HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-27 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: March 27, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:04 pm 7
Chair Summa welcomed everyone to the meeting. Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao took 8
roll and declared there was a quorum. 9
10
Oral Communications 11
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 12
13
Susan Dunn spoke in support of the Bird Safety, Dark Skies and Creek Protection Ordinances 14
asking the Commission to approve them. 15
Dashiell Leeds, the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, discussed 16
light pollution and bird safe design in preparation for the Commission's review of the Dark Sky 17
and Bird Safety Ordinance. He highlighted the damaging effects of artificial light on humans and 18
wildlife including disrupting circadian rhythms, increasing cancer risk and causing exhaustion 19
and bird strikes. He hoped the Commission would support the ordinance. 20
Linda Heideman, 19-year resident of Palo Alto, discussed the City's plan to conserve riparian 21
zones as natural habitat areas and commended the city for its well-thought-out plan to 22
establish local riparian zones as natural habitat areas. She encouraged setbacks to be as wide as 23
possible and called for wider corridors to include a greater number of bird species, including 24
larger birds like hawks. 25
Shani Kleinhaus, resident of Palo Alto and representative of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon 26
Society, discussed the significant declines in migratory species, including the Boring Owl, which 27
is at risk of extinction. She emphasized the importance of protection from bird collisions due to 28
glass and environmental harm caused by lighting on ecosystems and birds. She urged attendees 29
to contact her for any health or environmental questions. 30
31
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 32
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 33
None. 34
City Official Reports 35
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 1
Amy French, Chief Planning Official, presented the tentative agenda items for upcoming 2
meetings. The agenda included interviews for PTC candidates with one seat up for review on 3
April 8th. The first meeting of April would be the election of chair and Vice-Chair. The Dark Skies 4
project would be discussed before the Planning and Transportation Commission on May 29th. 5
Council meetings with PTC review items included the Palo Alto Link and Caltrans El Camino Real 6
repaving project. The joint meeting between Planning Commission and Council would be held 7
on April 15th with some items coming on April 22nd. 8
Vice Chair Chang inquired about postponing the election of chair and Vice-Chair if Council had 9
not yet voted on the open seat. 10
Amy French confirmed this stating a report had been prepared for April 10th allowing the 11
Commission to make a decision at the upcoming meeting. 12
Senior Transportation Planner Ozzy Arce queried if the schedule was for the 8th and if that was 13
for interviews or voting. 14
Amy French believed the candidates for the 1 seat were expected to be considered on April 1st 15
followed by voting on April 8th. 16
Commissioner Templeton wanted to know how to find the traffic data that was sent out and 17
who it came from. She also wondered if that information would be coming on a regular basis 18
and how often. 19
Amy French indicated Veronica Dao had sent an email containing an Excel spreadsheet to the 20
Commissioners that day. 21
Senior Transportation Planner for the Office of Transportation Ozzy Arce, explained the collision 22
reports are received monthly and the plan is to continue including them in PABAC's agenda 23
packet. 24
Director of the Office of Transportation, Philip Kamhi, noted those reports come from 25
Lieutenant Ben Becchetti at the Police Department and not the Office of Transportation. 26
Commissioner Templeton asked if the reports could be clearly labeled in the future. 27
28
Study Session 29
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 30
31
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Share and confirm the 32
vision statement and goals, share and get feedback on the existing conditions technical 33
analysis, and share and discuss upcoming engagement 34
Ozzy Arce introduced the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (BPTP) update, 1
last updated in 2012 stating it would be discussed by consultants Dhawal Kataria, Sylvia Star-2
Lack, and Philip Kamhi. The report included background information on collisions, barriers, and 3
traffic stress analysis. The focus was on obtaining feedback on the draft vision statement, 4
objectives, goals, and performance measures. He invited feedback to be received offline after 5
the meeting until Friday, April 12. 6
Transportation Planner with Kittelson & Associates, Dhawal Kataria, started the presentation 7
reminding the Commission that in November, the BPTP update was discussed, along with an 8
initial engagement plan and outreach activities. Feedback on the existing bike facilities map was 9
received and the revised version was attached. Feedback on increasing the range of 10
performance measures had been received and a glossary of items was added for easier 11
understanding. The focus was on the draft vision, objectives, and performance measures, which 12
were critical for guiding the work and recommendations. He discussed bicycle-friendly 13
communities, their level of traffic stress and barriers they have identified. The highest stress 14
roadway segments were identified as El Camino Real, Alma Street, Oregon Expressway, San 15
Antonio Road and Foothill Expressway. Local roadways with less traffic and speeds were easier 16
and more comfortable for biking. He discussed how transit stations could provide first and last 17
mile connections to reduce barriers and create an environment for less stressed roadways. 18
