HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-08 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: May 8, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:01 pm 7
Chair Summa welcomed all to the meeting. 8
9
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao took roll and declared there was a quorum. 10
11
Oral Communications 12
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 13
14
There were no requests to speak. 15
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 17
There were no agenda changes. 18
City Official Reports 19
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 20
Chief Planning Official Amy French shared a slide with the upcoming PTC meeting dates. She 21
noted that the Staff Report listed target dates. She displayed a slide with targeted dates for PTC 22
Council items and commented that Council would take a break in July. She did not think the 23
Open Space Home would come to the Planing Commission. 24
Office of Transportation Rafael Rius with the stated that the next Rail Committee meeting was 25
scheduled for May 23, which would be followed by Council actions planned for the June 10 26
meeting regarding grade separation alternatives. He provided an update related to the striping 27
at El Camino, Charleston, and Arastradero. 28
Action Items 29
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 30
31
2. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify 32
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura 33
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 34
North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 1
16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP. 2
3
Project Planner for NVCAP Kelly Cha asked the PTC to consider and recommend to Council the 4
adoption of NVCAP and a draft NVCAP ordinance and [inaudible 5:00] supplemental EIR. She 5
provided some history of the process. She furnished slides with the NVCAP goals and objectives 6
that had been endorsed by Council. She supplied a map of the NVCAP plan area, a concept plan, 7
and the land‐use map, which she detailed. She provided an outline of the contents of the draft 8
NVCAP documents. In addition to the revised NVCAP documents, staff had recommended some 9
modifications, which were included in Attachment F of the Staff Report. She outlined the 10
majority of the changes. Regarding the zoning ordinance update, staff recommended adding a 11
new chapter for NVCAP, which she discussed. ARB had provided comments and feedback on 12
the draft Zoning Ordinance, and they had recommended modifying the zoning ordinance, which 13
she outlined. Potential PTC discussion items included lot coverage, setback, maximum height, 14
and sidewalk width. She displayed slides showing the comparison between existing and 15
proposed zoning and changes in development standards after ARB's feedback. Upon 16
recommendation from PTC, staff would forward the Commission's recommendation to Council 17
to consider adoption on June 18. She displayed a slide with staff's recommendations. 18
ARB Chair Peter Baltay expressed that the ARB had looked at the standards on several 19
occasions. He discussed the daylight plane being a valuable zoning tool and that there should 20
be a higher absolute minimum on height. There were requirements in the code for daylight 21
planes in the objective standards, so the NVCAP must apply the current objective standards. 22
The ARB thought 10‐foot setbacks made sense, rather than having odder numbers, such as 12½ 23
feet. He discussed why they thought multifamily housing units could be higher in R3 and R4 24
zones. They recommended 60% and 80% lot coverage for R3 and R4 zones. Regarding below‐25
grade structures, they recommended 3 feet below ground, which would allow for landscaping. 26
The standard should be applied uniformly for all development, not just the NVCAP, which was a 27
question for PTC or Council. 28
Commissioner Templeton asked what feedback should be provided, if for example, 29
modifications should be made to the numbers ARB Chair Baltay discussed. 30
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha answered that it was PTC's discretion to make modifications to 31
staff recommendations. Changes could be accommodated if modifications did not impact the 32
CEQA analysis. 33
Commissioner Hechtman referenced Packet Page 20 and questioned what the grant due dates 34
were. He noted that in the draft ordinance the staff recommendation for building height was 10 35
feet lower than the ARB recommendation, and he inquired why staff had not adopted the ARB 36
recommendation. 37
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha replied that the due dates had been extended to June 30, 2025. 38
Regarding height, she shared slides comparing staff and ARB's recommendations and explained 39
why there was a difference. Staff was uncomfortable with the bulk of massing even with the 1
daylight plane being satisfied in these two instances. 2
Vice Chair Chang queried if the effective density bonus on height meant in every area there 3
could be an additional 33 feet over and above whatever should be decided for NVCAP and if the 4
density bonus had an impact on daylight plane and if it could be waived. 5
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha confirmed that the effective density bonus on height meant 6
there could be an additional 33 feet over and above whatever should be decided. Concerning 7
the density bonus and impact on daylight plane, she believed a developer could ask for a 8
waiver. 9
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that the additional 33 feet was provided for 10
developments that were 100% affordable. Height could be waived for developments not 100% 11
affordable, and he outlined what would be necessary to permit such. 12
Vice Chair Chang asked what implication that would have given FAR was being used for NVCAP, 13
not density; if 14‐foot ceilings, for example, would result in higher height; and if 100% 14
affordable was based on the State's definition and not NVCAP's definition and if 100% 15
moderate would qualify. She referenced the affordable NVCAP definition on Packet Page 24 16
and inquired if a rental project would be considered 100% affordable only if the average AMI 17
did not exceed 60% and what would be considered 100% affordable in the HIP. She queried if 18
the 18.29.090 would become moot if the HIP were to supersede. She asked if the HIP would be 19
in place before approval of the ordinance and if the NVCAP were to go in place without the 20
100% affordable definition, what would be the definition within NVCAP. 21
Assistant City Attorney Yang detailed what relying on FAR provided. Fourteen‐foot ceilings 22
would result in higher height. He stated there was gray area around what would be necessary 23
to accommodate development at a certain density. The definition of 100% affordable would be 24
at a lower affordability range and would be the State definition. Under density bonus law, 25
generally moderately income units would not get credit for rental projects, but they would get 26
credit for ownership projects. As for what would be considered 100% affordable in the HIP, it 27
was still to be determined, but he expected rental projects to be 80% of AMI or below. He 28
thought staff had forgotten to delete 18.29.090, so the definition was no longer relevant. The 29
HIP would not be in place before approval of the ordinance. The NVCAP had new zoning 30
standards, and the NVCAP would be eligible for HIP enhancements when developed. Regarding 31
