Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-11 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: December 11, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 13 There were no public comments. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 17 There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions. 18 19 City Official Reports 20 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 21 22 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer displayed slides with upcoming PTC meetings, which included 23 a special meeting on December 17, a study for the El Camino Real focus area. A special meeting 24 was scheduled for January 15 for 3265 El Camino Real zoning for 100 percent affordable 25 housing. There would be a meeting on January 29, which would include two transportation-26 related projects, the parking programs update, and a draft Safe Streets for All Safety Action 27 Plan. 28 29 Commissioner Templeton asked why the December 18 meeting had been changed to December 30 17. 31 32 Jennifer Armer explained why the meeting scheduled for December 18 had changed to 33 December 17. 34 35 Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi had no transportation updates. He announced that he 36 had stepped down as the Chief Transportation Official. He was honored to have served the 37 community, which had been a deeply fulfilling experience. He was grateful to the residents for 38 trusting in him. He thanked the staff of OOT. He appreciated the support he had received from 39 the City’s leadership. He stated that it had been a pleasure working with the PTC, and he 1 thanked them. 2 3 Chair Chang wished Philip Kamhi the best. 4 5 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius thanked Philip Kamhi for his service and wished him luck. He noted 6 that the December meetings for the Rail Committee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory 7 Committee had been cancelled. The PABAC cancellation had delayed the collision reports, 8 which he would try to get to the PTC before the first January meeting. 9 Action Items 10 11 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: 12 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned 13 Community Zone District (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 14 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 15 Additional Assisted Living Units and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. 16 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California 17 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 18 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned 19 Community). 20 21 Chair Chang asked if there were any disclosures or recusals. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton had nothing to disclose. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman disclosed that had met with a number of residents on Wilkie Lane and 26 toured a number of backyards to see the relationship between the properties and the proposed 27 project. Residents had divulged concerns, which he thought were contained in the written 28 communications submitted. He disclosed that the packet contained a letter from an attorney 29 whom he had known and worked with for many years. The attorney had phoned him to let him 30 know he would be submitting a letter. The attorney had later emailed him a copy of the letter, 31 and Commissioner Hechtman responded to him that it had been received. After the meeting 32 with the folks on Wilkie, he had pulled into the Commons to see the parking situation. 33 34 Vice Chair Reckdahl recused himself because he would be joining City Council in January. 35 36 Chair Chang expressed that she had visited the facility at 4075 El Camino Way and saw that 37 there were 14 underground parking spaces and she thought 3 above ground spaces occupied by 38 building materials and furniture. She had requested parking assistance and had parked at the 39 Commons. She added that at 4:00 today every single legal parking spot on that block of El 40 Camino Way was occupied, and a Commons’ employee had entered their car parked on El 41 Camino Way. She had called to inquire about rents for the Commons. 42 43 Commissioner Akin disclosed that he had attended a City Council campaign event at Wilkie Way 1 on October 20, and he had spoken to many neighbors and toured several backyards. He heard 2 concerns about privacy screening; parking; development standards, particularly for PCs; and the 3 conditions of approval for the existing PC. 4 5 Commissioner Summa had attended the City Council campaign event at Wilkie Way on October 6 20 and spoke with many residents and toured backyards and many of the things Commissioner 7 Akin mentioned had been discussed. 8 9 Commissioner Lu recused himself as he would be joining Council. He had been at the event at 10 Wilkie Way on October 20 and observed the same conditions from a couple backyards. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton disclosed that she had attended the event at Wilkie Way on October 13 20. 14 15 Chair Chang invited Vice Chair Reckdahl and Commissioner Lu to exit the dais and voiced that 16 she would let them know when they could rejoin the meeting. 17 18 Senior Planner Emily Kallas mentioned that 4075 El Camino Way was a planned community 19 zone addition project. She presented slides with an overview of the project, which she detailed. 20 There were prior PC approvals of 5116 (the Avant building) and 3775 (Palo Alto Commons). 21 Assisted living (AL) use was not a housing development project. She provided slides showing the 22 project location and the PC process. The PTC should provide a recommendation at this meeting, 23 and the next step would be Council making the final decision. She listed the project changes, 24 which included a TDM plan and other parking improvements. The plans had been updated to 25 clearly show neighbor context. The plans had been modified to meet the objective design 26 standards for multifamily housing for privacy adjacent to single-family houses. Additional 27 landscape screening had been added. Noise concerns had been addressed through a noise 28 study and a code enforcement case regarding noise associated with the Avant building. The 29 color palate had been modified slightly. The ARB had recommended that the proposed height 30 and setbacks be appropriate to the single-family neighborhood context, and she announced 31 that ARB Chair Rosenberg was present via Zoom to answer any questions. She shared a slide 32 showing an overview of the building additions, which the applicant would address in their 33 presentation. Staff had recently received a revised version of the TDM plan, which was under 34 review with the OOT. It had been incorporated in the conditions