Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-30 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: April 30, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 7 Chair Akin called the meeting to order 6:00 p.m. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 12 13 There were no requests to speak. 14 15 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 16 17 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced that Items 2 and 3 have been postponed. Item 2 18 has been postponed at the Applicant’s request to allow time to further redesign. Regarding 19 Item 3, staff met with the neighbor to better understand accessibility needs, and there will be 20 an update in a future written staff report. 21 22 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 23 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 24 25 Jennifer Armer noted that on May 14 the PTC will address a vesting tentative map for the 3150 26 El Camino Real project and the CIP, and there will be a study session on South Palo Alto bike 27 ped connectivity. Council approved the 70 Encina Avenue project. On May 6, Council will review 28 the 4075 El Camino Way planned community, and she requested that Commissioner Templeton 29 attend as the liaison for the month of May, and she will contact her prior to the meeting with 30 the latest developments. On May 12, Council will address the ADU Ordinance recommended by 31 PTC on April 9. 32 33 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius voiced that the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Staff Report will be 34 presented on a date to be determine. The Parking Program update is targeted to return to the 35 PTC on May 28. 36 ACTION ITEMS 37 38 2. Recommendation on a Resolution Amending the El Camino Real Retail Node Map for 1 Purposes of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.180: Retail Preservation. CEQA 2 Status: Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 3 adopted November 17, 2023 (SCH #2014052101) (Continued from March 26, 2025). 4 5 Jennifer Armer shared a PowerPoint from the previous meeting and a map showing to the 6 nodes, which is included in the printed packet. In addition to the 3 nodes that had been 7 presented to the PTC, Council requested a fourth node, which includes an interim node. The 8 PTC is to consider making recommendations to modify the nodes or to include additional 9 nodes. Additional maps, details, and recommendations are included in the Staff Report. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman asked if staff is recommending that the PTC recommend to Council 12 eliminating all the interim nodes. He referenced the fourth line of the second paragraph on 13 page 11 of the Staff Report and requested that staff clarify the recommendation. 14 15 Jennifer Armer recommended that the PTC consider possible needed modifications to the 16 previously identified nodes. The green nodes were identified based on the South El Camino 17 Plan as directed in the Housing Element, but staff heard from the PTC and Council that 18 additional areas should be considered. Staff recommended the previous map plus the auto 19 dealerships. Staff had no concerns about modifications to it. 20 21 Commissioner Peterson inquired if the green nodes are limited because there will be a cost to 22 the city if the areas are expanded or if they perform better being a compact node covering a 23 very specific area. 24 25 Jennifer Armer replied that retail nodes will have more protection and requirements for 26 preservation of existing commercial space. The reason for reducing requirements for retail 27 preservation in other locations along El Camino is part of the reduction of constraints on 28 housing development in that area. She understood that the goal is to retain protections in 29 certain nodes. 30 31 Commissioner Ji questioned what criteria was used to define the nodes. He requested that the 32 half mile radius around the transit hubs be identified. 33 34 Jennifer Armer replied that she cannot provide the criteria used to define the nodes. She 35 believed the set of guidelines was developed in early 80s, and as far as she knew they had not 36 been adopted but they had been used as guidance when reviewing projects. It did not specify 37 which parcels the nodes would include. Requiring commercial along the entire length of a 38 boulevard such as this is often not effective. An idea is to have nodes concentrating services for 39 those living in the area. The reasons and motivations for the City may be different than what 40 they were when the previous guidelines were adopted. She questioned if there is an intent to 41 preserve specific retail areas or to set spacing between. A map of the half mile radius that was 42 part of the previous El Camino Real focus area was furnished. 43 44 Chair Akin asked if there is a document more recent than 2002 for South El Camino design 1 guidelines. 2 3 Jennifer Armer was not aware of a more recent document. 4 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS 6 7 There were no requests to speak. 8 9 Chair Akin thought the current set of nodes omitted some important areas and perhaps 10 overweighted others, so he questioned whether Council would consider the PTC’s rationale at 11 least as much as the map. He proposed the discussion consist of 2 parts. He wanted to first 12 reach consensus about goals and then recommend nodes or create an ad hoc to discuss the 13 details. He inquired if preserving retail will discourage housing development. The Housing 14 Element indicates that it will. Preservation should be used sparingly. He queried who the 15 customers will be for the preserved retail space, if the nodes should be walkable, and what 16 types of businesses should be supported. In past discussion, there was in interest in 17 neighborhood-serving businesses, but there are opportunities for regional ones. 