Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-11 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: September 11, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 pm 7 Chair Chang welcomed all to the meeting. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao took roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 Oral Communications 11 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 12 There were no requests to speak. 13 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 14 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 15 There were no changes to the agenda. 16 City Official Reports 17 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 18 Jonathan Lait, Planning & Development Services Department Director, introduced Jennifer 19 Armer, the new Planning and Transportation Commission Liaison. 20 Jennifer Armer, Planning and Transportation Commission Liaison, discussed her background in 21 the planning field. 22 Director Lait gave a slide presentation about the upcoming 2024 PTC meeting dates and Council 23 dates targeted for PTC-review items. 24 Chair Chang queried if they would only be considering the HIP or also doing the affordable 25 housing incentive. 26 Director Lait replied they would be taking into consideration the HIP and the AHIP. 27 Commissioner Hechtman asked if he would be required to attend the upcoming retail study 1 going before Council as the representative to Council. He wanted to know if a representative of 2 the Transportation Department was present. 3 Director Lait replied that he would not be required to attend the meeting. He stated a 4 representative of the Transportation Department would be present online. 5 Rafael Rius, Senior Engineer – Office of Transportation, provided updates about the El Camino 6 Real repaving project and announced the next Rail Committee meeting would be Tuesday, 7 September 17. 8 Commissioner Lu asked to confirm the overall timelines for El Camino repaving. 9 Mr. Rius offered to send details about the timeline through email. 10 Chair Chang advised it would be helpful to understand the timeline. 11 Mr. Rius understood that the parking was removed north of Stanford Avenue for the next two 12 weeks at which time they would then restrict the parking south of Stanford Avenue for another 13 mile segment and so forth. The last update he received was that parking would not be 14 temporarily returned but that was being discussed and he would try to get a more detailed 15 update that week. 16 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to find out if Mr. Rius had been able to start a dialogue with 17 the Police Department about having fatalities and significant injuries included in the monthly 18 traffic incident reports going forward. 19 Mr. Rius sent that request to the Office of Transportation liaison who gathers the data. He had 20 not personally had a dialogue with the Police Department on this but would follow up. 21 Chair Chang suggested giving Ms. Star-Lack a heads up they would be asking that same question 22 when the update was received in a couple of weeks. 23 Commissioner Templeton stated that the timeline and milestone estimates on the El Camino 24 project were probably subject to weather and advised Mr. Rius to expect that they would 25 continue to ask for updates. 26 Mr. Rius was in agreement. 27 Action Items 28 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker. 29 30 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: 31 Recommendation to forward a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) Application to the 32 Architectural Review Board to Rezone two Contiguous Parcels and to Redevelop the 33 Site. Site Work Includes Demolition of a Surface Parking lot and Construction of a 1 new Three-Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with Ten Residential Condominium 2 Units. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Reviewed for an Exemption 3 under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone 4 District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the 5 Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. 6 7 Commissioners Lu and Akin and Vice Chair Reckdahl disclosed having visited the site. 8 Commissioner Summa, Chair Chang and Commissioner Templeton had no disclosures. 9 Commissioner Hechtman visited the site and had a video meeting with the applicants on August 10 27 where he viewed the renderings that are in the staff report, they helped him understand the 11 proposed layout and he received background on their previous application with City Council. 12 Emily Kallas, Project Planner, provided a slide presentation about project to include the 13 background/process, project location, project overview, site and floor plan, renderings, key 14 considerations, public comments and recommendations. 15 Director Lait clarified that the project is not necessarily constrained by AB 2097 because it is a 16 planned home zoning application and is a legislative action before the Council. 17 Commissioner Templeton asked for explanation of the different numbers for the floor area 18 ratio on packet page 15 versus the presentation. 19 Ms. Kallas explained the 0.5 mentioned on page 15 of the packet was the standard CC zoning 20 floor area ratio. However, because this is a housing inventory site in the housing element, it is 21 subject to the floor area in 1814, which is 1.25. 