HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-13 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: March 13, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
5:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
5:02 PM 7
Chair Summa called to order the March 13 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. 8
9
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call and announced all commissioners 10
were present. 11
12
Oral Communications 13
Chair Summa invited members of the public to share their comments with the Commission on 14
items not on the agenda. 15
16
1. Mittzy Bephe’s comment included hate speech. 17
18
Chair Summa read a statement strongly denouncing the speaker’s message of discrimination 19
and hate. If additional commenters use hate speech, City staff and members of the public may 20
leave the meeting until regular business resumes. 21
22
2. Gabe Stutman’s comment included hate speech. 23
24
City Official Reports 1
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 2
3
Chief Planning Official Amy French stated that Cal Poly students will present a report on the San 4
Antonio Corridor to Council on March 18. Planned and tentative agenda items for upcoming 5
PTC meetings were displayed on the screen. On April 15, the PTC has a joint meeting with 6
Council to review amendments to the Housing Element. 7
8
Senior Transportation Engineer Rafael Rius remarked that the Office of Transportation will 9
address the PTC on March 27 and City Council on April 1 regarding Palo Alto Link and the El 10
Camino bike lane plan. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl asked for an update on the work at Charleston-Arastradero, El Camino, 13
and Wilke. Rafael Rius replied that paving and striping with the new bike markings would 14
happen in April; however, it may be delayed to May if there are weather delays. Rafael Rius is 15
seeing unprecedented delays in receiving traffic signal hardware. Two sets of lights at Wilke and 16
Charleston are waiting for signal controller cabinets. 17
18
Commissioner Lu queried when the PTC could see the new version of the Housing Element and 19
staff’s confidence level about having everything ready by the April 15 meeting. Amy French was 20
optimistic about meeting the deadline to include the document in the April 15 meeting packet. 21
Council reports come out approximately 1½ weeks before the meeting. 22
1
Action Items 2
2. Recommendation on an Ordinance Updating Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of Title 18 3
(Zoning) to Reflect Recent Changes in State Density Bonus Law and Revising Regulations 4
for Provision of On-Site Affordable Rental Units Under the City’s Inclusionary Housing 5
Ordinance 6
7
Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang provided an overview of the changes to the City’s local code 8
as a result of the new State law. The section on applicability has been updated. Previously, the 9
section stated that a density bonus does not apply to a PC Zone. It has been expanded to 10
include development agreements and local incentive programs such as the HIP and El Camino 11
focus area. Definitions were pulled directly from the State law. The new definitions provide 12
more detail on how to define the base density in zones where the City does not limit the 13
number of dwelling units per acre. In those zones, development standards such as FAR, height, 14
and setback will create a practical limit on realistic densities and the City will use that 15
calculation to create a dwelling units per acre number to apply the density bonus. The State law 16
increased the maximum number of concessions to four with the exception of a 100 percent 17
affordable project is entitled to five concessions. 18
19
The City has a menu of preapproved incentives and concessions; however, developers have not 20
used this menu over the years. The menu is based on an older distinction between incentives 21
and waivers. This menu has been relocated from incentives and concessions to a broader 22
section on incentives, concessions, and waivers. The PTC may want to consider eliminating this 1
menu since it is not being used. 2
3
A new section was added allowing developers to use an additional density bonus, as per a new 4
feature of the State law. Now, a developer can reach the 50 percent threshold and provide 5
more affordable units to unlock up to a maximum of 100 percent density bonus. 6
7
On Packet Pages 34 and 35, Section 3 details the City’s inclusionary ordinance requirements for 8
rental units. In 2017, the Council adopted an ordinance allowing rental projects to provide 15 9
percent of on-site units affordable to moderate-income households instead of paying an impact 10
fee to comply with the City’s inclusionary requirements. Staff believes that was an error and 11
would like to correct Section 3 of the ordinance to read 15 percent of units affordable to low-12
income households, which is the standard in the industry for rental projects. Staff proposed 13
creating an option for 8 percent of units to be affordable at the very-low-income level. 14
15
Vice-Chair Chang asked why the State law for additional density bonus was only for very-low or 16
moderate-income units but not low income. Albert Yang did not know why the low-income 17
category was not included. If you provide 15 percent more units at moderate income, you get a 18
50 percent density bonus. Under the very-low-income category, you max out at 38¾ percent 19
density bonus. Albert Yang believed the intent was to provide greater flexibility for developers 20
to reach a higher density bonus. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl asked for an explanation about the low-vehicle-travel area and what 1
part of Palo Alto would qualify. Albert Yang replied that areas below the regional average VMT 2
are considered the preferred areas for development. 3
4
In response to Commissioner Reckdahl’s question about the many tables with numbers in the 5
ordinance, Albert Yang confirmed that all those numbers were specified in the State law. 6
7
Commissioner Reckdahl queried what percentage of developers use impact fees as opposed to 8
providing units on site. In the past 10 years, Albert Yang has seen developers choose to pay 9
impact fees because it provided more flexibility. It is now more likely that some developers will 10
choose to provide units on site because the density bonus has been expanded and provides 11
many benefits. 12
13
Albert Yang addressed Commissioner Reckdahl’s questions about the calculation of impact fees. 14
The City conducted a nexus study around 2017 and it may have been updated since then. The 15
fee ranges from $20 to $25 per square foot and is indexed for inflation. 16
17
Commissioner Lu asked how many density bonus applications the City had seen in recent years 18
and how many were built. Albert Yang did not have those figures available. He recalled 2850 19
West Bayshore utilized a density bonus and there may have been one or two applications 20
before then. Since then, the City has received a number of density bonus applications, including 21
the Sobrato project at the Fry site before the project went into the development agreement 22
process. Some projects seeking to use Builders Remedy in the past few years have submitted 1
alternative proposals based on density bonus law. 2
3
Commissioner Lu requested clarification of “no maximum controls on density” in Packet Page 4
20, Section D, Bullet Points 1 and 2. Page 29 mentions that the limitation on waivers applies to 5
Bullet Point D.2 but it does not explicitly mention D.1. Albert Yang believed it may be an error 6
because additional waivers were not available for either of those scenarios. If you have a 100 7
percent affordable project, you want 33 additional feet, and no maximum control on density, 8
you are not eligible for any other waivers, regardless if you are close to transit or in a VMT area. 9
D.1 and D.2 only apply to 100 percent affordable units, not 80 percent or any other threshold. 10
11
Public Comment: Jeff Levinsky was concerned that the State’s density bonus law would result 12
in large buildings that do not conform to the City’s local zoning code. The project at 739 Sutter 13
is getting a 50 percent density bonus to put 12 units on a site that normally allows 8 and is 14
requesting 13 waivers through the density bonus law. Each waiver overrides part of the City’s 15
Zoning Code. Sutter is asking for a waiver of FAR. The Sutter developers can also get a waiver 16
for height and use the density bonus law to erect a 24-story building with 12 two-story units 17
selling for many millions of dollars as long as the building provided below-market rate housing 18
in two units. Jeff Levinsky provided three suggestions: The Council along with Counties and 19
other Cities could have lobbyists ask the State Legislature to reconsider this law. Present 20
arguments to a judge and seek a more sensible judgment. Recommend that the Legal 21
Department perhaps with the help of outside experts find ways to limit FAR and height waivers. 22
1
Chair Summa invited comments from the commissioners. 2
3
To reduce the maintenance load for the code, Commissioner Akin opined it was a good idea to 4
eliminate the menu of incentives and concessions as proposed by Albert Yang. 5
6
Commissioner Hechtman was in support of removing the menu of incentives and concessions 7
because it was not being used and was a form of legislative clutter. Commissioner Hechtman 8