the NVCAP being in place before the HIP, there would not be a definition of 100% affordable for 32
the NVCAP. Before developing and enacting the HIP, the density bonus of 100% affordable 33
[would be used 32:16], which was at least 80% or lower income households and at most 20% 34
for moderate income households. Lower income was a State law definition, which he would 35
research and get back to the Commission. 36
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha replied, regarding Packet Page 24 and a rental project being 37
considered 100% affordable only if the average AMI did not exceed 60%, that Attachment A 38
had the ARB's recommendation and staff's recommendations, and staff recommended 1
removing Section 18.29.090. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl questioned the difference between NV‐R1 and R1. He noted that the 3
street yard would be less. He queried why some R1 lots in NVCAP had been converted to NV‐R1 4
and others to NV‐R2. 5
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha explained the differences between NV‐R1 and R1, which could 6
be found in Table 1 on Packet Page 31 and included street yard and parking. She explained why 7
some R1 lots in NVCAP had been converted to NV‐R1 and others to NV‐R2. 8
Chair Summa asked if the street yard setback for R1 and R2 encompassed the front yard and if 9
it was 12½ feet. She asked if staff was concerned with the setback being that small with the 10
State lot split law. She referenced Packet Pages 31 and 33 related maximum height and the 11
buffer zone for MXL, MXM, and MXH and the buffer zone being retained for MXM but not MXL 12
and MXH and asked if it was an artifact. 13
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha answered that the street yard setback was anything facing the 14
street and staff had proposed it be 12½ feet. There had been discussion regarding the setback 15
and the State lot split law, and staff went with ARB's recommendation. There was a potential 16
for it becoming problematic. Concerning MXL, MXM, and MXH and the buffer zone being 17
retained for MXM but not MXL and MXH, she thought the mixed use district would have been 18
removed to be consistent with residential multifamily, and it was probably an artifact. 19
Vice Chair Chang queried if the ARB's three‐foot threshold for basements had been reviewed by 20
the City Arborist. She referenced Packet Page 19 and asked for a summary of the housing 21
opportunity sites benefitting from the January 2024 zoning. She queried if the rezoning affected 22
MRM and NV‐R3. She asked why the information was not simplified and there were many 23
things to refer to. She addressed Packet Page 40 and asked if the low‐income definition of 24
16.65.040 (a)(2) was 50% to 80%. She requested that staff give some background as to why the 25
initial staff recommendation for setbacks was 12.5 feet as opposed to 10 feet. She asked if 26
there were implications of reducing it to 10 feet; for the logic of the different setbacks; if the 27
setback was from the street or the property line; if the sidewalk was part of the property; how 28
deep a parking space needed to be; and if there was a concern for the proposed setback 29
changes related to bike lanes, etc. 30
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha replied that staff was coordinating with the City's Urban 31
Forestry Department, and they did not have a conclusion on the depth for the basements. She 32
summarized the housing opportunity sites benefitting from the January 2024 zoning. The 33
Housing Element rezoning had a higher height allowance than some other elements. The staff 34
recommendation might allow for everything in NVCAP to be more permissive than the Housing 35
Element site development standards. Regarding the setback being from the street or the 36
property line and whether the sidewalk was part of the property, she speculated that this 37
particular NVCAP was to reduce setbacks to allow additional density. She did not think there 38
was a downside to reducing setbacks to 10 feet in terms of right of way improvements, which 39
were usually outside property lines. Maybe there would be a downside to lot split or other 1
single‐family home development. They had asked that some of the front yards in certain areas 2
be dedicated to right of way to create more comfortable sidewalks. There were no issues with 3
the proposed setback changes related to bike lanes. 4
Assistant City Attorney Yang added that height was addressed on Packet Page 38. The Housing 5
Element rezoning affected sites in the MRM and NV‐R3. He explained why the information was 6
not simplified and there were many things to refer to. The lower income definition on Packet 7
Page 40, 16.65.040 (a)(2), was 50% to 80%. The State definition of 100% affordability was also 8
50% to 80% AMI. 9
Chief Planning Official Amy French thought the 12.5‐foot setback may have been drawn from 10
the El Camino Real build two line concept, and she speculated the 12‐foot sidewalk width may 11
have had to do with additional curb area for landscaping. The bare minimum for a setback was 12
five feet. Often a parking space on a street would be marked 10‐foot wide. 13
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Coleman Frick stated that the depth of a parking space 14
was typically roughly 20 feet. He discussed how the 12.5‐feet setback numbers came to be, and 15
they did not see any drawbacks to changing them to what staff recommended in the redline 16
version. [The area of Ash Street 56:36] had no minimum parking requirements due to the 17
location to the station, which had been factored into the analysis. The changes to the street 18
sections were also a result of the setbacks. 19
Chair Summa referenced Packet Page 30 and asked if the proposed setbacks would retain the 20
setbacks of the special setback map. She stated that the [inaudible 59:48] may be not in 21
harmony with other setbacks. 22
Chief Planning Official French replied that in the regular zoning code the special setback was the 23
default but variances could be requested. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl questioned why some setbacks had numbers from the property line 25
and some said sufficient to create an effective 12‐foot sidewalk. He asked if the property line 26
would be at the curb for the 12‐foot setback and if sidewalk width was from the property line 27
or the existing street. He asked why, on Packet Page 71, El Camino had different a sidewalk 28
width than others. He asked why the daylight plane on Packet Page 31 was significantly 29
changed from the code cited on Packet Page [321 1:05:13]. 30
Chief Planning Official French explained why some setbacks had numbers from the property 31
line and some said sufficient to create an effective 12‐foot sidewalk. The sidewalk width was 32
typically from the curb. There was a diagram on Packet Page 72 showing the walkway, the tree 33
bed, and an assumed planter strip, which was the curb. Measuring was started at the curb and 34
would go toward the property. She detailed why the sidewalk with on El Camino was different 35
from other properties. She stated that the ARB representative could answer questions related 36
to logic on the daylight plane. 37
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha, regarding property lines, answered that some right of way 1
widths were different for different properties. She explained why they had worded it as 2
sufficient setback. Packet Page 71 showed how much property would be required to create the 3
effective 12‐foot sidewalk, which would be measured from the curb. 4