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman commented that a goal may be parking availability. He asked if 20 Caltrans plans to eliminate street parking on both sides of El Camino. 21 22 Jennifer Armer stated there has been loss of street parking for bike lanes, but she did not know 23 if it is for the entire length. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman stated that his comments will assume that street parking will be 26 eliminated for the entire length. Under State law there can be development with no parking in 27 the half mile radiuses. He was concerned about there being no parking on El Camino combined 28 with various State laws associated with housing being developed with less parking, which will 29 push parking into the neighborhoods. In looking at the interim nodes, he identified 6 portions 30 of the node where one or both of these characteristics would occur, which will hamper 31 retention of retail and/or housing development. There are shallow lots along El Camino Real 32 with R1 directly behind them which should not be included in the retail nodes. Related to the 33 lack of parking, he was concerned with empty storefronts if retailers do not have an 34 environment that will allow them to be profitable. 35 36 Commissioner Ji stated that, to his knowledge, there is no parking on the segment being 37 discussed. He supported walkability from housing to retail. There is overflow parking into his 38 neighborhood. Underground parking is an option to retain ground-floor retail, and for new 39 developments, he wanted to look to neighboring cities with popular ground-floor retail. 40 Ground-floor retail could increase rents. Small lot sizes may be a hindrance. 41 42 Chair Akin wanted to be careful about putting too much space in the preservation zones, which 1 could constrain housing. He spoke of the South El Camino design guidelines being outdated. He 2 was inclined to put zones in places that will protect or encourage neighborhood-serving 3 businesses that can be largely accessed on foot. An exception to that may be Palo Alto Square. 4 Consideration should be given to customers being daytime employees. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that the abandoned lot behind Happy Donuts needs to be 7 addressed, and she wondered if it could be done through zoning. Maybe it could be a parking 8 lot. If properties are to be accessed on foot, she wants it to be safe. 9 10 Chair Akin commented that having parking in the alleyways was used as a justification for not 11 having parking out front. 12 13 Commissioner Peterson suggested that the El Camino corridor be presented as a building 14 information/corridor model to run a simulation or to color code the different constraints. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton inquired if new commissioners have printed city zoning maps. 17 18 Jennifer Armer responded that the zoning maps are available online, but she is happy to 19 provide printed maps if requested. 20 21 Commissioner Ji commented that it would be nice to see a document explaining the nodes in 22 the Staff Report. Concerning the multiple layers for the building information model, it would be 23 interesting to see how all the policies made will intersect. Regarding Item 2 of the goals, school 24 students should be considered. He also thought businesses on the Page Mill side would access 25 during the day. 26 27 Chair Akin summarized that the discussion had included who the customers will be for the retail 28 space; using it sparingly because of constraints on housing development and parking, which 29 may deserve a separate bullet item in the list of rationale; adding students to the list of 30 customers; mapping parking availability; access to businesses in long blocks; and something like 31 a 15-minute city criterion to ensure walkability to retail. 32 33 Commissioner Ji requested the definition of a long block. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman addressed the third page of Attachment B and provided an example 36 of a long block, which may result in parking in the neighborhood. 37 38 Chair Akin noted that the PTC conversation is not limited to modifying the interim node and 39 that some of the green nodes can be unrecommended, which may be a benefit if constraints 40 are removed by doing so. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman remarked that the focus area node and Creekside Inn to the Montage 43 Apartments should be removed. He referenced Page 2 of Attachment B and suggested not 44 including the area generally between Fernando and Wilton. He did not consider underground 1 parking to be a solution other than at the largest sites. He had seen examples of rents for retail 2 helping to support housing, although they have to be high foot volume areas. He did not know 3 if retail would support residential above it on El Camino. He also suggested not including 4 Taqueria to Papa Johns due to them being narrow lots without street parking. If required, the 5 businesses could be neighbor serving. 6 7 Chair Akin asked if Housing Element 3.4C indicates that the opportunity sites are exempt from 8 retail preservation. 9 10 Jennifer Armer confirmed that is correct. An application for 100 percent residential could be 11 presented. 