noticed about eight items in the former location and around five in the new location but he 9
could not find the missing two or three items and wondered if they were moved someplace 10
else or deleted when transporting the menu from one section of the ordinance to another. 11
12
Regarding staff’s proposal to change the 15 percent affordable to very low or low income 13
instead of moderate as reflected in the table in Section 3 on Packet Pages 34 and 35, 14
Commissioner Hechtman was concerned that housing developers would pay the in-lieu fee 15
instead of providing on-site units. Commissioner Hechtman suggested making the change and if 16
we are getting more money instead of more rental units, then the PTC could reevaluate it in 17
two to four years. Otherwise, Commissioner Hechtman is supportive of staff’s recommendation 18
to move this forward to Council. 19
20
Vice-Chair Chang voiced her support for staff’s recommendations to remove the clutter in the 1
code and the change from moderate to lower income. Vice-Chair Chang requested a study 2
session on density bonus, given its complexity and there are now more applications. 3
4
Commissioner Lu agreed with the comments from Vice-Chair Chang as well as Commissioners 5
Akin and Hechtman. 6
7
Albert Yang addressed Commissioner Lu’s questions about providing equivalently affordable 8
housing to previous occupants when redeveloping occupied housing as described in Packet 9
Pages 16 and 17. Even if it is not deed restricted, if a unit is occupied by a lower-income 10
household, the replacement unit needs to be offered at that level. If there is no information, it 11
will be presumed that some proportion of the units being demolished was occupied by lower 12
income. For example, if the eight units at 739 Sutter were occupied by people of lower income, 13
the developer needs to provide eight affordable units on site. It is a challenge to obtain tenant 14
information because units are often vacant by the time the City receives the application; 15
however, sometimes the owners share their tenant records with the City. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl wanted to understand the difference between concessions, waivers, 18
and incentives. Albert Yang explained there was no difference between concessions and 19
incentives, defined as changes to the normal rules that provide some financial benefit, such as 20
not providing as much parking. It is often interpreted to mean a concession that lowers the per-21
unit cost, even if it increases the overall cost of development, such as additional FAR. 22
1
Waivers are more narrowly defined but there are an unlimited number of waivers available. 2
Waivers are changes to physical development standards such as height, FAR, and setback that 3
would preclude the project from being constructed. Concessions are for parking spaces and 4
landscaping requirements because they are not part of the building envelope. Commissioner 5
Reckdahl would like to have a study session on this topic. 6
7
Chair Summa supports eliminating the menu of preapproved incentives and concessions 8
because no one has used it. Chair Summa inquired if staff was influenced by any court decisions 9
or rulings when updating the City’s code or if it was only reflective of the way the State law was 10
written. Albert Yang replied that the proposed changes to the ordinance were reflective of 11
State law. The staff implementation as it applies to any particular project might be informed by 12
court decisions. Chair Summa wanted to use any of the means available to address the 13
problematic aspects of this law. Chair Summa asked if multifamily RMD and R-2 could be 14
developed at the maximum densities under the new State law. Albert Yang responded that the 15
code was not clear but the City would take the position that the maximum density in the land 16
use designation is dependent on that zoning. 17
18
Motion 19
Commission Hechtman moved to approve staff’s recommendation that the PTC recommend 20
that the City Council adopt the ordinance attached as Attachment A, updating our density 21
bonus regulations with the following modifications from the version of the ordinance that 22
appeared in our staff report: Deletion of the menu of concessions which in the draft has been 1
relocated to Section 18-15-090(d). Change the affordable housing requirement to either very 2
low or low from moderate as appears in Section 3 of the ordinance. Staff can correct typos and 3
make clarifications of non-substantive issues. 4
5
Vice-Chair Chang seconded the motion. 6
7
The motion passed 7-0 with Chair Summa, Vice-Chair Chang, and Commissioners Akin, 8
Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, and Templeton voting yes. 9
10
The PTC took a break at 5:56 PM and resumed at 6:05 PM with all members present. 11
12
Study Session 13
3. Presentation to PTC and HRC by Caltrans on El Camino Real Bike Lanes and Parking 14
Space Removal 15
16
Chair Summa acknowledged Council Member Lythcott-Haims in attendance. 17
18
HRC Liaison Minka Van Der Zwaag conducted the roll call and announced four commissioners 19
were present. 20
21
Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi introduced Caltrans representative Nick Saleh, District 1
Division Chief and Project Manager. Nick Saleh oversees the capital program in Santa Clara 2
County. Nick Saleh introduced Project Manager Eunmi Choi, District 4 Chief Safety Engineer 3
Aung Maung, Office Chief Lester Lee, Traffic Safety Engineer Rick Yeung, and District Bike 4
Liaison Sergio Ruiz. 5
6
Eunmi Choi provided an overview of the Caltrans paving project on State Route 82 El Camino 7
Real between Mountain View and Palo Alto. The construction cost is approximately $30M. The 8
project’s main scope is pavement rehabilitation; upgrade sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveways 9
to ADA standard; place high-visibility crosswalk pavement markings; electrical work including 10
installing pedestrian hybrid beacon systems, APS systems, and upgrading signal poles at several 11
intersections. This project will add new bikeways in Mountain View and Los Altos. Caltrans 12
proposes new bikeways in Palo Alto. Paving is tentatively scheduled for late summer and fall 13
2024. Construction began in November 2023 and is anticipated to be completed in fall 2025. 14
15
Sergio Ruiz discussed Caltrans’ planning policy and the mobility needs identified for El Camino 16
Real. There is a desire and need for continuous bike facilities along El Camino Real and 17
improved access to destinations. Separated bikeways would attract more users. 18
19
Rick Yeung spoke about crashes involving bicyclists on El Camino Real. The Safe System 20
Approach focuses on preventing crashes and minimizing the harm done to the involved road 21
users in the event of a crash. Using crash data from 2016 through 2020, the Bicyclist Safety 22
Improvement Monitoring Program identifies and investigates areas with a high concentration 1
of bicyclist-involved crashes to implement appropriate safety enhancement countermeasures. 2
Five segments were identified along El Camino Real with a high concentration of bicyclist-3
involved crashes, one in Mountain View and four in Palo Alto. From 2016 to 2020, there were 4
33 bicyclist-involved crashes resulting in 32 injuries and 1 fatality in these five segments of El 5
Camino Real. The three crash patterns identified were drivers’ failure to yield, bikes going 6
against the flow of traffic, and red light violation. 7
8
Potential underlying issues related to drivers’ failure to yield are driver distraction, visibility 9
issue, or right-of-way assignment unclear to the road users. Potential mitigations include 10
upgrading/improving traffic signage and markings, ensure clear line of sight especially at 11
intersections and driveways, driver education, and providing bike boxes at selected locations to 12
improve the visibility of bicyclists. 13
14
Bikes going against the flow of traffic oftentimes are related to a lack of a designated area for 15
bicycling and dealing with a high-stress riding environment. Potential mitigation measures 16
include providing a standard bicycle facility to designate a portion of the roadway for the 17
exclusive use by bicyclists as well as installing appropriate signs and markings to clearly indicate 18
the direction of bike travel. 19
20
Potential underlying issues related to red light violation are speeding, drivers unable to see 21
traffic signal equipment clearly, or signal timing. Potential mitigations include traffic 22
enforcement, drivers’ education, and working with Maintenance and Highway Operations to 1
ensure signal equipment visibility and verify appropriate signal timing. 2
3
Based on Caltrans traffic safety review, their recommendation is to implement a bikeway on El 4
Camino Real with the ongoing repaving project to provide connectivity, reduce the incidents of 5
bicyclists riding against the flow of traffic, reduce the potential for conflict between bikes and 6
vehicles, and improve traffic safety on El Camino Real. 7
8
The design engineer was not available to attend tonight’s meeting. Nick Saleh discussed 9
bikeway design considerations and displayed the proposed bikeway plan. The bikeway would 10
tentatively remove 600 street parking spots throughout the Palo Alto segment. City staff will go 11
to City Council for a resolution to remove street parking as the next step in bikeway 12
implementation in Palo Alto. 13
14