of approval. The proposed 35 parking met zoning minimums, so the TDM plan was not being used for a parking reduction but 36 to manage existing parking. All windows met objective design standards located in Palo Alto 37 Municipal Code 18.24.050(D). Tree locations had been updated in the plan set. The conditions 38 of approval could be modified to specify evergreen versus deciduous trees. It had been 39 determined that the three new heat pump condenser units proposed would not increase noise 40 levels in the residential neighborhood. Special requirements for planned community buildings 41 were located in Code Section 18.34.150, which she detailed. They had received a number of 42 neighbor comments. Sixteen neighbors signed a petition sent to the PTC, ARB, and City staff in 43 October, which listed concerns related to privacy, reduced sunlight, parking, zoning code 44 exemptions, WellQuest being a for-profit company, lowered property values, and quality of life 1 in the neighborhood. They had received over 30 additional emails, which included letters in 2 support reiterating the neighborhood petition concerns and questions about the CEQA 3 determination. In terms of CEQA, a Section 15301 categorical exemption had been prepared. 4 Staff recommended the PTC recommended approval to Council based on draft conditions of 5 approval and draft findings. 6 7 Applicant Daniel Bowman, the project architect working with WellQuest, shared slides. They 8 were requesting 16 additional units and floor areas, a two-foot encroachment on the Goodwill 9 side (not on the Wilkie Way side), and changing exterior colors. They were not asking for 10 daylight plane or parking amendments to the existing PC and municipal code. They would 11 provide 102 parking spaces, which he detailed. He indicated where trees would be added to 12 help screen the building. He elaborated on the tree landscape plan, which they hoped would 13 provide a balance of the neighbors’ asks. He discussed windows complying with the IR 14 guidelines. He commented that they had minimized the shadows as much as possible and the 15 building would not be a huge impact on shade. He supplied slides showing the building 16 renderings and removed balconies. 17 18 Applicant Charlene Kussner represented WellQuest Living, which operated the Avant and Palo 19 Alto Commons (PAC). She had reviewed the feedback received from the last PTC meeting. They 20 had had four community outreach meetings with the Wilkie Way neighbors in 2023 and 2024. 21 They had implemented the TDM plan, and they were encouraging staff to carpool, bicycle, and 22 use public transit. If needed, they could provide valet parking for visitors. They would continue 23 to work with Wilkie Way neighbors regarding landscaping. 24 25 Commissioner Akin inquired, concerning the physical development standards, if the Commons 26 would be treated as a residential or nonresidential use. He noted that PC-3775 referred to the 27 Commons as a residential use. He queried if the sightline near the Wilkie Way properties was 28 being interpreted as a rear sightline. He asked what the required setbacks and daylight plane 29 was for a PC sharing a rear sightline with an R1. 30 31 Jennifer Armer answered that it seemed appropriate to characterize it as a residential use. As 32 for the sightline near the Wilkie Way properties being interpreted as a rear sightline, it was 33 described as that closest to Wilkie Way. 34 35 Emily Kallas replied that the requirement for a PC adjacent to single family was 10 feet under 36 the special requirements regardless of it being an interior side or rear yard. 37 38 Commissioner Akin commented that 18.38.150(C) said PCs with residential uses had to match 39 the adjacent R1, which meant a 20-foot setback and a different daylight plane. 40 41 Emily Kallas responded that the existing building was built at the 10-foot setback and the 42 daylight plane for R1 would be less restrictive for the rear and the sides. 43 44 Commissioner Akin added that the complication was it was taken at the setback, not the lot 1 line, so there was uncertainty about what would be required. He was referring to 18.12.040. 2 3 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang explained that he framed the special requirements in 4 18.38.150 more as norms and guidelines than requirements. Council could approve PCs that did 5 not comply with those requirements, which had been done numerous times in the past. 6 7 Commissioner Akin expressed that the actions the PTC could take were given in 18.38.110, and 8 the PTC only had the authority to modify any regulation in 18.54 to 18.99 and not to modify 9 things elsewhere in the code, such as 18.38 or 18.12. The sections of the code referring to the 10 controversial setbacks or daylight planes were not within the PTC’s purview to modify. The PTC 11 needed to discuss what was allowed to be done in the case of projects not in compliance. He 12 questioned if the PTC had the authority to accept the existing setback and daylight plane as 13 proposed. He added that if there were no limits on PCs, a lot of the code had no reason to exist, 14 including 18.38.150. He suspected that the PTC would have to restrict changes to what was 15 limited by 18.54 to 18.99. He requested research be done on what the PTC was authorized to 16 do and asked that code sections be cited. 17 18 Albert Yang indicated that he would need to do some historical research, but he suspected that 19 the reference to 18.54 to 18.99 might be outdated. He noted that the PTC’s authority was to 20 recommend to Council an action on a PC and it would not be useful for the PTC’s authority in 21 that recommendation to be narrower than Council would later have. He did not interpret 18.54 22 to 18.99 to limit the standards the PTC could recommend for modification. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman thought the issue raised by Commissioner Akin was foundational to 25 the PTC’s deliberation. He voiced that the Attorney’s Office needed to provide guidance. He 26 asked if the eight new trees would be evergreen, deciduous, or a combination and if either 27 variety would be allowable; when the refined version of the TDM would be available for 28 Commission review; and if when someone called from outside the gate inquiring about parking 29 available inside the gate how the person answering the phone would know if parking was 30 available. 31 32 Emily Kallas answered regarding trees that the screening requirements were based on height 33 and frequency of planting (density), and there were water use-related restrictions, but 34 evergreen versus deciduous was not a requirement. Staff indented to have the final TDM 35 version approved by the OOT before going to Council. 