Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-10 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: April 10, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:03 pm 7 Chair Summa called to order the April 10, 2024, Planning and Transportation Commission 8 meeting. 9 Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. All commissioners were present, 10 with Commissioner Akin present remotely using Just Cause provisions. 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 Veronica Dao announced there were no speakers for oral communications. 16 17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 18 Chief Planning Official Amy French announced there were no agenda changes. 19 20 City Official Reports 21 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 22 Amy French provided a preview of upcoming Planning and Transportation Commission meetings 23 and topics, including a joint meeting with City Council for Housing Element revisions on April 15. 24 Senior Transportation Engineer Rafael Rius updated the Commission that the El Camino Real, 1 Charleston, Arastradero intersection was paved earlier this week. New striping, except for the 2 textured crosswalks, should be done by the end of the week. The next Rail Committee meeting 3 is April 16 at 2:30 PM to discuss the alternatives for the alignment as well as bike and ped crossing 4 options for Kellogg and Seale. The Rail Committee is then going to City Council on April 29 for a 5 study session workshop. 6 7 Action Items 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All 9 others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 10 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00012]: Request for 11 PTC Recommendation on the Applicant’s Proposal to Rezone the Subject Site from 12 Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to Allow the 13 Construction of a 100% Affordable, Five‐Story, 44 Dwelling Unit Housing Development 14 with Ground Level Lobby and 26 Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: Initial 15 Study/15183 Exemption. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). 16 Chair Summa requested disclosures from the Commission, and there were none reported. 17 Senior Planner Garrett Sauls provided background on the application process and an overview of 18 the current application, which is a 5‐story, 44‐unit residential rental project with 25 parking 19 spaces, 44 bike lockers, 4 short‐term bike spots, and 5 shared electric bikes. One‐hundred percent 20 of the units proposed will be deed restricted for up to 99 years to be affordable, and the applicant 21 will restrict the moderate‐income units to no greater than 110 percent of AMI. The project also 22 includes a private agreement between the applicant and the PAUSD to prioritize teachers as 23 tenants. Attachment C identifies where the project currently does not confirm to the CS Zoning 24 District requirements, relating to the rear yard setback, site coverage, floor area ratio, allowable 25 height, minimum landscape open space as well as minimum open space per unit, and number of 26 parking spaces generally required based on the CS Zoning District standards. He showed and 27 described floor plans for the proposal in more detail. He discussed the process of trash collection, 28 with bins stored in the garage and pulled onto the sidewalk by staff for pickup. Council's concerns 29 at the prescreening hearing included understanding more about the parking lift system. The 30 application will satisfy Option 2 of the PHZ application process, a required 20‐percent minimum 31 weighted value of BMR units; this application provides 72 percent. There is a protected valley 32 oak on the site, which is possible to remove per Urban Forestry standards; the applicant would 33 be responsible for providing replacement trees. The proposed roof deck will provide the majority 34 of open space for the site. Staff's recommendation was for the PTC to provide initial comments 35 and feedback about the project and recommend that it continue forward to the Architectural 36 Review Board. 37 Isaiah Stackhouse, applicant, described that this is a unique project, 100‐percent privately 1 financed and prioritized to local educators. He noted this can help strengthen Palo Alto's schools 2 by increasing teacher recruitment and retention. It is in a transit‐rich area, with two bus routes 3 and a bus stop on the block and seven schools within the area. In response to comments from 4 Council, the driveway was widened, parking was increased, EV charging was added to all spaces, 5 and shared electric bike spaces were added. He presented and discussed floor plans. A 4‐foot 6 setback is proposed in order to create a 12‐foot sidewalk in front. The residential floor plans 7 propose a mix of studio and one‐bedroom units with bay windows and Juliet balconies. The roof 8 plan shows a well‐developed, well‐landscaped area for residents to gather and enjoy the 9 outdoors. He showed the building elevations. 10 Commissioner Hechtman asked how the applicant arrived at the balance of open space and solar 11 for the roof. Regarding the refuse loading area, he was concerned there was not a red curb to 12 prevent the public from parking where the garbage cans will be placed and also questioned if 13 there was any issue with the cans being in close proximity to a hydrant. 14 Isaiah Stackhouse explained the roof deck cannot exceed a maximum occupiable area of 750 15 square feet. The open space was increased beyond that using additional planting. He noted the 16 solar design will come much later but he was comfortable with the area of the space left for that. 17 Garrett Sauls responded that the Fire Department requires a minimum setback of 6 feet around 18 a fire hydrant. In addition, a new state law coming to effect at the beginning of 2025 will require 19 that curb to be painted red for about 20 feet, so there would not be any vehicles parking in that 20 space. 21 Vice‐Chair Chang asked if the red curb area was allowed to be used for refuse containers. She 22 asked about the size of the bins because she was concerned about visual obstruction. She 23 questioned why the rooftop open space shrank from 1750 in the original plan down to 1150 24 square feet. She noted the rear setback of 0 to 5 feet, asked what design constraints led to that 25 decision, and questioned the implication of trying to make this a standard 10‐foot setback. 26 Garrett Sauls noted that the Transportation Department did not think the bins at the red curb 27 would be an issue. The purpose of the law was specific to vehicles. There would be 3 bins that 28 are 2 cubic yards, about 4½ feet tall x 7½ feet long x 3½ feet wide. They would only be staged out 29 the night before trash pickup occurs and then promptly collected in the morning after pickup, 30 which occurs between 4:00 and 6:30 on El Camino Real. It would be coordinated with the 31 applicant and onsite staff to ensure bins are not placed too close to the hydrant or left out beyond 32 the pickup. 