Collision analysis had also been conducted focusing on the 10-year collision history for bicycle 19
and pedestrians. He concluded by discussing the activity and benefit analysis and the need for 20
improved safety measures. Feedback was not required that day but could be received until 21
April 12th. 22
Commissioner Akin hoped to hear more about the use of Replika in future sessions. He 23
expressed concern about the lack of significant change in collisions and inquired if Dhawal 24
Kataria felt this to be an accurate analysis and if the cause of the flat trend in severe and fatal 25
injury accidents was being sought. 26
Dhawal Kataria replied they had dug deeper in their analysis looking for the cause. 27
Ozzy Arce added they had not landed on a specific cause as of yet. 28
Vice Chair Chang was puzzled by the low average of bike trips per rider especially given the high 29
frequency of trips to schools and colleges. 30
Dhawal Kataria explained that Replika data is trip-based, not rider-based. Data is collected each 31
time a trip is logged, potentially resulting in repeat entries for the same person. 32
Ozzy Arce added that Replika data has limitations and the team is exploring community input 33
and traditional count data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of recreational trips. 34
Philip Kamhi remarked that the data suggests that an individual rider may be making multiple 35
trips, such as one way home from work or two ways in one day, indicating multiple trips per 36
rider. 37
PUBLIC COMMENTS 1
Mark Shull believed the city's 311 apps should have a bike reporting section to address the 2
number of collisions and severe injuries. He highlighted the need for better multi-mode 3
transportation and advocated for safe intercity bike commuting corridors. He discussed the 4
management of e-bikes and that child carrier cargo bikes may require wider bike lanes. He also 5
addressed the railroad crossing plan in North Palo Alto which has been made car-only despite 6
being used by hundreds of bikes. 7
Scott Mace, representing CABO, questioned the inclusion of new education elements in the 8
new plan for Safe Routes to School in Palo Alto and whether this would be left to private 9
initiatives as other bike plans like VTA incorporate education to reduce severe injuries or 10
deaths. 11
Art Liberman, member of PABAC, shared his personal views providing suggestions not included 12
in the online staff report such as improving cross barrier maps for better information sharing. 13
He emphasized the importance of low-stress routes in the city's vision for sustainable 14
transportation to encourage more people to bike and walk safely. He advocated for including 15
objectives to increase the number of cyclists and address the growing use of e-bikes and 16
personal mobility devices and raised concerns about transparency in the Replika data. Despite 17
having submitted his comments to Transportation, he had not received feedback. Liberman 18
urged others to inquire about his suggestions and seek clarification from consultants. 19
Ken Joye, member of PABAC, highlighted the importance of understanding Replika data and 20
urged to inquire about the concept of synthetic population from staff and consultants. He also 21
emphasized the need to know the concrete data provided to Replika for their modeling. 22
Additionally, he suggested asking about how Replika models bike and pedestrian trips. 23
Commissioner Akin raised some concerns regarding the wording of the vision statement 24
emphasizing the need to clarify that not all paths will be tree-lined. He suggested incorporating 25
elements of the performance measure into the vision statement for clarity. Additionally, he 26
proposed simplifying the language around shared priorities, considering terms like universal or 27
ubiquitous. He recommended revising the statement about investing in walking and biking 28
infrastructure to reflect the aspirational nature of the goals. He urged for more concrete and 29
quantifiable goals such as setting competitive travel times for bicycles compared to vehicles. 30
In terms of performance measures, he commended the inclusion of counting cyclists and 31
pedestrians but questioned the relevance of using street closure events as a measure for 32
expanding the walk/bike network. He also suggested reevaluating how road changes impact the 33
walking/biking network. He advocated for measuring collisions per cycle commuter rather than 34
per resident to account for potential fluctuations in population size. Overall, he emphasized the 35
importance of clear and accurate wording to convey the intent of the goals effectively. 36
Vice Chair Chang agreed with Commissioner Akin's comments but was confused about the 37
investment in walking and biking infrastructure. She concurred with public commenters' ideas 38
about adding 311 reporting for bike and ped accidents. She questioned if staff knew which 39
types of injuries were underreported as moderate and minor injuries were likely unreported. 1
She suggested staff should answer this question and seek a consensus on underreported 2
categories. 3
Ozzy Arce was unsure if those come from PD or were pre-established but confirmed that a lot 4
of collisions go unreported and reported collision data is what was being shown. 5
Vice Chair Chang suggested that improving the situation should be a per capita goal rather than 6
just an absolute level. She questioned the accuracy of charts showing a decreasing number of 7
pedestrian and bicycle collisions as well as the overall ridership for bicycles and walkers and 8
whether the Safe Routes to School map should be overlapped with the pedestrian and bicycle 9
collisions to determine if there are unsafe routes. She surmised that a more comprehensive 10
analysis was needed to draw conclusions from these charts. 11
Ozzy Arce acknowledged the need for exercise overlay feedback for future network 12
development and planned to develop criteria for prioritizing projects in the next phase to 13
