HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-28 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: May 28, 2025 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:00 PM 7
Chair Akin called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8
for May 28, 2025. 9
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, 10
Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and 11
Commissioner Templeton were present. 12
Oral Communications 13
None 14
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 15
None 16
City Official Reports 17
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 18
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated the June PTC meetings will be canceled because no 19
agenda items were scheduled. Tentatively scheduled for July 9 is PTC discussion on 3 conceptual 20
plans for the Cubberley Community Center. At the May 27 special meeting, City Council approved 21
the El Camino Real Focus Area with modifications for 3 additional parcels and considered the 22
4075 El Camino Way Planned Community modifications. During the meeting, the 4075 El Camino 23
Way applicant suggested revising their proposal to remove the third floor units to address privacy 24
concerns as well as reduce the height and bulk of the building, resulting in 11 to 13 units instead 25
of the proposed 16 units. Therefore, Council remanded the item to the PTC. Staff will review the 26
revised plan before the applicant returns to the PTC. Agenda items for next week’s Council 27
meeting included a study session on the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update, Safe 28
Streets for All on the consent calendar, and an urgency ordinance in accordance with Senate Bill 29
1123 for a 10-unit subdivision. City Council’s final meeting before summer break is June 16, unless 30
items need to be continued to June 17. Council will return from summer break for the August 4 31
meeting. Jennifer Armer announced that Veronica Dao will leave the City of Palo Alto and will be 32
the Town Clerk for the Town of Portola Valley. Jennifer Armer made note of which commissioners 33
were interested in receiving printed zoning maps. 34
Transportation Parking Manager Nathan Baird reported the Office of Transportation spoke with 1
Caltrans about the El Camino Real project to address questions about parking removal. The Office 2
of Transportation continued to be in conversation with businesses and residents in the area. No-3
parking signs will go up along the corridor and there will be a change in enforcement soon. 4
Jennifer Armer commented that the new Director for the Office of Transportation will start with 5
the City next week. Nathan Baird was excited about working again with the new director, Ria 6
Hutabarat Lo, whom he previously worked with at the City of Mountain View. Vice-Chair Chang 7
queried if the new Director of Transportation will provide Transportation updates at PTC 8
meetings. Jennifer Armer deferred to Ria Hutabarat Lo as to who will give updates moving 9
forward but she will be invited to join the next PTC meeting. Vice-Chair Chang wanted to have 10
continuous representation from the Transportation Department at least at the beginning of PTC 11
meetings to facilitate communication. Commissioner Templeton agreed with Vice-Chair Chang’s 12
comment. 13
Study Session 14
2. Parking Data Report and Program Amendment Considerations 15
Nathan Baird mentioned he will begin regularly reporting and reviewing parking data to this 16
Commission. Today’s discussion will be on University Avenue parking occupancy data on garages 17
and lots. In the future, sales data will be more regularly published including RPP permit sales data 18
and occupancy reporting on those areas. Previously, the City had 2 separate vendor contracts but 19
the Police Department, Administrative Services Department, and Office of Transportation have 20
now worked together and a new permit management and citation vendor was being brought on 21
under a single contract. Since last summer, Public Works has been working on a new APGS system 22
that will come online very soon for the City’s 4 largest garages, which will advertise the City’s 23
abundant parking resources, particularly at Cowper/Webster and the upper levels of the Bryant 24
Garage. Nathan Baird stated the intention was to make more data-based decisions and have 25
more public engagement on data. The Commission was provided 2 tables and a map that will 26
soon be added to a dedicated parking data portal on the City’s website. 27
Nathan Baird noted the data in front of the Commission showed the University Avenue garages 28
and lots had a lot of availability in the upper levels but people may feel like there was not enough 29
parking when looking at the 2 surface lots at University Avenue and High Street toward Hamilton 30
and at the Alma/High Garage. There was more availability as you move away from High Street 31
toward Middlefield and at the Bryant and Cowper/Webster Garages, so staff will monitor how 32
the APGS project helped advertise parking availability. Staff believed there might be some benefit 33
to consider curb pricing on University Avenue or other areas but the automated data will inform 34
that conversation and response next fiscal year. 35
Vice-Chair Chang thought it was helpful if staff preceded their comments with a reference to the 36
changes since the parking work plan was presented at a PTC meeting 4 years ago. Vice-Chair 37
Chang recalled discussions on wayfinding and automatic license plate readers and she wanted to 38
know if they had been implemented and to what extent. 39
Nathan Baird mentioned there was a policy change in 2021 in response to concerns raised by 1
resident parking advocates about the Downtown RPP employee permits being more affordable 2
than the garage and lot permits. Nathan Baird stated that prices change yearly based on rising 3
costs and other factors but he thought the garage and lot permits were set at 75 percent of the 4
nearby district’s RPP price. A similar pricing relationship was in place for California Avenue and 5
the surrounding Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate permit prices to encourage parking in 6
garages and lots. License plate reading (LPR) was purchased with permit citation and 7
management, and enforcement began in 2021 in some of the resident districts. The Police 8
Department patrolled Crescent Park (no overnight parking), College Terrace, and the 2 9
commercial districts. Customer service officers do the enforcement, not LPR, but Transportation 10
staff had been in conversations about that with ASD, the Police Department, and City Clerk, so it 11
may change in the near future depending on the new citation and permit management vendor’s 12
capabilities. The current LPR system did not meet staff’s expectations of enforcement cost 13
savings and parking occupancy data. Nathan Baird was hopeful that the new vendor could 14
provide regular occupancy counting to inform future public discussions and actions. The APGS 15
project will provide data more regularly. 16
For wayfinding signage, the Cowper/Webster and Bryant Garages have updated parking 17
branding. The new APGS screen signs will use the same branding with blue signs. There were a 18
lot of little green parking signs around University Avenue and downtown but Nathan Baird 19
acknowledged the legibility was not great. The California Avenue District used green on white 20
per the new high-visibility California MUTCD Standards; using those signs elsewhere could 21
potentially be evaluated and developed as a future CIP wayfinding project. Staff will have 22
discussion with the new vendor about their capabilities and price to potentially have curb pricing 23
with mobile payments that could provide data points on an API; however, the possibility for users 24
to use the wayfinding app to see real-time parking availability would be far in the future. 25
Vice-Chair Chang recalled discussions about dynamic pricing 3 or 4 years ago and asked staff to 26
