HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-29 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: May 29, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:00 pm 7
Chair Chang called the regular meeting to order. 8
Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 9
Commissioner Hechtman advised he was appearing remotely with Just Cause and no one over 10
18 was in the room with him. 11
12
Oral Communications 13
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 14
15
Veronica Dao announced there were no requests to speak. 16
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 17
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 18
Chief Planning Official Amy French announced there were no agenda changes or deletions. 19
City Official Reports 20
1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21
Amy French announced the Office of Transportation Staff would be unlikely to make it to the 22
appointment but read a statement regarding the Wilkie Bridge subcommittee. 23
Vice Chair Reckdahl provided an update about Wilkie Way. 24
Amy French provided a slide presentation of City official reports to include a breakdown of 25
Planning and Transportation Commission meetings for the summer and Council target dates for 26
May, June and August. 27
Chair Chang recalled Commissioner Lu was the NVCAP rep for June but had to recuse himself 28
so she would be the backup. 29
Action Items 30
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 31
1
2. Review and Recommendation to Finance Committee and the City Council on 2
Proposed 2025‐2029 Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan 3
Compliance. 4
Amy French outlined a slide presentation reviewing the 16 new 2025‐2029 Capital 5
Improvement projects for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan including meeting goals, 6
PTC Conformance letter, Comprehensive Plan compliance review process, overview of 2025‐7
2019 CIPs, new CIPs and Comprehensive Plan consistency, highlights of new CIPs, distribution of 8
all continuing CIPs by Comprehensive Plan elements and recommendation sought. 9
Vice Chair Reckdahl inquired about the status of the eucalyptus tree removal wanted to know 10
why it was introduced but not funded this year according to page 13 of the big binder. 11
Paul Harper, Office of Management and Budget, explained this project is funded in fiscal year 12
2025, the first year of the 5‐year CIP. He referenced the Committee to page 212 of the Fiscal 13
Year 25 Proposed Capital Budget. 14
Commissioner Akin found it odd that the Arastradero Creek gas line repair was associated with 15
Policy N‐7.1 and wondered if S1.13.4 would be a better fit and was curious as to why that 16
decision was made. 17
Amy French agreed to follow up with the utility staff the following day regarding that question. 18
Paul Harper said if that is a correction that is recommended he would include it in the letter to 19
the Finance Committee and make that correction as part of the adopted budget for that project 20
page. 21
Chair Chang noticed that there were several of the 16 new CIPs that did not hit the Fiscal 25 22
Budget. She recollected that most of the time projects do. She questioned if it was just a 23
planning exercise. She asked about the Palo Alto Arts Center ceramics equipment on package 24
page 18 with a note stating that the Arts Center has not had a sustainable plan to maintain 25
equipment for the ceramic program unlike nearby municipalities. She wondered if that was 26
going to be something that they were changing or a one‐time band‐aid patch. She pointed out 27
the report on page 19 notes that the City radio replacement program will be the first time 28
digital radios have been replaced since the City joined the Regional Interoperability Authority. 29
She wanted to know when that took place. She wondered why the stormwater improvements 30
and the capacity upgrades for Louis Road were slated later than the other two and wanted an 31
explanation about the Hamilton system being first. 32
Paul Harper confirmed Chair Chang’s comments to be correct explaining the five‐year capital 33
plan is where they try to put in needs of items that they know are coming along and ideally try 34
to get them in as early as they can when they have information that is somewhat accurate and 35
they can program in dollars, scope and timeline. A lot of the time things pop up as somewhat 36
emergencies and that is why a number of them fall into the first couple of years but they try to 1
put them in as far out as possible. He added when council adopts the budget they are only 2
adopting the first year of the five‐year plan. In this case it would be 2025. The rest of the years 3
are used for planning and essentially reference back to them if there are changes made going 4
into the next five‐year cycle. He thought the City radio replacement program start date was in 5
2014 or 2015. 6
Lam Do, Superintendent of Open Space Parks and Golf representing Community Services, 7
explained the maintenance of the ceramics equipment is not funded at the time. They are 8
asking for the facility to be upgraded and some equipment to be replaced and then from there 9