include factors such as high injury network presence and Safe Routes to School walk map 14
inclusion. 15
Commissioner Lu agreed with Commissioners Akin and Chang's comments and asked for a 16
summary of the Phase 2 scope and a confirmation of its completion when Council accepts it in 17
spring 2024. 18
Ozzy Arce commented that Phase two would involve an existing conditions analysis including 19
LTS, barriers and collision analysis and involve developing a draft vision statement, performance 20
measures, and goals. Feedback from Commissions and the community would be sought and the 21
information is presented to the City Council for feedback. 22
Commissioner Lu queried about the future plans for collecting data on bike counts. 23
Ozzy Arce discussed the plan's goal of developing a count program in Palo Alto as part of the 24
BPTP update, aiming to determine its future appearance. 25
Commissioner Templeton agreed with colleagues that the vision statement in Palo Alto could 26
benefit from more specificity and a second paragraph. She suggested rearranging the sentence 27
to emphasize Palo Alto's goal of being a leader in promoting sustainable modes and 28
comprehensive programming and addressing the investment of more resources than other 29
cities. She asked for clarity on what the intended message was. 30
Ozzy Arce believed it was in terms of resources, potentially financial, and agreed to provide 31
clarity. 32
Commissioner Templeton discussed the importance of prioritizing safety and improving it, 33
particularly in encouraging youth to use biking and pedestrian mode for school transportation. 34
She mentioned Safe Routes, which could be helpful in reassuring parents about the safety of 35
biking and pedestrian mode. However, she also mentioned a lack of age ranges for fatal and 36
severe injuries in reporting and believed that understanding this information was essential for 1
prioritizing children's safety. She advocated for a system like 311 for reporting collisions, 2
allowing for the identification of the presence of the police in case of non-fatal injuries and 3
thought that high schoolers would be willing to share this information and report on it 4
simultaneously. 5
Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack discussed safety items in the Safe Streets for 6
All Safety Action Plan, including an interactive map for logging near misses and collisions. She 7
had been researching existing websites to collect data for the Safe System Action Plan. While 8
not part of the bike plan, she believed it would be valuable for people to see a map and report 9
incidents, which may not be part of the current efforts. 10
Commissioner Templeton questioned how city staff are utilizing the Bike and Pedestrian 11
Transportation Plan and suggested involving police officers on bikes for input. She emphasized 12
the importance in gathering feedback from trusted sources like police and traffic officials to 13
promote biking in the city effectively. 14
Philip Kamhi noted that through the SCAP process they were looking into getting more City fleet 15
available for other departments. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl discussed the vision statement for increasing biking which should be 17
included in the objective. He emphasized the importance of making biking more convenient 18
than driving. He also discussed the use of e-bikes which can make commutes more feasible for 19
seniors and those with shorter ranges. However, he raised concerns about the speed, safety 20
and noise of e-bikes. He mentioned the lack of recreation data which does not include people 21
walking their dogs or going for bike rides. He suggested that more information should be 22
provided on recreation trips and activities. 23
Ozzy Arce mentioned that although bike and walking trips are not included in the Replika data 24
they are still considered in the overall plan. Input from stakeholders and possible count 25
programs would help capture more accurate data for the plan. He discussed exploring various 26
metadata sources with their own limitations and models adding that Replika's data may not 27
give a complete local picture, but it offers valuable information. They sought to enhance it 28
through conversations with the community, Commission, Council, and traditional sources like 29
counts. 30
Philip Kamhi discussed the high level of reported accuracy of Replika data which may include 31
missing data for certain recreational trips. However, this doesn't mean all trips are counted. He 32
explained Replika uses cell phone data similar to Strava which collects similar data. He 33
acknowledged that Replika provides robust data that would not be available otherwise, making 34
it a useful tool. 35
Commissioner Reckdahl referred to a public comment that mentioned that Replika does not 36
count school trips and suggested that it would be beneficial to get manual counts. 37
Philip Kamhi discussed the issue of not counting school trips due to tracked mobile data, which 1
may not provide geolocation information. While the data is higher than five years ago, it does 2
show a high level of school trips occurring in the data. He noted that they get manual counts 3
through the Safe Routes to School program. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl inquired if the bicycle parking inventory mentioned on page 14 was or 5
would be published somewhere. 6
Ozzy Arce remarked they had a memo that could be shared in the staff report but there was not 7
a map of the information. 8
Philip Kamhi stated the intention was to eventually be able to provide locations but also to use 9
that information to determine where there's a shortage. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl discussed the Adobe Creek bike lane, highlighting three missing 11
crossings: East Meadow, Mitchell Park, and Green Meadow. He addressed safety concerns such 12
as heavy traffic and Amazon trucks parked in front of bike lanes. He suggested that the bike 13