36 37 Charlene Kussner stated regarding the TDM that they had responded to staff’s comments three 38 weeks ago, so she thought that was complete for this meeting. She thought language had been 39 added to the end of the document related to local retail and restaurants available for easy 40 access for their staff but it did not match the map, so that had been changed, which she found 41 to be a minor revision. She explained the process of an employee identifying available parking 42 spaces inside the gate. 43 44 Commissioner Templeton inquired if the PTC’s authority was to make recommendations. 1 2 Albert Yang confirmed that the PTC had the authority to make recommendations. He had done 3 a little research into the history of the code, and in 2007 there had been a significant 4 rearrangement after the provision was last edited. He understood that the general standards in 5 18.40 and 42 would apply in all districts and was what would have been in 18.54 to 18.99. 6 Individual zone development standards would have been in earlier chapters. There was no base 7 zone for a PC, and the development standards of the R1 or the RM20 were not being modified. 8 The development standards would be unique to the PC, and the other standards applied 9 generally to all districts that might be modified for the PC specifically. This item could be 10 discussed and public comment provided at this meeting. 11 12 Commissioner Summa queried where cars would be valeted to and if there was a TDM. She 13 referenced Packet Pages 40 and 41 and noted that sometimes commercial standards were used 14 and sometimes residential. She felt that there should be more parking required, and she 15 wanted to know how it would be determined that parking on El Camino Way and in the 16 Goodwill parking would not be a problem. If this was being considered residential, she 17 questioned if a portion of the new units should be affordable. 18 19 Charlene Kussner responded that there was a basic parking plan for the back area of the lot, 20 which she elaborated on. They were not required to provide a TDM for the original 21 development. 22 23 Emily Kallas answered that the existing parking met or exceeded minimum requirements. 24 Regarding affordable units, this was not a PHZ. It was a PC amendment, which she understood 25 could still be applied for. 26 27 Albert Yang clarified that the requirements did not apply to PCs but they were provided for 28 reference to compare to what would apply if it were not a PC. 29 30 Chair Chang asked if parking spaces at the Commons being used for a storage or a staging area 31 for construction was allowed. She referenced 18.38.160 and inquired if someone from the 32 Building Division had been inspecting the PC every three years. She requested that the 33 comments related to the TDM be summarized, and she asked if the comments had been 34 addressed to staff’s satisfaction with the revisions the applicant provided and if the TDM would 35 include baseline trips for everybody using the facility – visitors, residents, staff, and non-staff 36 caregivers. 37 38 Emily Kallas replied that using spaces for storage, etc., at the Commons was not allowed. She 39 was not aware of anyone from the Building Division inspecting the PC every three years, and 40 she was not sure if it had been done on a widespread basis for PCs. Regarding the TDM, the 41 management techniques proposed in the plan met the OOT’s requirements, but there were 42 questions about how the trip generation rates had been determined. The TDM was based on 43 ITE standards for trip generation based on land use, and assumptions were made with regard to 1 how it would include staff, resident, and visitor trips. 2 3 Chair Chang asked if it was a theoretical baseline. She requested that the plans be displayed 4 and to show which units would be AL versus memory care, and she asked what the new units 5 facing Wilkie would be used for. She queried where staff and outside caregivers parked and 6 about how many visitors there were per week. 7 8 Jennifer Armer responded that the numbers from the Trip Generation Manual were based on 9 studies of each different type of use, which was updated on a regular basis. In terms of a 20-10 percent reduction in this case, she was not sure what the TDM specified. 11 12 Emily Kallas added that staff was looking into the ITE providing options to base the baseline on 13 the number of employees versus the number of beds and which one would be more 14 appropriate in this scenario. 15 16 Daniel Bowman stated that memory care would be on the first two floors. He believed there 17 were would be two memory care units facing Wilkie Way and the remainder AL units. There 18 would not be a shift in the memory care units, but balconies would be removed. The units on 19 the far end of the smaller wing would be memory care units. 20 21 Charlene Kussner explained where staff parked for the different shifts. During the week, there 22 were typically three to five outside caregivers coming in, who were generally there less than an 23 hour. 24 25 Applicant Jenny Huynh replied that there were about 8 to 10 visitors a day. 26 27 Chair Chang stated that at one point an acquaintance of hers had an eight-hour-a-day outside 28 caregiver who signed in through the visitor log. She asked if it was difficult to know if visitors 29 were visitors in the traditional way. 30 31 Charlene Kussner responded that how folks signed in could not be policed, but she hoped they 32 were being forthright with who they were. 33 34 PUBLIC COMMENTS 35 Jayashree was concerned about property values depreciating, the zoning being used, and 36 parking. (Audio difficulties occurred during Jayashree’s comments). 37 38 Jennifer Armer noted that Jayashree had provided written comments, which were part of the 39 materials the PTC reviewed. 40 41 Jennie thought codes and legal requirements had been addressed, but she wanted to 42 emphasize the commitments the Commons had made in 1986, which she stated were not being 43 honored. She discussed quality of life being damaged. She commented that parking was an 1 issue, and she wanted to know if the subsidies provided by the applicant for carpooling, etc., 2 would be permanent. She stated that the Commons could build elsewhere on the property to 3 keep the commitment it made in 1986. She did not consider this to be ethical. 4 5 J. Randall Toch with the law firm of Hogue Fenton represented a couple neighbors on Wilkie 6 Way. He had submitted a letter, which included this being treated as a zoning change to be 7 exempt under CEQA. He discussed why he considered environmental review to be essential. He 8 found it interesting that the 5116 statue in 2011 had a specified parking ratio of 0.9 per unit 9 which had been eliminated in the amendment and that the 5116 required compliance with 10 Chapter 18.38 had been eliminated from the proposed resolution. He encouraged that this be 11 returned to staff for appropriate environmental review and public input. 