they will be planning and looking at how to maintain or plan for replacing that budget in the 10
future. 11
Holly Boyd, Assistant Director for Public Works, explained that given the New Year's Eve 12
flooding in 2022, Hamilton and Center were prioritized over Louis because of the impact that it 13
will have on the residents in those neighborhoods. She added because of limited staff and the 14
disruption to the neighborhoods, they were being staggered. 15
Commissioner Summa wondered where one could look up and find the exact locations of the 16
eucalyptus trees slated for removal and more about the process. She asked if the Urban 17
Forestry Department was involved. 18
Lam Do replied an assessment was between Community Service Department and Office of 19
Emergency Services to identify the trees that they wanted removed. He offered to provide that 20
information to Staff Liaison French and she could forward it to Commissioner Summa. He 21
confirmed the Urban Forestry Department was involved. 22
Commissioner Templeton understood that eucalyptus trees provide a fire hazard for the 23
communities in which they're present and wanted to know what PG meant. She assumed they 24
would hear from Planning Department since they were responsible for classifying them. She 25
expressed concern if the trees were being removed safely and if it would provide fire protection 26
and therefore classified properly. 27
Lam Do remarked each CIP is identified by a nomenclature of two letters and then a series of 28
five digits. The first two letters represent the program area where the CIP is to be managed and 29
PG, in this case is Parks and Golf, which it falls under the Division of Open Space Parks and Golf. 30
He added the departments would work together in regard to managing the project. 31
Amy French confirmed she would forward the details that Lam Do would be sending her to the 32
PTC. 33
Chair Chang wanted visibility on why the scheduled vehicle and equipment replacement 34
jumped up by $600,000 in 2029. 35
Danitra Bahlman, Public Works Fleet Department, agreed to come back to that question. 1
Paul Harper stated that the city is in the process of working towards replacing the fleet with 2
electric vehicles where possible but going out to the end of the five‐year plan they were looking 3
at increasing the budget because those vehicles cost more to replace. 4
Commissioner Lu wondered if someone could comment what the broader scope and budget of 5
the Alma Charleston Railroad crossing safety improvements would potentially be projected to 6
be and if there was any scope or consideration of upgrading the crossing so it could support a 7
quiet zone. 8
Philip Kamhi, Transportation, remarked that the project is similar to a project that PTC had 9
approved for Churchill Crossing. They are entering the design phase but hoping to get section 10
130 funding similar to the Churchill Avenue crossing for this project to move into the future 11
base for construction. He added this was not a Quiet Zone project; however, that project is 12
already moving forward except the Palo Alto Avenue project which is already in the final design 13
phase. 14
15
PUBLIC COMMENTS 16
Veronica Dao stated there were no speaker cards or raised hands. 17
Chair Chang invited Commissioner Akin to share what the language was for the item he thought 18
was more appropriate. 19
Commissioner Akin shared that it says this item is to enhance the safety of city‐owned natural 20
gas pipeline operations, so it is in the safety segment of the element of the Comp Plan rather 21
than natural environment. 22
Commissioner Summa supported at least adding Commissioner Akin’s suggestion. In answer to 23
Commissioner Templeton, she thought the eucalyptus tree removal was a very separate issue 24
for open spaces and in public parks in the city. She thought it was weird to target some 25
eucalyptus trees in open spaces. She described why she was interested in how the trees would 26
be removed. 27
MOTION #1 28
Commissioner Summa made a motion to move staff recommendation with the addition of 29
Commissioner Akin's reclassification for the alignment of the gas line repair at Arastradero 30
Creek with the comp plan, which was S1.13.4 and requesting more information on the location, 31
number and method of removal for the eucalyptus trees. 32
SECOND 33
1
The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Reckdahl. 2
3
VOTE MOTION #1 4
5
Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 6
7
MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 8
9
10
3. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 18.14 (Housing 11
Incentives), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District), 18.30(F) (Automobile Dealership 12
(AD) Combining District Regulations), 18.42 (Standard for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking 13
Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 14
Adding Chapter 21.11 to Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo 15
Alto Municipal Code to Clarify Existing Regulations and to Implement Recent State 16
Housing Laws 17
Amy French and Albert Yang provided a slide presentation of the ordinance to clarify and 18