lane should include parking and bike lanes as these areas don't interfere with traffic and 14
working with the public waste company to ensure proper waste management. He further 15
discussed the importance of bike lanes in busy streets for trash collection suggesting alternative 16
ways to avoid interfering with bike lanes. He also emphasized the need to prioritize 17
pedestrians, especially kids and seniors crossing streets, and the importance of refuge islands. 18
He suggested implementing these features on El Camino. 19
Commissioner Lu agreed with fellow Commissioners about making the vision statement more 20
concrete and incorporating key metric goals like greenhouse gases or ridership. He also wanted 21
to include convenience and speed for longer trips as they were only mentioned in the context 22
of short trips. He noted the vision statement should be tighter, as sustainability and overcoming 23
barriers are not clearly explained. He agreed that some metrics, such as street closures and 24
promotional events, may be better left out. He appreciated the mention of bike counts and 25
accidents and was excited about the plan to track them more rigorously. Other suggestions 26
included mode share, citations for parking in bike lanes, and violations of the three-feet rule. 27
He also mentioned the importance of accessible intersections as a success metric including 28
pedestrian accessibility improvements and the number of intersections safely updated for 29
cycling with bump-outs like bike protection islands. 30
Chair Summa appreciated the comments of colleagues and Vice Chair Chang about the 31
uncertainty of reading charts and suggested a 311 reporting system to better understand bike 32
accidents and low-stress routes. She suggested a bike parking inventory map to improve safety. 33
She emphasized the importance of following stop signs and stop lights when biking. She 34
acknowledged that some of the metrics may not be strong enough and suggest working on 35
improving the overall bike safety. 36
Ozzy Arce thanked everyone for their feedback and requested further feedback be sent to 37
transportation@cityofpaloalto.org. Follow-up information on mid-April in-person engagement 38
activities would be sent out including a community workshop, bike ride with Silicon Valley 1
Bicycle Coalition, and downtown walk with Avenidas. 2
Amy French noted that Vice Chair Chang was required by the Just Cause provision to note 3
whether there were any adults with her in the room as she was working remotely. 4
Vice Chair Chang announced that she was alone in the room. 5
Action Items 6
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 7
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 8 9
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 739 Sutter Avenue [24PLN-00005]: 10
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to 11
Allow for a Condominium Subdivision to Create 12 Units on a Single 16,720 Square Foot 12
Parcel. The Subdivision map Would Facilitate Construction of An Approximately 18,000 13
Square Foot Mixed-use Development Project (22PLN-00201). Environmental 14
Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in 15
Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: 16
RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner 17
Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 18
Chair Summa asked if there were any disclosures regarding this item. 19
Commissioners Akin, Reckdahl, Lu and Templeton all announced they had nothing to disclose. 20
Chair Summa disclosed she had made a site visit on Tuesday morning, which is the garbage day 21
on Sutter Street in order to observe what was happening there. 22
Senior Planner Claire Raybould provided a presentation discussing a tentative map for a single 23
lot subdivision of a 16,720-square-foot parcel for a 12-lot condominium subdivision. She stated 24
the existing parcel is code compliant but the condominium subdivision requires a waiver from 25
the minimum street width of 32 feet. The project is exempt from CEQA. The Planning and 26
Transportation Commission is recommended to recommend approval of the tentative map to 27
the City Council subject to the conditions of approval in the draft record of land use action and 28
attachment B of the packet. 29
Commissioner Akin queried why the existing public utility easement was no longer needed. 30
Claire Raybould answered it is no longer in use. They want to remove it because it is no longer 31
necessary, it presents privacy concerns for the neighbors and they want to plant trees in that 32
area. 33
Chair Summa asked if the requirement for adding five new units or more was still a current 34
regulation for a density bonus law. 35
Albert Yang confirmed that the net new aspect is an artifact in the code and the requirement is 1
based on state regulation. The project would adding 12 units, not 5, which was not the 2
requirement. He stated he would have to go back to see when that change was made. 3
Chair Summa queried what was meant by guidelines mentioned in a statement “consistency 4
with the comp plan area plans and guidelines” in the last paragraph on packet page 45. 5
Claire Raybould explained that was the standard title used for that section. 6
Chair Summa questioned about the project plans on packet page 55, specifically A0.5, asking if 7
the cans were shown to scale. 8
Claire Raybould believed the cans were shown to scale. 9
Chair Summa expressed concerns about the impact of prohibiting parking on garbage day 10
pickup, noting that it could lead to parking issues and inconvenience for residents. 11
Claire Raybould explained that the restriction was recommended by Transportation to prevent 12
traffic disruptions during pickup hours. The restriction typically lasts for a couple of hours, but it 13
varies depending on the area. It was clarified that using public right-of-way for trash collection 14
is allowed per Title V of the code. 15
Chair Summa questioned the practicality and enforceability of the restriction especially 16