12 13 Chair Akin queried if that changed Commissioner Hechtman’s perception of the area given the 14 number of opportunity sites. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman answered that it did not change his perception. A more accurate 17 version of the interim node may have excluded those. It did not matter if Wilton Court was 18 included because it is a housing site, so it would be from Fernando over. There appears to be 2 19 small housing sites in the other area he identified, but the rest of the businesses fall into the 20 category he described. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton questioned if the current parking lots will be required if redeveloped. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman answered that the current parking lots will not be required if 25 redeveloped. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman referenced the third page. He did not think the Retail Preservation 28 Ordinance (RPO) should apply to the upper left corner that comprises mostly Palo Alto 29 Commons and the private court, the Montage Apartments through PC 4511, everything 30 between the Crown Plaza and the Hilton and the residential behind, and basically the 31 northeasterly edge through the US Bank. 32 33 Commissioner Ji asked what the implications of the RPO will be if a parcel is not currently retail. 34 35 Jennifer Armer responded that the RPO is about replacing existing retail and there may be 36 other requirements depending on the zoning designation. 37 38 Commissioner Ji asked what will happen to a property in a node if it is zoned RM15. He 39 requested the definition of retail being used for PC5116, Palo Alto Commons. 40 41 Jennifer Armer answered that a property would be evaluated based on the underlying zone 42 designation. There is no reason to have retail preservation if there is currently no commercial 43 on a site. The existing RPO, not the recently updated one, focuses on retail and retail-like uses, 44 so it does not include office or assisted living types of uses. The code defines retail in some 1 detail. 2 3 Commissioner Peterson inquired what will happen to the gas station sites when they are 4 phased out. He proposed drawing the retail boundary around Buena Vista so Buena Vista will 5 have more space. 6 7 Commissioner Ji asked if a PC zoned property should be amended to become a retail or retail-8 like entity what the intersection would be between that and the RPO. He asked if the RPO 9 would kick in if housing should be built on top of retail or if there should be retail at a later 10 point in a node. 11 12 Jennifer Armer answered that the RPO addresses ground-floor retail or retail-like uses 13 permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015, and may be replaced only by another retail or 14 retail-like use. 15 16 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that the RPO has a specific exemption for PCs. If the 17 PC does not require retail, retail does not need to be preserved. 18 19 Commissioner Ji asked if the RPO will apply only to retail that existed prior to March 2, 2015. 20 21 Albert Yang confirmed that is correct. 22 23 Chair Akin remarked that he is not convinced that the California node is useful because retail 24 within a short distance of that node is protected. He questioned whether there needs to be a 25 separate layer of protection for the NVCAP node sites. He considered Palo Alto Square to be an 26 outlier. The residential customer base nearby is relatively small; however, the daytime 27 employee base is large. This may be one of the few places where there is enough retail floor 28 area to support a larger business. He was inclined to preserve that part of the focus area node. 29 He was less convinced about the rest of the focus area node where projects are in the works, 30 which may determine the outcome on those areas, and they are opportunity sites, so he was 31 not sure that extending retail protection to those areas would be worthwhile. The Barron Park 32 Ventura area is active and driven by foot traffic, and it was called out in the original design 33 guidelines as a desirable pedestrian development node, so he was inclined to preserve as much 34 as can be within that area, although the current uses might not persist if redevelopment 35 happens. 36 37 Jennifer Armer requested that Chair Akin clarify the area he is discussing. 38 39 Chair Akin clarified that it is both sides of the street from Fernando to Los Robles. He had not 40 considered parking issues. As for the triangle node, he saw the argument for preserving retail 41 on the triangle itself, but he was less convinced about the frontage on El Camino Way. The 42 Goodwill site is an opportunity site, so it would not be compromised. He had no objection to 43 retaining the auto dealership node that Council recommended. He did not see justification for 44 protection in this part of the interim node. The key differences in what he observed compared 1 to what he had heard are the possible eliminations of the California and NVCAP nodes and a 2 portion of the focus area node and the inclusion of more areas in the Fernando to the Los 3 Robles area. 4 5 Commissioner Ji agreed with eliminating the California node. He noted the area between the 6 California and the NVCAP nodes is within 0.5 miles of the Caltrain station and that it would be 7 nice to maintain retail there. He referenced the second page of the map and noted that the 8 area is walker-friendly. Related to the third page of the map, he wanted to keep as much retail 9 as possible between the Los Robles side and some part of Arastradero. It is unlikely that the 10 areas on the southside of town are good places for nodes. He circled areas on the map that 11 have parking issues. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton stated that some of the designated sites are not great retail sites. The 14 California node not marked with hashmarks has had a large amount of turnover, so she 15 supported changing that but only with explicit direction to not harm any retail there even if the 16 recommendation is changed. Maybell through to the triangle node is a primary commuter path. 17 She wanted consideration to be given to saving retail at the Walgreens. She supported adding 18 in the little triangle portion, but there needs to be an escape clause if it is not sustainable for 19 retail, as there has been a revolving door of stores there. She asked if there is an escape valve 20 other than returning to the PTC. She inquired if training centers, such as Taekwondo, are retail 21 uses. She wondered what the sites could be if retail is not a feasible option. 22 23 Jennifer Armer answered that there are ways to do housing or other types of developments on 24 the sites even if in the retail preservation. If it is a housing site, it could be proposed in the 25 future. The map can also be amended through resolution rather than ordinance. She believed 26 training centers fell under retail-like uses. She read the definition of retail and retail-like. Retail- 27 like is intended to provide flexibility. Some of the definitions will return to the PTC for further 28 discussion in the coming months as there is an interim ordinance modifying them. For example, 29 there had been discussion related to dog grooming. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton supported including the sliver of the triangle not included. She 32 inquired why it is not included in the recommendations. Due to vacancies, she was not sure 33 about adding Fernando to Los Robles back in. She supported expanding the triangle. 34 35 Jennifer Armer did not know why the sliver of the triangle is not included in the 36 recommendations. 37 38 Commissioner Ji inquired if a business developed as retail or retail-like can be turned into an 39 office. He hoped the areas being walkable will result in more traffic. Regarding the El Camino 40 sites that are too small for retail preservation, maybe there is an alternative to encourage larger 41 sites to make retail more sustainable. 42 43 Jennifer Armer replied that a business developed as retail or retail-like cannot be turned into an 1 office. 2 3 Commissioner Hechtman stated that it makes sense to include (as part of the interim node or 4 folded into the triangle node) the long, narrow triangle to the southeast of the triangle node. 5 He queried if the triangle on the other end of El Camino Way should be folded in. He felt that 6 the whole island should have 1 treatment. He supported eliminating the California node and 7 reducing the focus area node. He supported not including the NVCAP area. 8 9 Commissioner Ji suggested including the triangle on the other end of El Camino Way and that 10 the whole island have 1 treatment. 11 12 Chair Akin stated that the PTC could discuss the area north to south or an ad hoc could be 13 created to work out the details and report back to the PTC. 14 15 Jennifer Armer recommended a motion for staff to return with a revised map showing the PTC’s 16 consensus and areas of disagreement. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton thought that would be an excellent approach. 19 20 Chair Akin was reluctant to do that without seeing if there are other areas of disagreement. A 21 motion is not needed if the PTC provides guidance to staff. He understood that the PTC agrees 22 that the California node is not needed if there is adequate retail protection for the site in that 23 node that is not an opportunity site. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman suspected that the corner site on California that is not an opportunity 26 site may have some sort of commercial zoning, and he queried if that is sufficient protection, or 27 if that should be kept as an island that the retail node will apply to. 28 29 Jennifer Armer stated that the property on the corner of California Avenue and El Camino Real 30 is not a housing opportunity site. It is within the CC2 zone with [R and P 1:52:28]. Palo Alto 31 Square is a planned community zone, so it may not be useful to keep retail preservation on that 32 site. 33 34 Chair Akin voiced that the California node could be removed in its entirety. The focus area node 35 may protect just the Driftwood Deli, and he did not know if other constraints protect 36 Driftwood. He did not see anything else in that node where the RPO could be applied. He 37 inquired if the builder’s remedy proposal for that site includes the deli. 38 39 Jennifer Armer did not know if the builder’s remedy proposal for that site includes the deli. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton questioned, if this passes, if it would apply to any projects proposed 42 for that site. 43 44 Jennifer Armer replied that none of the zoning rules need to be complied with if it is a builder’s 1 remedy. 2 3 Albert Yang added that it applies to code compliant projects on the site. 4 5 Chair Akin inquired if the current proposal that is not builder’s remedy is code compliant or if it 6 is a PC. 7 8 Albert Yang replied there is only a builder’s remedy application for the Creekside property, but 9 there is a goal to entice the owner to consider a code complaint project. 