implement existing regulations and recent state housing laws to include state law 19
implementation and parking state laws and additional recommendations. 20
Vice Chair Reckdahl requested detail of what a voluntary code review is. He wanted to know 21
how it differs from the ministerial planning entitlement process and why they would want to do 22
that. 23
Amy French explained a voluntary code review to be when people are highly encouraged to 24
come through. It is done with the individual review program. It is not a requirement that they 25
come through and show their concepts for a new two‐story home in a neighborhood but is 26
highly encouraged. It suggests they would have more efficiency when put more detailed 27
development drawings on paper to submit for building permit if they have had preliminary 28
discussions with staff before they hardline some of their choices that may not follow the 29
objective standards or other codes. 30
Albert Yang explained a ministerial entitlement process would be a planning review against 31
objective standards at a staff level. The main difference is applicants would have to come 32
through the Planning Department before getting a building permit in contrast with the 33
voluntary code review approach where they could go straight to a building permit and the plans 34
would get checked against the objective standards as part of the building permit plan check. 35
SB9 is useful for many applicants but they do not want to require more process than necessary. 36
They are trying to streamline the process as much as possible. 37
Commissioner Summa had a question about Senate Bill 684 if multiple family residential use 1
means 3 units and more or does it apply to RE, R2 and RMD. She wanted to confirm what AMI 2
Senate Bill 4 applies to, 60 or 80. She was confused about the meaning of the statement “one 3
block from a car share vehicle” on packet page 27. She asked to have it written more clearly. 4
Amy French explained the code defines multiple family residential as three or more units. 5
Albert Yang agreed to check on the information on AMI Senate Bill 4. He replied that they have 6
interpreted the meaning of “one block from a car share vehicle” to be a fixed location car share 7
as opposed to a free‐floating car share, something like a zip car, that is located within one 8
block. 9
Commissioner Lu wanted to confirm what the City's thinking was on SB 9 following the court 10
decision. 11
Albert Yang commented so the Redondo Beach versus Bonta decision held that SB 9 was not 12
enforceable as to charter cities but the procedural status of that case means that it is only 13
effective for the 5 charter cities that were parties to that litigation. Those cities have also asked 14
the court to declare SB 9 unenforceable for all charter cities throughout California but the court 15
has not made that ruling yet. Once that happens, the state can appeal the ruling and ask for it 16
to be stayed. 17
Chair Chang wanted to know the meaning of SB 684 on packet page 26 where it says “it 18
requires cities to allow up to the Mullin densities”. She asked if she was correct that if a 19
developer chooses to develop less than is projected in the housing element then the 20
development is not eligible to go through the SB 684 process. She asked if she was correct that 21
Senate Bill 4 states things like child care centers are only allowed on the ground floor. She 22
wanted to know when Assembly Bill 894 on packet page 27 would be used. She wanted to 23
know if they could change AB 2097 on packet page 28 that only requires EVSE or ADA parking 24
spaces when a developer is voluntarily providing spaces. 25
Albert Yang explained they have to allow up to 30 units per acre. He confirmed she was correct 26
about if a developer chooses to develop less than projected and about her statement about 27
Senate Bill 4. He explained that the vision that the legislature regarding Assembly Bill 894 was a 28
parking lot exists someplace and an adjacent lot wants to redevelop without providing parking 29
on site. The lot that wants to redevelop would approach their neighbor and saying they would 30
like to do a study showing the parking spaces are underutilized and they would like to be able 31
to share them. They would have to prepare that parking study showing that the parking is 32
underutilized and that the timing in which the parking would be in demand for the properties 33
that would be sharing it would not conflict. He stated that AB 2097 does not affect EVSE and 34
ADA requirements that otherwise would apply. If no parking is being provided, there is no 35
percentage to take. A minority of jurisdictions have looked at the base parking requirement 36
pretending that AB 2097 did not exist and then take the percentage of EVSE spaces to find the 1
number of EVSE and ADA spaces that would be required so only ADA and EVSE spaces would be 2
provided and there would be no other general parking spaces provided. 3
4
PUBLIC COMMENTS 5
Herb Borock spoke about the status of the City of Redondo Beach case on SB 9 and felt they 6
should be proactive in having those changes restoring the language ready if the final decision 7
makes it unconstitutional. 8