22 Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architects, showed slides about the project including site context, 23 location benefits for multifamily development, planning review timeline, project challenges, 24 winning concept for feasibility, compatibility and scale, proposed site plan, design precedent, 25 proposed design perspective elevation, view from Encina Avenue, perspective side elevation, 26 front entrance, sideyard, and northeast corner and questions from Town & Country Village. 27 Commissioner Akin wanted to know if other options had been considered in the placement of 28 the transformer and if there was an elevator in the accessible unit. He wanted to understand 29 how the BMR units would be priced. He did not understand from the packet how the parking 30 would have to change in order for the units to be considered equivalent to the market rate 31 units. He queried if the location of this new residential use trigger any provisions of the noise 32 ordinance that do not already apply and if there is anything they need to watch out for that 33 have not be evaluated. He flagged the equipment noise as something worth checking up on. 34 Mr. Galbraith described that they were looking to see if there was a way to bring it closer 1 maybe under the sidewalk. They have studied potential ways to carve out a corner of the site to 2 accommodate an above ground transformer but that is disruptive. They are hunting for a better 3 solution for that. He answered there is no elevator in the accessible unit. There is potential to 4 add products to move up the stairs if needed by a tenant. He explained there are clear targets 5 established for lower income and those target ranges of the AMI and there are calculations that 6 work backwards to figure out what price fits within that salary range. 7 Ms. Kallas indicated the below market rate units need to be considered equivalent and should 8 not be essentially less than the standard market rate units. At least one of the units would need 9 to be one of the two parking space units to be equal distribution. She remarked that the PAMC 10 9.10 noise ordinance 030 is residential property noise and 040 is commercial property noise. 11 The way it is written, the noise limits are for the use on that site and not regulated by what it is 12 adjacent to. 13 Commissioner Templeton wanted to understand to what extent are design constraints part of 14 the considerations and negotiations with Town & Country Village. She questioned if there was a 15 constraint saying they have to make Town & Country properties look like Town & Country looks 16 now. She wanted to ensure that this would be harmonious with the site before moving 17 forward. She wanted understanding the driver of the reduction of the height. She asked if any 18 stylistic feedback from Town & Country about the design being so different had been received. 19 She asked if there were any concerns about availability for visitor parking on the street on 20 Encina and if street parking was anticipated to be a part of the project. 21 Mr. Galbraith thought it fair to say that if the owner was amenable, they could build a parking 22 structure that replaced the parking and put forth their own PHZ that would fill the entirety of 23 that back parking area. In that instance, the regulations that apply would be the same. The 24 driver of the reduction of height was cost. He stated there had been some feedback about the 25 design. He opined they should not try to make it look like Town & Country because they should 26 look like residential units rather than commercial space. 27 Ms. Kallas explained there is no city-adopted set of design guidelines for Town & Country; 28 however, there are other considerations such as if the Town & Country Shopping Center got 29 evaluated for being a potential historic resource that could identify character defining features 30 that the City may have an interest in preserving. It would be a subjective process if Town & 31 Country were to apply to make architectural changes to their building. She described the 32 parking concerns on Encina were why they were not recommending that the bulb-outs be 33 provided. Street parking is not a part of the project and no street parking would be required 34 towards the required number of parking spaces. 35 Director Lait clarified the Commission was only being asked to decide whether to move the 36 project forward to the Architecture Review Board for more review and then back to the PTC for 37 additional review. He remarked through the plan home zoning process, there is the 1 requirement to go to the Planning Commission and then on to the Architectural Review Board. 2 There could be some guidance from the Architectural Review Board to either be distinguished 3 from the Town & Country design or to be designed similar to the Town & Country design. 4 Commissioner Lu mentioned that the staff report notes two of the BMR units have reduced 5 parking but the applicant’s proposal showed one three bedroom with two parking spaces and 6 the other three bedroom in the bottom right corner. He wanted to confirm that the reference 7 to parking in the staff report had been updated. He wanted to confirm what is productive for 8 the Committee to discuss on regarding setbacks and open space and get context on that staff 9 guidance. He wanted information on any planning or discussions that exist on potential bike 10 connectivity between El Camino bike lanes and Embarcadero. 