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Frick added that placement of a specific feature related 5
to a property line could vary by individual property. He detailed why some setbacks had 6
numbers from the property line and some said sufficient to create an effective 12‐foot sidewalk. 7
Chair Summa mentioned that a special setback existed on Park, which started at Lambert and 8
went south, which she thought was for bike lanes. 9
PUBLIC COMMENTS 10
Yugon Lockhart, who resided on Olive Avenue, was confused why approval was being sought at 11
this juncture. He discussed trees being taken out, residential moving closer to the street, 850‐12
square foot houses, big developments in the neighborhood, transportation, the roadways, 13
setbacks, and zoning exceptions. He opined that this was obstructing the residents. He 14
recommended waiting and not approving this now. 15
Cedrick voiced his concerns with the depth of underground structures going to the edge of 16
property lines. He suggested zoning the setback for MXM at 10 feet. He thought the daylight 17
plane was an interesting way to constrain the building mass, and he suggested there be 18
regulations that could not easily be worked around. 19
Commissioner Hechtman discussed the SEIR and asked how to proceed. He queried if the CUPs, 20
etc., were transported from the base zoning district and an N had been added because it was in 21
the NV; if ADUs and JADUs had to be allowed in every residentially zoned district; and why CUPs 22
were allowed only in N‐R4 and MXL. Related to the CUPs, he thought there should be 23
consistency throughout City code. He commented that the references to community centers on 24
Packet Pages 27 and 28 could be consolidated. He asked what words had been cut off after the 25
word chapter on Packet Page 37. He asked what the practical effect was of 18.70.070 on office 26
space and if reducing office in the NV area by 278,000 square feet was on certain parcels, so the 27
278,000 square feet would terminate in 10 years without an amortization schedule or if all 28
744,000 square feet of office in the NVCAP would terminate in 10 years unless they got an 29
amortization schedule longer than 10 years. He referenced Packet Page 39 Section 30
16.65.030(a)(2) and asked if it would be just NV‐2 or if it could be NV‐3. Regarding the NV‐2 31
along Olive with 20 individual lots, he asked how one would comply with the 20% affordability 32
requirement. 33
Assistant City Attorney Yang answered that the PTC was required to consider, not certify, the 34
SEIR document, and he noted that it did not have to be the final one. He detailed what he 35
expected the effect of 18.70.070 to be on office space, which included an amortization 36
schedule. He explained that complying with 20% for the NV‐2 along Olive with the 20 lots would 37
depend on the specific project. 38
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha answered that the CUPs, etc., were transported from the base 1
zoning district and an N had been added because it was in the NV. ADUs and JADUs had to be 2
allowed in every residentially zoned district. Regarding allowing CUPs only in N‐R4 and MXL, 3
staff was generally following the city‐wide direction, but they could consider allowing them in 4
other zoning districts with conditional uses. The words cut off after the word chapter on Packet 5
Page 37 were shall be subject to. Regarding the 278,000 square feet, she did not believe specific 6
sites were identified. It was the square footage determined to accommodate additional housing 7
units. It could be existing offices in the ROLM area [and/or 1:27:00] some of the existing offices 8
in CS districts. Section 16.65.030(a)(2) could be in multifamily depending on the proposed 9
density. She would consolidate community centers on Packet Pages 27 and 28. 10
11
Vice Chair Chang was not much concerned about lot coverage. She was concerned about 12
setbacks as she could not tell where they would be; the maximum height as it would relate to 13
the NV‐MXM in particular; and sidewalks. Despite the daylight plane, she was concerned about 14
55 instead of 45 feet for NV‐MXM because of density bonus provisions. She was in favor of 15
going back to 45 feet. She did not object to sidewalks being 10 feet. She thought the basement 16
issue should be addressed citywide. She explained why she thought the hotel FAR should be 3.0 17
and voiced that they should be allowed to be the same height as surrounding buildings. 18
Commissioner Reckdahl agreed with Vice Chair Chang's comments related to the hotels. In 19
spirit, he supported below grade, but he thought there needed to be more investigation. As for 20
the daylight plane, he was uncomfortable starting 25 feet from the property line, which would 21
impact the properties along Olive, and although the density bonus may waive it, he would start 22
at 10 feet and go up at 45, and [low‐density lots were needed for those 1:37:50]. He discussed 23
why he thought there should be a 20‐foot special setback along Park for the bike lane. 24
Commissioner Templeton noted that it was important to move forward and to stop tying up the 25
properties in process. She supported a height of 55 feet versus 45 feet. She supported single‐26
family properties having more space to allow for building out. She thought the daylight plane 27
had already been decided, and she was happy to move forward with it. She wondered why it 28
was being addressed again. She asked staff how the numbers had been arrived at. She generally 29
felt comfortable moving the staff recommendation forward with all the caveats Commissioner 30
Hechtman brought up. She liked the idea of setbacks being consistent and having a wider 31
sidewalk. Regarding basements, she stated that trees were needed and that it was attractive to 32
maximize space but that entire lot coverage and underground could not be maximized. 33
Vice Chair Chang commented why she was concerned about a height of 55 feet with respect to 34
the MX zones in the first 3 blocks from Oregon. 35
Commissioner Akin remarked that he was quite supportive. Regarding the SEIR, he detailed why 36
there needed to be a statement of overriding considerations for two reasons. He explained why 37
he had been comfortable with using daylight plane as the massing control device until he heard 38
that the measurement would start at 25 feet, and he wondered how much practical difference 39
there was between a height of 45 and 55 feet. It would be interesting to determine maximum 40
heights for the MXM areas, in particular, using the daylight plane as the constraint. He was 1
concerned about trees and the effects of below grade structures going out to the property line, 2
and he wondered if three feet of soil was enough to plant native trees. 3
Chair Summa was not sure why R2 and 3 were at 30 feet next to their 35 foot neighbors. If it 4
would give more flexibility to those neighbors who wanted the residential feel, she thought it 5
was a good idea. She wanted the draft SEIR to be more complete, including the statement of 6
overriding considerations, before making a recommendation. She thought the bike lane 7
situation needed to be improved within NVCAP, that there needed to be more information 8
about daylight plane, that the basement issue should be fully vetted with the Urban Forestry 9
Department, and that the setbacks needed be clarified. She detailed why she thought the 45‐10
foot height in MXM was appropriate. She found the lack of space in the front setback for pull‐in 11
