Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-30 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: October 30, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 7 Chair Chang called the meeting ot order at 6:01 PM. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 13 Aram James requested there be a candidate for School Board or City Council who would 14 address book bans, black studies, and the conflicts in the Middle East. He spoke of the First 15 Amendment rights. 16 17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 18 19 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer noted there were no changes to the agenda. She announced 20 that Commissioner Temple had joined the meeting. 21 22 City Official Reports 23 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 24 25 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer voiced that the November 13 PTC meeting would include the 26 annual comprehensive plan reporting and implementation programs for the Housing Element 27 involving changes to the zoning code. Potential items for the December meetings included the 28 AHIP ordinance, parking programs update, and a couple community zone projects. An item 29 related to implementation of state laws would go to Council on November 12. 30 31 Chair Chang asked if any of the December items may occur sooner. 32 33 Assistant Director Armer did not anticipate the December items occurring sooner. They hoped 34 to have two items for each of December’s two meetings. The parking update was scheduled for 35 December. 36 37 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius stated that next week’s PABAC meeting would be cancelled. 38 39 Vice Chair Reckdahl requested an update concerning the Wilkie Way bike bridge. He asked 40 regarding collision data if there would be a column noting severe injuries. He stated that the 41 purpose of the Bike and Ped Plan was to minimize severe injuries and asked if locations would 1 be broken down. 2 3 Senior Engineer Rius did not have many details regarding the Wilkie Way bike bridge, but the 4 Public Works Department was working on the surfacing. 5 6 Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack believed Public Works was awaiting clearance 7 for the pop-up bike lane on El Camino Real. She mentioned that the Safety Action Plan that 8 would be brought to the PTC in early 2025 would be almost wholly based on collision data for 9 the past five years. The collision analysis contained collision data for the past five years. 10 Because of unreliability of injury data, having short-term data would not be helpful. 11 12 Assistant Director Armer spoke of having reached out to the Police Department and others 13 regarding collision data. She explained that the shared reports contained available information 14 and why additional detail was not provided. If a project should be brought forward in which 15 that information would be an important deciding factor, as much detailed and up-to-date 16 collision data as could be obtained would be provided. They were anticipating that next year 17 staff would speak with the PTC about a safety plan. Regarding the Bike and Ped Plan locations 18 being broken down, she had not reviewed it yet, but the Transportation staff was aware of Vice 19 Chair Reckdahl’s interest in the detail. 20 21 Chair Chang hoped, once the plan was in place, that collision data with respect to serious 22 injuries and deaths would be provided once a year. 23 24 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack explained that the best collision data would be one 25 year to 18 months old. They wanted to review the data more regularly. She added that the 26 Safety Action Plan was about getting to zero injuries for all modes of travel. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton asked if something was needed to get the information in a more 29 timely manner. She suggested that staff needs be explicitly requested. 30 31 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack remarked that the data needed to be analyzed. The 32 plan would address getting data from sources other than the State’s injury database. The plan 33 would address timing of updating the plan, etc. Performance metrics would also be addressed. 34 They needed the PTC’s feedback on the plan. 35 36 Chair Chang inquired if Tesla was in conversation with Palo Alto regarding the city being a 37 testing area for driverless vehicles. 38 39 Senior Engineer Rius replied that he was not familiar with Tesla being in conversation with Palo 40 Alto. He would investigate and bring an update for the next meeting. 41 42 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack added that autonomous vehicles were regulated 43 through the CPUC and the DMV, not the City. 44 Action Items 1 2 2. CONTINUED: The Planning and Transportation Commission to Recommend the City 3 Council to Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 4 18.40.230 (Rooftop Gardens) and 18.40.250 (Lighting) and Adding a New Section 5 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and 6 Exceptions); Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 7 Section 15308 (Actions for Protection of the Environment). 8 9 Senior Planner Kelly Cha expressed that this was a Council priority. The Lighting Ordinance 10 generally followed dark sky principles. The Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance would be 11 implementation of comprehensive plan policy and would complete the Council priority once 12 adopted. Staff had received feedback at the August 24 PTC hearing, which the current version 13 of the draft ordinances addressed. The Lighting Ordinance would repeal the existing section and 14 be replaced with the language in Attachment A. The changes allowed lighting standards to 15 apply to new construction and substantial remodel only. The light color temperature had been 16 changed to 2,700 from 3,000. The ordinance had a threshold of an average maximum of 0.5 17 footcandles. She detailed the exceptions for lighting control/light curfew. They had received a 18 number of comments related to special purpose lighting, and revisions for the outdoor athletic 19 facilities had been proposed. Gas station lighting was now being referred to as automotive 20 service station lighting. A new section had been added for outdoor space above ground floor, 21 and there was a lighting provision standard in the rooftop garden section, so that had been 22 moved into the new section. Lighting near streams would be addressed upon presentation of 23 the Stream Ordinance. There would be a new section in the municipal code for bird-friendly 24 design standards. She outlined how the definition of bird-sensitive area and applicability had 25 been revised. Decals, films, etc., for residential and residential portions of mixed-use 26 development had been added under the bird-friendly treatment section. She outlined why the 27 threat factor option and location requirements had been removed. There were no changes to 28 the applicability section, but she clarified the provisions. Staff recommended that the PTC 29 recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by Council. Should the item be forwarded to 30 Council, it would be heard before Council in the winter of 2025. 