Vice Chair Reckdahl asked when SB 9 is implemented, is it a contingent on SB 9 being valid law 9
or have they changed the law to be consistent with it. 10
Albert Yang explained the SB 9 ordinances have a provision saying that the ordinances will be 11
void if SB 9 is substantially amended or repealed. There is some language that might come into 12
play but it does not speak to what happens if the law is invalidated by a court. He stated they 13
would have to look carefully at whether their ordinances would change if that decision does 14
extend to the rest of the state. 15
Commissioner Summa thought they have a responsibility to provide ADA spots close to the 16
locations if they have latitude within the law to do so. She advised being strict in their 17
evaluation of claims of underutilization of buildings. She thought car share vehicle needed to be 18
defined better for clarity. 19
Albert Yang circled back to the outstanding questions about the 60 versus 80 AMI and what 20
happens to the low density residential stating the low density residential would not apply to 21
those R2, RE districts. As for the affordability provisions, he believed they have to be offered to 22
households who make up to 80 percent of AMI but then the rent is limited to 70 percent of 23
AMI. 24
Commissioner Hechtman pointed out to staff that on packet page 31, second 1, they did not 25
reference AB 894. On packet page 34, he wanted to know the FAR for RM30. He opined that 26
since the purpose of this legislation was driving this to promote additional housing and they 27
were not below the limit, they could be above it. He asked if there was dialogue in the intent 28
for the statutes about encouraging TDMs that they want to do it that way or limiting TDMs as 29
some kind of restraint? He wanted a definition of the word “feasible” in subpart D in 18.52.040. 30
He wanted staff to consider getting rid of that word. 31
Amy French believed the 1.25 relates to a housing element ordinance. 32
Albert Yang replied the base FAR for the RM30 District was 0.6. He stated whole set of 33
standards is taken from their treatment of housing opportunity sites. There was not a 34
discussion of TDM to his knowledge. It is a policy direction that if parking is not provided it will 1
not be used. He stated they could get rid of the word “feasible” and have it be a requirement 2
and rely on an adjustments exceptions process. 3
Commissioner Akin pointed out that the word “a” should be “and” where it reads “but loading a 4
bicycle parking facilities” on packet page 35, 18.52.040. He opined the difference between a 5
project that has absolutely no parking at all and the one that has the required ADA and EVSE 6
spaces might be really significant because driveways and other space requiring features of the 7
design may have to be provided that otherwise would not exist. He was curious as to whether 8
the state might regard that as a constraint on production. 9
Chair Chang had a concern about the lack of EVSE and ADA parking. If they were not allowed to 10
put any additional parking requirements in and the interpretation of the law is such that people 11
would not be asked to put in any EVSE spaces, her concern was that the City’s infrastructure 12
would not be adequately prepared in the areas of University and Cal Ave. She wondered if 13
there was a way to put EVSE parking back in as well as ADA. She thought it was short‐sighted to 14
not plan for those needs. She asked Mr. Yang if it would be reasonable to modify or 15
recommend a modification this. She requested staff to look at this and come back with 16
information on it. 17
Albert Yang did not think it was beyond the scope of the agenda item but he did not think staff 18
was prepared to weigh in on that discussion at that time and would appreciate the opportunity 19
to have a fuller analysis. 20
Commissioner Templeton was open to a study session regarding parking and discussed an 21
approach she recalled from another city. 22
Vice Chair Reckdahl felt strongly about handicap parking but was more flexible on EVSE and 23
thought the City could have a bunch of chargers elsewhere. 24
Commissioner Summa asked if they were limited to one space for taxi cabs, similar 25
transportation and delivery services as mentioned on packet page 35, 18.52.04 (d). 26
Albert Yang [inaudible 1:45:57] at least one for structures with 50 [inaudible 1:46:00]. 27
Commissioner Summa could imagine this being inadequate in areas with restricted parking so 28
[inaudible 1:46:10] adequate for [inaudible 1:46:12] does not seem adequate to cover all the 29
situations. 30
Chair Chang said [inaudible 1:46:16] one for every 50 [inaudible 1:46:19] the spirit of what we 31
are trying to do and [inaudible 1:46:23]. 32
Albert Yang said we would also [inaudible 1:46:24] that is utilizing AB 2097 might be too much 1
because [inaudible 1:46:29] with a very short frontage [inaudible 1:46:31]. 2
Commissioner Summa stated that was a good point if they are [inaudible 1:46:38] really 3
important and when you do not have [inaudible 1:46:41] passenger loading [inaudible 1:46:42]. 4
Chair Chang said she was confused [inaudible 1:46:45] frontage to accommodate [inaudible 5