33 Isaiah Stackhouse explained the only reason for the open space reduction was code compliance 34 and safety. He stated the setback comes down to trying to provide as many affordable units as 35 possible without going higher than necessary. With a 10‐foot setback across the back, the project 36 would lose at least 4 units. It was a tradeoff to provide units while making the project feasible. 37 Vice‐Chair Chang questioned what the rent would be limited at for these two levels of 1 affordability for the two types of units. 2 Garrett Sauls referred to packet page 11. The low‐ and moderate‐income rates would be based 3 on Santa Clara County's area median income. There is a baseline, and then the low‐income range 4 is between 50 to 80 percent and moderate‐income between 80 to, in this case, 110 percent. 5 Vice‐Chair Chang wanted to clarify how the rent would be set. For example, low‐income is 50 to 6 80 percent of AMI, which is a range. She asked if a household is qualified and rent set based on 7 the household or if the rent was set at no more than 80 percent, in which case someone with 50‐8 percent AMI could be paying the 80‐percent AMI rent. 9 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang responded that it was the latter. 10 Vice‐Chair Chang asked Staff to verify that she was correct in reading the charts that an efficiency 11 studio can charge $2538 for 80 percent and almost $3500 for 110 percent of AMI and that a 1‐12 bedroom would be $3987 at 110 percent and $2900 at 80 percent. 13 Albert Yang provided some quick calculations of $2400 a month for a studio for low‐income 14 households and $3324 for a 1‐bedroom moderate‐income household at 110 percent of AMI. 15 Commissioner Akin was not confident in resident surveys as a way of detecting spillover parking 16 and asked if other methods were considered for the project. He felt a common concern about 17 under‐parked developments was that parking moves into other areas around the neighborhood. 18 If there is not a way to verify the parking, it is not clear whether the project constraints are 19 correct. 20 Garrett Sauls stated another method of determining parking is for the consultant to be physically 21 present and perform counts. 22 Commissioner Templeton noticed the plan was to place trash bins in front of a restaurant and 23 was concerned about unpleasant smells during dinner service. She questioned if the length of 24 rental was tied to income levels or to a start date. 25 Garrett Sauls responded that the trash bins would likely be placed out later in the night, between 26 9 to 11. The rental period is tied to the income level in that there is an annual certification. 27 Renters may have a year‐to‐year lease, and depending on financial status, they may or may not 28 qualify the following year. 29 Albert Yang added that there is usually a notice period of about six months. 30 Commissioner Templeton asked the architect if the plan would allow for another floor if 31 somehow the height limitations were not in place, in order to consider all the options. 32 Isaiah Stackhouse explained this could be build as a wood‐frame building at six stories in type 3A, 1 fire‐treated lumber and still be cost effective. It would essentially just be adding another floor to 2 the plan, but it would increase the number of units without being able to increase the parking. 3 Commissioner Lu asked to clarify that there is staging for rooftop solar but no rooftop solar. He 4 wanted to confirm the setback from the sidewalk. He noted the project will be set back 4 feet 5 and the sidewalk is being reconstructed right now. He asked if it would actually be 8 feet wide. 6 Following up on the earlier discussion about costs, he noted the presentation said the estimated 7 rent would be $3150 per month averaged across all units. He questioned if that was based on 8 what is permitted at the income levels or what the developer estimates they would actually rent 9 this out for. 10 Isaiah Stackhouse stated there will be rooftop solar, but the number of panels, the wattage, etc., 11 happens much further down the road. 12 Garrett Sauls answered that the sidewalk would be widened to provide a 6‐foot path, and in 13 addition there would be a public right‐of‐way access easement recorded against the property to 14 achieve the 8‐ to 12‐foot sidewalk. He explained the rent estimate was provided by the developer 15 but was an average and not necessarily the cost of every unit. 16 Commissioner Lu asked Staff to double check the affordability numbers of $2400 for a studio or 17 $3300 for a 1‐bedroom as the numbers referenced by SV@Home were actually higher. He 18 questioned the cost of parking spots as they are not bundled with the units. 19 Albert Yang explained Staff would not have definitive figures tonight and the specific calculations 20 would depend on the eventual regulatory agreement. 21 Jason Matlof, applicant, explained that nothing was written in stone yet, but based on market 22 rate, the idea was to price parking spaces around $150. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl asked about the nearby shared cars mentioned in the presentation. He 24 also questioned the logistics of shared bikes. 25 Jason Matlof noted there are shared cars in the California Avenue corridor and has had 26 discussions with Zipcar. The hope was to increase the population of shared cars in the area, and 27 he was trying to facilitate meetings with the City on this issue. He explained there are also options 28 regarding shared bikes, whether it would be hourly, daily, etc., but it was to be determined. 29 Garrett Sauls added that tenants could also utilize Palo Alto Link. 30 Vice‐Chair Chang asked Staff if, with parking being unbundled, there was any affordability 31 component in the calculation for parking space rent. 32 Garrett Sauls did not believe there was an affordability component tied to the parking space cost. 33 Albert Yang added that in the past when parking was more commonly bundled with the unit, it 1 was locally required that fees associated with parking be included in the total amount allowed 2 for affordable rent. As unbundled parking has become more common, there have been a variety 3 of approaches that he was not in a position to discuss as it was normally in the realm of a housing 4 planner. 5 Vice‐Chair Chang hoped to have more information on that when it returns to the Commission. 6 PUBLIC COMMENT 7 Scott O'Neil strongly supported this project as it was very hard to achieve deed‐restricted projects 8 without subsidies. He encouraged the commissioners experiencing sticker shock at the rent levels 9 to listen to the teachers who commented in support of the project at the prescreen meeting. This 10 project provides some relief to teachers. 