Chair Summa invited questions and comments from the Commission. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton pointed out that the fatality was a middle schooler who collided with 17
a large vehicle. Besides closing that road, nothing had been done since then to improve the 18
safety of El Camino. 19
20
In reply to Commissioner Templeton inquiring if Caltrans is considering adding bike facilities to 1
any other roads in Palo Alto, Nick Saleh responded that the State only owns El Camino Real. 2
Other roads are outside of Caltrans’ jurisdiction. 3
4
Commissioner Smith asked about the type of dividers that would be used on the road. Nick 5
Saleh believed it is channelizers. Sergio Ruiz does not believe that detail has been fully fleshed 6
out in the plan set but the idea was to have flexible channelizers where space allows for a 7
buffer at regular intervals. 8
9
Commissioner Chang asked for a breakdown of what percent of those 33 accidents fell into 10
each category. Rick Yeung answered there were 10 drivers’ failure to yield, 13 bikes going 11
against the flow of traffic, and 4 red light violations. 12
13
Commissioner Chang asked what proportion of the new bike lanes in the draft design would be 14
Class IV versus a lower class. Nick Saleh replied it is a draft, so what is presented today might be 15
changed tomorrow based on feedback. Sergio Ruiz stated that significant portions need to be 16
Class II where there are conflict zones, such as at bus stops, driveways, and intersection 17
approaches; however, the number had not been summed up yet. 18
19
Commissioner Chang asked if the draft design met DIB-94 guidelines because she heard from a 20
member of the public that intersections did not appear to be compliant with DIB-94. Nick Saleh 21
stated he heard that comment in the last couple of public meeting. Caltrans will evaluate where 22
DIB-94 applies and ensure they are satisfying DIB-94 and the Highway Design Manual for safety, 1
lane width, and other design geometrics. 2
3
Commissioner Chang wanted to know what would happens if the Council does not agree to 4
remove parking spaces. As there is a safety concern and a liability, Nick Saleh hoped to continue 5
working with the City on a solution but Caltrans would decide what the legal obligations were if 6
the City said no. 7
8
In response to Chair Eberle querying how many accidents were bus-related, Rick Yeung replied 9
that none of the 33 crashes involved transit buses. 10
11
Chair Eberle asked how bicyclists will make left turns from a right bike lane. Nick Saleh stated 12
that Caltrans is enhancing and upgrading all the crosswalks through the intersections 13
throughout the whole corridor and signage will facilitate crossing. Sergio Ruiz acknowledged 14
that many bicyclists do not feel comfortable merging across three lanes of traffic, so the draft 15
plan includes two-stage left turn boxes with designated markings indicating to bicyclists where 16
to position themselves to make left turns. Bicyclists can stay on the right side, cross an 17
intersection at the green, pivot to turn left, and wait for the next signal cycle to go straight. Left 18
turn boxes are proposed at strategic locations where there are crossing bike facilities or to 19
access parallel facilities such as the Stanford Perimeter Trail. Caltrans has received a lot of 20
feedback on left turns, so they are looking into other potential locations for left turn boxes. 21
22
Chair Eberle asked at what stage is Mountain View and Los Altos and if the bikeway would look 1
the same. Nick Saleh responded that it is one project under one contract. The bikeway would 2
look similar. There is no differentiation between towns. 3
4
Chair Eberle asked if there had been feedback from RV and vehicle dwellers on El Camino and if 5
Caltrans was working on places for them to relocate. Nick Saleh remarked that active 6
construction zones need space. Caltrans has a monthly meeting with the Cities of Palo Alto, 7
Mountain View, and Los Altos as well as the County. The construction schedule is provided 8
three weeks in advance. Caltrans will post “no parking” signs two weeks ahead of time. Their 9
Caltrans liaison has been in contact with the City of Palo Alto and the County. As Caltrans only 10
owns El Camino Real, it has to be a local effort to accommodate RV and vehicle dwellers. 11
12
Assistant to the City Manager Melissa McDonough stated that staff reached out to the County 13
and Caltrans after learning about the three-step plan: A two-week notice for continuum of care 14
to help get unhoused into housing and services, then a 72-hour notice, and then CHP. City staff 15
met with a structured community group. City staff is also meeting internally to see if there are 16
any State resources to improve notification and to find a place for people to relocate to if they 17
are displaced. 18
19
Commissioner Akin asked for additional details on accidents that are a result of travel against 20
the flow of traffic so he could get a sense of how much improvement we could expect from a 21
bike lane. Rick Yeung replied that there are primarily two types, bicyclists riding on the roadway 22
or on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic. Primarily, Caltrans is concerned that this issue 1
makes it difficult for a vehicle to expect sudden entry into their immediate surrounding. Rick 2
Yeung thinks the proposed bike lane will encourage more people to ride with the flow, which 3
makes more orderly traffic movement, hopefully will lessen surprises and confusion, and make 4
it safer. Nick Saleh remarked that if there is additional education in Phase 2 of the bike lane or 5
additional improvement it would enhance safety. 6
7
Commissioner Lu asked City staff and Caltrans what outreach they had done with residents in 8
RVs or small businesses in advance of this meeting or what will we do in advance of the City 9
Council meeting in a few weeks. Nick Saleh replied that Caltrans started the conversation with 10
the City the moment the project was awarded and approved to go to construction and the 11
conversation would continue. The project was approved in November. Commissioner Lu 12
repeated his question about outreach to residents in RVs or small businesses in advance of this 13
meeting or in advance of the City Council meeting in a few weeks so they can submit email 14
comments or attend these meetings. Melissa McDonough responded that in the City’s early 15
conversations with Caltrans, staff asked Caltrans to do outreach and Caltrans assured staff they 16
were handing out leaflets to each business along El Camino as their workers went throughout 17
the route. Staff reached out to two nonprofit organizations that are trusted sources in the 18
community who offered to tell vehicle dwellers what is being proposed and about these 19
opportunities to attend meetings. Melissa McDonough is working with the Economic 20
Development Director to determine which small businesses may be most impacted. Staff 21
reached out to the Chamber to let them know about this work. 22
1
Commissioner Lu asked if there was any context or data about the percent of accidents that 2
consisted of people riding on El Camino versus being broadsided while crossing El Camino at an 3
intersection. Rick Yeung replied that roughly two-thirds of crashes happen at intersections; half 4
of those were people riding on El Camino and crossing the side street, the other half were 5
riding from the side street and crossing El Camino. 6
7
Commissioner Lu sought clarification on the reply to a previously emailed question about 8
Sheridan converting from a bike lane to sharrows to a bike lane in a span of maybe a few dozen 9
feet. Sergio Ruiz stated Caltrans’ preference is to provide continuity in the proposed bike lanes. 10
Particularly in a couple of major intersections with multiple turn lanes where real estate is 11
constrained, the draft plans include sharrows at those approaches. Caltrans recognizes it is not 12
an ideal situation, so they are looking into potential options to provide continuity where 13
possible. 14
15
Commissioner Stimmler noted that Page 60 states that 42 percent of accidents were due to 16
“other” violations. Commissioner Stimmler asked what was causing those accidents or what 17
violations they involved. Rick Yeung responded that it is classified as “other” in the Traffic 18
Collision Report. 19
20
Commissioner Stimmler wanted to know where a channelized lane will become a Class II lane 21
and wanted more detail about what Caltrans was doing around driveways. Nick Saleh stated 22
that Caltrans is committed to reevaluate what they will do based upon concerns heard during 1
previous sessions. Sergio Ruiz remarked that they want to have a Class II bike lane at major 2
intersection approaches because many motorists turn right. With driveways that are generally 3
low volume, you can keep vertical separators up to the driveway if you are not expecting many 4
right turns. Sergio Ruiz heard a lot of feedback and concerns about driveway treatments 5
particularly from one or two members of Palo Alto’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 6
Committee. Caltrans will see if there is any way they can refine it. 7
8
Commissioner Stimmler wondered if there were any options for businesses that need parking in 9
front for carrying large bags of goods or a doctor’s office. Nick Saleh replied that Caltrans has 10
not heard any specific requests. Caltrans delegated to the City the option of treating it as a 11
loading zone. 12