31 32 Commissioner Akin addressed Packet Page 21 in E1A and queried from where the lighting 33 trespass was measured; if the language in the code for automobile service stations was broad 34 enough to include EV charging stations; if any bird-friendly treatments would be missed by 35 removing the threat factor criterium on Packet Page 30 D3; and if bird-friendly treatment would 36 be required on an entire building elevation. 37 38 Senior Planner Cha responded that lighting trespass would be measured at a property line at 39 ground level. They did not have definitions specifically referring to EV stations, but they would 40 be included under the automobile service stations section. She stated that the section may not 41 include all bird-friendly treatments, but there was alternative compliance language, which she 42 outlined. Bird-friendly treatment would be required on an entire building elevation within the 43 bird-sensitive areas, and she specified what would be required outside bird-sensitive areas. 44 1 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer clarified that the term service stations included EV, and staff 2 was comfortable with the term. She stated that the entire elevation of the building referred to 3 fenestration, including all other bird-hazard installations. 4 5 Commissioner Summa inquired how foot candles were measured and how light would be 6 measured/evaluated in the field. 7 8 Senior Planner Cha explained that the foot candle measurement was generally used, and she 9 defined foot candle. New construction/substantial remodel plans would have to show lighting 10 compliance. She would have to check with inspectors concerning measuring light in the field. 11 12 Assistant Director Armer added that there were tools available to check lighting levels in the 13 field. 14 15 Commissioner Lu asked what Section E4A on Packet Page 21 referred to. 16 17 Senior Planner Cha answered that there was a spelling error on Packet Page 21. It referred to 18 section 18.40.250E4A under lighting control. 19 20 Commissioner Lu thought there was a typo in the section related to string lighting as well. He 21 queried if seasonal lighting needed to be addressed under exemptions. With respect to bird 22 safety, he asked how an unbroken 24-square-foot surface was defined. 23 24 Assistant Director Armer voiced that staff thought it was helpful to have seasonal lighting 25 referenced under exemptions. 26 27 Senior Planner Cha defined an unbroken 24-square-foot surface. 28 29 Assistant Director Armer elaborated on the definition of an unbroken 24-square-foot surface. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton focused on Slide 3 and questioned if staff was asking the PTC to 32 repeal lighting standards. 33 34 Assistant Director Armer stated many changes were being made to the lighting standards, so it 35 was more straightforward to repeal and replace, which was standard operating practice. 36 37 Chair Chang asked what the intention was for E1B (shielding) on Packet Page 21. She 38 referenced B8 on Packet Page 20 and understood that string lighting not part of seasonal 39 lighting installation would not be considered holiday lighting but there was holiday lighting that 40 included string lighting. 41 42 Senior Planner Cha discussed the intention of E1B on Packet Page 21. 43 44 Assistant Director Armer stated the language of E1B could be modified. It was intended to be 1 where a driveway exited a property and connected with a street. She confirmed that Chair 2 Chang’s comments related to string lighting were correct and language could be modified to 3 provide clarification. 4 5 Public Comments 6 Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, appreciated 7 the 2,700 kelvin requirement. They had sent an email recommending applicability for new and 8 replacement fixtures be reinstated; a hardship exemption for replacement lighting for older 9 buildings; and prohibiting light trespass entirely rather than establishing a 0.5 foot candle 10 threshold. The email contained a couple other recommendations. 11 12 Julianne Wang, with Santa Clara County Bird Alliance (SCCBA), displayed slides and discussed 13 the importance of bird collision prevention. 14 15 Shani Kleinhaus (Diane M., Lyn H., Alan K., Aubrey K., Tristan R.), Environmental Advocate for 16 SCVBA and a PRC commissioner, stated she did not speak for the PRC. A letter had been 17 submitted with recommendations, which included addressing glass reflectivity, which she 18 elaborated on. They suggested glass treatment for residential and commercial and industrial 19 buildings be addressed differently, that areas along natural streams be added to bird-sensitive 20 areas, and that the size of bird hazard installations be reconsidered. They had added some 21 materials to the bird treatments list. If threat factors were to be included as an alternative 22 option, it being be no more than 25 feet and with no averaging should be included. She noted 23 that bird-safe design was an emerging field. They requested that new additions to historic 24 buildings not be exempt. She noted that she regretted suggested adding UV and asked instead 25 that it not be included. She hoped that everything would start with retrofitting and then 26 exemptions be given to housing and residential – 40 percent in the main area and 10 percent 27 elsewhere. 