provide some context. Nathan Baird explained that dynamic pricing was more utilized in bigger 27
cities where parking was difficult and the parking demand differed during certain times of day. 28
Nathan Baird did not think Palo Alto needed dynamic pricing yet but felt the more important 29
conversation should be about paid parking and curb pricing. Nathan Baird noted much of the 30
City’s parking was undifferentiated. To park on the street at University Avenue and High Street, 31
you can circle around until you find a space with a 2-hour limit. Some of the City’s garages at the 32
upper levels have 3-hour spaces at the farthest away parking. Most of the garages and lots have 33
2-hour limits, similar to the curb locations, so it encouraged people to drive in circles looking for 34
a spot next to where they want to be and may be causing a lot of the congestion we see. Any 35
differentiation in pricing or time limit to make curb parking a little more expensive might 36
encourage folks to use the garage availability. In the meantime, Nathan Baird hoped the APGS 37
system will help. 38
Commissioner Ji asked staff to talk about the counting methodology. Referring to Packet Page 39
10, the noon count was 496, so Commissioner Ji wondered if that meant somebody counted the 40
cars exactly at noon. Nathan Baird explained those were expensive counts done by a contract 41
vendor at those times. Prior to 2020 when there were a lot more employee permit sales, staff 1
utilized counts to analyze the show rate and gauge how many more permits than spaces could 2
be provided. Since then, permit sales were down; therefore, staff did not need as much detail. In 3
2019, a 9 AM count was done. Data will be published to the website soon that showed 9 AM was 4
not busy from 2017 through 2019. Now, downtown at 8 or 9 AM is not as busy as 11 AM or noon. 5
As a result, the count was streamlined in 2024 to save cost. A contracted transportation firm had 6
someone perform point-in-time counts midweek in the spring or fall at least once a year to 7
capture a typical day. 8
Commissioner Ji pointed out that occupancy would not be over 100 percent with a point-in-time 9
count, Ramona/Lytton was blank in Table 2 on Packet Page 10, and he wondered if the previous 10
data had not been released to avoid confusion from the data discrepancies. Nathan Baird realized 11
he needed to problem solve the issue with the count data on that row but he hoped to correct 12
the data point before it was published to the website. Nathan Baird hypothesized a construction 13
project or another reason caused the 2019 count to have fewer available spaces than in 2024. 14
Nathan Baird will physically go out to count and will research what may have happened at both 15
those count dates. Nathan Baird wanted to share a couple counts that were done similarly for 16
comparison purposes. The 2017 through 2019 counts provided more granularity, so the data 17
points could not be compared with recent counts. Nathan Baird acknowledged there was an issue 18
with the Ramona/Lytton data. In reply to Commissioner Ji questioning why 4 garages were 19
asterisked in Tables 1 and 2 on Packet Page 10, Nathan Baird meant to provide a caption denoting 20
those as the City’s 4 largest garages that were receiving the APGS project. 21
Public Comments: Neilson brought handouts that reflected the email attachments he sent to the 22
PTC. Neilson asked the Commission to get more feedback from stakeholders about the 23
administrative practices and policies. Neilson opined the following 4 policy improvements were 24
needed. First, the commercial parking capacity in the downtown core neighborhoods, the public 25
parking and private parking in the buildings needed to be more integrated. The depiction of the 26
inventory was important to graphically present the data to make it understandable. Second, 27
investigate how much of the parking was under the control of the parking assessment district 28
and if the power will last in perpetuity versus how much was under the control of Nathan Baird 29
and the Office of Transportation, which was probably in litigation but had been an issue for 13 30
years. Third, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan said it was the policy and desire of the Council 31
and the City to promote commerce but not at the expense of the residential neighborhoods. 32
Fourth, the design of the RPP zones was complicated but how those zones were laid out and how 33
they relate to the commercial core was important. Neilson wanted the PTC to have a 34
conversation with the new director, Nathan Baird, and the neighborhoods about how well the 35
zones were operating and what could be improved. Neilson pointed out that the neighborhoods 36
had a heavy load of 2-hour parking. 37
Chair Akin advised commissioners to put on the record what additional data they would like to 38
see and the rationale because it will inform all future policy discussions. 39
Commissioner Hechtman noted wayfinding could get people into a downtown parking space 1
more efficiently so they do not have to go to a second space or circle, resulting in less traffic on 2
the road. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to use data to distribute parkers to available parking 3
with some preferences to parking in the lots and garages off the residential streets to the extent 4
possible. Commissioner Hechtman made the following suggestions, starting from least likely: 5
When driving to Tahoe, a sign on the side of the road said to dial 511 for traffic and weather. 6
Commissioner Hechtman had seen the use of 511 to provide localized information in other states 7
and wondered if something similar could be localized to Palo Alto so as you approach downtown 8
you could get a report on which lots were full or available, although he did not want to encourage 9
people to use their phone while driving. Commissioner Hechtman wondered if it was a functional 10
possibility to add lot and garage availability to the City’s website. As you come into town from 11
peak gateways, such as both ends of University and maybe both ends of Hamilton and Lytton, 12
Commissioner Hechtman suggested signage listing all 6 City garages and at least the biggest 2 or 13
3 City lots with arrows left or right and a red/green/yellow light to tell people if it was full or had 14
much or little capacity. The drawback was the sign had to be large enough to read it as you drove 15
by. 16
Vice-Chair Chang had lived in Palo Alto almost 45 years and when looking at the list of parking 17
garages there were some she had not been in and others she had forgotten about. Vice-Chair 18
Chang thought some of the garages looked like private parking garages. In Vice-Chair Chang’s 19
experience, Redwood City and Burlingame had big blue signs with P’s directing her where to park, 20
so Palo Alto could benefit from that type of infrastructure and she assumed it was relatively 21
inexpensive compared to some of the more technological solutions. Vice-Chair Chang loved the 22
idea of guided parking assistance once she gets to the garage but she worried that people were 23
not going to get to those garages. Given how underutilized the garages were, Vice-Chair Chang 24
suggested considering the following but acknowledged first we needed to see the data: 25
Potentially increase the price differential between the RPPs and garages, maybe say that 26
employee parking had to be in the garages, or maybe allow a set number or percentage of 27
employees to park on the street. 28
Commissioner Templeton agreed with Vice-Chair Chang’s comment on the ease of parking in 29
public garages in Redwood City. Commissioner Templeton shared her experience with reserving 30
a parking space in a garage for an event at Stanford. Commissioner Templeton attended a Giants 31
game and you reserve a spot in a garage within your preferred cost or distance from the venue, 32
which was similar to her experience in San Jose when she visited the Performing Arts Center. 33