13
Vice-Chair Kraus inquired on the cost to upgrade the safe school routes, particularly crossing El 14
Camino on the way to Gunn. Nick Saleh responded that Caltrans would work with the City if 15
there was a designated route that Caltrans could improve but Caltrans needs to know which 16
route. Aung Maung remarked that when the Safe Routes to School crosses a State facility, 17
Caltrans tries to work with the local partner and facilitate strategies such as a high-visibility 18
crosswalk and pedestrian hybrid beacon. Vice-Chair Kraus had a list provided to her from the 19
community of 12 intersections and she offered to share the list with Caltrans. The community 20
wanted to understand how Safe Routes to School will change, the cost, and the overall impact. 21
22
There are doctor offices on El Camino and services for the disabled. Vice-Chair Kraus asked 1
about disability handicapped parking and the impact of the proposed plan on people who 2
cannot walk very far. Nick Saleh replied that it had not been identified as part of the process 3
but Caltrans would work with the City on options. Vice-Chair Kraus urged Caltrans to look into 4
this because she has received calls about parking being a huge concern. 5
6
Vice-Chair Kraus asked if small businesses understood the impact of this plan and if Caltrans 7
had received any feedback. Nick Saleh responded this is their third engagement session open to 8
the public. More than 75 people attended the first one. Nick Saleh believed that, in partnership 9
with the City, the business community across the affected section of El Camino had been 10
notified. 11
12
Commissioner Smith noted tonight’s discussion did not mention if Caltrans has done this 13
project in any other municipality, what was the best thinking in civil engineering around bike 14
paths, what was the current thinking and methodology in City and civil planning, if bike lanes 15
would result in an increase or decrease in business because of walkability and bike travel, 16
increased safety, and increased community activity. Sergio Ruiz stated there has been an 17
evolution especially within the California Department of Transportation in accommodating 18
people walking, biking, and driving. Class II bike lanes were implemented in Gilroy and Sonoma 19
County but there are not enough examples to do a full study on the impact to businesses and 20
safety. Some national studies have shown that bike lanes increase safety and support 21
businesses but every community and project is different. The priority is to have some 22
separation between bike lines from traffic. Caltrans has a lot of projects in development that 1
are shifting toward those kinds of facilities. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton asked if the facilities that Caltrans was planning to implement would 4
be compliant with ADA laws because people are concerned about their ability to access 5
services. Nick Saleh replied that one scope of the work is to upgrade ADA, such as ramps onto 6
the signals and the crosswalk as well as the side slope of the sidewalks. Commissioner 7
Templeton lives by El Camino and has seen collisions and near-misses. Government agencies at 8
the City, State, and County levels need to work on making it safer. 9
10
Chair Eberle noted Slide 6, Packet Page 49, shows a two-way bike lane on San Pablo Avenue in 11
Albany that appeared very safe. Chair Eberle thought it was interesting and queried if it had 12
been considered for El Camino. Nick Saleh told Chair Eberle to not focus too much on that 13
picture. Sergio Ruiz stated that image showed a short two-way cycle track on San Pablo Avenue 14
in Albany and was funded through a local developer. The bikeway runs the parcels of a local 15
development project and is intended to connect two bike facilities perpendicular to the 16
highway. Caltrans utilizes the State Highway Operation and Protection Program to fund paving 17
projects. Caltrans likes to show this image of a two-way bikeway because it illustrates a low-18
stress bike facility. It could not be implemented as part of the repaving project because the 19
project focuses on curb to curb and ADA improvements. 20
21
Commissioner Smith asked if there were any grants or other funding channels to perform the 1
work that was done in Albany. Nick Saleh replied that Mountain View contributed their money 2
to the project. Caltrans has a federal funding opportunity to enhance safety for this project. As 3
part of Complete Streets, Caltrans will do their best to accommodate a bike lane. Sergio Ruiz 4
stated there are state and federal funding programs to provide more robust bike facility 5
improvements but at 10 times or greater cost. Caltrans relies on partnerships with local and 6
county agencies to prioritize those investments. For example, VTA is looking at developing the 7
Central Bikeway, which would include robust bike facilities on a portion of El Camino from 8
Santa Clara through San Jose. Those projects take many more years to fund and develop. 9
10
Public Comments 11
1. Rosemary Wick Stevens stated that a distracted driver crashed his SUV into her as she 12
biked across University Avenue on the way to the farmers market. Sarah Muller and 13
Maria Elise Jabon were riding bicycles when they were killed by vehicles, Sarah on 14
Embarcadero Road at Newell and Maria on Foothill Expressway. The proposal for bike 15
lanes includes green road paint, signage, and a few poles, which is a good first step but 16
it is not adequate. A protective bike infrastructure is necessary on El Camino along with 17
driver/biker education and enforcement. 18
19
2. Carol Muller urged the City to take advantage of this opportunity to have bike lanes on 20
El Camino. In recent years, cycling has become more dangerous principally due to 21
worsening driver behaviors such as speeding, inattention, as well as lack of knowledge 22
of the laws and the rights of cyclists and drivers. Caltrans’ mission includes increased 1
driver education but it was not detailed in tonight’s presentation. 2
3
3. Albert Henning remarked that El Camino is a state highway and he believed the principle 4
purpose of a state highway is transportation, not parking or housing. He does not think 5
it is appropriate for El Camino to be a housing location. He encouraged the City to adopt 6
Caltrans’ proposed design because a uniformity of the corridor presented to drivers and 7
cyclists will encourage more cyclists and ideally fewer cars and it will be safer. 8
9
4. Scott Mate opined that a multicity bike lane on El Camino Real would be an attractive 10
facility. Complete Streets appears to be silent on the presence of driveways. In 1974, he 11
crashed while bicycling in Santa Clara. His bike was crushed under the car’s wheels. He 12
was okay but ended up on the hood of a car turning left into a driveway. A bike lane 13
would not have helped prevent his crash but fewer driveways might have. Green paint 14
on bike lanes is not enough of a mitigation or awareness factor for motorists. The 15
Planning Commission may want to eliminate or limit driveways on El Camino Real so it 16
more closely resembles the safer grand boulevards of Europe. The surge of 17
development activity on El Camino Real could mean more and busier driveways and 18
hence more conflict with cyclists, many of whom are buying faster e-bikes. 19
20
5. Charlie Weidanz is President and CEO of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. Leaflets 21
were passed out. City staff has not completed outreach to the businesses. It is not 22
completely understood how the removal of 600 parking spaces along El Camino will 1
impact businesses that rely on drop-off or pick-ups, or for people with disabilities or 2
accessibility issues that want to get in and out conveniently. 3
4
6. Dr. Matt Bryant’s two kids bike to school at Gunn and Fletcher. His children cross El 5
Camino on the Safe Routes to School. His children attend soccer matches near Stanford 6
and on Page Mill and El Camino but there are no direct bike lanes. As a result, kids often 7
ride on the sidewalks or parents drive their kids, causing long lines of car traffic going in 8
and out of those locations. Dr. Matt Bryant spoke of the benefits of cycling. He did not 9
see any handicap parking on El Camino. It is very difficult to open the door when parked 10
on El Camino. Many businesses along El Camino have parking lots. There is not enough 11
parking for the apartments being built on El Camino Real and Page Mill. Dr. Matt Bryant 12
supports bike lanes in Palo Alto. 13
14
7. Ken Kershner is a volunteer with the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition. He delivered a slide 15
presentation on Zoom on behalf of Frank Viggiano, Katherine Dumont, Patrick Franks, 16
and April Webster. Ken Kershner and Katherine Dumont conducted canvassing over the 17
last two months to understand businesses’ concerns along El Camino Real. They created 18
a database of hundreds of Palo Alto businesses on El Camino Real, including the 19
addresses, number of parking spaces on El Camino in front of that business, and the 20
number of parking spaces off El Camino available to that business. The work is not 21
complete but they have identified 161 parking spaces in front of businesses and over 22
1300 off El Camino, not including side streets. Four businesses do not have much 1
parking on El Camino Real. Many businesses in the Evergreen Park area have bicycle 2
parking available for their clients. Videos were shown of bike parking, bike traffic, biking 3