28 29 Cedric De La Beaujardiere was concerned that the PTC was erring too much in favor of 30 protecting homeowners and not the environment. He did not agree with all urbanized areas 31 being excluded. He thought there should be a minimum 300-foot buffer from creeks and that 32 applying it to the whole city, not just waterways, would keep it simple. He discussed UV 33 successfully reducing bird collisions. He thought glazing posing threats to birds should be 34 considered. 35 36 Chair Chang suggested the Commission first discuss dark skies and then bird safety. 37 38 Commissioner Summa thought that in general the dark skies ordinance as proposed was good. 39 She referenced C2 on Packet Page 21 and thought it should be reinstated but with a hardship 40 exemption. She felt that Palo Alto should reduce trespass lighting to 0.1 if other municipalities 41 were doing that. She stated that Goal 6 was about retaining biodiversity and habitat. She 42 believed having no light trespass would be easy to do but she would also be happy with 0.1. She 43 suggested the duration of motor sensor activated lighting be five minutes. The purpose of the 1 ordinance was to reduce light pollution, and the current standard in the code for light trespass 2 was 0.5. She requested that the terms fixtures and luminaire be consistent. 3 4 Commissioner Akin addressed the measurement of light trespass and suggested there be zero 5 trespass beyond a property line. He discussed flagging triggering events of new luminaries 6 being installed, such as the issuance of a building permit, and without a triggering event, he did 7 not know how conformance with the new standards would be required. He asked if such a 8 requirement could be clarified in the ordinance. 9 10 Assistant Director Armer stated, regarding new luminaries, that the language could be 11 expanded slightly to apply to anything requiring a building permit. There was not an 12 enforcement mechanism for swapping out a lighting fixture if no requirement for a building or 13 electrical permit was required. 14 15 Chair Chang thought light trespass should be zero. She questioned if anything could be done 16 with applicability that would not create an enforcement problem and if it should be reinstated 17 with a certain deadline. 18 19 Assistant Director Armer remarked that staff would do outreach and education related to the 20 new regulations. There was a concern in implementing a requirement to folks who were not 21 planning to make any lighting changes. The language could be slightly expanded to any permit 22 associated with lighting replacement rather than just substantial remodels. 23 24 Chair Chang supported a change that would broaden the requirement to anything requiring a 25 building permit. She voiced her concerns with applicability not applying to the entire city and 26 this possibly taking years to implement. She thought five minutes was appropriate for motion 27 detector lighting time. She called attention to D2 on Packet Page 21 and requested the 28 definition of low-intensity lamps. 29 30 Assistant Director Armer stated the PTC could recommend to Council that staff do specific 31 additional outreach to the community as part of the implementation of the ordinance. The 32 objective standards related to D2 on Packet Page 21 was noted in other portions [of the 33 ordinance 1:32:17]. 34 35 Senior Planner Cha stated that D2 on Packet Page 21 was not a mandatory requirement but was 36 a guideline and encouraged. 37 38 Chair Chang suggested there be a guideline on applicability to apply to everything. She 39 addressed Packet Page 21 and asked if low voltage landscape lighting should be defined. 40 41 Senior Planner Cha answered that the standard specified 10-watt landscape lighting. 42 43 Vice Chair Reckdahl did not think much progress would be made without there being 1 enforcement for replacement lighting. He asked how requiring energy efficient appliances, etc., 2 within a home were addressed in the City code and if it applied only to significant remodels. He 3 thought five minutes or shorter was appropriate for motion detector lighting time and that 4 there should be no light trespass beyond a property line. 5 6 Senior Planner Cha stated she would have to follow up with details related to the City code 7 addressing requirements for energy efficient appliances, etc., but she believed it was related to 8 building permits. 9 10 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that there were federal regulations governing the 11 efficiency of appliances. At the local level, he explained that the building permit stage would 12 look at an energy budget for the project. The local ordinance would apply only in the case of a 13 permit. 14 15 Commissioner Akin defined low-voltage lighting. 16 17 Commissioner Lu was torn about the issues around enforceability and making it a meaningful 18 part of the ordinance. He would be comfortable with a hardship exemption if there was clear 19 criteria. He stated that 4B, 4C, and 4D on Packet Page 24 did not make sense. He asked if no-20 trespass lighting was a practical standard. 21 22 Senior Planner Cha expressed that 4C and 4D could be combined, so there would be no conflict. 23 The trespass light could be changed to basically zero. She discussed why staff had suggested 0.5 24 foot candle. She explained why there could still be light trespass even if light trespass was to be 25 zero. 26 27 Long Range Planning Manager Coleman Frick explained staff’s reasoning as it related to the 28 lighting trespass threshold presented in the ordinance. 29 30 Vice Chair Reckdahl inquired if a fence would be considered light shielding. 31 32 Assistant Director Armer answered that the fence could stop light trespass onto a neighbor’s 33 property but it would not count as the shielding described. 34 35 Long Range Planning Manager Frick explained that fencing may not necessarily create a long-36 term shielding solution. 37 38 Senior Planner Cha added there was a definition of fully shielded, and structure shielding would 39 probably not count as shielded lighting. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton provided an example of fencing not being enough to shield lighting. 42 43 Commissioner Summa addressed C3 on Packet Page 21 and stated that applying lighting 1 standards across the city would not be inconsistent with the existing municipal code nor would 2 it be a deviation from what was currently done. There were eight requirements in the municipal 3 code. The ordinance would not require lighting to be replaced, but if it should be replaced, the 4 new requirements must be followed. 