parking to be problematic. As for hotels being 3.0, she thought it was okay for a hotel to be 12
consistent with its neighbors as long as the neighbors were at that height and FAR and if the 13
daylight plane issues were figured out. She wanted this to come back with a little nuanced work 14
and that there not be artifacts from other versions, etc. 15
Commissioner Hechtman mentioned that terminating 750,000 square foot of office did not 16
apply to XL, XM, and XH. Although he was not strongly concerned about it and it would not 17
cause him to delay the project, he asked what square footage of office was facing termination 18
in NR‐3 and 4. He was glad that the below surface garages issue was going to the Forestry 19
Department, and he thought it should reside there. He stated that native plants that could 20
survive in three feet of soil should be put there and ones that could not should be put 21
somewhere else, which would be a balance. Regarding height, he agreed with the ARB's logic, 22
but he explained why he supported staff's recommendation. He trusted staff when it came to 23
the setbacks. He understood that when this process started the foundational premis of the 24
working group was to protect the R1, and he heard from a resident of the R1 that they had 25
been put in a box and were stuck. He thought this should be adopted and that if there were 26
problems after adoption it could be amended. His biggest issue was economic feasibility, and 27
there needed to be a determination of fiscal feasibility of the plan, which was an objective of 28
Council, and is a requirement according to Municipal Code Section 19.10. He noted that an 29
economic analysis had not been done and the code requirement had not been met. He 30
discussed the partial economic analysis that had been done in 2021, and he explained why he 31
was optimistic that funds could now be budgeted. He wanted a motion to adopt, but he wanted 32
it to include an economic study being completed. 33
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha did not have, at this meeting, information concerning the square 34
footage of office facing termination in NR‐3 and 4. 35
Chair Summa was surprised that Commissioner Hechtman wanted to adopt this before doing an 36
economic study. She thought ironing out some of the details would make the plan more 37
successful. She thought the preferred plan was not Option 1 but was what Council preferred 38
after PTC's recommendations to them on the 3 levels of density and some associated economic 39
analysis. 40
Chief Planning Official French noted that Council did not fund the economic study when the 1
scope was expanded. Regarding hotels, the maximum citywide limit for hotels was a FAR of 2.0, 2
and it could be something the retail committees could address. 3
Commissioner Templeton thought the economic analysis should be put on Council's agenda 4
ASAP. She addressed timing and asked what the constraints would be if the PTC asked for 5
responses to tonight's commentary. 6
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha answered that timing was not a concern due to the extension, 7
but there may be an issue because some developers were waiting for the NVCAP to be 8
adopted. 9
Commissioner Templeton was not concerned with time pressure from applicants. She inquired 10
if staff could return to the PTC before going to Counsel. 11
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Frick provided context on the impact of delaying this, 12
which included staff resources and not having funding or a project consultant. He was happy to 13
discuss concerns at this meeting. Based on the grant timeline, it could be brought back to the 14
PTC. 15
Chief Planning Official French added that allocation of resources would be a concern. 16
Commissioner Templeton did not know how this could be approved without having answers to 17
some of the questions raised. She wanted staff to come back with answers to questions [and 18
keep it on Council's schedule 2:13:38], and if that was not possible, staff needed to consider 19
their priorities. 20
Commissioner Hechtman wanted Council to be aware of there needing to be an economic 21
analysis. Because there were open issues with design parameters and economic feasibility, he 22
wondered if there should be a recommendation to Council for the PTC to do more study; 23
however, Council would also have the ability to approve it without sending it back, which could 24
be on June 18. Perhaps there could be a conversation with the City Manager before June 18 25
related to funding the study. 26
Chair Summa did not hear a majority wanting to move this forward. There were outstanding 27
issues with development standards that she believed should be fixed. She suggested it be 28
recommended with those conditions or not recommend it. She was not comfortable telling 29
Council to reconsider doing more financial analyses. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl thought it could be approved at this meeting. He explained why he was 31
worried about staff coming back. He suggested coming to a consensus on the open issues and 32
approve it but with work to do on XYZ. 33
Vice Chair Chang thought some things needed to change but not that it needed to fully come 34
back to the PTC unless Council [decided that 2:18:00]. She proposed making a motion with the 35
changes to the development standards and adding that an economic feasibility study might be 1
a good idea and letting Council decide. 2
Commissioner Templeton noted there had been many questions without answers, and she 3
questioned how that would be worked through. 4
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Frick noted that additional study was needed for the 5
depth of a planting medium above underground parking citywide. It was premature to have a 6
specific standard for the NVCAP area solely. 7
Commissioner Templeton wanted to understand Commissioner Reckdahl's vision if this was to 8
be continued, and she asked the Chair if an agenda item would be removed from this agenda to 9
address this. 10
Chair Summa did not think removing an agenda item would provide enough time to have a full 11
discussion. She felt staff should return to the PTC. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl suggested taking a straw poll on each item. 13
MOTION #1 14
Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation but to change the language to say consider 15
the SEIR; strike the statement of overriding considerations, unless it was required by law; with 16
the modifications of extending the special setback along Park to Page Mill, basically the length 17
of the NVCAP; changing the height back to the preferred plan for NV‐MXM to 45 feet; and 18
changing the daylight plane to start at 10 feet rather than 25 feet. PTC would also ask Council to 19
consider completing an economic feasibility study. 20
SECOND 21
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl. 22
Chair Summa asked what staff recommended concerning the tree planting above basements. 23
She asked if the maker wanted to include R1 and R2 going to 35 feet along Pepper and Olive. 24
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Frick answered that staff recommended that tree 25
planting above basements be addressed citywide, but they could take it to Council if 26
recommended by PTC. 27
Vice Chair Chang was in favor of R1 and R2 going to 35 feet along Pepper and Olive, but she did 28
not know if it would create administrative difficulties. 29
After some discussion by the Commission and staff, Vice Chair Chang would add that 30