in the wrong direction on the sidewalk, RV parking, and e-bikes. Businesses were 4
unaware of this topic prior to their conversation. Businesses’ top concern was the high 5
speed of car and truck traffic. Narrower lanes were preferred if it slowed down traffic. 6
Many noted cars and trucks block sightlines for customers and employees entering and 7
exiting El Camino. Bicyclists on sidewalks cause near misses when pedestrians exit a 8
doorway. Many businesses have their employees park on El Camino to leave parking for 9
customers off El Camino, so they appreciated time to plan for alternative parking. 10
11
8. Tim Oey commented that bike lanes and narrowing car lanes on El Camino to reduce 12
speed are huge steps in making El Camino safer. Climate change, pollution, and deaths 13
from traffic collisions are serious problems that can be made better by encouraging 14
more people to bike and walk and making driving less convenient. We need a fully built-15
out network of safe bicycling routes to all destinations. He urged the City to not miss 16
this opportunity to improve safety for everyone on El Camino Real and make it a 17
Complete Street. 18
19
9. Bruce Arthur expressed his support of Caltrans’ plan to add bike lanes for the full length 20
of El Camino. Removing parking from El Camino will improve the visibility for cyclists and 21
drivers. He wanted Palo Alto to add speed cameras and red light cameras to provide an 22
automated traffic enforcement system to make our roadways safer for cyclists, 1
pedestrians, and drivers. 2
3
10. Penny Ellson was disappointed that staff did not do counts at the El Camino Real 4
segments near the Maybell and Los Robles intersections during school commute times. 5
She was concerned that removal of El Camino Real parking may cause parking to 6
migrate to the El Camino Way school route that connects East Meadow to Maybell and 7
Los Robles. A plan is needed to mitigate the existing problem on El Camino Way of 8
automobiles illegally parking in bike lanes that students use to get to El Camino Real. 9
She was dismayed at Caltrans failure to use this repaving opportunity to improve 10
crossings of El Camino Real in every city on the corridor, especially on school commute 11
routes and at transit crossings. Paint and plastic is not a safety plan for people of all ages 12
and abilities who have to cross a six- or seven-lane highway. Longer signal timing is 13
needed at some of our school routes. Young people have shorter legs, people with 14
disabilities sometimes have difficulty getting across the street on a signal, and children 15
can misjudge crossing time, so it is helpful to have protected pedestrian refuge islands in 16
the middle of long intersections. Penny Ellson asked for a collaboration of Caltrans and 17
the City of Palo Alto to create wayfinding signage to help bicyclists navigate between the 18
parallel bicycle boulevard and El Camino Real destinations. 19
11. Alan Wachtel is a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee but he is 20
speaking on his own behalf because the Committee has not taken a position on this 21
project. Alan Wachtel is critical of Caltrans’ project and has submitted written 22
comments. He wanted to see an analysis of the causes of the 21 bike crashes to get a 1
better idea of the countermeasures. He wanted bike counts crossing El Camino Real. He 2
considers Class IV bikeways high stress because of the conflicts they create at driveways 3
and intersections. He encouraged Caltrans to look at DIB-89 Class IV Bikeway Design 4
Guidance. As with the bikeway in Albany, separate signal phases are one tool to resolve 5
turning conflicts at complicated intersections such as at El Camino and Page Mill. 6
12. Emil Abraham is in support of bike lanes, a road diet, and dedicated bus lanes. He 7
wanted right turn on red eliminated at as many intersections as possible. Statistics show 8
that broadside collisions are most common. 9
13. Ofer Ben-Shachar commented that a bike typically weighs 30 pounds, a typical human 10
weighs between 120 to 200 pounds, and an average car weighs 4000 pounds and goes 11
much faster than a cyclist, so it is very dangerous for the cyclist. Having more cycling 12
infrastructure encourages more cyclists to ride those roads, resulting in less car traffic, 13
so it improves everybody’s commute. It is better for businesses because cyclists and 14
pedestrians are more likely to stop at business than somebody going 40 mph on the 15
middle lane of El Camino. Biking infrastructure is cheaper to build and maintain than car 16
infrastructure. As a Palo Alto citizen, he wanted to have a choice to ride safely in Palo 17
Alto and use his taxes for his safety as well as his family. Palo Alto needs safe routes, 18
meaning completely protected routes. He thinks Caltrans’ proposal is an improvement 19
to the current condition but it is not enough. 20
14. Kristina Davis had been a bike commuter for 15 years in Chicago, D.C., Maryland, and 21
Virginia; however, she never felt as scared on her bike as she does living in Mountain 22
View and commuting to Palo Alto daily. She is excited and very much in support of this 1
project because it runs through areas she finds as the most dangerous when she is 2
commuting. Her concern is that two-thirds of the crashes happened at intersections, so 3
not even a Category IV lane would provide protection in those intersections. 4
15. Cedric Pitot de La Beaujardiere has biked El Camino Real to reach businesses and 5
commented it is extremely dangerous and terrifying. He generally supports the bike 6
lanes. The cross slope at driveways makes it difficult for wheelchairs, so he requested 7
flat space before the sloping of the driveways. Buffered bike lanes need to have soft 8
bollards in case a bicyclist hits them but beefy enough that cars do not want to crash 9
into them. He suggested making the right lane a right-turn only lane, a slow street to 10
access businesses, with a bike lane to the left so bikes would have minimal conflicts with 11
cars turning right into and out of businesses or intersections. Areas could be 12
strategically placed for drivers to yield to bikers and cross the bike lane back into El 13
Camino. He wondered if Caltrans tried this approach in other jurisdictions. About 80 14
percent of the lanes are striped but not buffered due to driveway conflicts. 15
16. Evelyne Keomian stated City staff has been working closely with her organization to 16
communicate to RV families. Many families living in RVs use bikes to get around and 17
they are very excited that the City is thinking about safety. Her grassroots organization 18
gave bicycles to children and youth during the recent holiday season to enable them to 19
get to and from school. Children are going to be relocated away from their schools, 20
friends, and communities. Grassroots organizers want to know who to work with to 21
ensure that children can continue going to school during this project. If we are 22
disrupting things for this long amount of time, ensure we are including things that will 1
make our community better for all. 2
17. April Webster is excited that Caltrans is working on this project. She is Vice-Chair of the 3
Caltrans D4 Bicycle Advisory Committee, in the MTC Active Transportation Working 4
Group, and SVBC’s Policy Advisory Committee but was speaking on her own behalf. She 5
would like to see greater compliance with DIB-94. As much as possible, include Class IV 6
or Class I since it is the safest class infrastructure. Assuming Palo Alto has traffic volumes 7
that identify them as urban and the speed is 35 mph, DIB-94 identifies 10.5-foot lanelets 8
in Table 5.3 and Class IV or Class I facilities. She wanted more robust vertical separation 9
than flexible posts. She thinks cyclists are more concerned about being hit by cars than 10
they are about hitting posts. Many collisions happen at intersections. The Caltrans D4 11
bike plan is under development and it includes best practices for intersections, so she 12
would like the Caltrans team to review those recommendations. She is from Vancouver, 13
BC and bike lanes increased traffic for downtown businesses. An article in the March 7, 14
2024 Business Insider identified 32 research articles that talk about the impact of bicycle 15
lanes in city design, making it more walkable and person-friendly, and how that impacts 16
businesses. 17
18
Commissioner Templeton asked Caltrans how many years they had been talking to Palo Alto 19
about this proposal. Nick Saleh replied that Mountain View had funding and reached out to 20
Caltrans to implement their bike lane. Caltrans saw it as an opportunity to reach out to Los 21
Altos and Palo Alto. Discussion was deferred by Palo Alto and conversations restarted when the 1
safety report was released. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton pointed out that all the other cities were taking advantage of this 4
opportunity to save lives as well as make El Camino less of a pollution thoroughfare and more 5
of a connector for Palo Alto. She saw an article today that South San Francisco is working on 6
obtaining funding. Palo Alto has funding. Commissioner Templeton witnessed two young Gunn 7
students get hit by a car at an intersection but it was not included in Caltrans road report 8
because they were late for school and not injured enough to make a report. We do not have a 9
mechanism to capture the collisions that do not require police or ambulance. Safe Routes 10