5 6 Senior Planner Cha stated that staff was trying to make it clear when the lighting would actually 7 apply. The current lighting section was a little silent on when these would be applied, and staff 8 was trying to ensure that applicability would be clearly stated in the ordinance. If the PTC 9 wanted to add existing fixture replacement or reinstate the particular removed provision under 10 applicability, there could be a modification made to the recommendation. 11 12 MOTION #1 13 14 Commissioner Summa moved the staff’s recommendation with a new draft with the following 15 changes: Reinstate C3 on Packet Page 21, change shielding on Packet Page 21 to either no 16 trespassing or 0.1 from 0.5 beyond a property line, reduce the time of a lighting triggered by a 17 motion sensor to 5 minutes from 10 minutes, and consider the clarifications of the definitions 18 included in the letter from the Sierra Club. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 The motion was seconded by Chair Chang. 23 24 Commissioner Lu asked if follow-on work to address education should be recommended to 25 Council and if there should be dark skies requirements for indoor commercial lighting. 26 27 [____ 1:52:28] considered that friendly. 28 29 Commissioner Lu suggested there be a hardship exemption. He thought the outdoor space 30 above ground floor section needed substantial work, that there should be clarification on string 31 lighting, and that the numbering throughout the section needed to edited, though he did not 32 know if that needed to be part of the motion. 33 34 Commissioner Summa commented that she had forgotten to add the hardship exemption. She 35 was happy to accept as an amendment some concept about education and indoor lighting, 36 especially in commercial buildings at night. She did not feel there had been enough discussion 37 to add outdoor space above ground floor to the motion, and suggested that Commissioner Lu 38 pursue a separate motion concerning that. 39 40 Commissioner Lu thought staff recognized that 4C and 4D was a contradiction that needed to 41 be modified and that 4B introduced a new concept of requiring lights off in above ground 42 outdoor space after 10 PM. 43 1 Chair Chang accepted the amendments that had been accepted by Commissioner Summa. She 2 did not think this motion should include Item 4 on Packet Page 24 and that it should be 3 addressed separately. 4 5 Assistant Director Armer requested that the friendly amendments accepted by the maker and 6 seconder of the motion be clearly stated, and she asked that the trespass beyond a property 7 line be identified as zero or 0.1. 8 9 Chair Chang restated the motion to be to move the staff recommended ordinance for lighting 10 with the following changes: Reinstate C3 on Packet Page 21 with the addition of a hardship 11 exception; change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout 12 the ordinance; change the time limit to 5 minutes, from 10 minutes, for motion sensor lighting 13 to turn off; consider the definition comments given by the Sierra Club; and recommend to 14 Council that further outreach be done to educate the public and to, in the future, look at indoor 15 commercial lights as it regards dark skies. 16 17 Assistant Director Armer commented that staff could work on the specificity of the hardship 18 exemption, but it would be helpful if the PTC included direction. 19 20 Senior Planner Cha stated it would be helpful if the PTC indicated the types of findings staff 21 should consider in a hardship exemption. 22 23 Assistant Director Armer voiced that whether a hardship exception provision should be 24 considered could be presented to Council for consideration. 25 26 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated that research into what other communities had done for hardship 27 might be a good sample point for Council’s consideration and also recommendations staff 28 would have for hardships. 29 30 Chair Chang did not think it should be financially burdensome. 31 32 Assistant Director Armer would take that recommendation and provide Council something to 33 consider. 34 35 Commissioner Summa added that a hardship may be it being technically infeasible [or 1:59:54] 36 inconsistent with a historic structure. 37 38 Chair Chang declared that direction was being given related to hardship, that it was not being 39 added to the motion. 40 41 Assistant Director Armer noted that the motion maker and seconder agreed with the motion as 42 restated. 43 44 VOTE MOTION #1 1 2 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 3 4 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa, Templeton) (Hechtman absent) 5 6 Chair Chang moved to the discussion related to bird-friendly design. 7 8 Commissioner Summa was in favor of extending the bird-sensitive areas to incorporate areas 9 around creeks (definitely natural creeks) in the urbanized areas. She voiced that the 10 recommendation from the Bird Alliance was a 300-foot buffer in the case of natural creeks. She 11 requested clarification of the recommendation for façade untreated glass or glazing in bird-12 sensitive areas and commercial citywide. She supported bird-hazard installation [citywide 13 2:04:28]. 14 15 Assistant Director Armer clarified what glazing treatment, etc., would apply to all windows in 16 the bird-sensitive areas and what would apply to the areas of town not categorized as bird-17 sensitive. 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl supported having less than 10 percent untreated within the BSA and no 20 more than 40 percent untreated outside the BSA. He thought the buffer should be 300 feet 21 from natural creeks and that it may be extended to urbanized creeks in the future. 22 23 Commissioner Akin concurred with Vice Chair Reckdahl [and Commissioner Summa’s 2:05:52] 24 opinions. He had found the Bird Alliance definition changes, particularly for bird-hazard 25 installations, to be more precise and a better characterization of the hazards than what was in 26 the current proposal, and he wanted them incorporated into the ordinance. He questioned if 27 there would be difficulty in identifying properties falling within a bird-sensitive area and in 28 conveying that to project applicants. 