considering the space requirements for garbage trucks. 17
Commissioner Akin mentioned that GreenWaste typically requires two feet between bins for 18
pickup. 19
Chair Summa also raised concerns about the special privilege granted to residents in the 20
development and the potential for parking shortages and suggested exploring alternative 21
solutions such as storing refuse on-site until pickup day to avoid parking issues. 22
Claire Raybould emphasized that the requirement to bring bins to the street for servicing was a 23
common practice in many areas. 24
Commissioner Templeton mentioned that garbage trucks are frequently causing units in Barron 25
Park, Vista Avenue, to bring their waste out to the street, as they don't have private roads to do 26
so. 27
Claire Raybould noted that both 420 Acacia and 3001 El Camino have designated areas for trash 28
pickup and parking. Even though 3001 keeps bins on site, they still need a space for the trash 29
truck to park. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl discussed the transition from 12 units with individual containers to 31
common containers explaining that new code changes apply to projects not deemed complete 32
at the time of ordinance adoption, requiring a trash enclosure on the site. This would reduce 33
the number of bins but may still require pulling them out. He compared this to 420 Acacia, 1
which required a trash enclosure due to its larger bins. The frontage has enough room for all 36 2
containers. 3
Vice Chair Chang asked if she was correct in understanding that there are other developments 4
where a sign is required to be provided indicating that parking is officially not allowed during 5
trash collection hours and how refuse service hours are defined. 6
Claire Raybould confirmed that she was correct and that the bin collection period is a short 7
period of hours. The restrictions are not extended beyond this period and the restrictions are 8
only applied to streets where the width of the street or the need for the trash truck to access 9
parking is a concern. 10
Vice Chair Chang was worried about setting a precedent but was glad there had been a change 11
in the ordinance that bins would be required rather than carts. She asked if it would be possible 12
for them to approve the vesting tentative map but contingent upon getting some clarification 13
on this one additional condition of approval. 14
Claire Raybould suggested a recommendation could be made to Council specifying a specific 15
issue to investigate. 16
Chair Summa raised concerns about the lack of parking strips on the street, which could lead to 17
bins blocking the sidewalk in a new building. She expressed disappointment that timing issues 18
prevented the requirement for shared bins on the site. She suggested a motion for the Council 19
to review and potentially address the issue. She also noted that not all residents in the building 20
may have compost bins reducing the potential for bins to stack up. She questioned the need for 21
a two-feet rule for pickup and suggested that the site could provide shared amenities. 22
Additionally, she inquired about a law change regarding the number of units required for 23
certain provisions. 24
Claire Raybould indicated she would review the regulations on trash pickup for the 25
Architectural Review Board and search for solutions. 26
Chair Summa emphasized her belief that they should have the same rights to garbage pickup as 27
anyone else. 28
Claire Raybould reiterated that it was a condition of approval added by Transportation. She 29
thought it was related to safety but she would have to clarify that with them. 30
Commissioner Lu discussed the trash situation in the proposed housing project stating that it is 31
a peculiar condition of approval. He suggested that each unit have its own bins but figured 32
people often find ways to consolidate them. He also questioned the state density bonus 33
ordinance which requires an equivalent number of affordable units for lower-income tenants. 34
Commissioner Raybould confirmed that there were no existing low-income tenants or deed 35
restrictions on these units, as per Senate Bill 330 regulations. 36
Commissioner Akin expressed concern about a lack of room to maneuver and wondered what 1
kind of additional review might be possible given the constraints that had been described. 2
Chair Summa did not see a need for additional review. She thought the parking restriction 3
solely for this building should be removed and everybody should share the same rights and 4
privileges regarding garbage pickup and share the street, parking and bins as they currently 5
exist. 6
Vice Chair Chang asked for her colleagues’ assistance in crafting a motion to recommend the 7
staff’s recommended motion but flagging the additional condition of approval to City Council to 8
avoid giving special privileges. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl inquired if there as anything in the design that precluded having a 10
common bin apart from GreenWaste not wanting to back up there. 11
Claire Raybould pointed out several things that prevented having a common bin to include the 12
fact that there was a transformer at the end of the drive aisle. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl queried if they could force them to have a trash bin or if they could 14
waive trash pickup with builder’s density bonus if they decided to make the proposal that day. 15
Claire Raybould confirmed it was possible they could waive it. 16
Albert Yang suggested that individual cans could potentially be waived due to a quantifiable 17
impact on public health, but he had a hard time imagining the impact of having individual cans 18
instead of a shared bin. 19
Commissioner Templeton was unclear whose interests were being protected with this 20
argument pointing out that other places in the City had similar requirements. 21
Chair Summa maintained that the parking restriction was unfair, unnecessary and 22