11 Chair Summa returned the discussion back to the Commission for comments. 12 Commissioner Hechtman expected that, due to the costs of land and construction in Palo Alto 13 and the box that the conventional zoning creates, there would be more and more projects 14 pushing on the walls of that box in the future. He liked that this project pushed on the walls but 15 did not blow up the box: more height but not a lot more, a bump in FAR but less than the 16 neighbors across El Camino. He also had concerns about reduced parking as it was only 17 theoretical that not providing parking would attract people who do not need parking. He liked 18 the max of 110 percent AMI, which makes it more affordable. He expected the City had a 19 mechanism to confirm affordability of the projects over time and trusted that mechanism would 20 work. He liked the agreement with the teachers but was attracted to the project even without 21 that. He added that this property was not a housing inventory site, so these are 44 units not 22 anticipated in trying to fill the 6087. If this is approved, there will only be 6043 to go, with all the 23 housing inventory sites left to try to pick those up. 24 Vice‐Chair Chang commended the desire to build affordable housing for teachers. However, she 25 did not believe most, or almost any, teachers actually had the salaries to allow them to live in 26 these units. She was concerned that this was being called affordable housing when in practice, 27 given the area medium income and the PAUSD Teacher's Salary Schedule, the units were not 28 affordable to them. She provided some numbers to demonstrate this. She further noted there 29 are larger units for rent several blocks away at lower prices, so she felt these units were actually 30 quite pricey, market rate if not higher. She encouraged the commissioners to look at this as a 31 market‐rate development when deciding what they were willing to waive, as this was affordable 32 in name only. She was also concerned about the 0‐foot setback and thought it should be set back 33 further as there would hopefully be another building in the current parking lot. 34 Commissioner Reckdahl asked what the Fire Department thought of the 0‐foot setback. He was 35 also concerned about the open area having shrunk from 1700 to 1100 square feet on the roof 36 deck. He asked if that was driven by Fire Code. He felt the rooftop added a lot of functionality 37 and would like to see it expanded if possible. 38 Garrett Sauls responded that there is not inherently a problem with the setback as long as the 1 building provides the correct fire rating. The CS Zone allows 0‐foot interior setbacks for 2 residential and 0‐foot rear yard setbacks for commercial. 3 Isaiah Stackhouse explained that nationwide code limits the space to 49 occupants, which 4 equates to 750 square feet of occupiable area. Additional planters were added to get it up to 5 1155 square feet. It is a national code that could not be waived by the Palo Alto Fire Department 6 or Building Department. He felt he could look into creative ways to try to expand the space and 7 had some ideas in mind. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl loved the concept of unbundled parking but was worried about 9 implementation. He felt it provided an incentive for people to not buy the parking and then park 10 on the street. He did not believe a survey was a robust way of capturing the parking and wanted 11 a way to attract those people without cars rather than those who want to park on the street for 12 free. 13 Isaiah Stackhouse added there were roughly 20 units here that would not have a parking spot 14 and there are probably way more than 20 people in Palo Alto who need housing and do not have 15 a car. 16 Commissioner Reckdahl believed one of the biggest draws would be having teachers for 17 neighbors. He thought the project had a lot of potential but also some things that made him 18 uncomfortable. He was inclined to support it but would be more comfortable with more open 19 space. 20 Commissioner Akin had misgivings about the project. Noting that the percentage of the 21 population in Santa Clara County at 80 percent AMI or below is about 40 percent, he stated this 22 project, which is offered as 100‐percent affordable, gentrifies the bottom part of the income 23 distribution by not building 40 percent in the low‐income category. The units are really small, so 24 the types of households that can use them are limited. The open space is substandard. He wanted 25 to see something Urban Forestry about how they would like the loss of protected trees 26 addressed. He was okay with the height and was not greatly concerned about the lack of retail 27 space. He was inclined to forward this to the ARB but was also concerned that the units were 28 unlikely to be affordable or attractive to many teachers. 29 Commissioner Templeton thought it was great to talk about a 100‐percent affordable building. 30 She felt some people would appreciate the opportunity to live in a newer, nicer, slightly more 31 compact living space. She did not believe this Commission was the body to determine whether 32 something was market rate and was concerned about that framing. She was not going to consider 33 it market rate if it qualifies under the law to be affordable. She was not worried about the 34 setback. She noted there were ways to get to the city without a vehicle. She noted there were 35 rules in place that allowed the tree removal and was not worried about that. She was ready to 36 forward this on to the ARB. She felt the commentary around seeing how far the outdoor space 37 could be pushed was good if there were ways to be flexible and creative, but if not, then it had 38 to be accepted as what is allowed by the law. She was excited about the possibility of attracting 1 more teachers to the area. 2 Chair Summa asked if the two trees together were included in the calculation for tree removal or 3 it if was just the protected oak tree. She asked about the rooftop space and whether the 4 threshold Mr. Stackhouse referred to was because of the height of the building. 5 Garrett Sauls explained it was only the valley oak included in the calculation as the black acacia 6 is not a protected tree. Sheet A.06 shows the TPZ area that was used to validate the 25‐percent 7 impact to the buildable area. He noted Mr. Stackhouse referenced construction type as part of 8 the trigger for the space limits. 