29 30 Senior Planner Cha replied that a clear map would be provided to an applicant. The staff report 31 included two map options, which she detailed, which could be provided to the public if adopted 32 as part of the ordinance. If incorporated, it would be easy to identify a location. She noted that 33 the buffer would be created from the centerline, not the top of the bank. 34 35 Vice Chair Reckdahl inquired if there was a legal definition of a creek center and [what percent 36 of the parcel had to be 2:08:43] within 300 feet. 37 38 Senior Planner Cha would have to check on the legal definition of a creek center, but generally 39 centerline referenced the data in GIS layer. Regarding [what percent of the parcel had to be 40 2:08:43] within 300 feet, it would be anything intersecting with the buffer area once created, 41 but there was a question of it applying if only a tip of property intersected with a buffer area. 42 43 Assistant Director Armer added that in terms of implementation it would be simplest to 1 indicate that any portion of a property within the buffer area would apply consistently across a 2 parcel. 3 4 Commissioner Akin noted there were a number of suggestions that deserved attention. He did 5 not know how much discussion Council might like to have related to numerical details, such as 6 the distance between parallel glass elements, and he requested some direction. 7 8 Commissioner Lu agreed with prioritizing an overall surface area view rather than the 24 square 9 foot. He preferred an option that would be percentage based, which would include glass, wall, 10 fenestration, etc., and the percentage could be adjusted in the future. He was comfortable with 11 residential development using decals, etc. He asked if, in the percentage, any nontransparent or 12 nonreflective material would be counted as bird-safe. 13 14 Assistant Director Armer thought staff needed clarification from the PTC regarding percentage 15 of nontransparent or nonreflective material. 16 17 Senior Planner Cha added that the intent of the ordinance specified glass, staff indented to 18 count the fenestration portion of a building façade, but staff could consider counting the entire 19 wall, not just fenestration portions, if the PTC directed such. 20 21 Discussion ensued regarding the language/definition of [percentages 2:13:3] related to building 22 elevation, fenestration, glass, etc. 23 24 Senior Planner Cha noted that reflection level was not part of the ordinance, which could be 25 added, and the PTC could consider it. 26 27 Commissioner Akin commented that the entire surface should be used related to the 28 percentage. He was concerned that some building façades may not need treatment, but he did 29 not know if there was an easy way to specify it. He otherwise concurred with Commissioner 30 Lu’s comments. 31 32 Chair Chang referenced Slide 8 and was concerned that commercial buildings outside the bird-33 safety area could use a 24-square foot panel of glass repetitively. She understood from the PTC 34 that the ordinance should be stringent for commercial versus residential because materials 35 were readily available. She wanted the bird-friendly design to apply to all new construction, 36 substantial remodels, new or replacement of existing for everything in the city with exceptions 37 for residential, allowing greater exception for residential outside the bird-safety area than for 38 residential inside the bird-safety area. 39 40 Senior Planner Cha explained, related to panels of glass being used repetitively, that windows 41 could be designed to be under 24 square feet. She confirmed that Chair Chang’s direction was 42 clear. She noted that commercial included small retail and requested it be considered. 43 44 Chair Chang voiced that there was an exception in the ordinance for retail, which addressed her 1 concern. She thought the bird-hazard installations revised definition submitted by Bird Alliance 2 was valuable, and she agreed with all the revised definitions in the section but with adding a 3 definition for reflectivity. 4 5 Commissioner Lu addressed applicability for commercial under Chair Chang’s framing and 6 wanted to think about the unintended consequences of building costs increasing by 2 to 10 7 percent, for a 2-story building as an example. 8 9 Chair Chang stated that the building cost increase was closer to 2 percent than 10 percent of 10 the total construction cost. She discussed respecting wildlife, and she did not understand why 11 buildings had to had massive reflective surfaces or glass. She wanted to make the requirement 12 for commercial and felt commercial should be held to the 10-percent standard no matter 13 where the location. 14 15 Commissioner Reckdahl agreed with Chair Chang’s framing since commercial would receive a 16 10-percent exemption. 17 18 Commissioner Summa supported it applying all new development, substantial remodel, new 19 and replacement fenestration and bird-hazard installs in the BSA with all nonresidential 20 citywide to be no more than 10 percent of a façade being untreated glass/glazing and no more 21 than 40 percent for residential outside the BSA. She discussed this likely not affecting the 22 majority of home builds. She supported the Bird Alliance definition of bird-hazard installations 23 and the concept of those always being treated throughout the city. 24 25 Commissioner Akin was not concerned with eliminating the 24-square-foot limit and using 40 26 percent. 27 28 MOTION #2 29 30 Commissioner Akin moved staff’s recommendation with the following modifications: Apply to 31 all new development, substantial remodel and new and replacement and fenestration and bird-32 hazard installations for all commercial developments citywide and for all residential in the BSA 33 and that no more than 10 percent of a façade being untreated glazing, and for residential 34 outside the BSAs, no more than 40 percent of a façade being untreated glazed; eliminate the 35 24-square foot panel limit; and that the Santa Clara County Bird Alliance’s bird-hazard definition 36 be included in the ordinance. Regarding the BSA, he moved adopting the map east of 101, west 37 of Foothill, and within 300 feet of natural streams in the area between. 38 39 SECOND 40 41 Commissioner Reckdahl seconded the motion. 42 43 Chair Chang suggested a friendly amendment and that the language be: no untreated 1 glass/glazing shall be allowed to be greater than 24 square feet or unbroken for greater than 24 2 square feet. 3 4 Commissioner Akin would accept that with a couple clarifications. He suggested the term be 5 glazing, not glass. He questioned what would constitute an interrupted panel of glass. He did 6 not object to the intent of the amendment but to its implementability. 