Commissioner Templeton found it useful to have more automation and the ability to plan in 34
advance and wondered to what extent it was feasible for Palo Alto. Nathan Baird explained the 35
CIP process started with a discussion about the types of improvements wanted, what he can 36
commit to doing over the next year with a new director, and the costs involved. The industry 37
standard for parking in commercial areas was to have 1 or 2 spaces available. If you are 38
monitoring the occupancy, over time you can set the price accordingly. If the occupancy is at 85 39
or 95 percent, you could increase the hourly price or change the time limit to 1, 2, or 3 hours. 40
Maybe more short-term parking was needed in some spots. The user experience was important 41
when considering the treatments we want to do. 42
Nathan Baird suggested having a permit option for part-time employees. The City’s policy of 1
quarterly and annual employee permits felt too large for someone who comes to work a few 2
times a week; therefore, employees shuffle their car around. Commissioner Templeton believed 3
that employee parking in City garages instead of an RPP was a high priority. 4
Commissioner Ji mentioned his extensive background in looking at transportation data. 5
Commissioner Ji has lived almost 25 years in Palo Alto and never had a problem finding parking 6
downtown, which he thought was due to learning which garages were almost always empty, such 7
as the Ramona/University Garage. Commissioner Ji noted the sign that said Parking Here was 8
maybe less than 1 foot large and a little bit brown, so it was hard to see. More visible signs to 9
point people to the garages would result in better occupancy and help decrease the circling. 10
Commissioner Ji wanted to see this data presented in a heat map, so he drew one using the data 11
points from the table on Packet Page 10 and the map on Packet Page 9. This exercise 12
demonstrated the High/Alma North Garage had 36 percent occupancy but the Alma/High South 13
Garage and adjacent garage had 99 percent and 95 percent occupancy. Commissioner Ji 14
suggested adding signage for the High/Alma North Garage because he walked to every garage 15
and had never seen it and did not know it existed. The Ramona/University Garage was in a high-16
traffic area but was underutilized, so it could use additional signage. 17
Commissioner Ji felt it would be extremely helpful to see a heat map depicting permit and non-18
permit spaces as well as spots reserved for EVs and ADA to better calculate occupancy and make 19
it easier for commissioners to comment on. For example, some floors of the Civic Center Garage 20
were permit-only during certain parts of the day, which made it difficult to calculate the 21
occupancy. If the permit portion was empty while the non-permit portion was full, then maybe 22
the amount of permit parking should be reduced or encourage more employees to use permits 23
and park in those garages. Similarly, if you say it was 96 percent occupancy but the only available 24
occupancy were spots reserved for EV charging or ADA, then the real occupancy was 100 percent. 25
Seeing data on two weekdays was helpful when talking about employee traffic; however, 26
Commissioner Ji also wanted to see weekend data on parking availability because that would 27
impact residents and visitors. Commissioner Ji advised staff to look into a sign that he believed 28
was some form of APGS at the Webster/Cowper Garage showing how many parking spaces were 29
available on each level but every level said 0 parking spaces even though the top 4 floors were 30
completely empty. Commissioner Ji observed a bunch of trash blocking quite a few spaces on the 31
top floor of the Webster/Cowper Garage. Nathan Baird explained the Webster/Cowper Garage 32
APGS project was being rolled out but was not online yet. 33
Chair Akin noted an assumption was often made based on anecdotal evidence that there was 34
plenty of parking available, which informed the decisions we make. When the Downtown RPP 35
started in 2016, parking was believed to be so tight that Council authorized the issuance of 2000 36
permits. Chair Akin advised against making policy decisions that depend on an assumption of 37
huge parking availability because the situation can change as density increases downtown. The 38
information Chair Akin wanted to see in the future were the maximum number of permits that 39
can be sold, how many employee permits were in use in the neighborhood zones today, and how 40
that compared to 2019. 41
Chair Akin acknowledged the controversy over the use of surface parking lots to create housing. 1
One of the arguments was that not all parking spaces were equal, so you cannot substitute a 2
parking space in a lot that was close to people’s uses because they were not equally useful 3
compared to a garage farther away. Chair Akin wanted to see data that either supported the 4
belief that parking spaces were interchangeable or that parking places were special in some way. 5
One quantitative example was tonight’s data showing occupancy for garages has decreased while 6
the occupancy for surface lots has increased. Chair Akin wanted to know the cause of that 7
behavior because it may suggest there was a difference between parking places and was 8
interested in hearing staff’s insight. Nathan Baird replied the work-from-home trend changed 9
things significantly. It was typical of office workers needing to go in 5 days a week but now they 10
need to go in 2 or 3 days a week, so the employee permit at a quarterly or annual basis felt more 11
expensive than they wanted to pay. Nathan Baird thought the color zone system enabled floating 12
between available locations fairly easily. Some City lots were greater or lesser known. Nathan 13
Baird imagined lots were utilized more by visitors and employees who were opting out of the 14
employee permit program. The employee permit program mostly puts employees in the garages 15
but there were some lot spaces. 16
For the lots and garages that offer permit parking, Chair Akin wanted to know how many classes 17
of permit parking exist, who was eligible for them, and how many spaces were reserved in each 18
class. It was necessary to understand how the permit spaces were carved out because we were 19
making assumptions for new residents based on what was available downtown but some of those 20
unoccupied spaces might be unavailable. Chair Akin wanted the following questions addressed 21
in future presentations: We plan to add a lot more people into the Downtown Commercial 22
District but are those residents who were not in the RPP zones eligible for RPP permits? If so, was 23
there differential in parking price between the people who were in the residential zones and the 24
people who were in the Commercial District? Were residents of the Commercial District eligible 25
for permits in the garages or lots; if so, was there a pricing differential? The answers to those 26
questions affected the Commission’s assessment of whether there was enough parking for a 27
given project and what conditions of approval might be part of the approval process. 28
Nathan Baird stated University Avenue had spaces marked as permit-only in the garages and lots. 29
To utilize those permit-only spaces, you can buy an employee permit, buy a daily permit from 30
Revenue Collections, or buy a daily permit from one of the downtown pay stations. Some lots 31
have set aside a few building or property permit spaces. For example, Lot K had spaces with an 32
address in it or the tenant at a particular building. Permit-only spaces were from 8 AM to 5 PM 33
but were available to anybody outside those hours. Nathan Baird said you need to live in a 34
Downtown RPP District to purchase a Downtown RPP permit and there was a process to verify 35
that you live on a participating block. Employees need to show documentation that they work at 36
a business address in the University Avenue District in order to purchase a garage or lot permit. 37