9 Commissioner Lu appreciated this project. He thought it was in the ballpark of the Affordable 10 Housing Incentive Program, which gives a lot of concessions to projects that are 100‐percent 11 affordable based on 120 percent AMI, and also in the ballpark of the El Camino Focus Area, not 12 quite fitting either but splitting the difference and generally in line with or exceeding what the 13 City wants in affordability requirements. He was not concerned about parking as it was an area 14 with good walkability and had full bike parking and shared E‐bikes. He did not think it was feasible 15 that the project would be majority occupied by teachers but felt that, especially for the 20 16 percent of units that are more affordable, it would be a compelling proposition. He echoed 17 concerns about the rooftop space and felt it would be ideal to add more green space. He was 18 concerned about driveways on El Camino and had a pipe dream of avoiding a driveway and having 19 access through the back or the adjacent parking lot. 20 Chair Summa did not consider this an affordable project because the people it is intended for 21 cannot afford to live there. She was troubled by the trash removal solution. She noted the project 22 is not providing affordability in the way it describes and is exempted from paying the City's 23 development impact fees. She did not believe there was a nexus between using a car every day 24 to get to work and owning a car. She felt this was missing a good analysis of the actual cost 25 correlating to teachers' salaries and did not think this was ready to go further without having 26 some of that information supplied. She was also interested in pursuing more open space. 27 Vice‐Chair Chang stated packet page 36 talks about subsidized transit passes, and she wanted to 28 understand how those would be allocated. She suggested that all tenants should have some sort 29 of subsidized transit program and, rather than or, reimbursement of Palo Alto Link fees. 30 Garrett Sauls explained the current TDM is not the final plan that will ultimately be adopted and 31 that it will be strengthened based on some of the discussion here. 32 Vice‐Chair Chang did not object to the height or density but stressed that in reality this would not 33 be mostly teacher housing based on the pay scales. She would like to see this more affordable 34 for teachers. 35 MOTION 36 Commissioner Templeton moved the Staff recommendation provided that PTC feedback has 1 been incorporated, specifically the open space feedback as well as including some justification 2 for why this will affordable to teachers in Palo Alto the next time it comes back. 3 SECOND 4 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl asked for clarification on how to rectify the issue if it is later found that 6 there is too much overflow parking. 7 Garrett Sauls explained that TDM plans are usually fairly open ended. There are no specific data 8 of what the actual problem is now, and projections of potential solutions might not even be 9 relevant. He would come back in the future with more information about what has been done 10 for similar issues in the past. 11 Commissioner Templeton noted she was open to amendments. 12 Vice‐Chair Chang asked to add to the motion the information about what has been done in the 13 past when it is determined that there are more vehicles than intended and also wanted to 14 provide funds toward Palo Alto Link as well as public transportation subsidies for tenants. 15 Commissioners Templeton and Lu accepted the amendment. 16 VOTE 17 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote, which carried 5‐2. 18 MOTION PASSED 5-2 (Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton, yes; Chang, Summa, no) 19 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Templeton, seconded by Commissioner Lu. 20 Motion passed 5‐2 (Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton, yes; Chang, Summa, no) 21 22 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 800 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: 23 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for a Rezone from Service Commercial to 24 Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ). The Project is the Construction of 25 75 Residential Ownership Units Including 15 Below‐Market Rate Units (20% of the Units) 26 in a Five Story Building with Two Levels of Subterranean Parking. Environmental 27 Assessment: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program 28 Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) was Prepared. 29 Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). 30 Chair Summa requested disclosures from the Commission, and there were none reported. 31 Planner Emily Kallas reviewed the process for this application, a proposed 5‐story residential 1 building with 75 for‐sale units, 20 percent of which will be affordable to a range of income levels. 2 The building also includes 1078 square feet of commercial area. As a PHZ, it is requesting certain 3 exceptions to the typical CS and HIP zoning standards, including a 3.0 FAR, 65‐percent lot 4 coverage, 60‐foot 8‐inch height, and 1078 square feet of retail or commercial use. This project is 5 requesting to pay in‐lieu fees instead of park land dedication. Assigning the Council‐determined 6 weighed values to the affordable units, it would be considered 26.4 percent affordable compared 7 to the actual 20 percent. This is an ownership project in which most of the units are two or three 8 bedrooms. By being fully located outside of the special setback, it continues to reserve that space 9 for the City to do future improvements to the right of way. The ARB ad hoc committee included 10 seven items in conditions of approval. Some of those have already been addressed, including 11 improving hallway circulation. The total open space provided meets the 150‐square‐foot‐per‐unit 12 requirement. One of the private outdoor patio areas does not meet the minimum dimensions, 13 but the total open space provided meets the zoning requirements in aggregate. The shared 14 courtyard and roof deck designs and circulation have been improved, and obscured glass glazing 15 windows were added to the bicycle storage area. The ARB ad hoc is still looking at an alternative 16 to look at how refuse is circulated within the building and at ensuring the design of the below‐17 grade parking allows for landscape planting above. 18 Emily Kallas continued, presenting the building plans and changes. This project proposes to be 19 fully parked and meets the standard parking requirements. The building projects approximately 20 7 feet into the special setback for the below‐grade parking, but Staff felt that providing the 21 required parking was a benefit and that this encroachment should not limit the ability to use the 22 special setback in the future. She showed the façades, courtyard, and streetscape. There are ten 23 trees proposed for removal and seven trees proposed to be planted. Those trees being removed 24 have an additional requirement equivalent to 24 trees for which in‐lieu fees will be paid, 25 approximately $15,600. Another item for the PTC to consider was the below‐market‐rate 26 allocation of the units, looking at the distribution by the bedroom count. She presented a table 27 showing the number of units in the building at each size. Staff would like the PTC to consider if 28 an additional three‐bedroom should be allocated and, as a result, one fewer two‐bedroom. In 29 terms of CEQA, the entire HIP expansion area was considered in an EIR that was certified, so an 30 addendum was prepared ensuring this project is consistent with that EIR. Staff recommends the 31 Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the project to Council subject 32 to the conditions of approval. 