7 8 Vice Chair Reckdahl explained why he wanted the percentage and [that 2:37:25]. 9 10 Chair Chang thought window trim would constitute interrupted, so there could be several 24-11 foot panels side by side with very thin trim work, but she explained that it would be limited. 12 13 Commissioner Summer queried if that was covered. 14 15 Commissioner Akin clarified that it was not always covered by the bird-hazard parallel glass 16 statement. He did not know what the proper trim width should be. He suggested the limit of 17 uninterrupted glass/glazing be 24 square feet. 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated that large windows were not good, and the PTC was attempting to 20 regulate that two ways, which he elaborated on. He supported a 24-foot limit of unbroken 21 glass/glazing. 22 23 The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker and the seconder. 24 25 Commissioner Summa wanted to amend the motion to add the Bird Alliance’s alternate 26 compliance with specific language related to having a degree in wildlife biology or specialization 27 needing to be proved. She discussed why she was uncomfortable exempting additions to 28 historic structures and recommended removing that exclusion. 29 30 Commissioner Akin accepted both amendments. 31 32 Vice Chair Reckdahl accepted the amendments. He was nervous about [that 2:44:43] being very 33 arbitrary but he wanted there to be a relief valve if it was onerous. He wanted to try it, and he 34 stated it could be repealed. 35 36 Commissioner Lu discussed accreditation systems for wildlife specialization possibly being 37 limited. He was concerned that the amendment was very specific, but staff could research 38 accreditation systems availability. 39 40 Chair Chang noted that there was a safety valve of alternative compliance, which was being 41 modified to require more qualifications. 42 43 Discussion commenced concerning the safety valve on Packet Page 30. 44 1 Chair Chang requested the specific language regarding alternative compliance. 2 3 Commissioner Summa stated that the language was: shall be accredited in bird-friendly design 4 or have a degree in wildlife biology or specialization in ornithology and have five years’ 5 experience in bird-friendly building design. 6 7 VOTE MOTION #2 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 10 11 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Templeton, Summa, Reckdahl, Lu, Chang, Akin) (Hechtman absent) 12 13 [The Commission took a seven-minute break] 14 15 Study Session 16 17 3. Request for Feedback on the Development of a Feasibility Study for a Shared 18 Micromobility Program in Palo Alto; CEQA status – Not a Project 19 20 Transportation Planning Manager Sylvia Star-Lack introduced Senior Transportation Planner 21 Katie Heuser. 22 23 Senior Transportation Planner Katie Heuser stated that the objectives for this meeting were to 24 discuss a need for and components of a feasibility study and to review major considerations for 25 a micromobility program. She defined micromobility, AKA bike share or scooter share. Shared 26 micromobility was a common transportation service in North America and was recovering after 27 COVID with ridership peaks recorded in 2023. Micromobility was included in various City plans, 28 and she outlined some benefits. Staff recommended conducting a feasibility study, which had 29 two purposes. She discussed costs associated with a micromobility program. Many potential 30 funding sources had been identified, which she detailed. She highlighted that funding would be 31 needed for capital costs, operations, and maintenance. No matter the structure of a program, 32 public funding would be necessary. The second reason for recommending a feasibility study 33 was because of administrative and technical components of a micromobility program. The 34 study would determine the most sustainable program structure. She furnished a slide with 35 some technical questions a study would answer and a slide with proposed content. The study 36 would include data analyses using demographic community and activity data, and she provided 37 a slide with two options. Staff requested feedback on five areas that a feasibility study would 38 explore – PTCs goals and priorities for micromobility, which would shape the direction of the 39 program; a service coverage area, where devices would be allowed to operate; form factor, 40 such as E-bikes, scooters, etc; system type, such as station-based or docked, dockless, and a 41 hybrid system; and ownership and operations, so a business model that would own and 42 operate the program must be determined (she shared a slide with three common models). She 43 added related to service coverage area that staff was in conversation with Stanford concerning 1 including the university in a program, which would represent a significant user market. If they 2 elected not to be a part of the program, additional operational challenges would need to be 3 addressed. Regarding the form factor, staff was open to the PTC recommending devices, 4 although staff recommended initially providing all types of devices and the type and ratio could 5 be narrowed based on ridership numbers. 6 7 Public Comments 8 Cedric De La Beaujardiere had frequently made use of bicycle systems in other cities, and he 9 strongly encouraged a pilot program. He suggested there be a mix of vehicles. He did have a 10 strong preference for docked versus dockless, although dockless could be an organic way to 11 determine area usage. He recommended there be a good mapping application showing location 12 of vehicles by type and charges remaining on electric devices. He suggested there be an ability 13 to reserve a bike, that E-bikes be pedal assist and not exclusively throttle, and that there be a 14 clear border of bike operation. 