facilities should be improved as well. She thinks the City may be motivated to improve the 11
facilities of our intersecting streets once there are improved facilities on El Camino. 12
13
Commissioner Hechtman remarked that improving safety is the biggest goal. The staff report 14
states El Camino is 4 percent of our roads but 63 percent of our injuries. This is an opportunity 15
to make this roadway safer and a big step toward the PTC’s goal of no KSIs by 2030. Many 16
constituencies need to be factored in and balanced: Pedestrians on the sidewalk need to be 17
safe from bicyclists. Bicyclists need to be safe from cars. Passenger vehicles need to travel this 18
route efficiently or they will choose other routes. Transit needs to operate efficiently and 19
reliably so ridership will use it. Residents and people utilizing the businesses along El Camino 20
park along both sides of El Camino. The businesses on El Camino rely on parking in front of 21
them. The neighborhoods behind El Camino would be impacted. If we are driven by safety, we 22
have to incorporate bikes into this road. With a roadway diet reducing the travel lanes, folks 1
will seek other routes during busy times and travel through Palo Alto on roads that are not as 2
safe for pedestrians and bicyclists and have not been designed to deal with that volume of 3
traffic. We have to look at mitigations. If we eliminate parking on El Camino, we have to 4
address the impacts. Protect bicyclists and pedestrians so people are not parking on El Camino 5
bike lanes. Ensure there are places to park off El Camino for businesses that need parking. On 6
balancing these issues, Commissioner Hechtman chooses life safety over quality of life. 7
8
Vice-Chair Kraus commented that safety is paramount. She worried about the disruption to the 9
lives of the unhoused who have made their home on El Camino Real in RVs. She does not know 10
how the City can provide the necessary support and resources. She suggested allowing parking 11
in the residential areas. Businesses need to have access for their employees and customers. 12
This is a tremendous opportunity that encompasses a lot of finite tasks. She worried about the 13
infirm and less able and wanted to hear thoughts on mitigations for those who cannot walk far. 14
15
Vice-Chair Chang agreed with prioritizing safety. She was very concerned about causing a 16
greater problem while trying to solve a problem. 80 percent of the lanes will not be buffered 17
because of driveways. We do not have data to indicate how bike traffic and accidents may 18
increase. The focus needs to be on mitigation as much as possible, especially at intersections 19
but she is not sure how to get funding for mitigation given the timeline. If all we are getting is 20
paint and we are throwing folks into an unsafe environment, maybe we should wait until we 21
can get funding to make things safer. We need to take care of our community and think about 1
mitigation for the 41 dwellings that will be removed. 2
3
Chair Eberle saw this as a great opportunity for Palo Alto to make biking safer. It may not be 4
ideal but it is a step in the right direction. She liked the Albany design and wondered if Palo Alto 5
could have a sidewalk, one-way bike lane, and then a bigger separation or curb between the 6
bike lane and the street. We can have a better quality of life if we are exercising, biking around 7
town. She was concerned about driveways and was interested to know the number of 8
driveways on El Camino and what could be done to make those safer. Chair Eberle wondered if 9
there was space on El Camino or somewhere else in Palo Alto for RV dwellers as some of the 10
churches have in the Safe Parking Program. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl commented that bike lanes are great for bicyclists and drivers because 13
it reduces traffic and there is less air pollution; however, this bike lane project has some 14
concerns. El Camino has many driveways, buses go in and out of the bike lane, thin plastic poles 15
are between you and the fast traffic, and you have business impacts. We cannot solve all these 16
issues. If it was all about safety, based on the crash data and the number of people injured on El 17
Camino, then we should do our best with signage to get people off El Camino and over to Park 18
Boulevard. Commissioner Reckdahl was worried about the thin plastic poles giving people a 19
false sense of security but the barrier is not going to withstand a car going through it. 20
Regardless if bike lanes are put on El Camino, Commissioner Reckdahl will use Park Boulevard 21
because it is faster, more pleasant, and shaded. 22
1
Commissioner Reckdahl asked how much is saved by paving and striping at the same time as 2
opposed to repaving and adding a bike lane six months later. Nick Saleh replied there is a big 3
financial and time savings. Commissioner Reckdahl worried about rushing and not making 4
informed decisions. Council will decide on April 1 about parking but the Chamber of Commerce 5
has not completed their outreach. He loves bike lanes and viewed them as an asset to the 6
community but we have issues to solve and there could be many unintended consequences. 7
8
Commissioner Smith remarked that Palo Alto wants to be a green city as demonstrated in the 9
values laid out by policies over the last 10 years. Commissioner Smith grew up in New York. The 10
speed is 50 mph on Queens Boulevard and nobody follows any rules but they put in a bike lane. 11
When you put bike lanes and other commuter-friendly things on main intersections, you 12
generate more opportunity for economic activity. If you connect to regional bike options, you 13
create equity because essential workers who take the 22 VTA bus can ride their bike to work 14
because it is the cheapest way to commute. We espouse a lot of values in our planning and 15
direction but this is the opportunity to line up some of those values. Commissioner Smith 16
thought the City needed to take advantage of this opportunity. 17
18
Aung Maung answered the question about cost saving. If a bike lane is not installed with the 19
paving project, it will take Caltrans four years to develop the project to install a bike lane if we 20
are able to secure funding. Caltrans needs to follow the California Transportation Committee 21
timeline and policy requirements when developing and delivering a project. Nick Saleh clarified 22
that funding for the project came for a safety improvement. If a bike lane is installed later, it 1
becomes a new project that has to be cleared environmentally as well as determine the 2
funding, schedule, and impact. Alternatively, it could be a City project with City funding. 3
4
Commissioner Akin worried that if El Camino became as a major bike route that we would lose 5
a lot of people to right hooks, driveways, and intersections. He was concerned about the gap 6
between Embarcadero and Quarry. We will see higher risk because many people he spoke to 7
are going to use vehicular lanes to avoid crossing at Embarcadero and going through Stanford. 8
To understand how many people are moving on which roads in which directions, he strongly 9
suggested that Caltrans do a baseline on El Camino and that Palo Alto do a baseline on Alma at 10
least at Charleston and a couple other key intersections that are likely to be through routes 11
between those two major paths. Baselines will provide the information needed to do follow-up 12
studies to identify new problems before anyone gets injured or killed after these changes. 13
Caltrans needs to commit to a set of metrics to define success for this project. Is the goal to 14
increase bike throughput on El Camino or to eliminate major injury and death accidents? 15
16
Commissioner Akin stated that parking spaces on El Camino near Park Avenue were a critical 17
part of the compromise in the Evergreen Park RPP. If the City is going to honor the promises 18
made to those neighborhoods, then a solution has to be found for taking away the parking from 19
the businesses. Commissioner Akin suggested setting the maximum number of nonresident 20
permits for the Evergreen Park RPP to the number issued last year, minus the number of 21
parking places that are removed on El Camino in front of businesses. 22
1
Commissioner Akin thought the Business Insider article was very interesting. He advised the 2
Commission that there will be tradeoffs by making this change and the decision will result in 3
business winners and losers. 4
5
In 2012, Commissioner Stimmler lived on El Camino Real and she stood with a man while he 6
appeared to be dying after being hit while riding his bicycle. She thought replacing parking with 7
a bike lane is safer for cyclists. The distracted woman who hit the bicyclist probably would have 8
noticed him if there had been a green lane and barriers. It was a turn lane, so maybe turn lanes 9
are not as safe as they could be. Palo Alto is missing an opportunity if it will take at least four 10
years to make it a cleaner, neater, safer street. The City needs to house the folks who have 11
been living on El Camino, think about what we can do for businesses who are going to lose 12
customers, and employees who work on El Camino need places to park. 13
14
Commissioner Lu agreed that safety is urgent. He believes a bad bike lane could be worse than 15
nothing. He supports this project overall as it is a first step toward a safer, equitable, and 16