33 Commissioner Reckdahl asked for a walkthrough of the trash pickup process. 34 Emily Kallas described there is a 40‐foot‐long duck‐out cut into the sidewalk at the front of the 35 property. The trash is hauled from a staging area in the below‐grade parking to a staging area on 36 the curb. The garbage trucks will pull over, take care of the refuse, and then continue down the 37 street. 38 Mark Donahue, applicant, briefly reviewed the project. He presented site plans, pointing out that 39 the staging area for the garbage would leave space for bike lanes. There is a small area for quick 40 pickups and drop‐offs close to the lobby. There is now 1078 square feet of commercial space. 1 The community spaces, which formerly were on the front façade of the building, have been 2 moved to the courtyard. The circulation within the courtyard has been expanded so there is more 3 direct access from the front lobby to the back corridor. The back corridor has been simplified and 4 widened so that the service elevator is more useful. He presented floor plans for the units and a 5 landscape plan. He showed the roof deck and discussed the related Building Code. He showed 6 the revised entry, which is now two stories high and allows a view into the courtyard. He noted 7 the vertical windows to the left of the lobby looking into the bike room, which are not 8 transparent. In response to an ARB comment, windows were added approximately across from 9 the elevator to light that portion of the corridor. 10 Vice‐Chair Chang asked how the trash circulation would impact a future bike lane. Regarding the 11 distribution of BMR units, she asked if it was feasible to swap out one of the smaller units for a 12 three‐bedroom. 13 Mark Donohue showed that on the far left is the driveway and the sidewalk and then a planting 14 buffer with a ramp, which leads from the staging area to the sidewalk and then to the cutout 15 where the garbage truck would park. That planting area is sufficient width for a two‐way bike 16 lane, so should a bike lane be proposed, that staging area could still be used for trash. He agreed 17 the switch to a three‐bedroom was feasible and would be made. 18 Vice‐Chair Chang questioned what unit would be changed because she did not want to see one 19 of the very‐low‐income units disappear. 20 Mark Donohue responded the plan would be to switch a two‐bedroom moderate to a three‐21 bedroom moderate, for example. 22 PUBLIC COMMENTS 23 John Petrilla had concerns about South Palo Alto's canopy coverage. He wanted the Commission 24 to do what they could to add more trees and increase canopy coverage. He asked if the 25 Commission members paid attention to the Urban Forest Master Plan when going through 26 projects. He was concerned about the garbage pickup as the trucks are big with a lot of blind 27 spots. He felt fees set in lieu of park land were not restricted and there should be restrictions 28 placed on where that is spent. 29 Chair Summa returned the discussion to commission members. 30 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the commercial space was added by the applicant or if the City 31 had requested it. 32 Mark Donohue responded that the commercial space was added at the request of the ARB. 33 Emily Kallas added that it was also at the request of the PTC at the prior meeting. 34 Commissioner Reckdahl noted this isolated commercial space was difficult to succeed at and 1 asked if the applicant had looked at the feasibility of what type of business the space would be 2 rented to. He questioned if it would be run by the HOA. 3 Mark Donohue explained the market shifts so rapidly that it would need to be near the time of 4 actually leasing it. The ultimate vision for the street is a lot of pedestrian movement, and certain 5 kinds of businesses can thrive under those conditions. The lack of parking is difficult but not 6 impossible. He responded that it would be sold as a condominium as a separate commercial 7 entity. 8 Vice‐Chair Chang commended the applicant for this project. She was pleased that it was fully 9 parked and that the applicant was responsive to feedback. She was thrilled at the addition of the 10 retail space and also appreciated the deep affordability. The project had her full support. 11 Commissioner Akin expressed appreciation for the architectural changes to the courtyard area. 12 He noted this was a project in which local tree canopy was being lost with no obvious way to 13 replace it in a way that is easily accessible to the residents. He felt that was a pattern the 14 Commission would see more of and wanted to pay attention to making sure the canopy is 15 restored in some way. He hoped for feedback from Urban Forestry on that. 16 Commissioner Hechtman was also very supportive of this project. He appreciated the 17 responsiveness of the applicant. He felt it was possible to praise this project without derogating 18 the previous one and explained the differences in the two types of projects. He discussed the 19 issue of park land and that paying in‐lieu fees may become the new rule rather than the 20 exception. He provided several corrections to the ordinance. 21 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Hechtman's comments. She was concerned 22 with the inconsistency of pushback about affordability when comparing projects. She thought it 23 was good to have different kinds of projects with different kinds of housing for different income 24 levels without the need to compare. 25 Chair Summa thanked the applicant for responding to many of the suggestions and coming back 26 with a better project. She was not as happy with it overall and felt it was creating a very different 27 neighborhood. She wanted to find a way to add trees in the area for every project. She was happy 28 with the possibility of a reasonable bicycle path in the future. She did not know how the area 29 would work without true retail but that was not a fault of the applicant. 30 Emily Kallas added that earlier versions of the plans included the applicant providing more trees 31 on site, but those trees were proposed in the special setback. Staff has asked to maintain that 32 area open for now with the expectation that trees will be able to go there in the future. 33 MOTION 34 Vice‐Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation while also memorializing the change to an 1 additional three‐bedroom moderate unit in lieu of a two‐bedroom moderate unit as noted by 2 the applicant. 