10 11 Chair Akin voiced if a new node is created to include some of the area between Fernando and 12 Los Robles it could include Driftwood. 13 14 Commissioner Ji asked what the interaction is between something being zoned commercial and 15 being preserved in a certain way. 16 17 Jennifer Armer responded that the interaction between something being zoned commercial 18 and being preserved in a certain way is layers of regulation. Commercial zoning lists the allowed 19 uses. The retail preservation indicates that an existing amount of retail or retail-like use needs 20 to be retained. 21 22 Albert Yang added if there is existing retail that is nonconforming and not permitted in the 23 existing zoned district then the retail ordinance would not apply. 24 25 Chair Akin believed there are 2 interpretations related to Fernando to Los Robles, Barron Park, 26 and Ventura. Proposal 1 would create a node running essentially from Creekside to Los Robles 27 on both sides of El Camino relying on the high-density opportunity sites to address potential 28 parking difficulties. The other is to explicitly carve out sections subject to the concerns 29 Commissioner Hechtman has. He inquired if there are other proposals for the area. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton queried if retail preservation will apply to gas stations. She wanted 32 thought to be given to maintaining that kind of service long term compared to what else it 33 could be. She questioned what flexibility there is. 34 35 Chair Akin presumed that it will be retail but not necessarily a gas station. 36 37 Jennifer Armer stated that gas stations are generally a small amount of floor area of retail, so 38 not a lot of preservation. 39 40 Chair Akin expressed that the floor area is comparable to other sites in that area. 41 42 Commissioner Templeton stated that everything on the Barron Park side was hashtagged 1 except for a couple restaurants. She questioned if restaurant space should be preserved if 2 redevelopment occurs. 3 4 Chair Akin answered it does not have to be restaurants, just anything retail or retail-like. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton expressed that the existing services are used and someone could 7 consolidate and build one large thing to replace the grocer and the restaurant. 8 9 He understood that such is not in the scope of this discussion. 10 11 Commissioner Peterson proposed that Happy Donuts remain and be protected forever. 12 Everything to the right of Happy Donuts [could be part of the interim node leaving housing on 13 both sides of the street 2:06:45]. He was not sure why the Montage Apartments is in the 14 interim. Expanding the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park to El Camino into a larger housing block 15 by narrowing the interim (the blue line) to the street would create a large zone for affordable 16 housing. 17 18 Chair Akin did not know if the PTC had proposed extending one of the hypothetical zones past 19 Montage. If there should be a retail preservation node approximately to Creekside, he 20 questioned how far it should go. 21 22 Commissioner Peterson commented that it should go to Happy Donuts. Buena Vista expanded 23 out to the street would narrow the interim boundary. 24 25 Chair Akin assumed the interim node would be replaced with new nodes and the remainder of 26 the interim node would disappear if the new node ends at Happy Donuts . 27 28 Commissioner Templeton asked why stop there and not go down to Los Robles. 29 30 Commissioner Peterson wanted to stop there to open it up for residential without [REIT 31 2:10:18]. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that she would push back on that. 34 35 Commissioner Ji preferred to end at Los Robles. He generally supported the whole area being 36 the node and that Housing Element sites supersede whatever might be decided. He provided a 37 drawing and asked Commissioner Hechtman how accurate it is for the 2 areas. 38 39 Chair Akin questioned if parking is an issue. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman replied that adjacency to R1 will limit height. He addressed what he 42 called exclusions 1 and 2, which he had described earlier in the meeting. The southerly side 43 would retain exclusion 2 but extend it to Creekside to the north and Los Robles to the south. He 44 appreciated the neighborhood serving businesses, but business owners relied on local clientele 1 and drive-through business. He was concerned about depriving some of the smaller places of 2 streetside parking. He acknowledged that doing the process in steps and possibly providing 3 relief if businesses experience problems due to loss of street parking was an alternative to the 4 exclusions he was proposing. 5 6 Chair Akin found that to be fair. There seems to be a mechanism for updating the map. A 7 number of businesses on the south side had off-street parking. 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman noted that today’s parking may not be available in the future vision. 10 11 Chair Akin did not hear consensus unless Commissioner Hechtman’s formulation is adopted and 12 something is done tentatively with the understanding that there may need to be a change in 13 the near future. If that is adopted, there will be a zone running from Creekside Inn to Los 14 Robles, but if something happens at Buena Vista, it may need to be adjusted. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton liked that approach. 17 18 Commissioner Ji asked what is meant by tentatively. 