Chair Akin thought that increasing the pricing differentials seemed attractive but was not in favor 38
of dynamic pricing. 39
Commissioner Templeton asked if staff had data on whether lots were going up in occupancy 1
while garages were going down in occupancy. Commissioner Templeton thought it would be 2
interesting to understand occupancy by office workers versus patrons. Commissioner Templeton 3
wondered if the City could ensure parking availability if housing was built on top of surface lots. 4
Nathan Baird was not familiar with any set policy. Jennifer Armer mentioned that was one of the 5
key questions asked of the 2 firms who responded to the RFP for redevelopment of Parking Lot 6
T for affordable housing. The 3 scenarios included: No parking provided, provide parking only for 7
residents, or provide parking for residents and replace the existing public parking. The direction 8
Council gave on the Lot T project was that those parking spaces did not need to be replaced as 9
part of the 100 percent affordable housing project because those spaces would be provided in 10
the future parking garage and it was too much of a burden on the affordable housing developer. 11
Commissioner Templeton asked staff to explain the controversy of using parking lots for housing 12
if it did not deny parking and if the issue was the distance of the garage. Commissioner Templeton 13
thought it was important for the City to protect access to parking for patrons, employees, and 14
residents while not pitting parking against housing. Jennifer Armer emphasized the value of the 15
data that was shared today to obtain a better understanding of how much parking was available 16
and maybe wayfinding or other ideas can help. Chair Akin mentioned that his prior comment was 17
prompted by legal action which was underway but was outside the scope of tonight’s discussion. 18
Commissioner Ji inquired approximately how much the quarterly and/or yearly employee 19
permits cost versus the daily permit. Nathan Baird replied the daily permit was previously $25 20
but was changed in the Municipal Fee Schedule to a range between $0 and $25; it was $0 21
following 2020, then $8, $15, and he thought it will be $20 in July. The annual permits in the 22
University Avenue garages and lots were $900/year. Commissioner Ji wanted to see 23
encouragement of employees to utilize the daily permit or other mechanisms to reduce the 24
burden on the neighbors. 25
Vice-Chair Chang questioned how the parking assessment district worked, what was the City 26
legally bound to provide, were those permitted spaces legally required or did the City decide to 27
label certain spaces as permitted. Nathan Baird explained it was the result of a number of 28
agreements and programs over the years. The University Avenue District was set up to build some 29
of the City parking garages, so agreements were in place on how many permit spaces were set 30
aside in each of those garages. Nathan Baird had a planning map. Every new development used 31
to have a responsibility to project its parking demand and usage, and agreements were made for 32
them to pay X amount into the district. For some of the garages, the bonds were being paid by 33
the City, so for those garages we do not want to change the permit spaces. There was potentially 34
more flexibility with the lots that were owned free and clear by the City. Some of the City lots 35
and garages were more popular than others but they all had the same price. Buying a permit 36
gives you access to a particular lot or garage. 37
Nathan Baird said the color zone signs give you 2 hours of free downtown parking. For example, 38
the City Hall downstairs in the immediate visitor spaces had color zone signage. As you go deeper 39
into the City Hall Garage, you will see a Permit Only sign and those spaces say Permit Only, so 40
you need either an employee permit or a daily permit to park in those spaces between 8 AM to 1
5 PM. Nathan Baird viewed the garage and lot program and the RPP program as a way for the 2
City to protect parking availability for key stakeholder groups (employees and residents). Visitors 3
can buy a daily permit. The City wanted to make parking as free as possible for 2 or 3 hours while 4
making sure that parking was provided for residents and employees. Potentially there was a lot 5
of parking available but it depended on where you wanted to park. Pricing differentiation could 6
help preserve availability. The number of parking spaces in each category was different in each 7
location and unknown unless staff researched previous years’ staff reports about particular 8
developments to see if and why spaces were set aside. For capacity management, Vice-Chair 9
Chang thought it was necessary to know the number of permitted spaces and if the City had the 10
ability to change the number of permitted spaces if there were many vacant all the time. 11
Vice-Chair Chang heard anecdotal stories about people who ended employment years ago but 12
were still able to buy a permit. Vice-Chair Chang inquired if there were any grounds for those 13
rumors, what the City required in order to verify that employees could buy a permit, how current 14
that document needed to be, and did a vendor do the verification. Nathan Baird was not familiar 15
with the verification process but usually a paystub or a letter from their employer was used to 16
verify that the employee worked at a certain address. Nathan Baird knew in some cases that RPP 17
employees had to upload documents when purchasing their permit but he did not know how 18
often it happened in other locations. The vendor and the Administrative Services Department do 19
the verification. Vice-Chair Chang wondered if the website should require that the document be 20
current, perhaps within 6 months, to solve the problem. 21
In Table 2 on Packet Page 10, Commissioner Hechtman advised staff to correct the color of the 22
2019 evening counts of a couple parking lots over 90 percent in black instead of red. 23
Commissioner Hechtman’s recollection from working on the new Housing Element was that the 24
Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council was for City surface parking lots to be 25
Housing Opportunity sites but he did not recall if the PTC recommended preserving the parking 26
on that site. Commissioner Hechtman was interested in looking at the final version of the Housing 27
Element to see if it was addressed. Commissioner Hechtman saw this as an opportunity to be 28
ready to accommodate more people needing to park in downtown because of future new 29
housing and population growth; however, he was concerned the budget would stop staff from 30
taking action, resulting in a parking crisis. Commissioner Hechtman pointed out that data was 31
useful but it changes over time, so he felt it was critical to identify the necessary data points, 32
collect and synthesize the data as close to real-time as possible, and have flexibility to adapt 33
quickly in response to the data instead of making decisions based on data from 2 years ago. 34
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang commented that the Housing Element stated when the City 35
was looking to redevelop its surface lots for housing that replacement parking should be provided 36
but it did not specify that the parking should be provided on the same site. 37
Commissioner Peterson asked if a simulation consultant was hired to look at the parking as a 38
system. Commissioner Peterson believed it was possible to calculate the capacity of each garage 39
and how many locations (employers, shops, and restaurants) were within walking distance to 40
estimate demand for each parking garage. Therefore, Commissioner Peterson inquired if the 1
supply and demand of parking spaces was forecasted for each parking garage and the information 2
used to determine a price point. Nathan Baird said a lot of parking planning work had been done 3
over the years. A 2017 report from Dixon (a contractor the City worked with) gave a 4