11 Mr. Galbraith used the slide presentation to explain that one of the two units would be a two 12 parking space and one of them would be a one parking space. The top unit was three bedrooms 13 and the bottom two bedrooms. He thought there might be a mismatch and stated they would 14 circle back and get it synced up. 15 Chair Chang queried how equivalency was determined in terms of parking spaces for a BMR 16 unit. 17 Ms. Kallas replied the intent for this initial PTC meeting was for the plans to be conceptual and 18 they are expected to come closer to staff recommendation and conformance with the code. 19 There is another housing planner on staff to help determine that they meet all of those 20 regulations. She explained they would like the PTC to be able to provide comments in terms of 21 making some recommendations to the ARB for what they can consider. The intent is that 22 because the project does evolve between now and the next time it comes to the PTC, they 23 want to make sure that any of PTC’s comments and intents are captured and considered as it 24 moves forward to the ARB process. A certain level of detail may be too granular for this time. 25 She understood that there is a bike lane at the end of Encina. 26 Director Lait noted that the code has guidance on that. He acknowledged that this is a planned 27 home zoning application and a legislative project so it is something that is part of the discussion 28 that the commission and ultimately city council could have about it. The goal and intent is to 29 have it be aligned with the code in terms of that rough proportionality of being similar to other 30 units in the development. He stated if the Commission has a concern about setbacks or open 31 space, it should be flagged whether it is a concern or they want further study. He added that 32 the Office of Transportation is looking at updates to its Bicycle Plan. He thought they could 33 examine how this project is inconsistent with that or where there might be concerns relative to 34 that. 35 Ms. Armer added when a housing development has a variety of proposed different sized 36 houses, if the BMR units are found to be just the two smallest ones or the ones with the least 37 parking, then that stands out as a concern that if there is more than one BMR unit, then they 1 need to be in different categories in terms of unit types. 2 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned comments about green space and circulation on packet 3 page 15 and wondered if it was a general impression comment that this project could do better 4 or if it reflects that staff has some ideas about how things might be improved and if that has 5 that been part of the dialogue with the applicant. Further down on the same page, he asked if 6 there were bike parking racks proposed in the bulb-outs. The concern was that a space needed 7 to be found for them on the private property. He wondered if staff was thinking about whether 8 parking needs to be bundled with the unit for the purpose of the equivalency analysis. He asked 9 if a set of CC&Rs would be required with this project and wondered if that could include a 10 prohibition of resident or guest parking on adjacent private property of Town & Country. He 11 wanted to know if the City regulations associated with Town & Country are really a constraint 12 for this project. He wondered if staff considered whether the policies mentioned on packet 13 page 23 were applicable to this parcel and if so what led them to decide they should be 14 included. He suggested changing the word adjacent in the analysis to avoid confusion. 15 Ms. Kallas explained that comment was also something that came up when this went to 16 preliminary architectural review in December. She anticipated that ARB would continue to have 17 that comment as the project progresses forward. She stated the bulb-outs were not a part of 18 the initial submittal. There had always been bike racks proposed as part of the project but their 19 location may have changed. She confirmed minimum sidewalk widths need to be maintained. 20 She described her understanding that for condominium units providing individual garages, the 21 bundling does not apply. She explained residential CC&Rs are handled when the project applies 22 for the tentative map for condominium purposes. She stated it was considered that both the 23 comprehensive plan and the zoning code defines Town & Country as the parcels bounded by 24 Encina, El Camino, the Caltrain right-of-way and Embarcadero. Because of that reason, the 25 parcels on the other side of the street are not included in that. 26 Director Lait added they would look at the project being proposed and what amenities are 27 being available to each of the units there and would base it on that as opposed to broader local 28 or regional state policies related to parking. They want to see that the BMR units are being 29 treated in a similar context to the rest of the units that are being proposed as part of the 30 development. He explained there could be a condition added that requires it to be 31 incorporated into the CC&R so that when people were purchasing those units they would 32 understand that Town & Country is not an area for parking. 33 Vice Chair Reckdahl questioned if the applicant considered adding a fourth floor to park or all of 34 the development to add more bedrooms. He asked if they could have the part near Encina be 35 four stories with a step up. He pointed out a view on slide seven of the staff report and asked if 36 the trees were part of the development. 