1:46:46] where the lots would be. 6
Albert Yang said [inaudible 1:46:50] AB 2097 [inaudible 1:46:52]. Commissioner Hechtman 7
suggested where feasible is, solves the problem of what if you have [inaudible 1:47:03]. 8
Chair Chang said looking at Cal Ave, there are bunch of very small [inaudible 1:47:12] filled with 9
the loading zone [inaudible 1:47:15] loading zone spaces. She asked if it was the case that if thy 10
could fund [inaudible 1:47:27] at the Cal Ave area. 11
Albert Yang answered that was true for [inaudible 1:47:32]. 12
Chair Chang said [inaudible 1:47:36] see an ADA so they could put those into their parking 13
structures [inaudible 1:47:41] too onerous. 14
Commissioner Lu was comfortable with the study session. He stated it was hard to picture and 15
project what requirements are appropriate. He wanted to clarify if a white stripe on the 16
sidewalk could satisfy the loading zone requirement. 17
Amy French referred to the existing code section regarding [inaudible 1:48:23] related to site 18
planning circulation and access. This was in the Director’s adjustments with a maximum 19
reduction of one loading space so it allowed for an administrative process to make that 20
determination unrelated to the 50 units. 21
Albert Yang did not think they were prepared to speak to the 50 units issue but that was 22
something they could research and bring back. 23
Vice Chair Reckdahl agreed they should have a study session [inaudible 1:49:09]. 24
Commissioner Hechtman wondered if they wanted to bring this back as a study session or 25
[inaudible 1:49:56] because he did not think they could move forward a recommendation as a 26
study session. [Inaudible 1:50:01] to come back to them so they might be able to make a 27
recommendation moving this forward to Council. 28
Chair Chang said [inaudible 1:50:16] could approve the staff recommendation with the 29
exception of certain items that would come back to them and then make a recommendation to 30
approve those remaining sections so when it comes back they would not be reopening up the 31
whole thing for discussion again. 32
Albert Yang said [inaudible 1:50:38]. 1
Commissioner Summa expressed concern that in the shared [inaudible 1:53:53] if work patterns 2
really change. 3
Vice Chair Reckdahl replied if someone has been allowed to build a complex to unshared 4
parking and then work patterns change [inaudible 1:54:09]. 5
Commissioner Summa commented not building parking [inaudible 1:54:10] it was better that 6
they should be stuck then they are going to start parking. She pointed out all the 7
neighborhoods around Downtown and Cal Ave have parking permit programs so [inaudible 8
1:54:27]. If they are not held to the commitment of shared parking, it is like having your cake 9
and eating it too. 10
Vice Chair Reckdahl questioned Albert Yang how much of this is dictated by state law and how 11
much flexibility they have for the shared parking. 12
Albert Yang did not think they have [inaudible 1:54:46] if it meets certain standards. [Inaudible 13
1:54:58] pretty prescriptive on this. It says they must approve the agreement if it includes a 14
parking analysis using a peer‐reviewed methodology developed by a professional planning 15
association. He did not think they could add on to the method. 16
Vice Chair Reckdahl was taken aback by the motion that it would be a study session rather than 17
an action item. He thought the motion should be reworded to state action item. 18
Commissioner Templeton opined there was no way to fit this into one meeting and with a 19
resolution. 20
Vice Chair Reckdahl remarked that an action item can be deferred and brought back but if they 21
come to consensus, he wanted the option to give a recommendation at that time. 22
Commissioner Templeton commented staff was not prepared if they did want to get into an 23
action item that night. 24
Chair Chang’s thought was that they do [inaudible 1:56:53] because they did not have the data. 25
She agreed with Commissioner Templeton that they needed to think more holistically and 26
broadly about what to do with the two major retail areas and the parking needs for a specific 27
audience [inaudible 1:57:06] the implementation of AB 2097 in a way that would not 28
permanently put into place things that could not be corrected. 29
MOTION #2 30
Vice Chair Reckdahl made a motion to move staff recommendation with exception [inaudible 31
1:57:27 ] returning for a future action item that will cover EVSE and handicap parking and 32
loading pertaining to these areas. 33
Albert Yang [inaudible 1:57:40] items that were in the presentation. 1
Commissioner Summa thought the whole thing should come back to them instead of approving 2
part of it. She suggested reading it all together in the final version. 3
Commissioner Templeton concurred with Commissioner Summa bringing that option up in 4
order to get stuff that is less controversial off and have time to focus on the other parking stuff. 5
6
SECOND 7
8
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Templeton. 9
10
VOTE MOTION #1 11
12
Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 13
14
MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 15
16
ADJOURNMENT 17
8:01 pm 18
19