comprehensive look at the downtown and the available options. Depending on the new vendor’s 5
capabilities, staff will develop options conceptually with the new vendor and seek public input 6
about those options. Previous planning studies about parking demand and supply were tied to a 7
particular use but Nathan Baird said the parking industry now saw parking demand as following 8
the economy and other trends, so we want to be more adaptive. 9
Nathan Baird stated it was ideal to price the space based on its location and demand, which could 10
fluctuate over time. Palo Alto did not need a model where pricing changed by time of day but 11
maybe it could be evaluated every 1, 2, or 3 years and then differentiate the price up or down 12
depending on the demand of certain lots or garages, similar to the current practice of changing 13
the daily permit price based on the demand seen in the prior year’s usage. The point-in-time 14
counts were 1 or 2 days a year, so Nathan Baird often walked around to look at the garage, lot, 15
and street usage but having data more regularly from the APGS program will be useful. 16
Commissioner Peterson wondered if Palo Alto would ever go with fully elastic pricing where 17
parking spaces could be sold at an unlimited amount of money, for example, the price for the last 18
5 spots in the garage could increase from $20 to $300, or will there always be some equality. 19
Nathan Baird personally thought the job of the municipal garages was to provide equitable, 20
knowable, publically discussed pricing that made sense, so he did not expect a $300 space 21
anytime soon. The municipal pricing set the floor, so a lot of the private garages charge $25. The 22
City controlled a great amount of parking in the downtown, so any changes the City makes will 23
have a ripple effect. 24
The PTC took a break at 7:43 PM and resumed at 7:54 PM with all members present. 25
Action Items 26
3. Recommendation on a Resolution Amending the El Camino Real Retail Node Map for 27
Purposes of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.180: Retail Preservation. CEQA 28
Status: Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 29
adopted November 17, 2023 (SCH #2014052101) 30
Jennifer Armer explained that this item on El Camino Real Retail Preservation Nodes was 31
connected with Housing Element Implementation Program 3.4C, “Allow for sites subject to the 32
City’s Retail Preservation Ordinance – except in the ground floor (GF) and retail (R) combining 33
districts and strategic locations generally depicted in the draft South El Camino Real Design 34
Guidelines – to have a reduction in the amount of retail replacement floor area needed for 35
redevelopment and waive the retail preservation requirement for identified Housing Opportunity 36
sites.” 37
At the meeting on April 30, 2025, the PTC requested more information about the North Ventura 38
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Node to consider removal, and provided the following direction: 39
Remove the California Node and Focus Area Node, create a new Central Node in the south/west 1
side of El Camino and provide 2 options for the node at the north/east side of El Camino, extend 2
the Triangle Node to include a few additional parcels, extend the Auto Dealership Node and 3
rename it as the Bike to School Node, and exclude the remainder of the Interim Node that was 4
not otherwise discussed. An overall map was shown that depicted the revised node locations, a 5
series of close-up maps with existing land uses noted, and a series of maps showing the existing 6
underlying zoning designations for those areas as previously requested. Staff recommended that 7
the PTC recommend to Council that Council adopt a resolution to modify the existing Retail Node 8
Map in Attachment A with specific direction regarding the Bike to School Node, Triangle Node, 9
NVCAP Node, and the Central Node. 10
Vice-Chair Chang was not present at the last meeting but watched the video. 11
Chair Akin presumed Council’s expansion of the El Camino Real Focus Area had no effect on 12
tonight’s PTC discussion. Jennifer Armer replied that Council adopted the expansion 13
recommended by the PTC and 3 additional parcels in the NVCAP area for a potential 14
development. Jennifer Armer reported that public comment during that discussion item 15
requested that the retail node include the commercial parcels with the auto dealerships, which 16
was in support of the PTC recommendation for the Bike to School Node. 17
Regarding the discussion during the last meeting about wanting an escape valve for failed retail, 18
Vice-Chair Chang found a section in the Retail Protection Ordinance where landowners can 19
request an exemption either by showing economic hardship or several examples were listed on 20
how to demonstrate that the retail or retail-like use was not viable. During the creation of the 21
Housing Element, Vice-Chair Chang recalled public commenters expressed concern about the 22
inclusion of certain sites on El Camino as Housing Element Opportunity sites, such as Happy 23
Donuts, because they wanted those retail sites preserved. At the time, Vice-Chair Chang 24
remembered being told that even if it was a Housing Element Opportunity Site, the Retail 25
Preservation Ordinance preserved the retail ground-floor square footage but not the specific 26
retail use. A new California State Law said if an Opportunity Site was deemed appropriate for 27
lower-income housing because it was a larger site, building 100 percent housing had to be 28
allowed on that site. The City Council followed staff’s recommendation to ease the administrative 29
burden of managing Housing Element Opportunity Sites and all Opportunity Sites were grouped 30
together. Therefore, Palo Alto now had a local ordinance saying all Housing Element Opportunity 31
Sites can develop at 100 percent residential and Retail Preservation did not apply. Vice-Chair 32
Chang made a spreadsheet of every Housing Element Opportunity Site located within the 33
proposed retail nodes to see how many units were expected on each site and their affordability 34
level. 35
Albert Yang confirmed that the City Council had the ability to make the Retail Preservation 36
Ordinance apply to sites in our Housing Element inventory that were not appropriate for lower-37
income housing within the retail nodes. Albert Yang gave the following example, if your Housing 38
Element inventory said a site was projected to have 45 units, 50 percent of the units will be 39
market rate, 25 percent will be low income, and 25 percent will be extremely low income, the 40
State law required the City to allow it to be 100 percent residential. Two-third to three-quarters 1
of Palo Alto’s inventory sites were projected to have some lower income units, so the staff 2
recommendation that the Council accepted was rather than look at the inventory to see which 3
types of units were projected on each site, we will treat them all the same and allow 100 percent 4
residential. 5
Commissioner Templeton wanted to clarify if Happy Donuts would be affected because Vice-6
Chair Chang used it as an example. Albert Yang said if the Happy Donut site was projected in our 7
RHNA to accommodate lower income units, it had to be allowed to develop at 100 percent 8
residential; if the Happy Donuts site was projected to only have market rate or moderate units, 9
then the PTC could recommend that the City Council change course from the decision it made 10
last year and require retail on that site. Jennifer Armer looked at Appendix D, Site Inventory for 11
the Housing Element, and did not see 3916 El Camino Real, the address for Happy Donuts based 12
on a quick search, so Happy Donuts was not in the Site Inventory. 13
Public Comments 14
None 15
Commissioner James thought the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines from 2002 contained 16
some principles that were intended to create a vision for how South El Camino Real would be 17
developed as a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly community, which Commissioner James felt it applied 18