12 13 Natacha did not find the parking proposal to be sustainable and that there was a discrepancy in 14 the number of private caregivers, some of which parked in front of her house. She 15 recommended that the Commons do a survey to determine the number of private caregivers 16 and that there be a better parking solution. 17 18 Lisa wanted to know if surveillance of the parking garages was being reviewed. 19 20 Michel discussed this item being a moral good. He did not agree with the earlier public 21 comment concerning CEQA. 22 23 Kevin (Austin, Celine, Carly, Adrian) displayed slides and discussed the original zoning of the 24 land and the developer’s assurance that the project would not exceed the then zoning 25 standards in terms of height, comparable density, and mass. At an ARB meeting in July 1987, 26 there had been concern about third-floor impact and visitor parking. He discussed the plans and 27 the impacts to the daylight plane. He noted that the Staff Report said no additional units would 28 be built on the Wilkie Way side on the first floor but there would be two units which would be 29 offices. He provided a rendering he had done showing comparisons with a 20-foot setback. 30 Based on this being a commercial facility, he opined that the correct daylight plane should be 31 10 feet at a 3/6 angle. If it were a residential 20-foot setback, the Staff Report said no units 32 would be built against the Wilkie Way side as currently designed. He did not believe PCs should 33 be able to subvert rules for the section that created PCs in general. He stated that the municipal 34 code was to protect residents and that the current state of the code should be used. To be in 35 compliance with the current code, he recommend that the applicant build only the seven 36 internal units. He discussed parking issues and recommended that existing issues be resolved 37 before continuing with the project process and that there be stronger assessment, monitoring, 38 and enforcement of the TDM. 39 40 Patty Irish voiced that the Commons had been built to serve the community. She thought the 41 applicant had responded to the key concerns expressed, and she requested this be approved. 42 She asked that the residents and employees of the Commons be considered. She considered 43 this to be a service to the community and hoped the building of 16 additional units would be 1 approved. 2 3 Mona claimed that the Commons was in violation with their current use permit, which included 4 the daylight plane. She discussed noise and parking and not having data showing how and by 5 whom the garage was used. She believed violations and discrepancies should be cured before 6 allowing them to apply for anything for the Commons. She discussed impacts to the neighbors 7 and the environment, and she thought there should be a CEQA study. She believed everyone 8 should comply with the law, and she hoped the PTC would enforce it. 9 10 Reed felt that the caregivers at the Commons deserved to have parking on the premises. He 11 discussed the applicant being a for-profit company. 12 13 Sean believed there should be an environmental review and analysis of the applicably of 14 18.38.150(E). He discussed the daylight plane and noted that Attachment C did not address the 15 issue. He questioned if the daylight plane angle used by the architect complied with the 16 Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(E), and he requested it be reviewed. He voiced that the draft 17 of the record of land use action did not adequately address Policy L-6.7 in Section 4 Finding 1, 18 and he noted that the project changed the scale and density. He felt there should be an 19 environmental review of Subsection D, Number 2 in Section 4, and he found the proposed 20 additions to increase the scale and mass to the adjacent land uses. 21 22 Shashank agreed with issues previously voiced concerning parking, daylight plane, reduced 23 sunlight, and loss of privacy and property values. He urged the PTC to seriously consider these 24 issues. He opposed the expansion. 25 26 Natalie agreed with the points made by her neighbors. She voiced that parking was an ongoing 27 and unfortunate situation presently even without the addition. She thought it should be 28 required that on-site parking be provided for staff, outside caregivers, visitors, and clients. 29 30 Daniel expressed that privacy, parking, and sunlight was a concern for the neighbors and the 31 residents of the complex. He felt that trees being close to unit windows would block sunlight. 32 He proposed that current issues be addressed before building additional units. 33 34 Jenny agreed with her Wilkie Way neighbors’ comments related to daylight plane, parking, etc., 35 and she opposed an expansion project. 36 37 Michael supported his Wilkie Way neighbors’ comments and opposed the expansion plan. 38 39 Amie Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, voiced that many members had written 40 letters of support, and she supported the project. She noted that the project met parking and 41 daylight plane requirements as outlined in the Staff Report and that revisions had been made to 42 try and accommodate neighborhood issues. To meet the needs of the community, she hoped 43 this would move forward to Council with a recommendation for approval. 44 1 James supported the seven additional internal units but not the nine additional external units, 2 which would exacerbate massing, visual impacts, ambient light, and [view of the sky 2:22:46]. 3 He thought the existing structure could have a daylight plane standard and the new 4 construction another daylight plane standard. Parking was an issue and, before approving the 5 project, he hoped the PAC would be held accountable to their promises to reduce parking 6 congestion. He requested that reductions in number, size, and placement of units be explored. 7 8 Ellen noted that there had been debates about three-story complexes impacting the 9 neighborhood when the Commons was originally developed and designed, and an agreement 10 had been reached, which ensured the extent of building. She added that there were to be 11 annual occupancy reports, etc., and that such had not been tracked. She voiced that the new 12 proposal was contrary to the compromise made in the past. She opposed the project expansion 13 in the rear and suggested that any expansion be done in the front. She added that the reports 14 did not reflect all circumstances, such as reflective noise off a three-story wall, night sky impact, 15 a landscaping study to reduce the impacts, or a shadow study to include roofs to ensure that 16 neighbors’ solar panels would work. She proposed that the project be thoroughly investigated 17 and that there be a proper EIR. 18 19 Deborah supported the project. She hoped a citywide permit parking program would be 20 considered. She discussed housing not being distributed citywide, which meant certain 21 neighborhoods would be heavily impacted. She wished residents cared as much about climate 22 change as parking. 