15 16 Commissioner Akin had been struck by the inset on Slide 4, which suggested to him that 17 scooters might the best option for Palo Alto. He noted that the rate for scooters was 18 comparable to the combination of the rate for bikes, and he suggested that be flagged for the 19 study. He hoped the study would take into account metrics to determine how well the program 20 might reduce GHG emissions, etc., not just ridership. He thought partnering with Mountain 21 View seemed essential. He called attention to side Slide 5 and questioned how it had been 22 determined that 37 percent of shared micromobility trips replaced a car trip. He did not know if 23 Palo Alto may have different conditions than that of a large metro area. 24 25 Senior Transportation Planner Heuser answered that the North American Bike Share and 26 Scooter Share Association (NABSA) calculated that 37 percent of shared micromobility trips 27 replaced a car trip. She would have to review their methodology, which was listed in one of 28 their reports. 29 30 Vice Chair Reckdahl questioned what happened to the Bike Share Program, which had been 31 over five years ago. He asked how many vehicles would be needed. He suspected that many 32 vehicles would be needed at the train station. Reserving a bike would be a good feature but 33 make it more complicated. He questioned if helmets should be required and who would 34 provide the helmets; if the City had to purchase an additional insurance policy or it was covered 35 under the general policy; if scooters cluttering the sidewalks would be a problem; and if a bike 36 ranger may be needed to reposition bikes for the following day. 37 38 Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi replied that the City had not operated a bicycle and 39 scooter share. He discussed what had happened historically and that in 2017 a bike share 40 program had not been approved and a pilot was approved just before the pandemic and that 41 was not delivered. He explained that the form factor may have to be determined by vendors. 42 He stated that a scooter share in San Francisco had sent a free helmet to folks who signed up. 43 Typically the company operating the service would provide insurance, assuming the city would 1 not be operating the service. Some companies allowed carrot-and-stick parking, which he 2 elaborated on. 3 4 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack added that the early Bay Area bike share system 5 had docks in Palo Alto, but there were not enough. She expressed that upon services starting 6 there would probably be a three- to six-month orientation period for the community, so clutter 7 may be experienced during that time. 8 9 Senior Transportation Planner Heuser stated that the number of vehicles would be considered 10 in the study. Staff had suggested 700 vehicles for the 2018 pilot, but it needed to be reassessed. 11 Packet Page 51 addressed requirements for helmets, etc. Legally minors with a learner’s permit 12 or a driver’s license must wear a helmet. Some operators provided helmets, but typically one 13 must provide their own. She thought the city was constantly improving scooters cluttering 14 sidewalks and that the lock to a bike rack had been key in decreasing clutter, but establishing 15 the correct number of vehicles and ensuring that operators adequately distribute vehicles were 16 keys in decreasing clutter. A team with a car would be needed to reposition vehicles. 17 18 Commissioner Lu disclosed that he had worked at Bird scooters from 2018 to 2020, and he did 19 not own shares or have actual conflicts. He discussed the importance of the study getting 20 preliminary interest from all companies. He wanted to know if Stanford would allow scooters or 21 bikes on their campus, research park, etc. He thought that was the big framing question and 22 then the vendors would be able to give somewhat cogent proposals. He added that then would 23 be the time for more community engagement, although early engagement would be needed 24 but not too early. He wanted to take a stand on safety, such as age restrictions, etc. He 25 suggested there be parking fines, etc., and that all vehicles have a locking mechanism. 26 Regarding device form factor, he thought bikes were desirable for distances over a mile [and 27 shorter distances and that E-scooters were more suitable for one to two miles 3:34:12], 28 although the vehicle decision hinged to some extent on Stanford and the operators. He 29 referenced the slide concerning station-based, and he thought it was possible to have a 30 pseudo-docked program, which he explained and asked it to be considered. He supported 31 having available parking in many places in an orderly way. 32 33 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack clarified a state law and indicated that 34 micromobility spaces were already available essentially. 35 36 Commissioner Summa was generally in favor of a feasibility study. She thought it was important 37 that Stanford partner with the city or be agreeable to it. She did not know if there would be 38 broad enough use otherwise. She saw the new neighborhood that would be created in San 39 Antonio near 101 having many users. She was concerned that much money would be put into a 40 pilot program and that the financials would not be enough to continue the program. She 41 wanted to ensure that the feasibility study have a plan for the start-up and a sustainability plan. 42 Safety was important and she wanted E-scooters to follow the rules of the road when in the 43 street. She asked if the new law required that every intersection’s first parking spot be available 44 for scooters in business districts. She thought there should be partnership with Mountain View. 1 She requested the study have information about cities the size of Palo Alto and the success of 2 those cities and that it include university towns if Stanford is to be a partner. A mix of vehicles 3 was appealing, but she did not have a strong opinion. She believed cargo bikes would be helpful 4 for those in low-income housing and she requested that be included in determining interest 5 and potential users. 6 7 Transportation Planning Manager Star-Lack confirmed that AB413 would require that every 8 intersection’s first parking spot be available for micromobility vehicles in any district. One 9 parking spot length was the optimal length for safety. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton inquired what age ranges the program was targeting and if options 12 suitable for those over 55 years of age had been considered. 13 14 Senior Transportation Planner Heuser replied that E-scooter users were required to have a 15 driver’s license or learner’s permit, so they had to be at least 15½ years of age. Options suitable 16 for those over 55 years of age had been considered, and she supplied Slide 17 showing 17 preferred two-wheeled vehicles. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton proposed there to be options available with more than two wheels. 20 She questioned if preteens should be allowed to use these vehicles, and she suggested there be 21 plans for enforcement for joyriding. 22 23 Chair Chang thought of this as a solution for the public transportation last-mile problem. She 24 discussed affordability and surge pricing being problematic. She thought a partnership with 25 Stanford was key, and she wanted to potentially partner with Mountain View. She added that 26 using city borders as a vehicle border would be confusing. She called attention to Packet Page 27 52 and asked what the difference was in multiple system types versus hybrid. She believed the 28 Bike Ped Plan public feedback included a lot of concerns about E-bikes and safety, and she 29 wondered if the program should not start with E-bikes. Regarding ownership, she queried if 30 there was a nonprofit in the area. 31 32 Senior Transportation Planner Heuser believed multiple system types versus hybrid referred to 33 station-based bikes but dockless scooters. Staff could look into ownership and nonprofits. 34 35 Vice Chair Reckdahl asked what the standard pricing scheme was. He suggested the city provide 36 special fees for those with low-income. 37 38 Senior Transportation Planner Heuser responded that there were different pricing models, 39 which she outlined. She thought having flexibility had proven to work effectively. 40 41 Commissioner Lu wanted economic feasibility to be addressed. He voiced that publicly 42 operated programs often required intense subsidies. Private programs were often not 43 sustainable full stop, and having Stanford participate would make it more likely to be 44 sustainable. He thought prices controls should be considered, which he detailed. He discussed 1 pricing, and he did not consider scooter/bike share to be affordable compared to bus fares and 2 did not think this should be looked at as being an inexpensive form of public transportation, as 3 it would likely be moderately priced. However, there could be a designation of affordable for a 4 small portion of the community. He thought the city could control the number of vehicles and 5 operators. He voiced that having a tighter level of control on prices and more dedicated staff 6 time would make it more sustainable, and he explained that choosing one operator could make 7 lower pricing possible. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton noted that with her former employer she had seen thefts of bikes 10 and bikes needing maintenance. That program focused on an active, young demographic and 11 not a variety of people. She thought it would be hard to keep a program going even when 12 taking into account equipment and docking costs. She wondered if staff would be able to solve 13 all the potential problems. She encouraged reaching out to others with such programs to get 14 recommendations, etc. She stated she loved the vision but it would be challenging. 15 16 Commissioner Summa thought this sounded less feasible after hearing the comments of 17 Commissioners Lu and Templeton. Hearing the comment that this would not provide 18 affordability was sobering. She thought a program such as this would work better in a corporate 19 structure, not a city structure. She worried about staff time and this becoming a huge project 20 for them to manage under any of the three scenarios. 21 22 Commissioner Lu stated that affordability was relative, that it could be less expensive than the 23 ride share option but it was not affordable for everyone. 24 25 Chair Chang thought staff should consider economics and staffing and use a ride share service 26 as a threshold. She did not think it would work if it was going to be more expensive than a ride 27 share service. She wanted thought given to where to and not to subsidize, such as the Homekey 28 area being subsidized. She wanted the plans to include this being sustainable beyond the pilot 29 program. She added that Stanford had expertise on such a program. 30 31 Approval of Minutes 32 33 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of 34 August 14, 2024 35 36 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 37 Minutes of August 28, 2024 38 39 40 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 41 Minutes of September 11, 2024 42 43 MOTION #3 1 2 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved to approve the draft verbatim minutes of August 14, 2024, as 3 revised. 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 8 9 VOTE MOTION #3 10 11 Chair Chang took a voice vote. 12 13 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Lu, Summa, Templeton) (Hechtman absent) 14 15 MOTION #4 16 17 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved to approve the draft verbatim and summary minutes of August 28, 18 2024, as revised. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 23 24 VOTE MOTION #4 25 26 Chair Chang took a voice vote. 27 28 MOTION PASSED 5-0-1-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Lu, Templeton) (Summa abstained) 29 (Hechtman absent) 30 31 MOTION #5 32 33 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved to approve the draft verbatim and summary minutes of September 34 11, 2024, as revised. 35 36 SECOND 37 38 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 39 40 VOTE MOTION #5 41 42 Chair Chang took a voice vote. 1 2 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Lu, Summa, Templeton) (Hechtman absent) 3 4 Commissioner Comments 5 6 Chair Chang announced that on [Monday, October 21, 2024 4:04:19 ], she presented the work 7 plan to Council, which they approved. A couple Council members asked the PTC to look at what 8 had worked for past planning efforts, like NVCAP or SOFA, to learn what was effective. She 9 thought staff would have to assist in that, which could be requested. 10 11 Commissioner Summa mentioned that she and Commissioner Reckdahl had attended a staff 12 community meeting for the Crescent Park traffic calming [inaudible 4:05:55], and it seemed 13 that there had been some improvements. They were at 60 engineering and aiming to be at 90 14 percent the next time they visited the neighborhood. A fair number of community members 15 had attended. She thought it would be presented to the PTC [early 4:06:34] 2025. 16 Adjournment 17 18 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 10:03 PM. 19