most to the node removed at Cal Avenue. One principle was that corners were particularly 19
important and it seemed to Commissioner James that we might be missing that opportunity. 20
Commissioner James thought that adding the Cal Avenue node would not sacrifice a lot of 21
Housing Element. Commissioner James walked that section and made the following general 22
observations. Some sites were small and about 100 feet deep, so Commissioner James thought 23
of preserving smaller sites for retail because they did not seem suitable for housing development. 24
Commissioner James read about the trend toward mixed development driven by several factors 25
including the desire for more walkable, livable communities, the need for more affordable 26
housing, and the desire for more sustainable development. If we want people to get out of their 27
cars, we need to create places for them to go, so Commissioner James advocated for keeping 28
some sites in the area of South El Camino Real as placeholders for future ground-level retail. 29
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of the portion of the Bike to School Node on the south 30
side but asked for the rationale to include the 2 parcels on the north side, 1 of which was the Jiffy 31
Lube Housing Opportunity site. 32
Commissioner Ji would have included the 4 corners in the retail node because corners provided 33
an inviting area for retail. Commissioner Ji inquired if hotels were considered retail. Albert Yang 34
said the definition of retail-like included hotel, so hotel was covered by the Retail Preservation 35
Ordinance. 36
Vice-Chair Chang was supportive of the Bike to School Node as drawn, and she agreed that 37
corners were important. Vice-Chair Chang thought retail was most likely to succeed at the corners 38
of major streets such as Charleston which was a thoroughfare for bicyclists and many commuters 39
but that site was slated for 11 units of housing, none of which were lower income according to 1
her research. Vice-Chair Chang wanted retail at that corner and that was why she wanted to 2
include it in the retail node. Vice-Chair Chang was worried about solitary retail not being likely to 3
succeed and the entire corridor may be at risk if every Housing Element site was developed 4
without retail. Vice-Chair Chang hoped that Stanford Research Park opened up for future Housing 5
Elements as well as other large sites that might be much better for housing. Vice-Chair Chang 6
thought many of the little parcels on El Camino were not ideal for housing and people did not 7
want to live on El Camino because of traffic. 8
Commissioner Templeton asked what the implication was if the Jiffy Lube corner was not 9
included in the Bike to School Node. Jennifer Armer explained there were different thresholds 10
for sites on El Camino Real depending on whether it was a Housing Element site or in a Retail 11
Preservation Node and there were reductions in retail preservation if you were not in one of the 12
nodes. 13
Because hotel was retail-like and in the spirit of including corners, Commissioner Ji asked for 14
commissioners’ thoughts on including The Zen Hotel at the corner of Maybell and El Camino in 15
this node. Commissioner Ji knew kids bike through that area and he wanted to revitalize that 16
corner. Vice-Chair Chang was okay with including the site, it might not remain a hotel but retail 17
was likely to succeed, and the site was large enough to have retail underneath housing and 18
parking. Jennifer Armer directed the Commission to look at the map they were given that had 19
the zoning. The Zen Hotel property was a Planned Community Zone and Retail Preservation did 20
not apply to PC Zones. Commissioner Templeton thanked staff for providing the Commission with 21
large maps in color. 22
Because it was a large piece of land, Commissioner Ji asked if there was interest in including the 23
Hilton Garden Inn on the other side of the Bike to School Node. Jennifer Armer noted it was 24
within the CS Zone. Commissioner Hechtman was not inclined to expand the node in that 25
direction, it was a big parcel zoned for a commercial use, there were a lot of reasons for people 26
wanting to stay in Palo Alto and he did not think the Hilton Garden Inn was going away anytime 27
soon. 28
Vice-Chair Chang stated that non-Opportunity sites on El Camino outside of retail nodes with 29
sufficient density could reduce the retail to 1500 square feet, otherwise it was protected. Albert 30
Yang elaborated that if it was not an Opportunity site and was lower density, then the retail had 31
to be replaced at the same amount of square footage as whatever was on the ground floor; if it 32
was higher density, then it could reduce any replacement to 1500 square feet, and he believed 33
high density was defined as 30 units per acre. Since the corner was protected, Vice-Chair Chang 34
was okay with leaving out Hilton Garden Inn; if they built enough housing, retail could be reduced 35
to 1500 square feet, which was fine since it was a big frontage and she was not sure we needed 36
a whole strip of retail. 37
Motion 38
Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to 1
Council that Council adopt a resolution to modify the existing Retail Node Map in Attachment A 2
with specific direction to accept the Bike to School Node as currently drawn. 3
Second 4
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 5
Vote 6
Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 7
Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 8
voting yes. 9
Jennifer Armer said there will be a resolution prepared with the revised map attached for 10
consideration by Council based on the PTC’s recommendation. 11
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of the Triangle Node as drawn. Chair Akin wondered 12
whether retail protection should be enforced on the Goodwill site, it was isolated on the corner. 13
Palo Alto Commons could choose to expand there because of its proximity and it would cause 14
less impact on neighbors. Vice-Chair Chang did not see any downside to including the site but not 15
much could be done to preserve the retail because it was a Housing Element Opportunity Site 16
with lower income housing planned for it. Vice-Chair Chang suspected it would be added to 17
future cycles because it was a larger site unless the Housing Element found better sites 18
elsewhere. Vice-Chair Chang assumed Palo Alto Commons could expand via PC, so any retail 19
requirement was irrelevant. In reply to Commissioner Templeton asking if staff had concerns 20
about the Triangle Node as drawn, Jennifer Armer and Albert Yang answered no. Commissioner 21
Templeton was comfortable with the Triangle Node as drawn. 22
Motion 23
Commissioner Ji moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to Council 24
that Council adopt a resolution to modify the existing Retail Node Map in Attachment A with 25
specific direction to approve the Triangle Node as drawn. 26
Second 27
Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 28
Vote 29
Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 30
Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 31
voting yes. 32
Vice-Chair Chang agreed with staff’s recommendation to remove the NVCAP Node. The area had 33
a plan created for it, so there was no need to have an additional layer of administration. 34
Commissioner Hechtman agreed. 35
Motion 36
Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to 1
Council that Council adopt a resolution to modify the existing Retail Node Map in Attachment A 2
with specific direction to remove the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Node. 3
Second 4
Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 5
Commissioner Templeton asked if there were any implications of eliminating the NVCAP node. 6
Jennifer Armer was not aware of any implications. Vice-Chair Chang inquired if the NVCAP rules 7
superseded the current language about areas on El Camino that were not in nodes. Albert Yang 8