3 Commissioner Lu recommended adding Commissioner Hechtman's modifications in wording, 4 which Vice‐Chair Chang accepted. 5 SECOND 6 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 7 VOTE 8 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote, which carried 7‐0. 9 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 10 Commission Action: Motion by Vice‐Chair Chang, seconded by Commissioner Lu. Motion passed 11 7‐0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 12 The PTC took a break and returned with all members present. 13 14 4. 310 California Ave: Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Expansion of an 15 Existing Commercial Recreation Use and Renovation of Eating and Drinking Space 16 Chair Summa asked for disclosures. She noted she had spoken to a member of the public about 17 the murals in the building, which were not addressed in the staff report. 18 Nishita Kandikuppa described the application, which requested a Conditional Use Permit for the 19 expansion of an existing commercial recreation use at 310 California and renovation of eating 20 and drinking place at 320 California. Palo Alto Fit, the owner of the building, will be located at 21 310 California, expanding into the 320 California Avenue tenant space to provide more training 22 area. The existing 774‐square‐foot mezzanine will be demolished. The existing second story 23 above 320 California will be expanded to provide new restrooms and staff offices for the 24 employees. The semi‐enclosed outdoor seating area will be maintained, but the previous Printers 25 Café space will be renovated to accommodate a new café. No exterior work is proposed. This will 26 expand 310 California from about 6700 to just under 11,000 square feet and reduce 320 27 California from 5800 to 2800 square feet. The lot coverage will stay the same but FAR will increase 28 by 1150 square feet. No parking is required per AB 2097. She showed the existing and proposed 29 floor plans. She described the input from the public with respect to this project and summarized 30 their concerns. CUP applications are evaluated to specific findings, which must be made with an 31 affirmative to approve the project: the project shall not be detrimental or injurious to public 32 health or wellbeing, and the project shall be located and conducted in a manner that is in accord 33 with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code of Palo Alto. The project has been 34 reviewed by all relevant city departments to ensure conformance with zoning regulations and 1 CUP findings. The Director of Planning and Development Services has deferred the decision on 2 the project to City Council due to the high volume of public comments received by the Planning 3 Division. Feedback from the PTC is requested. 4 Nina Nguyen, applicant, discussed the Conditional Use Permit request. She sought approval to 5 optimize the existing floor plans to enhance the café and the gym use, preserving the exterior. 6 She presented plans for the portions of the building planned to be reconfigured. The existing art 7 gallery space in the rear of the building with no storefront would become restrooms, laundry, 8 and utility rooms. This will ensure the gym's training floor can comply with health safety 9 requirements. Space will also be also reallocated for new accessible restrooms to the existing 10 café space. She described the history of Palo Alto Fit and the reason for the relocation. She 11 discussed the request by Printers Café to terminate their lease. 12 Laura Roberts, Ko Architects, presented the project from the design intent and architectural point 13 of view. She explained the applicant intended to maintain and preserve the murals on Birch Street 14 and the café interior. She presented the existing and proposed floor plans, proposing to expand 15 the gym use and locate the service rooms for the gym where the art gallery used to be. The 16 footprint of the café use will remain much the same, adding accessible bathrooms directly 17 connected to the public. This allows the creation of a comfortable training space as well as 18 reconfiguration of the café to comply with current accessibility requirements. On the second 19 floor, it is proposed to add offices that support the gym use. 20 Commissioner Akin was concerned about the ability to make the finding of improved community 21 health and wellbeing when relocating one gym to replace another. 22 Albert Yang felt the safest approach was to focus on the property that was the subject of the 23 application. 24 Micro Horst, applicant, added that Performance Gains and Palo Alto Fit are two independent 25 businesses and are not being merged. Performance Gains is in the process of finding a new 26 building to continue their business. 27 Commissioner Hechtman asked whether the new café would be open to the public or to gym 28 members only. 29 Mr. Horst responded the café would be open to the public and was an independent business 30 from the gym, run by the same owners under a different LLC. The café will be in cooperation with 31 a grocery and a bakery in San Francisco. 32 Vice‐Chair Chang asked about the plans for the murals inside the café. 33 Mr. Horst answered that the mural in the café will stay as is and fits the theme of the new café. 34 Commissioner Lu questioned the plans for the gym, if it will be CrossFit training, if there will be 35 programs or kids or other classes. 36 Mr. Horst explained that it is not CrossFit but primarily one‐on‐one. He noted Palo Alto Fit is more 1 specialized in helping people to be fit and healthy and move better. He stated there are teenagers 2 who come in to practice and train and it is open to all ranges of ages. 3 Commissioner Lu wondered if there was an option for a monthly membership or something more 4 affordable than one‐on‐one training. He noted he would support that intent if this moved 5 forward. He asked about the hours and cuisine for the café. 6 Mr. Horst responded other options would depend on factors like occupancy and building class 7 that might restrict the use. He would like to offer that but was not at that point yet. He explained 8 the intent for the café was to have it open from morning to evening but that could be adjusted 9 based on traffic on California Avenue. He described that it would be primarily a café with no 10 kitchen or cooking. There would be sandwiches, pastry, healthy snacks, coffee, and juices, and 11 depending on how it evolves, they might offer wine and beer in the evening. 12 Chair Summa asked again about the hours of the café. She wanted clarification on the mezzanine 13 versus second story. 