37 Mr. Galbraith described the implication of adding another floor would be potentially more cars 1 to park and then Town & Country’s objections to the height. He discussed the challenge of 2 firefighting access limiting them to three stories. He explained on the corner of the building 3 there is the facade facing the parking lot and all of the trees in front of that facade live within 4 the Town & Country parking lot. All the trees on the right half of the image that are on Encina 5 would live in the bulb-outs. The sidewalk in Encina is six feet between the street curb and the 6 property line. With that amount of space, there is no room to host street trees and maintain 7 the required four-foot sidewalk width. If the bulb-outs are lost the trees would be lost on that 8 façade. 9 Commissioner Summa asked if the two remaining parking lots for Town & Country would be 10 necessary once this was built and asked if they lease them. 11 Ms. Kallas replied they have looked at the parking for Town & Country and currently there are 12 spaces in the lots on either side of the subject property that are counted towards their required 13 parking. It was not believed that the parking was likely to change in the near future. 14 15 PUBLIC COMMENTS 16 Dean Rubinson, director of development for Ellis Partners, expressed concerns about the 17 impact of the project on Town & Country including architectural compatibility and serious 18 operational conflicts. He mentioned a letter that had been provided about concerns about 19 noise and parking conflicts. He suggested more parking on the project site would aid in avoiding 20 parking conflicts on Town & Country property. He believed the ARB’s direction to reduce 21 density and increase the setbacks should be followed. He asked staff to require major revisions 22 to the applicant before returning to PTC or ARB and revisit the legality of the CEQA exemption. 23 Randy Popp, architect in Palo Alto, described reasons he did not support the project. He 24 mentioned a letter he sent that was included in the packet that illustrated his concerns. He 25 addressed Commissioners Templeton and Hechtman’s comments restating that the Comp 26 Policy L412 states that the proposed development “should recognize and preserve Town & 27 Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altoans and residents of the wider 28 region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale 29 and architectural character while also improving safe access for bicyclists, pedestrians and 30 increasing the amount of bicycle parking”. He did not see how this project satisfies that 31 requirement. He disagreed with the staff’s interpretation. 32 Bob Taylor, resident of Palo Alto, advocated for the proposed development. He stressed the 33 need to provide housing in the community. He advised that the leaseholders operating Town & 34 Country told him and the owner that they no longer need to rent the parking lot. The 35 leaseholder made a low offer for the land when it was offered for sale and he suspected the 36 owner's rejection of their offer of the land and subsequent termination of the rental of the 37 parking lot by the leaseholders was connected. He strongly urged the Committee to support the 38 development as it was presented. 39 Commissioner Akin discussed his concerns with location of the project, parking issues, the bulb-1 outs and not meeting the RHNA requirements for percentage of affordable units. As a positive, 2 he trusted the applicant would continue to be responsive to requests from Town & Country. He 3 felt the present height was a good compromise. The two and three bedroom units were 4 desirable. He liked seeing provisions for PV panels on the roof. He thought the project should 5 be forwarded to the ARB for further review but he wanted to see his concerns addressed when 6 the project comes back to the PTC. 7 Commissioner Templeton did not agree with staff’s interpretation of L412 and B66. She agreed 8 with Commissioner Akin that it did not feel comfortable to have this type of development in 9 this space because of the isolation. She wanted to see a vision that this was a part of. She was 10 not sure that they were ready to move forward. 11 Commissioner Hechtman was conceptually supportive of the project. He thought staff was 12 trying to harmonize the competing interests reflected in the comp plan. He felt the isolation 13 issue of the project was the short view because more things were going to get built. He had 14 concerns about the idea of overlaying the overall need to provide 40% affordability to satisfy 15 RHNA on market rate developments and he was satisfied with the 20% they were providing. He 16 opined they needed to find a way to green the project up and wondered about green walls. He 17 acknowledged they had to find the right balance regarding the size of the units and lot 18 coverage. The gate issue would need to be solved before they come back. He opined that there 19 were solutions that could be found regarding the noise. He observed that having CC&Rs would 20 ensure the parking issue could be enforced by the City. He did not perceive that cut through 21 traffic was disruptive to the flow of the center and did not believe 10 units at that location 22 would have that effect. Regarding architectural compatibility, the project was located at the 23 backside of Town & Country and felt it unfair to set the bar that it should look like the front of 24 Town & Country. He was supportive of a motion to forward the project to the ARB. 25 Commissioner Lu was supportive of the housing project. He remarked that they were pushing 26 for more housing than the housing element commits to and he was not sure what the 27 consequences would be if they pushed back on housing on the site. He observed the project 28 was community scale. He wished there were more setbacks and opportunity for greenery. He 29 was opposed to the bulb-out. He thought they should rethink Encina more generally. He 30 wanted to forward this to the ARB with the reservations of maximizing green space, opposing 31 the bulb-out and more commentary from staff about the definition of Town & Country in a 32 future hearing. 