amendment to the motion. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl seconded. 32
Chair Summa wanted to discuss the daylight plane setback and she wanted staff to review the 1
street setbacks. 2
Vice Chair Chang thought staff had carefully reviewed the setbacks, so she added to the motion 3
that Council would receive additional information on the street setbacks in a map form. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl accepted that. 5
Commissioner Hechtman asked if there was a citywide daylight plane figure. He asked if staff's 6
recommendation proposed a different daylight plane than otherwise applicable throughout the 7
city to meet some of the goals of the NVCAP growth. He suggested applying the citywide 8
standard, unless there was a reason to change it. 9
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha replied that there were citywide daylight plane design 10
standards. 11
Chief Planning Official French added that the daylight plane was different for single‐family 12
zones R1 than for multi‐family. For single family it was 10 feet up and 45 degrees over from the 13
property line. Regarding staff's recommendation proposing a different daylight plane, she 14
would check the requirements, but whatever requirements applied, they would consistently 15
[inaudible 2:32:15]. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl Frick thought R2 was the same as R1. He explained how the daylight 17
plane worked in the code. 18
Vice Chair Chang explained why a 25‐foot daylight plane would apply. 19
Commissioner Hechtman asked if the intent of the motion was to have the NV zoning track the 20
base zoning exactly or if staff had a different intent. 21
Vice Chair Chang replied that the intent of the motion was to have the NV zoning track the base 22
zoning exactly, that whatever would happen in R1 would happen in NV‐R1, etc. However, as 23
written in the ordinance, it would not. 24
Interim Long Range Planning Manager Frick answered that staff intended for the daylight plane 25
to track the citywide standards. 26
Commissioner Hechtman suggested stating the qualitative intent rather than quantifying it. 27
Vice Chair Chang changed the motion to read the daylight plane in NV‐R1 and every other zone 28
should conform to its equivalent zone in [existing municipal 2:35:18] code. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl accepted. 30
Commissioner Hechtman queried if the NV‐MXM being 45 feet was for the two areas on El 31
Camino Real on either side of Portage. 32
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha answered that it would be for the entire MXL and all the 55s 1
would be changed to 45s. According to the motion, the 30s directly behind the 55s would go up 2
to 35s. 3
Commissioner Hechtman did not object to the maximum height [inaudible 2:37:03] going from 4
30 to 35 but he did not support brining the 55s down to 45s and asked that it be pulled from 5
the motion and done separately. In terms of asking Council to consider the economic feasibility, 6
he would word it as confirm Council's awareness of the economic feasibility study requirement 7
of the municipal code. 8
Vice Chair Chang accepted the suggested wording for the economic feasibility study. She agreed 9
with voting separately on the height for NV‐MXM. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl also accepted the wording for the economic feasibility study. 11
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha clarified that above Ash Street should read 55, not 65 feet 12
because they were MXM districts. She apologized for that being missed when the diagram was 13
made. This aspect of the motion would change the 55 (in the deep blue on the diagram) to 45 14
feet, including those 2. 15
Commissioner Hechtman suggested the language of the motion related to the SEIR be: Having 16
considered the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the PTC recommends to 17
Council that… The statement of overriding consideration, the findings, and the mitigation 18
measures would not be addressed. 19
Vice Chair Chang accepted the change. She thought there would be a discussion about height 20
and then a vote. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl also accepted the change. 22
Discussion ensued about height being in the motion, and it was decided that there would be 23
two separate motions. 24
VOTE MOTION #1 25
Chair Summa conducted a vote on everything but Item 2, which would become a separate 26
motion. 27
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 28
MOTION PASSED 6‐0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 29
Vice Chair Chang wanted to discuss Motion #2 before voting on it because she was concerned 30
that the NV‐MXM height was specific to 4 small parcels. She wanted different heights for NV‐31
MXM on the right side near Lambert and Ash versus the 3 or 4 parcels from Oregon to Acacia, 32
for Acacia to be the dividing line. She thought there was a massing problem as it related to NV‐33
R1 housing, so she wondered why all the other NV‐MXMs would not be made NV‐MXHs. She 1
explained her reasoning for such. She had no concerns with the NV‐MXMs abutting the park 2
being 55 or 65 feet. 3
Commissioner Templeton was concerned with the aesthetics of having such differential along El 4
Camino. She addressed NV‐R4 being residential in the future and she trusted the ARB to design 5
it. She was not concerned about the parts along Oregon and El Camino. She suggested making 6
gestures to the neighbors in R1 and R2 that might be an acceptable tradeoff. She did not 7
consider a 55‐foot building to be dramatically different than a 45‐foot building. If the experts 8
were recommending 55‐foot buildings, she was not sure she wanted to shorten them and 9
reduce the amount of homes. 10
Commissioner Akin stated that with the daylight plane starting at 10 feet he thought the ARB's 11
wisdom applied and that would be the constraint on height and massing for the MXMs from 12
Oregon to Acacia. He suspected the height limit was less critical than before making that 13
change. He asked if some of the BMR development would be put in the MXMs along Lambert. 14
He thought additional height may be wanted for that project, and if that should be the case, 15
additional height may be accepted in the nearby MXM areas. He commented that perhaps they 16
should be MXHs, which would be a simple change. Commissioner Templeton's objection to the 17
extra height R1s on Lambert was well taken, but he was willing to consider Vice Chair Chang's 18
argument that the extra street width made a difference. He was inclined to rely on the daylight 19
plane, as suggested by the ARB, between Acacia and Oregon and to go to MXH along Lambert. 20
Project Planner for NVCAP Cha replied, related to the broader development, that the BMR 21
development would be in the NV‐PF. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl explained why he would agree with Commissioner Akin if it was not for 23
the density bonus law. Keeping the MXM by Olive and Pepper lower would protect the people 24
there. He would accept moving the Lambert and Portage MXMs to MXHs. 25
Chair Summa interjected that there was no provision to protect the new park area in terms of 26
daylight plane. 27
Commissioner Hechtman thought there were two concepts on the floor. He thought Vice Chair 28
Chang's concept was to keep the height of the NV‐MXM at 45 feet but only from Acacia north 29
and that Commissioner Akin's concept was to take the NV‐MXM along Lambert and change it to 30