sustainable future for El Camino. There is a lot that Caltrans can improve and he wants to see 17
some indication that Caltrans is receptive to design feedback and seriously considering specific 18
changes to parts of its design diagram. Some sharrows are bad and potentially avoidable. There 19
is a lack of signage. Some of the route decisions are questionable, such as dumping cyclists from 20
a protected bike lane near Sand Hills and Palo Alto Ave into Menlo Park into the middle of an 21
unprotected section of El Camino instead of doing some thoughtful work and trying to end the 22
bike lane gracefully. When this comes to Council, Commissioner Lu wanted to see specific 1
examples of improvements for the proposed designs. 2
3
Commissioner Lu urged City Council to prioritize further improvements to intersections, 4
signage, driveway permitting, consider a road diet, be considerate with our RV residents and 5
find the best mitigations we can for them. 6
7
Commissioner Lu looked in detail at the plans for Mountain View and Los Altos. Many of the 8
limitations and safety issues we see here are present in those plans. Mountain View’s City 9
Council unanimously approved bike lanes twice. The Los Altos City Council had a split vote 3-2 10
to remove parking. The Mountain View Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Commission and the Los 11
Altos Complete Streets Commission were unanimous in supporting the removal of parking and 12
implementation of bike lanes. Commissioner Lu overall supports this project. 13
14
Chair Summa stated that RPPs were designed for two-hour parking to support nearby 15
businesses so she did not it being a problem for the clients of businesses on El Camino. We do 16
not have data on current bike use or projections for future bike use. Chair Summa thought the 17
gap that Commissioner Akin mentioned was very troubling. With 80 percent buffering, she does 18
not know that this will be safer until it becomes a bike highway with many bikers. Chair Summa 19
wants improvements on Park Boulevard for bikes because it is a safer option. She does not 20
know how we can have a good outcome so quickly. Vehicle dwellers should have been included 21
in stakeholder meetings. Geng Road has overnight parking for vehicle dwellers but there is not 22
enough parking. We will have transitional housing soon but it probably will not be enough. 1
People who own an RV are not going to give it up to live in temporary transitional housing. 2
There is no baseline data and metrics to measure success. 3
4
Chair Summa saw two middle school boys get hit at the end of her block on El Camino. She 5
wanted to ensure that we make things better and safer. We have to solve the problem of 6
where to put the cars. The long block of El Camino between Churchill and Embarcadero, the 7
Paly block, is packed with cars all the time. El Camino Way has a parking problem. We have to 8
consider the outcomes. Chair Summa asked Caltrans to answer some of the many unanswered 9
questions and solve some of those problems before this is finalized. 10
11
The PTC took a break at 9:20 PM and resumed at 9:31 PM with all members present except 12
Commissioner Templeton. 13
14
4. Study Session to Receive Presentation Regarding Strategies and Policy 15
Recommendations 16
17
Amy French stated the Council Ad Hoc Committee will have their first meeting on March 20 at 9 18
AM and displayed the agenda on the screen. Amy French introduced consultant Dan Wery. 19
20
Dan Wery with MBI delivered a presentation on the Retail Recovery Study. The goal of the 1
project is to recommend zoning strategies to help retain, strengthen, and facilitate retail in the 2
key commercial areas of Palo Alto. 3
4
Probable causes and contributing factors of extensive and persistent vacancies include: 461,000 5
sq. ft. of vacant retail space exceeding market demand, representing four times the 10-year 6
projected growth in demand for retail space. E-commerce is 16% and increasing. Loss of office 7
workers equal to demand for about 110,000 sq. ft. of retail space. There is competition from 8
Stanford Mall, big box retailers at the Palo Alto border, and neighboring communities. 9
10
Palo Alto regulations may be a significant contributing factor based on MBI’s review as well as 11
comments from stakeholders and staff. The code is very complicated, hard to understand and 12
implement, and too restrictive were comments heard repeatedly in all the stakeholder reviews. 13
There are multiple layers of exceptions, exclusions, and applicability. There are many double 14
negatives within a provision. It refers to three or four other locations in the code or it overlaps, 15
is redundant, or affected by other sections. There are internal conflicts and inconsistencies. Its 16
inflexibility may be deterring new retail uses and investment because it is very difficult to 17
change to other uses if retail fails. RPO and other provisions limit retail-supporting uses because 18
you cannot replace retail unless it is retail or retail-like except through a CUP or if you prove 19
your use is suffering an economic hardship. 20
21
A Harvard study that came out in May and updated in November showed that landlords are 1
willing to wait to fill a vacancy in the hopes of higher rent or waiting for a better tenant. There 2
is a limited choice of tenants at a given time, maybe one or two. More than half of retail leases 3
average over 10 years because expensive tenant improvement costs lead to longer leases to 4
amortize those costs. 5
6
Palo Alto vacancy trends are consistent with national trends; however, areas with a thriving 7
office market have done well. Downtown and total Palo Alto is at a 10-year high for vacancies. 8
The nadir was in 2014-2015. Smaller neighborhood-serving areas have less fluctuation in the 9
vacancy rates, which is expected because of convenience and their consistent customer base 10
composed of primarily residents who live nearby. Downtown and Cal Ave are more oriented 11
and supported by office workers. The highest vacancy rates are in the highest rent areas 12
(downtown, Town & Country, and Cal Ave). Rent rates are slowly, steadily increasing despite 13
increasing vacancies. 14
15
Possible zoning strategies include: Allow more formula retail on Cal Ave. Allow non-retail on 16
ground floor or former retail spaces. Limit the RPO to right-size core areas (downtown, Cal Ave, 17
and neighborhood centers). With RPO, if there is not a market to replace retail, vacancies will 18
persist. Lower the relief standards because the provisions for relief from the RPO are very tough 19
to meet. Simplify the code to make it user friendly for applicants and staff. 20
21
Zoning strategies for relaxed formula retail: Limit formula retail to restaurants or certain 1
franchises. Coronado restricts fast food and requires a minor special use permit, max 2 per site, 2
max 10 per district. Santa Monica limits formula to fast food restaurants. Opening it up to 3
coffee shops or other uses might bring vitality. Formulas have more money and can bring more 4
foot traffic to the area to support the other uses. Change the franchise threshold for size, 5
number, or concentration. Palo Alto’s limit is 10 of any similar-type uses, brands, or franchises 6
within the nation for any business. Santa Monica’s threshold is 150 restaurants. Coronado has a 7
limit of 15 businesses sharing a name or logo. In Bristol, Rhode Island, anything over 2500 sq. ft. 8
is prohibited in their downtown but less than 2500 sq. ft. is allowed with a CUP. San Francisco 9
prohibits it in some districts and some districts require a CUP. In San Francisco, formula retail 10
(except grocery stores) greater than 20,000 sq. ft. requires an economic impact study. Idaho 11
limits formula retail to 10 percent of that business category to keep it a minority use. 12
13
Zoning strategies to allow nonretail on the ground floor: In Santa Monica and other 14
communities mentioned in Street Sense, nonretail is allowed if it is not street-facing, such as on 15
a side street or behind retail. That is consistent with a stakeholder input. Be more flexible when 16
vacancies exceed a certain percentage threshold. Under prior Palo Alto code, you gave relief 17
when vacancies exceeded 5 percent in a district for more than six months. Allow ground-floor 18
nonretail subject to concentration, size, or proximity limits. Palo Alto’s Mixed Use standard of 19
minimum 25 percent ground-floor commercial can be applied to other uses. Town & Country 20
zone limits offices to max 15 percent of the total floor area. San Francisco’s maximum is 30 21
percent of street frontage within a 300-foot radius. Thousand Oaks Mixed Use Plan is minimum 1
50 percent retail in buildings with over 100 feet of street frontage. 2
3
Fitness and exercise facilities over 1800 sq. ft. are prohibited or trigger a conditional use permit; 4
however, the industry standard is 3000 sq. ft., so maybe allow 2500 or 3000 sq. ft. without a 5
conditional use permit. It would bring a lot of vitality to the street. While Dan Wery was 6
recently at a bakery, 15 to 20 people from a Pilates studio directly across the street came after 7
class to buy pastries. 8
9
Examples of maximum size per use with a conditional use permit: Restaurants 5000 sq. ft., 10
offices 3000 sq. ft., and commercial recreation 5000 sq. ft. Avoid concentration by limiting the 11
number per block or within a perimeter of each other. Coronado limits formula retail 12
restaurants to a 50-foot frontage to fit into typical retail spaces. 13