23 24 Nishanth read a letter on behalf of an anonymous party, which addressed the lack of parking in 25 the visitor lot for PAC; construction materials, etc., occupying spaces; there being no visitor 26 spaces in the PAC visitor lot; and the problems with calling for parking assistance. The writer 27 urged the City to insist that PAC’s visitor parking be expanded to meet the present needs and 28 that parking spaces be increased if units were added. 29 30 JP opposed the expansion of PAC as proposed. He worried about the precedent the project 31 would set. He agreed with the neighbors’ concerns. Regarding parking, he recommended that 32 everyone read the book Paved Paradise. 33 34 Mircha voiced that since the building of the Avant, he has had no daylight in his backyard or 35 street parking. He discussed there not being enough parking for the Commons and requested 36 there not be contributions to the problem. He opposed the expansion and asked that it not be 37 approved. 38 39 Andie voiced that the project was asking for an amendment to a PC from 1989, which would 40 infill what had been intentionally left as air and sun space. She discussed why she did not 41 consider the parking analysis done by Hexagon to be reliable and why the draft TDM made her 42 nervous. She recommended that the PTC require neighbor input into the TDM before finalizing 43 it and that the TDM provide methods to track parking in the neighborhood, which should be 44 provided by a third party with review by the neighbors and that measures for penalties be 1 determined and entered in the document. She stated that employees and visitors should be 2 required to park underground and that the overflow should be directed to Avant. 3 4 Maegan opposed the project as currently designed. She noted that only 2 of the 55 pages in the 5 TDM addressed parking. She suggested there be monthly parking assessments and a strong 6 escalating schedule for penalties for noncompliance. 7 8 Janis opposed amending the initial rules of a planned community. She proposed that this be 9 viewed as a new planned community and that the rules in place be followed. She thought it 10 should be viewed as commercial real estate and those rules followed. 11 12 Lily agreed with the comments made expressing concerns about the intrusiveness of the new 13 plans and parking. She supported the seven proposed interior units. She discussed her concerns 14 with the additional nine external units. She reminded the PTC that in June they motioned that 15 the ARB should consider the feasibility and relative benefits to the residents of Wilkie Way in 16 increasing the setback for newly constructed units to 20 feet to meet 18.38.150. She thought 17 there were options to consider that had not yet been discussed. She understood that PAC had 18 not submitted annual occupancy reports or a parking plan, and she was concerned with PAC 19 not following through on commitments. She suggested that the TDM include third-party 20 confidential surveys, enforceability mechanisms, and routine report-backs. 21 22 Huibin addressed a design that passed inspection 8 to 10 years ago that included exhaust pipes 23 facing his backyard, which generated noise and an emission odor 24/7. The pipes had been 24 moved 10 feet, but he noted that it did not address the noise concern. He provided an audio 25 recording of the noise and demanded the PAC solve the problem quicky and that they submit a 26 detailed plan and a timeline of completion to the Code Enforcement Department. 27 28 Chair Chang thanked the public speakers for sharing their thoughts. She had questions for Chair 29 Rosenberg, but she was no longer online. 30 31 [The Commission took a 10-minute break] 32 33 Chair Change requested rebuttals from the applicant. 34 35 Charlene Kussner stated that she had taken copious notes from every speaker, and she had 36 heard a lot of discrepancies or things she could make a rebuttal to. Regarding the comment 37 related to retribution to staff and residents, they did not condemn residents or staff for 38 speaking out. They had a Resident Council meeting monthly, and it was encouraged that all 39 residents attend. They were inspected by a lot of regulatory bodies every year. She noted that 40 FJ Management was not a part of their company. WellQuest Living was a standalone company. 41 They had many lending partners, which was their private business, and she did not see it having 42 a place here. She was open to answering the PTC’s questions, but she did not want to provide 43 rebuttals to public comments at this time. 44 1 Chair Chang checked with the Commission to see if Item 3 would be addressed later in the 2 meeting. If not, it would likely be deferred to the special meeting on Tuesday, December 17. 3 4 Commissioner Akin wanted to undertake it at this meeting. 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman supported moving the item to next week, although he was flexible. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton suggested it be addressed next week. 9 10 Commissioner Summa did not think it should be addressed at this meeting because of time, but 11 she wondered if doing it Tuesday was a good time for staff. 12 13 Jennifer Armer answered that staff could proceed. She believed the goal was to have the zoning 14 completed by the end of December, but if there was a recommendation from the PTC and it 15 could be scheduled for Council, staff would be comfortable. 16 17 Commissioner Lu suggested that the public provide comment at this meeting and that the 18 Commission’s discussion be tabled. 19 20 Vice Chair Reckdahl supported undertaking the item on Tuesday. 21 22 Chair Chang inquired if it was possible to take public comment. 23 24 Jennifer Armer thought the item could be continued to the next meeting without taking public 25 comment. 26 27 Chair Chang declared that the second action item would be continued Tuesday, December 17. 28 She asked Vice Chair Reckdahl and Commissioner Lu to excuse themselves again. 