answered yes; any rules specific to the NVCAP will be enforceable. Albert Yang did not believe 9
there were retail preservation rules in the NVCAP. Albert Yang said the NVCAP plan had a high 10
level of detail of what was permitted, what was conditionally permitted, and what were the rules 11
for how you can develop those uses but it did not mention having to retain a use that was in 12
place. Commissioner Templeton was not sure how much we wanted to continue drawing foot 13
traffic to the busy El Camino/Page Mill intersection and because the NVCAP had mostly addressed 14
this, she was inclined to agree with Vice-Chair Chang’s motion. 15
Vote 16
Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 17
Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 18
voting yes. 19
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of Central Node B, he liked that there was more depth 20
to the lots, which provided a good opportunity for housing with retail underneath. Commissioner 21
Hechtman was supportive of Central Node C, did not love the shallowness of the lots but was 22
comfortable with it. Commissioner Hechtman did not want to include Central Node A. Vice-Chair 23
Chang was supportive of all 3 Central Nodes. Vice-Chair Chang did not see a downside to including 24
the 2 Housing Element sites in Central Node A, although she acknowledged that those sites could 25
be developed without retail as currently implemented but she thought it would be lovely if there 26
was retail because of all the housing that was coming in. Vice-Chair Chang walked the section 27
and was shocked at how many pedestrians she saw on both sides of the street. Commissioner 28
Templeton did not see a downside to including Central Node A and she also supported B and C. 29
Commissioner Templeton noted the area of Central Node A was very walkable and used by the 30
Ventura neighborhood. Understanding the City could not make it a requirement, Commissioner 31
Templeton suggested the Commission could tell developers who wanted to build there that this 32
was an area that the City believed should have something that could serve the neighborhood. 33
Commissioner Hechtman asked how frequently the RPO escape valve had been used. Albert Yang 34
recalled 2 occasions pre-pandemic, one of which was on Alma. Commissioner Hechtman was 35
concerned that the RM-30 zoning behind Central Node A (except at the corner of Fernando) 36
would create some limitation on the height, so he inquired what was the allowable building 37
height for Central Node A. Jennifer Armer would have to see which parcels were included in the 38
El Camino Focus Area Map that allowed increased height. Based on the current code, Jennifer 39
Armer stated the general height limit for the CN zone appeared to be 25 feet and it looked like 40
none of that area was included in the El Camino Focus Area. Commissioner Hechtman noted 1
there were 8 parcels, 5 of them were Housing Opportunity Sites and we do not want to restrain 2
those, and he expected the Shell site to stay because it was a moneymaker in a great midtown 3
location and it was not the best site to redevelop. Commissioner Hechtman acknowledged the 4
Commission’s general support for Central Node A, he appreciated the multi-block symmetry of 5
A, B, and C, and there were opportunities in the future to make revisions if necessary, so he was 6
supportive of A. 7
Commissioner Ji thought Node A was exciting because that area of El Camino had pedestrian 8
crossings and he supported the symmetry aspect. Of the 3 crossings in that section, 2 go across 9
Node A. Commissioner Ji hoped Driftwood stayed there because it could bring additional traffic. 10
It was a Safe Route to School for those who live in Ventura and there was a crossing guard. During 11
Commissioner Ji’s walk, he determined those were not Housing Element sites, so he anticipated 12
seeing some exciting development in the area. 13
Motion 14
Commissioner Ji moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to Council 15
that Council adopt a resolution to modify the existing Retail Node Map in Attachment A with 16
specific direction to approve Central Nodes A, B, and C as drawn. 17
Second 18
Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 19
Vote 20
Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 21
Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 22
voting yes. 23
Jennifer Armer noted that staff would remove the A, B, and C labels and instead show it as a 24
single Central Node. Jennifer Armer asked Albert Yang if an additional motion was needed. Albert 25
Yang answered no; it was sufficient direction for staff to redraw the map, unless there was 26
anything else the Commission wanted to add or modify. 27
Regarding Commissioner James’s earlier comment about bringing back the California Node, Vice-28
Chair Chang thought it made sense to indicate this was where the City wanted retail, it was 29
important to have a gateway to Cal Ave, it was a much more heavily trafficked area than any of 30
the other nodes voted on, and it was filled with pedestrians. Commissioner Templeton inquired 31
why the California Node was removed. Jennifer Armer stated California Avenue was a closed, 32
active commercial corridor with signage, so maintaining the California Node seemed moot, 33
especially given that 3 of the 4 parcels on the corner of El Camino Real and California Avenue 34
were Housing Element sites. The site on the northwest corner lot on the map was not Housing 35
Element. The California Node could be added back if there was consensus. Commissioner 36
Templeton did not see a lot of risk in leaving it the way it was. Commissioner Ji believed the 37
zoning protected the retail as-is on Cal Ave. Jennifer Armer confirmed the ground-floor retail 38
overlay was applicable to the corner that was not a Housing Element site. Commissioner Ji noted 39
that Chair Akin and Commissioner James referred to a previous report on El Camino as a basis for 1
today’s exercise. Therefore, Commissioner Ji thought that by drawing the California Node back 2
in, a future PTC years from now could see this was an area where we wanted retail. 3
Vice-Chair Chang pointed out that if these sites were not redeveloped this cycle and if better sites 4
were found for housing, drawing a node now would protect the retail. In the PTC’s resolution to 5
Council, Vice-Chair Chang wanted to encourage the Council to consider making Housing Element 6
Opportunity Sites that were not designated for lower income housing within the retail nodes be 7
eligible for the Retail Protection Ordinance. Vice-Chair Chang calculated the retail sites that were 8
not designated as appropriate for affordable housing and found a total of 100 units would 9
potentially be lost as a result of the Retail Protection Ordinance across all the nodes (around 80 10
units of housing excluding the California Node). 11
Commissioner Hechtman opined the 4 corners of California and El Camino were great for housing 12
and retail because of the retail down California Avenue as well as access to the train and bus. 13
Commissioner Hechtman did not want to restrain the housing by forcing retail if the market did 14
not want it but he believed that when those corner parcels were redeveloped that the economic 15
factors will lead the developer to have retail on the ground floor under housing, which was tied 16
to the zoning of the property. Commissioner Hechtman thought it was important to message that 17
the Commission was not saying the only place they wanted retail was in the nodes. Commissioner 18
Hechtman hoped it was clarified in the staff report to Council that the Commission selected nodes 19
that were identified as the best utilization of the RPO. The Commission looked at other sites but 20
some of those had good commercial or retail through zoning or possibly PCs whereas others were 21
thought of as not great sites to emphasize retail. 22
Because the Commission's motion tonight made a recommendation to include and exclude parts 23