MXH. He detailed why he would not support the motion related to the NV‐MXM north of 31
Acacia. He thought density should be at El Camino and Oregon and kept at 55 feet and that the 32
daylight plane should be trusted to do its work. He was hesitant to change the zoning of 33
Lambert because he did not know if the draft SEIR would accommodate additional density. He 34
thought it should first be studied and confirmed to be in the SEIR. 35
Chair Summa agreed with Commissioner Hechtman's comments. She remarked that one did 36
not have to worry about reducing impacts if there were changes in an EIR, but one would have 37
to worry about adding impacts. She suggested the original second motion pertain to [inaudible 1
28:22]. 2
Commissioner Templeton questioned if there was full understanding of adjusting heights to 3
circumvent the density bonus. 4
Assistant City Attorney Yang did not see adjusting heights as circumventing the density bonus. 5
The area was regulating its density through FAR, so they determined that the FARs combined 6
with the heights and setbacks could accommodate the projected densities. It would come down 7
to the type of project proposed. Those eligible for a density bonus would be able to increase 8
their FAR by some percentage and then other development standards could be waived to 9
accommodate the additional FAR. He outlined that it should not be a significant waiver. 10
Chair Summa asked the maker and the seconder if they wanted to incorporate the Lambert 11
MXM to MXH. 12
MOTION #2 13
Vice Chair Chang motioned to change the MXM height back to 45 feet across the whole area as 14
in the originally proposed plan because Commissioner Hechtman's comments concerned her. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl seconded the motion. 16
VOTE MOTION #2 17
Administrative Associate Dao conducted a roll call vote. 18
MOTION PASSED 4‐2 (Reckdahl, Summa, Chang, Akin) (Templeton no 3:01:16, Hechtman no 19
3:01:24) 20
Commissioner Reckdahl questioned if Lambert should be considered and be contingent on staff 21
determining if it would violate the EIR. 22
Commissioner Akin had found Commissioner Hechtman's argument compelling, and he did not 23
want to risk compromising the SEIR. 24
Chair Summa declared that the original motion covered Part 3 – Adapt Draft Ordinance. 25
Commissioner Templeton stated housing was important, and she was concerned this would 26
reduce the number of units and was why she did not support it. 27
Commissioner Hechtman had no comments to his no vote. 28
The PTC took a brief break and returned with all members present 29
3. Review and Provide Comments on the Final Draft Retail Study Report Supporting 1
Palo Alto’s Effort to Modernize Regulations and Ensure Vibrant Commercial Areas 2
Citywide. 3
4
Chief Planning Official Amy French declared that there would be a consultant report, which 5
contained multiple appendices and an executive summary, and comments would be taken. She 6
hoped to forward this to Counsel on June 10. 7
Michael Baker International Consultant Dan Wery stated that he would summarize the report. 8
Parking had been discussed with the Ad Hoc, and he would focus on that new material. He 9
specified that the project goal was to recommend zoning strategies for key commercial areas of 10
Palo Alto. The agenda was to summarize the report and answer questions, focus on the AB 11
2097 implications and recommendations, which was in Appendix C, and provide the PTC's 12
recommendations to Council. He presented slides outlining the report contents, the study area 13
of the commercial zones, outreach and related studies, national/local trends and findings, and 14
primary zoning strategies. He noted that engagement with stakeholders had been consistent. E‐15
commerce continued to reflect a large percentage of retail sales. Although there was positive 16
shift in occupancy of brick and mortar, there was an excess in office and retail space. Their 17
study showed that the demand for retail exceeded supply, which meant people were shopping 18
outside Palo Alto. Palo Alto's retail vacancy rates continued to rise. Office vacancy rates 19
continued to increase to record levels. As for zoning strategies, Palo Alto's processes were fairly 20
streamlined, but there were recommendations to expand that where possible; refinements 21
could be done in the RPO; office limitations and retail restrictions could be relaxed; and parking 22
regulations could be eased. Appendix C addressed the implications of AB 2097. These issues 23
had been discussed with the Ad Hoc Committee but not yet with the full PTC. He provided a 24
slide summarizing AB 2097, and he outlined the areas affected in Palo Alto. He discussed 25
stakeholder engagement that had been done, and they had heard consistent concerns, which 26
he discussed. He spoke of what other cities were doing as it related to parking. He shared a 27
slide with parking findings, which included availability, demand, space management, programs, 28
etc. He supplied slides and spoke of 11 parking recommendations. He hoped to discuss these 29
recommendations with the PTC and make a recommendation to Council on June 10. They 30
would provide Council with a report and presentation, and hopefully they would [inaudible 31
3:50:16] recommendations, and the ultimate goal was for Council to direct staff to take the 32
next steps, which would be to prepare the first round of code amendments to implement the 33
recommendations. 34
Chair Summa requested comments from the Ad Hoc. 35
Vice Chair Chang noted that the report presented was the work product of Michael Baker 36
International and incorporated some of the Ad Hoc's perspective but not everything, and they 37
disagreed with some things in the report, such as the Ad Hoc had not discussed eliminating 38
office cap. 39
Commissioner Akin inquired if Consultant Wery had seen the several clarifying questions he had 1
sent to Chief Planning Official French several days ago, which included numbers in the report 2
that did not seem correct. Concerning Packet Page 123, he thought there was confusion 3
between downtown and Cal Ave vacancy rates. The third bullet item on that page related to 4
office occupancy. He advised that there should be a spread of a mean and a standard deviation 5
or some other range. 6
Consultant Wery replied that he had seen the questions, and he believed he covered them. He 7
added that their recommendations were generally inclusive of everything the Ad Hoc 8
addressed, but there were a couple things, such as office, that could be addressed. There were 9
changes, corrections, and clarifications they had seen since submitting the report, which they 10
would like to refine. One was some numbers in the demographic summary, and there were 11
different sets of numbers between the populations, which he would correct and clarify. He 12
explained that vacancy rates looked at occupancy and occupancy looked at how efficiently 13
space was being used. 14
Michael Baker International Consultant Surabbhi Barbhaya stated that the third bullet item on 15
Packet Page 123 discussed the actual occupancy of the office space, which was different from 16
the vacancy rate. The vacancy rate hovered around 20% nationally, similar to Palo Alto's 17
vacancy rate. The occupancy rate was the utilization of [inaudible 3:56:33], which had 18
decreased and was around [55% 3:56:47] nationally, and they did not have the data for Palo 19
Alto. It was affecting retail sales and impacting parking, so there was more parking available. 20
Offices were still trying to determine how many parking spaces were needed or the actual 21