29 30 Commissioner Akin appreciated the shadow diagrams, but he explained why they could be 31 misleading. He stated that Section H on Page A5.12 of the plan set showed a good example of 32 how the new construction would block the view of the sky. He voiced that the only tool 33 available to deal with that factor was daylight plane, so the daylight plane should be respected 34 to the maximum extent permitted by the code. While the new construction would be within the 35 45-degree daylight plane, it would block off a substantial amount of visibility of the sky. He 36 awaited Counselor Yang’s discussion concerning the kind of changes the PTC was permitted to 37 make. The code was clear that there should be more daylight plane than what was proposed. 38 He found the TDM plan disappointing and the baseline parking demand measurement useless. 39 He explained that the enforcement of the TDM plan was ineffective because, according to the 40 plan as it existed, there was no way to determine the actual commute or parking demand. He 41 voiced that the combination of things created an incentive to park on the street. He stated that 42 the TDM plan needed to reflect that people visiting and working at PAC must park on the 43 property, not on nearby streets, which should be established by the TDM plan and a policy of 1 PAC. 2 3 Commissioner Hechtman queried if staff had reviewed the letter challenging the CEQA 4 exemption and if staff’s position had changed. He questioned if Albert Yang was comfortable 5 with the response he provided previously regarding the issue Commissioner Akin raised earlier. 6 He was confused about the trees being evergreen or deciduous. He thought the owner of the 7 parcel next to the trees should put in writing their preference for evergreen or deciduous and 8 that the applicant should honor that wish. He requested that it take place before going to 9 Council. He stated the TDM was odd because it was actually mor akin to a parking management 10 plan, which he thought should be more robust in that aspect. When he was at the site, he 11 thought some surface parking areas were occupied by construction material and others by 12 construction vehicles. He believed the TDM needed to provide a solution to such and that 13 bearing the weight of solving that should be done by the applicant. He added that it should 14 apply long term because it appeared that some parking spaces in the garage were being used 15 for storage. He thought the first monitoring of the TDM should be at one or two years, not 16 three, and after the initial one, he wanted it to be done every five years or earlier at the 17 discretion of the Director of Planning. 18 19 Albert Yang replied that the letter had been reviewed, and staff disagreed with its conclusions. 20 They agreed that a zoning ordinance and ordinance change was a project, but they believed it 21 was an exempt project under the CEQA guidelines. The CEQA guidelines section they were 22 relying on included not just construction but also the permitting process. He was comfortable 23 with the response he provided earlier concerning the issue raised by Commissioner Akin. He 24 thought the basic concept remained the same, that the standards in 18.38.150 were norms and 25 guidelines but they did not need to be binding. The PTC could recommend something different. 26 27 Commissioner Summa shared Commissioners Akin and Hechtman’s concerns related to the 28 TDM. She remarked that the monitoring of TDMs was unreliable across Palo Alto. There were 29 processes on paper, but there needed to be execution and follow-up. She addressed the public 30 comment regarding noise and stated that the applicant and the City needed to show the will to 31 fix it. She did not agree with Attorney Yang’s interpretation of PC Code Section 10.38.150. She 32 thought the public had a right to the development standards as they were currently written in 33 the municipal code and that it needed to be changed if it was to be interpreted differently. She 34 believed the way the daylight plane was interpreted was [inadequate 3:28:13]. She did not find 35 filling the step-backs in to be a fair solution. She agreed with her colleague regarding 36 construction logistics, and she was disappointed with the PAC bus being repeatedly parked on 37 Wilkie Way. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton questioned to what extent staff was brokering in negotiation 40 between the parties before coming to the PTC, if the City took ownership in making sure the 41 parties agreed on how to go forward. She asked if the City’s involvement was based on public 42 benefit or established guidelines. 43 44 Emily Kallas responded that there had been a number of community meetings and she had 1 attended one of the meetings and she had responded to a lot of neighbor comments, which 2 had been turned into guidance. The original PC ordinance required a TDM plan that she 3 believed was not followed through on, which was why a TDM plan was now required. 4 Landscaping had been modified. The ARB had considered all the neighbor comments and the 5 setbacks and daylight planes. 6 7 Jennifer Armer added that City staff’s role was to ensure that the applicant was aware of public 8 comment and staff often encouraged them to address and to respond the comments as much 9 as feasible. Staff’s evaluation role was based on the regulations, but staff tried to ensure that 10 there would be active conversations between the applicant and the neighbors, that outreach 11 was being done, and that they were listening and responding. Those responses would be 12 presented to the PTC and ARB to determine if something needed to go further. By the time it 13 reached the PTC, staff had done as much as they could as far as negotiations. Regarding the 14 City’s involvement, staff would work with anyone who had comments to ensure the process 15 was understood and then staff would make sure the applicants were responding to comments. 16 There were times when staff could enable changes in the project and other times when the 17 applicant chooses not to make changes. For this item, staff had worked to get the applicant to 18 respond, and they had in many cases, though not to the full satisfaction of the neighbors. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton addressed her colleagues’ comments regarding things in writing not 21 being reliable. Things being a firm line or a guideline was a legitimate question. If staff had 22 made such decisions, it would be helpful to let the PTC know ASAP. She had found conflicting 23 information, which made it hard to be fair to all parties. She commented that the project would 24 be a benefit to the applicant and the community, but she was also hearing from the neighbors 25 that there was some mismatch in expectations about the community benefit versus the cost to 26 the community. It was frustrating to hear that some thought they had X rights and others 27 thought they had X rights, and she did not know which was correct because she had nothing 28 reliable to base a recommendation on. 29 30 Chair Chang was disappointed that WellQuest had not addressed the parking. She stated that 31 using parking spaces as intended could probably solve a lot of the problem. She noted that 32 when she had called the facility earlier in the day she had been invited in to the parking 33 structure, which was good. She wanted to know why construction could not be done at the 34 front of the property. She questioned why the new construction could not be limited to 20 feet 35 back, which had been suggested by the PTC. She queried if they had considered moving the 36 offices in the back to the front. She mentioned that Council had been concerned about the 37 impacts this would have on the Wilkie Way neighbors, and they had asked if there could be a 38 fourth story. She asked the applicant to address the fourth-story option and the challenges of 39 shifting the development of the new units. She found the massing to be an issue, which the 40 neighbors complained about. She understood that building units in the front was potentially 41 not feasible and definitely more extensive. It concerned her that the impact would be shifted to 42 the neighbors. She noted that a compromise would be to not build certain units. She 43 commented that aside from parking impacts, there was a safety impact with traffic and 44 bicyclists, which concerned her. At a minimum, she wanted WellQuest to fully utilize their 1 parking spaces for parking. 2 3 Daniel Bowman explained why it was not feasible to put units in the front, which had nothing to 4 do with cost. He added that they had eliminated three or four units on the Wilkie Way side and 5 moved them to the interior courtyards. They had not considered moving the offices in the back 6 to the front. He stated that the additional offices were within the existing PC code, although 7 they would research locating those offices to somewhere other than the Wilkie Way side. He 8 explained why they could not limit new construction to 20 feet back. They had researched a 9 fourth-floor, and adding a fourth floor would not solve the issue but would make it worse. One 10 neighbor would have a four-story building closer to their house versus the three stories that 11 would step back. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton stated that it was not possible for everybody to get what they 14 wanted. She was frustrated that the applicant was not navigating effectively. She wanted the 15 applicant’s services to be expanded and the neighbors treated fairly, which she did not find to 16 be possible in the current configuration being considered. She asked the applicant to consider 17 the public’s comments. She wanted a parking plan and changes to the requirements that would 18 not move the goalpost. 19 20 Commissioner Summa noted that a member of the public had sent a photograph related to 21 traffic and bicycle safety and people parking in the bike lane. She stated that another new 22 building was nearing completion, which would add to the parking problem. 23 24 Commissioner Hechtman understood that there would be two first-floor additions for office 25 space, which were slightly under 90-square feet, on the Wilkie Way side. He asked if there 26 would be a step-back for the new second floor, as an image he had seen portrayed a somewhat 27 flat face of the first and second floors, and how many of the nine units facing Wilkie Way would 28 be third-floor units. He stated that the city needed to be shared with more people, which 29 required density. He did not find the second-floor units on this plan to be a significant impact in 30 terms of loss of light. He did not consider the third-floor additions to be a new third-story 31 element but to be expanding existing third-story elements. He added that they would block the 32 view of the sky. He thought the daylight plane used in 1987 should be applied now. He added 33 that this kind of housing was very much needed and that there were not many places to add 16 34 assisted living units. He commented that every unit built by the end of the RHNA cycle would be 35 built by somebody wanting to make a profit. It was important that they be high quality and 36 appropriately located and that the rules be followed, but they had to be financially feasible. He 37 did not think there should be a focus on adding a fourth floor on the front because the City 38 would not receive the housing if the applicant was going to lose money. He pointed out that the 39 Staff Report reflected that the project would conform to rules and regulations. He mentioned 40 that the ARB approved the design unanimously. He supported the recommendations of the ARB 41 and staff. 42 43 Emily Kallas confirmed that one of the first-floor additions proposed for office space was 85-1 square feet and the other 87. There would be a step-back for the new second floor. She 2 believed the section showing a flat face for the first and second floors was specifically for the 3 addition at the end of the building not facing Wilkie Way. Of the nine units facing Wilkie Way, 4 five would be third-floor units and four second-floor units. 5 6 Commissioner Summa thought it was important to protect those abutting and those adjacent 7 to the property. She voiced that staff was viewing this as residential property, but she stated it 8 was actually commercial and it did not help with housing allocation or affordable housing. She 9 was having a hard time making the findings on Packet Page 30. She was puzzled by the 10 comment that parking spaces would be lost if there was to be building over the existing parking 11 area. She felt that the applicant would be saving money with this project and that neighbors’ 12 houses would lose value. She did not think the applicant was making enough changes. It was 13 hard for her to support this. 14 15 Chair Chang thought she could make the findings for some of the units but not the ones on the 16 backside. She wished she could have heard more from the ARB how they made their findings. 17 She did not think she could support all the units. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton referenced Finding 2 on Packet Page 30 and stated there were 20 benefits not attainable elsewhere. 21 22 Chair Chang commented that she could make the first finding on Packet Page 30 but not the 23 second finding because she did not think there was sufficient public benefit and it was not clear 24 if it was a public benefit. She could not make the third finding because, based on the neighbors’ 25 comments as well as the code and ordinances outlining what a PC should do, she did not think 26 this was compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general 27 vicinity. She could not make the findings for the back nine units. 