14
Allow other viable active uses. Stakeholders wanted pet grooming, beauty shops, nail salons, 15
barbershops, small learning centers, and daycare. Personal services businesses generate foot 16
traffic and hopefully people will support your other uses. Retail zones need complementary 17
uses for variety and to generate uses throughout the day and draw people in. 18
19
Allow medical office with a retail component, lifestyle, and health services. It is not equitable to 20
not allow an optometrist because they have a medical license but you could have a business 21
offering similar services without a medical license. 22
1
RPO is citywide. All retail is protected and restricted from changing to nonretail uses. One 2
suggestion from stakeholders was to rescind the RPO entirely. One option is to remove the 3
citywide RPO applicability and instead focus on the core areas such as downtown, Cal Ave, and 4
El Camino and let the noncore areas evolve over time. With RPO removal, retail remains 5
allowed but not required. This may result in attracting new retail investment because it is less 6
risky when there is flexibility to change the use. 7
8
Provide easier RPO, GF, and R relief: Relax waiver and adjustment standards. Requiring 9
economic hardship is an unconstitutional taking. There is a provision for alternative active uses. 10
Relax the documentation requirements and criteria. 11
12
Simplify the zoning code. Make it easier for staff and applicants. Dan Wery suggested a 13
comprehensive code revision/cleanup. Standardize the format. Use formal interpretations to 14
update code. 15
16
Upcoming meetings on zoning recommendations: March 26 ad hoc committee, March 27 PTC 17
meeting, April ad hoc committee, May PTC meeting, and City Council in June. 18
19
Vice-Chair Chang suggested that commissioners who are not on the ad hoc could send their 20
questions to Amy French. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl asked for an explanation of Packet Page 195, Slide 9, Retail Trends 1
Vacancy. Dan Wery explained they used CoStar. Some volatility is expected in the top bar. 2
According to literature, many of the loans that people took out to build spaces are coming due, 3
so the real estate bubble is putting extra pressure on the market. Some people’s properties are 4
worth less than they owe. 5
6
On Packet Page 200, Slide 14, Commissioner Reckdahl noted rents were increasing despite 7
increased vacancies. Dan Wery thought that owners were reluctant to lower rents because of 8
the long-term investment and preferred to leave it vacant. 9
10
Rent is 50 percent more in Downtown Palo Alto than Los Altos. Commissioner Reckdahl 11
wondered if Downtown Palo Alto was that much more lucrative. Dan Wery replied that 12
location, a long four-block main street, a thriving office market, lots of customers, and better 13
markets command more rent. Commissioner Reckdahl asked how widespread the use of rent-14
setting software was. Dan Wery did not know but suggested asking local property managers. 15
16
Commissioner Chang queried if there were long leases for office. Dan Wery responded that 17
offices average between five and seven-year leases. Office tenant improvement costs are much 18
less than retail. Commissioner Chang has always been told by developers that they want office. 19
Her concern with allowing alternative uses is that Palo Alto could end up with nothing else but 20
office because office space is so desirable. Dan Wery stated that retail in some areas is doing 21
well where the office market is doing well. Palo Alto’s office market has experienced very 1
similar patterns with increased vacancies. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the chart depicted rents per month or per year. Dan Wery 4
thought it was reported quarterly and the amount was monthly. Dan Wery showed the vacancy 5
rates and total floor area in Palo Alto has increased. The title of the chart “Office Trends – Rent 6
per SF” is wrong. The title should be “Total SF.” On the graph of Office Trends – Vacancy Rate, 7
there is at least 360,000 sq. ft. in the downtown area and 130,000 sq. ft. on Cal Ave of vacant 8
office. Therefore, office will not be a threat to retail space for any foreseeable future. 9
10
Chair Summa invited discussion amongst the Commission. Commissioner Lu believed the 11
numbers in the graph represented dollars per square foot per year. Often, retail rents are 12
calculated per year. Commissioner Reckdahl remarked that typically office rent in Palo Alto is 13
around $9/sq. ft. per month. 14
15
Chair Summa asked Veronica Dao to determine if there were speakers in the audience. 16
Veronica Dao replied there were no public comments. 17
18
Chair Summa asked Commissioner Reckdahl for the ad hoc report. Supply and demand does not 19
seem to be kicking in, which bothered Commissioner Reckdahl. Landlords want the best long-20
term tenant and are okay with leaving their spot vacant for two or three years. The leases are 21
so long that landlords do not want to have a bad tenant. 22
1
Commissioner Chang commented that the ad hoc set goals, discussed how difficult it is to get 2
additional data, and arrived to a consensus to focus on low-hanging fruit. Staff’s goal is to 3
present a set of potential strategies to Council by June. Tonight’s presentation was partly in 4
response to questions the ad hoc had raised and a request for examples of what other cities 5
have done. 6
7
Discussion ensued on the RPO. Commissioner Akin advised to not focus too much on the RPO 8
because the charts depict the same trends in Santa Monica as Palo Alto but Santa Monica does 9
not have an RPO. This is an indication that other factors are more important. 10
11
Commissioner Lu asked if vacancy taxes had been considered. Commissioner Reckdahl read an 12
interesting discussion in the Harvard paper. It is difficult to set the level correctly. Vacancy taxes 13
improved vacancy rates but you have more churn and lower-end tenants that property 14
managers would have otherwise ruled out. If you are losing critical mass because of empty 15
spaces, you are better off filling it with a second-tier retailer than having an empty storefront. 16
17
Commissioner Lu asked about the plan for outreach to businesses and landlords. Commissioner 18
Chang replied that staff asked the ad hoc to do outreach. Chair Summa’s contacts provided 19
feedback in the Cal Ave study, so talking to them again may not provide any new information 20
unless new questions are asked. Commissioner Chang stated that the three ad hoc committee 21
members intended to talk to some businesses; however, they have to develop a questionnaire. 22
1
Commissioner Akin pointed out that they have not talked much about the lack of competition 2
among downtown landlords. A few landlords own a large fraction of the properties downtown, 3
so there are fewer opportunities for tenants to choose property managers. 4
5
Amy French addressed Commissioner Hechtman’s questions. The RPO was adopted in 2015. 6
Amy French did not have the Street Sense motion with her but she did not recall Council saying 7
to not touch the RPO. It could be a topic for discussion at the ad hoc. 8
9
Amy French asked commissioners what they wanted the ad hoc committee to focus on and 10
what commissioners were seeking from staff for the next full Commission meeting. Chair 11
Summa took many notes but she wanted some time before responding to tonight’s 12
presentation. Amy French will publish tonight’s presentation online. Commissioner Chang 13
suggested having a discussion at the next PTC meeting about the menu of options presented 14
tonight. Amy French will include bullets in her report to structure the conversation. 15
Commissioners can email their top three to Amy French. Amy French will email the 16
presentation tonight or tomorrow morning to commissioners. 17
18
Approval of Minutes 19
5. November 8, 2023 Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes 20
21
Motion 22
Commission Akin moved to approve the November 8, 2023 Draft Summary and Verbatim 1
Minutes. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl seconded the motion. 4
5
The motion passed 6-0-1 with Chair Summa, Vice-Chair Chang, and Commissioners Akin, 6
Hechtman, Lu, and Reckdahl voting yes; Commissioner Templeton absent. 7
8
Commissioner Comments 9
Commissioner Chang suggested revising PTC’s bylaws to be more similar to City Council’s to 10
have a cutoff point for public comment so the Chair can make a better informed decision as to 11
how many minutes to allot for each speaker. Tonight, the number of speakers tripled after the 12
decision was made to allot three minutes. Chair Summa offered to look at PTC’s and Council’s 13
bylaws. Albert Yang did not think it was in the bylaws. 14
15
Commissioner Akin commented on his experience at the Planning Commissioners Academy. He 16
found the update on upcoming legislation to be detailed, informative, and insightful. A 17
relationship was established with the Mountain View Planning Commission that might turn into 18
a joint discussion of the San Antonio corridor. Commissioner Akin downloaded all the 19
presentations and wrote a brief prioritization so commissioners could look at them in order of 20
most importance at AllenAkin.com/PCA.zip. Commissioner Chang asked for the link to be 21
emailed to the commissioners. Commissioner Akin will send it to staff and staff will send it to 1
the commissioners. 2
3
Chair Summa adjourned the meeting. 4
5
Adjournment 6
11:11 PM 7