occupancy of [inaudible 3:57:16]. 22
Commissioner Hechtman spoke of the numbers being off in the market study, Attachment B, 23
and asked Consultant Wery to share the table he had. 24
Consultant Wery displayed a table and map on Slide 48, which he could incorporate in. He 25
explained how the numbers had been reported. 26
Commissioner Hechtman understood that the slide showed how many people were coming 27
from 5, 10, and 15 minutes from downtown and one was an historic figure and the other a 28
projection. He would have guessed that University Avenue would have had overwhelming 29
higher numbers, particularly over Midtown, but the slide was showing Midtown as the most 30
popular destination. He asked the consultants if they had predicted that. 31
Consultant Wery confirmed that the slide showed how many people were coming from 5, 10, 32
and 15 minutes from downtown and one was an historic figure and the other a projection. The 33
slide showed the potential population of shoppers within a drive time. They did not have data 34
on how many people were coming and going. He thought the Streetsense report might have 35
had some of that data. 36
Consultant Barbhaya clarified that the slide did not represent the number of people coming 37
into the area but was the number of people living in the 5‐minute drive distance. 38
[____ 4:03:07] queried if the number of people employed within 5, 10, and 15 minutes of these 1
areas had been considered. 2
Consultant Wery believed it had the number of employees. The report contained the CoStar 3
data, which was Appendix B. 4
Consultant Barbhaya did not think it had the number of employees but drive time [inaudible 5
4:03:39], but they were for [particular areas, like 4:03:43] downtown, not for the entire area. 6
Chair Summa queried if the 26 projected populations were based on a common multiplier for 7
all 3 areas based on a general idea of how much the city was going to grow or were they 8
specific to each of the 3 areas. 9
Consultant Wery answered that the projected populations were more generalized and not 10
specific, but there would not have been much variation because they were all close together. 11
He expected the net growth to be the same percentage between 2021 and 2026. There was 12
very little growth in population in this area. 13
Consultant Barbhaya added that she was not sure what algorithms were being used for the 14
population projections, but there might be differences based on some of the group trends. 15
PUBLIC COMMENTS 16
There were no requests to speak. 17
Chair Summa closed the public hearing. She mentioned that a motion was not needed, but 18
recommendations needed to be made to Council on the final report. She remined the 19
Commission that it would come back to the PTC with specific changes. 20
Commissioner Akin explained that average parking occupancy could give a misleading picture of 21
what was happening. He cautioned that care needed to be taken in drawing conclusions from a 22
simple occupancy figure. He expressed that a parking analysis was valid only if there was a 23
commitment to replacing the publicly accessible spaces lost to the Housing Element 24
opportunity sites. He noted that 8% of all downtown parking was on surface lots that were 25
Housing Element opportunity sites, so the City would have to commit to replacing those, 26
otherwise the parking analysis would be incorrect. He thought that in the Ad Hoc discussion it 27
was agreed that it would be in the report, which he felt should be included on Packet Page 172, 28
and he wanted Council to get that message. 29
Commissioner Hechtman requested verification that no parking would be lost in connection 30
with affordable housing opportunity sites on city parking lots. He outlined the key points that 31
he drew from the draft retail study, which included the RPO hurting the City now, so it needed 32
to be trimmed, and the office limit hurting the retail business, and he discussed relaxing or 33
repealing it. He thought there should be a study reviewing the parking requirements for dining 34
services to conform the parking standard to current best municipal practices and that parking 35
restrictions should be eased. He supported the primary strategies of zoning cleanup, the 36
streamlining process, allowing nonretail uses in ground floor with limitations, and relaxing the 1
formula retail restrictions. 2
Commissioner Templeton shared the same thoughts as Commissioner Hechtman on City 3
parking. She did not feel a need to make changes to the primary zoning strategies presented. 4
Vice Chair Chang suggested there be a motion to say the report had been received and a 5
second motion to say formula retail could be relaxed and limited only to restaurants that had 6
more than 50 outlets and to allow parking restriction flexibility so that additional parking would 7
not be required throughout the city if there was a change in retail use, which could make an 8
immediate difference. She did not want these two things to get caught up in the 9
comprehensive zoning cleanup. The PTC had not discussed all of this in depth. She detailed why 10
it was not clear to her that the RPO was a problem as a whole. The RPO needed to be relaxed 11
some, but care needed to be taken on how it would be done in the core shopping areas. She 12
understood that Michael Baker was implying that office construction limitations could be 13
removed, and she did not know if repealing office conversion and construction limitations 14
would help retail. 15
Chair Summa asked if Vice Chair Chang wanted to remove the requirement requiring more 16
parking if a different retail or retail‐like use was going in. 17
Vice Chair Chang confirmed that was correct. 18
Discussion ensued regarding parking being based on square footage (except in the Cal Ave 19
business district); there being extensive and intensive retail uses; not making a distinction if 20
there was not a square footage change; making the motion explicit that parking would apply to 21
square footage, except historically at Cal Ave, which had been wiped out by State law; 22
restaurants having the highest parking requirements; the code saying parking would need to 23
increase if an appliance store was changing to a restaurant, for example, but there being no 24
difference in parking requirement if an intensive use was changed to a restaurant; there being 25
differences in restaurant parking requirements and parking requirements for downtown and 26
Cal Ave; and relaxing the parking restriction when changing the use in the retail space, 27
depending on what it would change to, which there were definitions for. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl had mixed feelings about the report and it not speaking to the way 29
things were being thought about. He agreed with some of it but not others. A fundamental goal 30
was to attract retail by being more predictable and less uncertain, and he pointed out that a 31
recommendation on Packet Page 177 went opposite of that and was not advantageous to 32
attracting retail, which he explained. He did not think the recommendations in Section 4 were 33
good, and they were not what had been recommended. 34
Commissioner Akin noted that the Ad Hoc had developed a list of suggestions bordering on and 35
going beyond zoning, and he asked, since they were not captured in this report, if they were 36
captured some other way and how to communicate those to Council. He clarified why it was 37
important, which included taxes and reducing vacancy. The Ad Hoc had discussed Council 38