14 Mr. Horst answered that it would be open from around 8 AM to about 9 PM as California Avenue 15 starts slowing down after that time. 16 Ms. Roberts explained that there was an existing mezzanine that is being called a second floor in 17 the new plans. It is a mezzanine currently because only half of the space is occupied right now. 18 The second floor will be expanded over the current art gallery, which is a double‐height space at 19 this time. The space over 310 will be opened up. 20 PUBLIC COMMENTS 21 Bill Ross stated both his neurosurgeon and orthopedic surgeon recommended Palo Alto Fit to 22 him. He believed that Palo Alto Fit provided the health and wellness the City has prioritized in the 23 Comprehensive Plan. He explained it is not a gym but a total approach to health that includes 24 diet, rest, the actual approach to facilitate movement. He did not understand the public interest 25 in this but believed substantial evidence was present to meet the findings for the Conditional Use 26 Permit. He also described that the clientele of Palo Alto Fit will facilitate foot traffic to existing 27 retail uses. 28 Wolfgang Dueregger noted he has frequented Printers Café, Moods Bar, the gallery for many 29 years. He felt the three business were the quintessential melting pot that held California Avenue 30 together. He requested the following considerations: the café must be open to the public; the 31 new café should be a full‐service restaurant; the new facility should not expand so far into the 32 café space that it would limit the functionality and seating capacity; the café should be open 33 during reasonable hours, including evening hours when the gym may be closed; and the café 34 should continue to preserve an outdoor dining space. 35 Jeremy Shaw felt Printers Café was a hub of the community. He worried that the gym focus meant 1 the owners were not as dedicated to the café. He pointed out that the loss of the art gallery was 2 not taken care of in the application. He felt a gym did not add significant community benefit or 3 added to the vibrancy or sense of community on the street. 4 Odile Disch Bhadkamkar explained that Printers Ink had a special place in her heart but felt that 5 Printers Ink ended when the bookstore closed. She stated she has trained with Nina Nguyen for 6 about ten years and the one‐on‐one training has allowed her to recover after multiple surgeries. 7 She was disappointed in some of the recent public comments as the new owners have not been 8 given a chance. 9 Winter Dellenbach noted the history that her husband cofounded and co‐owned Printers Ink 10 Bookstore for 20 years before selling it. She described the mural in the café, which is unique in 11 the city and which she felt must be preserved. She felt that the City was diminished by having 12 this gym but was delighted that a public café would remain. 13 Dorothy Bender did not support the CUP for this project as there is not more gym space needed 14 here and the café will not provide the items that residents are used to. She noted that previous 15 community gathering spaces were lost because of this. 16 Jill Bicknell was concerned about keeping this area vibrant and supportive of local businesses as 17 well as providing services and entertainment to the community. She was interested in preserving 18 California Avenue as a pedestrian street with businesses oriented toward walk‐in services. She 19 was pleased that the owners intend to keep the café. 20 Roxanne Leung stated she was a practicing physician and a member of Palo Alto Fit for the past 21 6½ years. She believed that the team at Palo Alto Fit had positively changed the trajectory of her 22 health and that this type of wellness program was a key component of keeping the community 23 healthy. She stated Nina Nguyen was warm, positive, and full of energy. 24 Deborah Grubbs explained that Palo Alto Fit has changed her life. She described that Nina Nguyen 25 cared not only for the people who are a part of Palo Alto Fit but about the community. She was 26 excited to see the new facility. She noted there are many restaurants on California Avenue and 27 that it was also good to have other choices. 28 Chair Summa offered the applicant three minutes for rebuttal, which was declined, and then 29 returned the discussion to the commission members. 30 Commissioner Templeton was intrigued by the application. She thanked the public commenter 31 who clarified the difference between this business and a gym. She acknowledged there is a desire 32 to hold onto a business that needed to leave because it was not profitable and felt this café did 33 not have to be exactly the same as Printers Café but could keep some aspects like the murals. 34 She wondered if the other restaurants nearby might benefit from this café not being full service 35 and was curious how this business might shape the interactions on California Avenue and possibly 36 improve it. 37 Commissioner Hechtman described his long history with this location. When he moved to the 1 area, there was a dance studio, where his wife took classes. His family shopped at the stationery 2 store that eventually moved in. Printers Ink Bookstore was important to the readers in his home. 3 When that business left, the café remained. At the Gallery House, which was accessed by walking 4 through the café, his wife hosted quarterly poetry readings. Moods Bar opened in the evenings, 5 creating challenges for the poetry readings. He emphasized that the public, himself included, had 6 a lot of great memories of these businesses that are no longer there. 7 Vice‐Chair Chang was pleased that the CUP would continue the use of the café side and hoped 8 that the community‐serving aspects of the business would stay. She hoped the café would be 9 open as long as possible because it is hard to find a café in Palo Alto open past 6 PM. She was sad 10 to see the individual businesses leave but felt it was the nature of business and that Palo Alto 11 could not legislate keeping rent artificially low. She felt this seemed like a wonderful use for a 12 business that has also served Palo Alto for a long time. 13 Commissioner Lu agreed that he was sad to see businesses close but was inclined to move 14 forward with the CUP. He felt there was a good picture of the planned café and the personal 15 training/gym facility. He believed there was a tradeoff between having an empty space and 16 holding out for a bookstore or art gallery or filling it with a personal training facility, which has 17 community uses. He was only concerned with making the facility as successful as possible with 18 more programs, more members, more accessible services. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the applicant considered leaving the gym in 310 and keeping 20 320 as retail. He asked about the square footage of the current location and how many clientele 21 were in the gym at one time. 22 Mr. Horst responded that the plan was to use the 6000 square feet for the gym if the CPU was 23 not approved. The challenge with the café was the size as the economics do not scale for a café 24 at 5000 square feet, particularly with the space in the back where the art gallery was. The current 25 location is about 8000 square feet but has limited parking. Right now, 310 California Avenue is 26 about 6000 square feet plus 800 on the second floor; with the expansion, the gym space would 27 be about 8000 square feet. He felt there was a maximum of about 20 clients at once. Scaling the 28 gym back to 6000 square feet, if the CUP was not approved, would be difficult, but he stated they 29 would work with what was approved. 30 Chair Summa felt that it was not a problem to have a training facility on California Avenue. She 31 noted the café was basically the same size except it would have nicer bathrooms. If it was not 32 nice and was not open to the public, it would not attract people. She had concerns about the size 33 and asked Staff for information about the 1800 square foot break. 34 Amy French described that several years ago, Staff was successful in loosening the commercial 35 restriction in Chapter 1816 to enable no Conditional Use Permits until the threshold of 5000 36 square feet was reached in the CS and CN. However, Council imposed greater restrictions on 37 California Avenue to 1800 square feet. 38 Albert Yang added that 1800 had historically been a cutoff between personal service fitness 1 centers and what would otherwise be considered commercial recreation. 2 Chair Summa stated she supported this change. She was also sad that the businesses had left but 3 she was not able to make findings to deny it. Separately, she had questions for Staff about AB 4 2097 in regard to parking: "This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement 5 of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development 6 that's located within the ½ mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment 7 (EVSE), installed parking spaces, or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities 8 that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply." She 9 wondered if the new use of this development triggered a consideration of ADA spaces and EVSE 10 spaces. 11 Amy French explained that Staff has interpreted this to mean if parking was provided, they must 12 adhere to the percentages for ADA and electric vehicle charging. However, if they are not 13 providing parking, that is not required. The required parking in the code is for onsite parking and 14 does not specify anything about parking on the street. 15 Chair Summa felt it was important to consider accommodating ADA parking in these situations 16 but that was not on this project. 17 Vice‐Chair Chang added that the Planning Commission needs to think about this because 18 hopefully there will be more development in the area, yet none of it will require parking. Since 19 there will be more people in the area, there will be a need for more ADA parking and electric 20 vehicle infrastructure, so it is something that will need to be solved. 21 Commissioner Hechtman stated that, as reflected in this building, businesses have a natural cycle, 22 which sometimes ends when the business is not profitable enough or when a new owner comes 23 in and the lease ends. Maybe it feels like a lot because it is sudden to lose Moods, Gallery House, 24 and Printers Café all at the same time, but it is the nature of business in a retail environment. He 25 was grateful to have enjoyed those businesses. Looking at the redesign, he described that the 26 single café bathroom, which was difficult to access, was being replaced with two logically located 27 ADA‐compliant bathrooms, which was a logical change. The other change was that the gallery 28 space was to be converted into bathrooms/locker rooms for the exercise facility as well as offices. 29 He was excited about trying the new café. In regard to whether this benefits the community, he 30 spoke about the possibility of the gym bringing in new clientele to the area who will radiate out 31 to use other businesses on California Avenue. He was supportive of the CUP. 32 MOTION 33 Commissioner Hechtman moved the staff recommendation and made the findings on page 103. 34 SECOND 35 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 36 Chair Summa suggested an amendment to require that two the murals be retained as a condition. 1 Commissioners Hechtman and Templeton accepted the amendment. 2 VOTE 3 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote, which carried 7‐0. 4 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 5 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Hechtman, seconded by Commissioner 6 Templeton. Motion passed 7‐0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 7 The approval of minutes was addressed before returning to Item 5. 8 9 5. Election of Chair and Vice‐Chair 10 Commissioner Templeton suggested moving this item to the next meeting. 11 Chair Summa explained the PTC process is out of alignment with the BCC handbook and that the 12 Commission could vote tonight for Chair and Vice‐Chair or move it to after the new appointment, 13 which will be sometime in May. She noted there were two applicants, one of which was 14 Commissioner Hechtman. 15 MOTION 16 Commissioner Templeton motioned to postpone this item to a date uncertain but immediately 17 after the appointment. 18 SECOND 19 Vice‐Chair Chang seconded the motion. 20 Commissioner Hechtman questioned if Staff would be able to agenda the meeting if the 21 appointment happened on the Monday before a scheduled PTC meeting. 22 Amy French responded that the packets for Council come out a week and a half ahead and it 23 could be put on the agenda 72 hours in advance. 24 VOTE 25 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote, which carried 6‐0‐1. 26 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton yes; Hechtman abstained) 27 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Hechtman, seconded by Commissioner Lu. Motion 1 passed 6‐0‐1 (Akin, Chang, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton yes; Hechtman abstained). 2 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5 Chair Summa asked for a motion to approve the PTC draft minutes of November 29, 2023. It was 6 clarified that this was verbatim and summary minutes. 7 MOTION 8 Commissioner Hechtman motioned to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of November 9 29, 2023, as revised. 10 SECOND 11 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 12 VOTE 13 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote, which carried 7‐0. 14 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 15 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Hechtman, seconded by Commissioner Lu. Motion 16 passed 7‐0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) 17 18 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 19 There were no commissioner comments. 20 21 ADJOURNMENT 22 Chair Summa adjourned the meeting at 11:16 PM 23