19 20 Jennifer Armer understood that the PTC will give more precise direction to staff to prepare a 21 revised map but that it will return to PTC to vote on a recommendation to Council. She 22 understood that temporary node means to try it and see what happens. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton remarked that the PTC has clarified that the barrier to change is not 25 very high, so if passed by Council, it will be the law of the land until it changes. The rules for 26 operation will be declared, and if a developer has a problem building housing because of that, 27 then they will have a known path to a remedy that will not be too burdensome. 28 29 Chair Akin agreed. The direction given tentatively (in the sense Commissioner Templeton 30 elaborated) is from Creekside, including Creekside Inn, to Los Robles on the south side. He 31 hoped the developer will do a compliant application, which will hopefully mean preserving 32 Driftwood. The 2 options for the north side are a zone from Fernando to El Camino Way or a 33 zone from approximately Curtner or Wilton to El Camino Way. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman asked if he is suggesting keeping everything from Fernando all the 36 way to El Camino Way, including Palo Alto Commons. 37 38 Chair Akin intended for it to essentially stop at Keys School. 39 40 Commissioner Hechtman suggested excluding the portion from San Fernando through roughly 41 Wilton Court. He did not object to keeping everything from Wilton Court to Keys School as a 42 node. 43 44 Commissioner Akin stated there is not much already exempt in the segment from Fernando to 1 Wilton. He had no objection to eliminating that section. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton was not sure if it is necessary on the whole section and why it would 4 be split at Wilton Court. It would be beneficial to retain a few sites on [Park 2:25:20] side of the 5 street. There are few sites on the other side and she was not sure what would be gained for 6 retail. She wanted to see redevelopment for most of those. She discussed the height restriction, 7 due to the adjacent residential, possibly being problematic. 8 9 Commissioner Ji did not feel strongly, but he wanted it to be from Fernando to El Camino Way, 10 so it would be symmetrical and because of the many pedestrian crossings across El Camino. He 11 did not necessarily want to maintain the Shell station, but it could be redeveloped into another 12 retail-like. He added that developers could return to the PTC if they have issues. He preferred 13 that larger sections be marked as retail preservation, which could be changed if there is 14 pushback. 15 16 Commissioner Peterson commented that the retail section in that area struggles. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton relayed that she heard a significant amount of customer feedback 19 about retailers struggling. She wanted the planning to be thoughtful as it relates to needed 20 services. It appears that there will be spot zoning and that few businesses on the east side will 21 be retained, which is not compelling. 22 23 Commissioner Ji expressed that he does not necessarily want to keep the current businesses 24 and that redevelopment may produce flourishing businesses. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton wanted thought to be given to what will be retained. 27 28 [The Commission took a 10-minute break] 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman did not want to equate not having properties in a node equalling no 31 occurrence of retail. When staff returns with the mapping, he wants to see the underlying 32 zoning along El Camino. There may be retail without applying the RPO, but if the RPO applies, 33 there may not be housing. 34 35 Chair Akin suggested the recommendation be 1 of 2 choices – the east/north side of El Camino 36 having a zone from Wilton Avenue to North El Camino Way or a zone from Fernando Avenue to 37 North El Camino Way. He heard from the PTC that the triangle node should be extended to 38 both apices on the left and the right of the triangle proper. He did not know if there should be 39 any changes on the other side of El Camino Way. 40 41 Commissioner Ji asked if the PTC is interested in adding the Hamlet retail and medical offices. 42 43 Chair Akin did not think the Hamlet retail and medical offices should be added, although he was 1 open to discussing it. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton saw only land on the northern part of the triangle. 4 5 Commissioner Ji recalled that that spot is the bus station and that there are no buildings. 6 7 Chair Akin stated that the question is if there is lot consolidation in the future would it be 8 preferable to have a single contiguous zone or one that is cut off at one end. 9 10 Jennifer Armer stated that she believes the darker orange triangle is a mixed-use project and 11 that the tip of the triangle is open space. The building closest to it is a mixed-use building. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that it would be worth including. 