unenforceable. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl voiced concern about setting a precedent for every apartment complex 24
on the street. 25
Commissioner Templeton agreed but surmised that the company and City had already decided 26
on it and she did not see any other action in their purview other than highlighting it for Council. 27
MOTION #1 28
Chair Summa moved to find the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA guidelines 29
section 15332 (in-fill) as documented in Attachment C and recommend approval of the VTM to 30
City Council based on the finding and subject to the conditions of approval. 31
And consider removing the parking restriction during refuse pickup hours referred to in the 1
conditions of approval 5 and as shown in Sheet A0.5 of the ARB plan set. 2
SECOND 3
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl. 4
MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton. Hechtman absent) 5
The Commissioners took a seven minute break. When they returned, Chair Summa noted that 6
Vice Chair Chang had left the meeting. 7
8
Study Session 9
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 10
11
4. Study Session: Retail Study - Recommendations for Strategies 12
Amy French indicated that the consultants were present. Since it was a continued meeting, they 13
did not have any new slides to present but the previous slides were included in the packet. 14
Commissioner Akin reported on the ad hoc meeting he had attended the night before. He 15
provided that the ad hoc desired to make immediate improvements in things that were in their 16
purview to include cleanliness, signage, code enforcement and presumably Council will follow 17
up with medium and long-term improvements still to be determined. He thought it would be 18
useful for the PTC to recommend actions that fit within that framework. He described some 19
possible explanations the ad hoc had received regarding vacancy rates. He discussed the need 20
for a more broad review of the code to encourage experimentation in filling vacancies, 21
regardless of the type of retail application. The issue had been raised of the PTC and the 22
Commission revisiting the code to make more concrete proposals for council consideration. The 23
goal would be to keep new rules predictable and context-dependent, avoiding rules that 24
depend on fluctuating factors like vacancy rates or nearby retail uses. It was agreed that in the 25
long term it would make sense to simplify the municipal code or make it feasible to document 26
which uses were allowed in which areas. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl discussed the RPO issue which has been met with mixed reactions. He 28
stated it had been suggested by Commissioner Chang that people were leaving downtown to go 29
to the Stanford Shopping Center, paying more rent due to certainty of not having tents blocking 30
their signs. The uncertainty of retail requirements in Cal Ave and University was a major 31
complaint. The City also wanted to avoid micromanaging, as seen with the bagel stores on 32
University Avenue. When loosening the RPO, concerns about tech offices should not be present 33
elsewhere, as they should be focused on resident-serving businesses. 34
Chair Summa thought that Council had already changed downtown, allowing medical retail and 35
retail-like medical. 36
Dan Wery discussed the importance of experimentation and taking action in zoning strategies. 1
He suggested that the full PTC could make recommendations, ranging from specific, succinct 2
suggestions to more general ones. Some recommendations could be kept simple, clear, and 3
phased in. For example, he suggested using use tables to simplify the broader code and make it 4
more understandable. The goal was to get recommendations to the City Council, which could 5
be specific or thematic. He encouraged the PTC to collect their thoughts and forward them to 6
the City Council. Some recommendations could be specific, such as reducing or eliminating RPO 7
in certain areas, modifying districts, or preserving retail attention along Cal Ave and University 8
Avenue. He aimed to answer questions and facilitate further recommendations, focusing on 9
specific recommendations that would apply to the PTC's needs. The goal was to provide a 10
useful tool for staff, applicants, property owners, and people considering Palo Alto. 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS 12
Winter Dellenbach recommended keeping ground floor retail protections on Cal Ave and 13
University Ave in order to maintain walkable neighborhoods. She recalled a few years prior 14
when University Avenue loaded up on financial institutions and Cal Ave with nail and hair salons 15
and that it was not a healthy environment. She advised that the consultants should be looking 16
at the whole range of retail areas. 17
Commissioner Akin reiterated Vice Chair Chang’s concern for the need to go through the code 18
to get workable proposals. He asked for immediate reactions to his proposal of cutting the 19
Gordian knot on Cal Ave and allowing formula retail of all kinds. 20
Chair Summa thought many people would find formula retail useful. She thought adding 21
formula retail with a CUP to any formula retail applicant with only 10 or fewer sites across the 22
nation felt arbitrary. She felt any formula retail on Cal Ave would have to fit in with the rhythm 23
and size of the existing storefronts. She felt strongly they should talk about bike and ped goals 24
acknowledging that many of those would be short trips. She believed if walkable retail was not 25
preserved, the City would be very unbalanced with more car trips. She felt it would be unwise 26
to remove the ground floor retail protection. She did not feel the code could be rewritten that 27
night but they could discuss some strategies. She hoped for a more proactive approach. She 28
discussed businesses leaving the area due to the cost of rent and parklets obstructing 29
