leider, CEQA Consultant, confirmed the EIR did not need to consider every conceivable 27 alternative, but there had to be a reasonable range. The alternatives considered were limited to 28 alternatives that met the project’s objectives, where feasible and reduced impacts. While 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. Alternative Two reduced the impact, any adaptive reuse for residential would require changes 1 to the building that would render it ineligible. 2 Ms. Raybould confirmed many of the uses mentioned by Vice-Chair Chang did not meet the 3 project objectives. 4 Commissioner Reckdahl inquired if there was a risk the EIR could be challenged. 5 Ms. Raybould answered any EIR could be challenged and that was a risk for all projects. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if that risk could be minimized. 7 Mr. Yang commented Staff would explore it, but Staff feels the EIR meets the requirements of 8 CEQA. 9 Commissioner Reckdahl asked when the item would be presented to Council. 10 Ms. Raybould answered on August 21, 2023. 11 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned when an EIR is bolstered, a threshold may be exceeded 12 and then the EIR is required to be circulated for another round of comments. He could not 13 support the motion. 14 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Hechtman. She encouraged Vice-Chair 15 Chang to share her comments about it but withdraw her motion. 16 VOTE 17 Ms. Dao conducted a roll call vote and announced the motion failed 2-4 with Commissioner Lu 18 absent. 19 MOTION FAILED 2(Chang, Summa) -4 (Akin, Hechtman, Reckdahl, Templeton) -1 (Lu absent) 20 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Reckdahl. Pass 6-0-1 (Lu absent) 21 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Reckdahl. Pass 5-1 (Summa no, Lu 22 absent) 23 Commission Action: Motion by Chang, seconded by Summa. Fail 2-4 (Akin, Hechtman, Reckdahl 24 Templeton no, Lu absent) 25 3. LEGISLATIVE: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Proposed Amendment to 26 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 9 (Public Pease, Morals 27 and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise) to Facilitated the Installation of Electrification 28 Equipment for Non-ADU Residential Development. 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. Item Postponed to August 9, 2023 1 Approval of Minutes 2 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 4 Minutes of June 28, 2023 5 MOTION 6 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval as revised by Ms. French, at least as to the verbatim 7 version, and himself as to both. 8 SECOND 9 Commissioner Akin seconded. 10 VOTE 11 Ms. Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate, conducted a roll call vote and announced the 12 motion passed 4-0-2 with Commissioner Lu absent. 13 MOTION PASSED 4(Akin, Hechtman, Summa, Templeton) -0- 2(Reckdahl, Chang abstain) -1 (Lu 14 absent) 15 Commission Action: Motion by Hechtman, seconded by Akin. Pass 4-0-2-1 (Chang, Reckdahl 16 abstain, Lu absent) 17 Committee Items 18 None 19 Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements 20 Chair Summa asked if the Commission was still seeking to cancel the first meeting in August for 21 a summer break. 22 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned he had no preference on the matter but recommended 23 this type of discussion be held more in advance to allow folks to plan vacations and provide 24 awareness to Staff. 25 Commissioner Templeton agreed but believed having a short break during the year would 26 reduce burnout. 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. Commissioner Akin had no preference on the matter but did not feel there needed to be a 1 scheduled break. 2 Vice-Chair Chang mentioned she would be out of town for the August 30, 2023 meeting but 3 planned to attend virtually. Also, she would not be in attendance for the September 27, 2023 4 meeting. 5 Commissioner Templeton asked if 2024 the Commission discuss early taking a break. 6 Chair Summa commented taking a break was not an interest of hers but could go either way. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl suggested the Staff Report be released earlier to allow for 8 Commissioners to have two weekends to study the material. 9 Chair Summa recalled that the Boards, Commissions and Committees Handbook called for all 10 groups to have their Staff Reports come out a week before the meeting. 11 Commissioner Reckdahl commented having an earlier release date did not change the 12 workload. 13 Chair Summa agreed. 14 Commissioner Hechtman believed it could change the workload because of more time between 15 the lease of the Packet and the meeting. More correspondence can be submitted after the 16 release and Staff has to handle that. A release date of 5 days before the meeting was a typical 17 practice. 18 Chair Summa noticed in the Bylaws that group speakers are supposed to receive 10 minutes, 19 not 15 minutes. With that said, she adjourned the meeting. 20 Adjournment 21 9:15 pm 22 23