33 Commissioner Summa thought it was potentially a great place for housing because of its 34 walkability but it felt too tight on the lot. She was concerned that the courtyard was very 35 constrained. She mentioned that the Opportunity Center has housing there already. She 36 opposed the bulb-outs. She stated the gate sounded problematic to her. She did not like the 37 lack of greenery. She thought the changes needed would be obtained by sending the project to 38 the ARB. 39 Vice Chair Reckdahl queried if the trash would be hauled out to the curb or picked up by trash 1 collectors. He worried about the heat island effect of the parking lot. He did not like the bulb-2 outs but that resulted in lack of trees on the site. He opined a green wall would be better than 3 nothing. He did not like the idea of shrinking the units to add trees. 4 Mr. Galbraith believed trash collectors would come and bring the trash out because it was 5 within the distance they service. 6 Chair Chang required more information about how for sale BMR works versus for rent. She 7 hoped there would be solid numbers when this comes back to them. She remarked about the 8 convenience of the location. She agreed school location might be a problem. She observed that 9 parking was needed in the area. She felt the height issue, lack of green space and no setbacks 10 indicated they might be asking too much for such a small site. She hoped the aesthetic concerns 11 raised by the ARB would be addressed. She was not in favor of bulb-outs and using the public 12 right-of-way for a private development. If they were unable to put trees there, she thought the 13 footprint of the building would have to be shrunk. She wished there was a more comprehensive 14 plan for that area. 15 Director Lait explained the requirement for planned home zoning was 80 percent AMI but there 16 are also scenarios where it is required to be at 70 percent. 17 Albert Yang understood for income eligibility, the income of the household could go up to 80 18 percent rent was required to be calculated based on 70 percent. It is more complex than rent. It 19 is about the total monthly payment for which interest rates and HOA fees are taken into 20 account. 21 Commissioner Templeton felt validated that they needed to understand the future context of 22 this street in order to be comfortable with developing this parcel first. The comments of her 23 colleagues convinced her that it should be moved on to the ARB. She agreed the bulb-outs were 24 not favorable. 25 MOTION #1 26 Commissioner Summa moved to send the project to the ARB for further review. 27 SECOND 28 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Akin. 29 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton, Lu) 30 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 1 2 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of April 3 10, 2024 4 5 MOTION 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the PTC Draft Verbatim Minutes of April 10, 2024, 8 as revised. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 13 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Summa, Hechtman, Chang, Akin, Lu) 14 15 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of April 16 24, 2024 17 18 MOTION 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the PTC Draft Verbatim Minutes of April 24, 2024, 21 as revised. 22 23 SECOND 24 25 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 26 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Summa, Hechtman, Chang, Akin, Lu) 27 28 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 29 Minutes of June 12, 2024 30 31 MOTION 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the PTC Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of 34 June 12, 2024, as revised. 35 36 SECOND 37 38 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 1 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Summa, Hechtman, Chang, Akin, Lu) 2 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 3 Commissioner Templeton wondered if she could swap October on-call duty with someone else 4 as her backup was going to be out of town for some of the dates. 5 Commissioner Hechtman offered to swap with Commissioner Templeton giving her light duty in 6 September. 7 Director Lait noted that October 21 would be the PTC work plan presented to City Council. The 8 Chair, Vice Chair or Commissioner Hechtman would be required to be there. 9 Commissioner Hechtman welcomed the new assistant director of planning. He wanted to close 10 the meeting in remembrance of those who lost their lives on September 11. 11 Assistant Director Armer announced meeting schedules would be discussed at the next 12 meeting. 13 ADJOURNMENT 14 8:10 pm 15 16