storefronts. 30
Commissioner Templeton remarked the places they had listed as competition were destinations 31
with something interesting to do at all times. She commented they had ground floor retail but it 32
was important to have a proper mix. She pointed out Town and Country and the mall both who 33
have a management company and wondered if there was a way they could manage this. 34
Commissioner Lu discussed feedback from a local retailer on Cal Ave, expressing support for 35
relaxing formula retail restrictions and promoting development in the area to attract foot 36
traffic. He highlighted the importance of having people on the street to visit shops and meet 37
various needs. He suggested increasing the threshold for formula retail and excluding certain 38
types of businesses, like restaurants, to address concerns about displacing small businesses. 39
While he supported loosening ground floor retail restrictions in theory, he expressed concerns 1
about potential impacts on mom and pop shops. He questioned the staff and consultants' 2
direction in the process and whether specific zoning changes should be workshopped before 3
recommending to the Council. He emphasized the need for a clear plan to avoid confusion and 4
ensure a successful recommendation by the May 8th deadline. 5
Dan Wery suggested they should be comfortable having a spectrum of recommendations 6
including but not limited to specific ones. The goal was to focus on strategies leading to specific 7
actions. The recommendations should be specific, such as changing the threshold for formula 8
businesses, limiting the formula to certain types of businesses, and allowing or repealing 9
ground floor restrictions on certain side streets so City Council and staff can then prioritize and 10
implement these recommendations, ensuring the current approach is the right one. 11
Amy French echoed Mr. Wery’s comments and agreed to upload the presentation included in 12
the packet if that would be deemed helpful. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl requested feedback on formula retail on Cal Ave in order to consider 14
whether it would enhance or ruin the unique vibe of the area. He questioned if big chains 15
would draw more people in and help the mom and pops or drive the mom and pops out. 16
Commissioner Templeton discussed the importance of being a destination spot in order to draw 17
people in. She preferred the model of Town and Country and locally owned businesses. She 18
thought more larger chains would change the retail pricing and drive out local businesses. 19
Chair Summa stated she would not have formula dining because it was her thought that the 20
one successful draw on California Avenue besides the market was the restaurants and she did 21
not want to compete with those. She believed people were leaving because of the cost of 22
rentals. She was willing to believe that some of the way the zoning code and regulations were 23
structured may be a turnoff and that conditional use permits were a good tool to control a mix. 24
None of the recommended zoning strategies seemed like a good idea to her. She did not want 25
to take away any walking area. She suggested going through the allowed retail uses to see if 26
there was anything missing. She would prefer to approach it as adding a clause for any other 27
business that was open to and for the public. She thought a broad, discretionary clause would 28
be useful. She did not understand what was going to go on the ground floor and pointed out 29
the huge vacancy in office space. She wanted to see ideas that court the kind of businesses they 30
want there. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl remarked that the City is doing that. He mentioned complaints due to 32
uncertainties in having to apply for a CUP discouraging the businesses from renting. 33
Commissioner Templeton questioned if consideration had been given to a management 34
company or service to curate or court the businesses. 35
Commissioner Akin admitted that had been discussed at the ad hoc meeting the night prior, 36
which was attended by Steve Guagliardo’s, the economic development person in the City 37
Manager’s office. They had discussed a number of possibilities Council could pursue that were 1
not within the purview of the PTC. 2
Commissioner Lu commented he was not against blocking formula retail of restaurants but 3
increasing the threshold. He thought CUPs were a strong disincentive in businesses getting a 4
proposal together and would like to avoid them. 5
Commissioner Akin concluded that he, Commissioner Reckdahl and Vice Chair Chang would 6
take the Commission’s recommendations and make a pass through the code to come up with 7
some pointers to the areas that might be fruitful and make suggestions for changes to Council. 8
Commissioner Reckdahl suggested looking through a list of retail at another time and propose 9
adding categories in a ground floor retail that they did not think would ruin the retail vibe. 10
Chair Summa liked that idea but added there were a lot of things they would need to clearly 11
understand. She did not hear any interest in limiting number three based on region, district or 12
whatever but thought there may be interest in having more leeway on side streets. 13
She stated it was hard to discuss simplifying the zoning code without having the zoning code 14
with redline and additions to compare. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl remarked that the zoning code was complicated and asked if there 16
were ways of reducing the overlays or number of different types of zones. 17
Chair Summa felt the code could be rewritten better because it gets added onto and changed in 18
an ad hoc manner. She said alternative active uses should be allowed and there were uses that 19
had been left out that were not retail or retail-like. 20
Dan Wery discussed the progress made in simplifying the code, focusing on alternative active 21