of the proposed Interim Node, Commissioner Hechtman inquired if the Commission’s motion was 24
sufficient or was another vote needed to clarify the Commission’s recommendations to Council. 25
Jennifer Armer believed the Commission provided staff enough direction to take to Council 26
through tonight’s 4 motions to remove NVCAP but retain the others as shown on the map and 27
consolidate A, B, and C of the Central Node into a single node. The California Node was removed 28
previously, so it was not shown on Attachment A. 29
Commissioner Templeton did not know if everything the Commission had discussed was 30
agendized and would not support a motion at this time on whether the PTC should recommend 31
to Council to consider how to treat Housing Element sites in retail nodes. Commissioner 32
Templeton recommended having a study session to hear staff’s input and more analysis for the 33
Commission’s discussion. Vice-Chair Chang noted the direction from Council was to refer the 34
nodes to the Planning and Transportation Commission for further discussion and 35
recommendation. Albert Yang stated it was acceptable for the Commission to make a 36
recommendation for the Council to consider allowing the Retail Preservation Ordinance to apply 37
to Housing Element sites in a retail node when the Housing Element did not specifically allocate 38
affordable housing or below-market-rate housing to those sites. Albert Yang said the Commission 39
was not able to make a recommendation that the Retail Preservation Ordinance be amended 1
because that item was not agendized. 2
Commissioner Peterson wondered if Stanford owned land in the area being discussed tonight 3
and if it was considered differently because it was not a normal commercial property or was 4
leased out. Jennifer Armer explained that the City’s regulations applied regardless of who owned 5
the property. The Research Park had specific zoning related to Stanford’s land use in that area. 6
The area Commissioner Peterson was questioning was in the commercial zones, not the Research 7
Park. Farther along at the intersection with Hansen Way, the corner had a Research Park 8
designation according to the zoning map. 9
Motion 10
Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to 11
Council that the Council consider making the Retail Protection Ordinance apply for Housing 12
Opportunity sites within the nodes that were not designated as appropriate for lower income 13
housing. 14
Second 15
Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 16
Vice-Chair Chang reiterated the reason she wanted Council to think about this was because the 17
amount of housing generated from those sites was relatively small and the great benefit of having 18
retail for existing and future residents. Commissioner Templeton thought it was an interesting 19
idea and worth further discussion but felt it was premature for her to support this motion tonight 20
because she wanted staff to specifically agendize this item and come back to the Commission for 21
an in-depth study. Commissioner Ji said he seconded this motion because he thought the idea 22
was interesting enough to have Council be given a motion to think about this. 23
Commissioner Hechtman asked staff if there was a time constraint to get this item to Council, 24
when was Council’s summer break, and he wanted to know staff’s informed opinion on this 25
motion. Jennifer Armer stated the Interim Node as presented in the previous PTC meeting was 26
in force until staff brought back revisions, so there was no time requirement to bring it back. 27
Council will not consider this item until at least mid-August. Commissioner Hechtman felt he did 28
not have enough information to support this motion but wanted more information, so he 29
suggested continuing this item to the PTC meeting on July 9 and staff could come back with a 30
report on the pros and cons. Commissioner Templeton did not believe a motion was necessary 31
because Vice-Chair Chang’s comments could be included in the staff report to Council whereas a 32
split vote on a motion would send a different message to Council on an item that might otherwise 33
get a stronger Commission vote after it was agendized. 34
Vice-Chair Chang offered to give staff her analysis and asked whether staff had enough time to 35
prepare a report, come back to the Commission on July 9, and to include it in the staff report to 36
Council. Vice-Chair Chang wanted Council to consider this at the same time as Council was 37
considering the retail nodes. Jennifer Armer asked the Commission what additional information 38
or context they were seeking in a staff report or that might be needed for a deeper conversation. 39
Albert Yang commented on the urgency of bringing this resolution to the Council was to have 1
more final direction on the nodes because the Housing Element identified retail preservation as 2
a constraint on housing and the PTC’s job was to reduce the amount of parcels that had retail 3
preservation applied. The Council adopted the Interim Node as a placeholder but the goal was to 4
have retail preservation apply less broadly. The resolution will go to Council as a consent item, 5
so there would not be discussion or consideration on the dais unless it was pulled. Commissioner 6
Templeton pointed out that tonight’s discussions and motions were made based on the current 7
understanding; however, this motion had implications on tonight’s prior motions and the votes 8
may have been different had this motion not been made at the end. Vice-Chair Chang made this 9
motion because the Commission’s discussion gets lost if the Council Members do not read the 10
PTC’s minutes and she felt it was important to make Council understand the impact. 11
Albert Yang stated Vice-Chair Chang’s motion was acceptable under the Brown Act because it 12
suggested additional work rather than making a change. Alternatively, the Commission could 13
make a motion asking staff to bring this back as an ordinance amending 18.14 or the Retail 14
Preservation Ordinance for the PTC to make a recommendation on a zoning code amendment 15
and the Council would consider that ordinance. Because of workloads, Jennifer Armer mentioned 16
that sometimes staff was unable to move forward on a PTC’s request unless staff gets direction 17
from Council to do the work. Jennifer Armer suggested the motion might be clearer to have it 18
worded as recommending that Council consider directing staff to look into making the RPO apply 19
to Housing Element sites. Commissioner Templeton felt the suggested wording was more 20
appropriate and provided an opportunity to study it thoroughly. If this item was continued to July 21
9, Commissioner Hechtman hoped the timing would work for this to go to Council at the same 22
time as the nodes. Commissioner Hechtman wanted the staff report to include the background 23
of the RPO and walk through the steps, the restraint on housing, concerns of the HCD reflected 24
in staff’s recommendation of the ordinance that the Council adopted, and staff’s 25
recommendation on whether the PTC should make this recommendation. With the staff’s 26
workload, the department’s priorities including the City Attorney’s Department, Jennifer Armer 27
could not commit to bring this back to the PTC in July. 28
Motion 29
Vice-Chair Chang moved that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that 30
Council consider directing staff to study making the Retail Protection Ordinance apply to Housing 31
Element sites that are within nodes that are not designated as appropriate for low- income 32
housing. 33
Second 34
Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 35
Vote 36
Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 37
Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 38
voting yes. 39
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 1
Agendas 2
Chair Akin and the Commission expressed their gratitude for Veronica Dao’s service and 3
congratulated her for being the new Portola Valley City Clerk. 4
Adjournment 5
9:56 PM 6