14 15 Commissioner Ji preferred that the whole island be one zone. 16 17 Chair Akin supported the whole island being one zone. On the other side of El Camino Way, 18 there are a couple sites that are not opportunity sites, and he inquired if there is retail on that 19 site or a couple sites to the left. 20 21 Jennifer Armer replied that it appears that there is no retail on the corner site. 22 23 Commissioner Ji requested commentary on the sliver between the 2 Housing Element sites. He 24 stated that that the whole area feels commercial and retail-like. 25 26 Jennifer Armer responded that she does not have information on that. 27 28 Commissioner Hechtman supported including the Hamlet retail and medical office in the node. 29 There is opportunity for substantial development because of the size and depth of the lots. 30 31 Commissioner Ji queried if medical office counts as retail or retail-like. 32 33 Jennifer Armer answered that medical office does not count as retail or retail-like. 34 35 Chair Akin noted that there is retail in the Hamlet retail and medical office. 36 37 Commissioner Ji found the site to be a good potential for redevelopment. 38 39 Chair Akin asked which properties on the northeast side would be included. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton voiced that the entirety of the triangle, everything outlined in green, 42 and the Hamlet property would be included. 43 44 Commissioner Ji agreed with Commissioner Templeton’s summary. 1 2 Chair Akin declared that direction will be passed along. He directed the conversation to the 3 other side of El Camino. 4 5 Commissioner Ji commented that the Walgreens is probably the only thing that is retail or 6 retail-like. 7 8 Chair Akin suggested extending the auto dealership’s node to include Walgreens, although the 9 name of the node may need to be changed. 10 11 Jennifer Armer mentioned that she will propose some names when the map is prepared. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton supported what was discussed. She asked why the tire store is not 14 included as retail. 15 16 Commissioner Ji wanted to include the tire store and the dentist. 17 18 Chair Akin expressed his concern with that being spot zoning. 19 20 Jennifer Armer mentioned that the 3 corners of the intersection could be viewed as a node. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton expressed that the name of the zone could be back-to-school 23 corridors. 24 25 Chair Akin mentioned that the Jiffy Lube could be included even though it is an opportunity site. 26 27 Commissioner Ji noted that it could be attached to the triangle node zone, even though there is 28 no retail or retail-like in between. 29 30 Chair Akin remarked if there are no preferences, it may be left to staff’s discretion. He stated 31 that zones do not need to be extended farther. 32 33 Commissioner Templeton agreed that zones do not need to be extended. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman did not suggest any additional areas. He understood that there is 36 consensus to include the NVCAP node on the list to exclude. 37 38 Chair Akin felt sufficient guidance had been provided through the NVCAP and that an additional 39 zone does not need to be enforced as part of this project. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton requested that staff report back on the NVCAP. She wanted to ensure 42 that all the protections exist for that area. 43 44 Chair Akin clarified that a separate planning effort instituted protections for that area. 1 2 Jennifer Armer voiced that information can be included in the next Staff Report. 3 4 Commissioner Ji addressed the bottom of the map, and he did not support creating more 5 nodes. He asked if the lot labeled vacant is retail. 6 7 Chair Akin remarked that he thinks it has a project sign. 8 9 Jennifer Armer expressed that a hotel was approved for a parcel in that area, but she was not 10 sure if it is that parcel. 11 12 Commissioner Ji did not support extending the node. 13 14 Jennifer Armer requested a motion to continue. 15 16 MOTION 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman moved to continue. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 23 24 VOTE MOTION 25 26 Chair Akin conducted a voice vote. 27 28 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) (Chang absent) 29 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 30 31 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 32 Minutes of March 26, 2025 33 34 MOTION 35 36 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 37 38 SECOND 39 40 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 41 1 VOTE MOTION 2 3 Chair Akin conducted a voice vote. 4 5 MOTION 6-0-1 (Akin, Hechtman, James, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) (Chang absent) 6 7 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned that Council had approved the project behind Town & 10 Country. He was the liaison at that meeting, but he did not participate. If Council wants a 11 representative from the Planning Commission, they should structurally include an opportunity 12 to use the representative. He suggested that the retreat include an opportunity to discuss 13 approaching Council about liaisons having a more formal role. 14 15 Chair Akin stated that he had spoken to Director Lait about some possibilities. It should be 16 included in the retreat. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton agreed. She would be available if needed, but she did not want to 19 invest time if it was not needed. She suggested speaking with Director Lait prior to the retreat 20 to find out if a Planning commissioner should be available that evening. She would be happy to 21 be on call in the event of a live request. 22 23 Commissioner Ji wanted to attend the upcoming meeting with Commissioner Templeton and 24 Jennifer Armer. 25 26 Jennifer Armer stated that she thinks Commissioner Ji will have to recuse himself from that 27 item in the future. 28 ADJOURNMENT 29 30 The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. 31