uses and the relief standard. He suggested that simplifying the code and lowering the relief 22
standards would be more reasonable. The alternative active use is a typical reasonable hardship 23
standard, and the code requires a long history to prove it. He suggested using use tables as a 24
starting point for understanding the code and identifying gaps, conflicts, and inconsistencies. 25
Another suggestion was to focus on generating activity and pedestrians, rather than defining 26
every type of use to help mitigate the need for precise restrictions and ensure that the code is 27
more flexible and effective. He also mentioned the importance of focusing on public uses that 28
were open to the public rather than defining each type of use to help mitigate the need for 29
precise restrictions and ensure that the code is more effective and efficient. 30
5. Study Session: Palo Alto Link (PAL) Evaluation and Report 31
Nate Baird, Transportation Planning Manager, gave a presentation discussing the Palo Alto Link 32
Microtransit Program. He provided an overview of the program including a background, rider 33
statistics and pricing. He discussed the benefits of having the program to the City. He shared 34
feedback that had been received from riders to include starting sooner and going later in the 35
day along with adding additional destinations just outside the City. He stated the busiest times 36
were from 8 AM to 9 AM and then 5 PM to 6 PM and felt they could pick up more commuters 1
by expanding the hours. They were looking for general feedback on the program and whether 2
they should keep it going. The program was originally considered a two-year pilot program but 3
as the pilot funds were going away they needed to consider whether to keep it going and, if so, 4
how and if there were any service changes that should be prioritized. 5
Commissioner Templeton liked the idea of expanding the hours and dealing with the just over 6
the border situations. 7
Commissioner Lu recalled concerns last year by Council about being accessible to all 8
communities and having surveys available in Chinese and Spanish. He wanted to know if any 9
replies for the survey came from those languages and if the responses were different by 10
language. He asked about the overall climate impact and what percent of trips included more 11
than one destination at a time. He thought that information would be useful to have in the 12
packet in order to make comparisons with the shuttle. He recalled the Council packet a year ago 13
saying the shuttle had 500 daily unique riders and this program had 200. He asked how these 14
numbers were interpreted and if they knew where the non-riders are. He questioned how the 15
program interacts with the Safe Routes to School program and if it was thought to be 16
cannibalizing cycling. He found it interesting that Paly had more trips than Gunn and wondered 17
if the Gunn trips were being routed to Stanford Research Park causing them to be lumped in 18
with the research park thus underreported. He asked for comments about the costs per trip 19
and if there would be any hope of getting them to trend down. He suggested exploring a 20
partnership to expand to Stanford overall. He wondered about adding a penalty in order to 21
discourage canceled or no-show rides. 22
Nate Baird agreed to follow up with the information about the other languages. He answered 23
that the shared ride rate was 65 percent. He stated it was hard to make an apples to apples 24
comparison between the shuttle service and Link and discussed how the number of riders 25
compared between the two along with the steady decline each year of the shuttle riders. A 26
shuttle transit service vision had been presented to Council in order to grow passengers who 27
then directed them to look at this on-demand microtransit type model. He explained there are 28
ongoing capital maintenance costs built into the operation costs. He believed this program 29
helped make transit, walking and bicycling easier than driving. 30
Philip Kamhi remarked that every time he has used the service it ended up being a shared trip 31
even if it did not start out that way. He suggested the Commissioners take a trip and give 32
feedback. He added that the prior service model with the fixed route transit only provided 33
coverage to 61 percent of the population within a quarter mile walkshed whereas this model 34
provided options for everyone. He stated they were looking into doing a survey to find out 35
more information about how this trip would be taken otherwise if the shuttle service was not 36
available. He agreed to look into whether people were inaccurately getting off in the Stanford 37
Research Park zone. 38
Commissioner Reckdahl queried if there was a human dispatcher in the loop. He asked what 1
happens if they get a hundred requests during rush hour. He asked how the booking process 2
worked. He wanted to know if they had EVs. He questioned if the vehicles had bike racks. 3
Philip Kamhi replied there was a person to take calls for people that did not want to use the 4
app. He thought that getting a hundred requests during rush hour was the cause of extended 5
wait times. He added there are more vehicles available at higher peak service times. He 6
described that the booking process was similar to the Uber app. He remarked that they had 7
some EVs and some hybrid vehicles and they were looking to switch to all EVs in the future. 8
Nate Baird confirmed that all vehicles had bike racks. He discussed the discounted fare section 9
for seniors and disabled people. 10
Chair Summa was in line with her colleague’s support of the program and would like to see 11
more hours and expanded service area. 12
Commissioner Templeton asked what ages could use the service. She thought it would be good 13
to advertise the safety statistics of the service. 14
Nate Baird answered 13 and up could ride with consent and 12 and under required a parent 15
and an appropriate child seat. 16
17
ADJOURNMENT 18
10:46 pm 19
20