requesting a study to consider general vacancy taxes, which should include office and retail. He 1
discussed higher lease rates strongly correlating with higher vacancy rates, and he stated that 2
bringing the asking rates down could be one of best things to do. He proposed that Council 3
direct staff to do a study. He was disappointed that the report did not draw more cause‐and‐4
effect connections between zoning and retail vacancies. He had observed that higher total 5
square footage of retail in the area was strongly correlated with higher vacancy rates, which 6
may indicate a surplus retail space or that it was poorly distributed or that opportunities were 7
not being advertised. If this was not to be part of the study, he requested that it still be 8
considered. 9
Chair Summa was looking for 20 tight recommendations that would be easy to implement. 10
Related to the primary zoning strategies on Slide 9, she thought numbers 1 and 2 were outside 11
the scope of the task. Regarding number 3, the suggestion seemed to eliminate Midtown and El 12
Camino, which had lower vacancy rates, and to keep the cores, which she wanted to do, which 13
had higher vacancy rates, which eliminated walkable shopping for a huge part of residents and 14
workers, so she was not interested in that as a strategy. If the RPO needed to be changed, a 15
very detailed look should be taken. She did not understand how limiting nonretail uses would 16
help, other than converting some spaces to office. She clarified that when she referenced retail 17
she was referring to anything allowed in ground floor. She elaborated on why she was not 18
interested in repealing the office conversion and construction limitations. She felt relaxing the 19
formula retail restrictions was a good idea. She believed easing the parking regulations in the 20
way Vice Chair Chang brought up could work. She did not see some of the other ideas in the 21
report being relevant to reviving and making the retail areas more attractive. She thought there 22
should be a motion to acknowledge the two quick fixes and to say the report was received but 23
not that it was recommended because a lot needed to be worked on. She wondered if the Ad 24
Hoc wanted to submit a report to Council. 25
Vice Chair Chang asked if the PTC would need to approve a letter to Council if it was written by 26
the Ad Hoc. 27
Chief Planning Official French thought the Ad Hoc could prepare a letter and limit it [inaudible 28
4:40:22]. It would be time sensitive because Council was to hear this on June 10. It would go 29
out 2 weeks before June 10. She could have a placeholder concept for an attached letter. 30
Chair Summa thought it would be fine if the PTC authorized the Ad Hoc to represent the Ad 31
Hoc's thoughts. 32
Commissioner Hechtman did not think a motion was needed. In staff's report to Council it 33
would be clear that the report was received and comments provided. He liked the idea of there 34
being a letter to Council from the Ad Hoc Committee rather than from the PTC through the Ad 35
Hoc Committee. He requested the Ad Hoc consider the letter and asked if they would bring to 36
Council's attention only the three areas the Ad Hoc had consensus on or if it would include 37
items where there had not been consensus. 38
Chair Summa agreed that the Ad Hoc should consider the contents of the letter. In the absence 1
of a motion, depending on how the Ad Hoc wanted to do it, the letter could contain comments 2
from the Ad Hoc, not just consensus items. 3
The Commission was in agreement. 4
4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 5
Chair Summa noted that Vice Chair Chang welcomed Commissioner Hechtman back and 6
acknowledged his reappointment. 7
Commissioner Hechtman appreciated Council's support, and he was thankful to be able to 8
continue do the work he enjoyed. 9
Chair Summa took nominations for Chair. 10
[MOTION #1] 11
Commissioner Reckdahl nominated Vice Chair Chang. He stated that she added a lot of insight 12
and drive. 13
Vice Chair Chang accepted, and she would be honored to be Chair. She wanted to help the 14
Commission continue the impactful work being done. 15
Chair Summa asked for a second to the nomination. 16
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the nomination. 17
Chair Summa called for other nominations, and there were none. 18
Commissioner Hechtman voiced that Vice Chair Chang had done a terrific job as Commissioner, 19
and Vice Chair this year. She was qualified to be Chair because it was apparent that she had a 20
close working relationship with Chair Summa, which primed her to be a leader. 21
Chair Summa confirmed that there were no other nominations for Chair. 22
PUBLIC COMMENTS 23
24
There were no requests to speak. 25
26
VOTE 27
28
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 29
30
MOTION PASSED 6‐0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 31
32
Chair Chang took nominations for Vice Chair. 1
2
[MOTION #2] 3
4
Commissioner Akin nominated Commissioner Reckdahl. He was impressed with how well 5
connected he was in the community and how it contributed to his success here. He had ample 6
experience, and he believed he was ready for the role. He liked how he worked cordially with a 7
huge variety of people. 8
9
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the nomination. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl accepted the nomination. 12
13
Chair Chang asked if there were additional nominations for Vice Chair, and there were none. 14
15
Commissioner Hechtman stated that Commissioner Reckdahl had been a PTC member for two 16
years but a Palo Alto public servant a lot longer than that, including years on the Parks 17
Commission. He spoke of Commissioner Reckdahl's level of experience. He expected him to be 18
a great Vice Chair next year and to be elevated to Chair the year after that. 19
20
Commissioner Templeton hoped the leaders of this body could accomplish what Commissioner 21
Hechtman mentioned. She stated it would be nice to accomplish having a predictable path 22
under their leadership. 23
24
PUBLIC COMMENTS 25
26
There were no requests to speak. 27
28
VOTE 29
30
Administrative Associate Dao conducted a roll call vote. 31
32
MOTION PASSED 6‐0 (Chang, Akin, Hechtman, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 33
34
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 36
Chair Chang declared that the final order of business was approval of PTC draft semi‐verbatim 37
minutes of December 13, 2023. 38
MOTION 39
40
Commissioner Summa moved to approve the minutes as revised. 41
42
SECOND 1
2
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 3
4
Chair Chang asked for comments and there were none. 5
6
VOTE 7
8
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao took a roll call vote. 9
10
MOTION PASSED 6‐0 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Summa, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) 11
12
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 13
Commissioner Summa thanked the PTC for a great year and a half being Chair, and she 14
reiterated all the nice things she said at the last meeting of last year. She stated that the people 15
on this Commission had been winners to work with in her seven and a half‐years on the 16
Commission. 17
Chair Chang thanked outgoing Chair Summa for her tremendous work this year and a half and 18
dealing with some sticky meetings, which she handled with grace. 19
Commissioner Summa congratulated Chair Chang and Vice Chair Reckdahl. 20
ADJOURNMENT 21
Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. 22