28 29 Commissioner Akin objected to Finding Number 3 on Packet Page 30 as it was not clear if the 30 new development would be compatible with the existing uses on the adjacent sites or with the 31 loosely defined guidelines of the code. Architectural Review Finding 2D appeared to be 32 inconsistent with the code guidelines, and he did not find it harmonious with the adjacent R1 33 uses. He had trouble with Architectural Review Finding 2E, and he wished the ARB Chair was 34 present at the meeting, but he did not see how living conditions in the adjacent residential 35 areas would be enhanced. He thought they would be degraded in terms of natural light and 36 possibly parking and traffic issues. Concerning Architectural Review Finding 4, it was not clear 37 whether it was a functional design because traffic and parking issues had not been addressed 38 and the TDM did not address them. 39 40 Jennifer Armer had received clarification from Albert Yang that the PTC’s focus could be on the 41 three findings for the planned community. The Architectural Review findings were more the 42 purview of the ARB. 43 44 Commissioner Akin voiced that he had great suspicions about things outside his purview, but he 1 had a lot of trouble with Planned Community Finding 3. 2 3 Commissioner Summa could not make Findings 2 or 3. She asked if the three public benefits 4 offered for the existing PAC was what had been offered initially, 14 years ago. She did not find 5 public benefit outside of [____ 4:21:00]. She found it compatible with El Camino Way but not 6 with the other part of the neighborhood. 7 8 Albert Yang replied that they considered the benefits of the project as a whole, including the 9 existing structures. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman stated that it was clear that the first two PC findings were designed 12 with a new PC in mind, which made it an awkward fit because there was not a new PC but an 13 existing PC was being amended. He did not think the situation happened enough to think about 14 a separate set of findings for such. He stated that the first two findingswere meant for a new 15 PC, and he questioned if a PC needed to be used and if there was a regulation or some other 16 zoning district that could make this concept fit. If a project did not fit in a traditional zoning 17 district, the flexibility of a PC would be needed. He did not think it was a good fit, but he 18 mentioned that Finding 1 met the intent. The second finding was more of the same, which was 19 development of public benefits that could not be achieved in a traditional zoning district. He 20 noted that housing was a public benefit, so he made Finding 2. Regarding Finding 3, he found 21 that compatibility had been established with meeting the daylight plane applicable to this 22 development. He stated that this was a transition use, which made it compatible. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton agreed with Commissioner Hechtman concerning Finding 1. 25 Regarding Finding 2, she wondered if public benefits could be made clearer to all involved 26 parties and if the PTC could help direct that. She remarked that a parking program should be 27 established for that part of Ventura and that it should not be a cost to residents, which would 28 be a public benefit. She suggested thinking about the uses of El Camino Way that would be 29 affected and making it part of the project if the area needed improvement. She voiced that the 30 public benefit would be very clear if those things were addressed. She suggested enhancing 31 some of the public benefits and that it not be just the preexisting benefits. She could make 32 Finding 2 if that were the case. She seconded Commissioner Hechtman’s comments regarding 33 Finding 3. 34 35 Commissioner Summa asked if Commissioner Templeton was speaking of establishing a 36 residential parking permit program in the neighborhood as part of the project. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton responded that it could be recommended as feedback to Council. 39 40 Commissioner Templeton discussed why she did not think that could be done as part of the 41 benefit now. 42 43 Commissioner Akin voiced that there were issues with a residential parking permit program in 1 this area. The choice of the daylight plane used for Finding 3 convinced him that the finding was 2 not met because it was not what the code recommended for use in this situation but was a 3 version of the daylight plane that had been created incorrectly for PC-3775, which was based 4 on the assumption that this was a side lot line. He commented that different conditions should 5 have been applied because it was a rear lot line. He could not support the finding. 6 7 MOTION #1 8 9 Commissioner Summa moved to advance to Council the project with the seven units, 10 specifically ones not facing Wilkie; to not advance the other nine units; and to return the TDM 11 the PTC. She thought the PTC needed more control over the TDM, and she expressed that 12 TDMs were truly suggestions and not enforceable. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton suggested there be more than 7 units. 19 20 Commissioner Summa replied that she had not been given information as to how to include the 21 other nine units without negatively impacting the lives of those on Wilkie. The seven-nine split 22 had been suggested by many Wilkie residents. Council could always add it back or the applicant 23 could try to find a way to add more than seven units. She would be fine with more units if it did 24 not impact the Wilkie Way residents. 25 26 Chair Chang stated that the motion was unclear about the offices on the backside. 27 28 [MOTION #1 AMENDMENT #1 4:36:32] Commissioner Summa amended her motion to reflect 29 that the first-floor offices closer to Wilkie and other the nine units facing Wilkie Way would not 30 be advanced. She recommended forwarding all the construction not facing Wilkie Way. She 31 wished the plans had included numbered or lettered units, so her motion could have been 32 more specific. 33 34 Chair Chang seconded the amendment. 35 36 Commissioner Hechtman thought the findings on Packet Page 30 needed to be modified to 37 conform to the motion, which he explained. 38 39 [MOTION #1 AMENDMENT #2 4:39:03] Commissioner Summa moved that Findings 1, 2, and 3 40 be edited to fit the motion. Specifically, Finding 1 would change the number of units from 16 to 41 7, and the past benefits would be stricken from Finding 2. Nothing needed to change in Finding 42 3. 43 44 Jennifer Armer stated that staff would adjust the numbers based on the original motion. 1 2 Chair Chang seconded the amendment. 3 4 VOTE MOTION #1 5 6 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 7 8 MOTION PASSED 3-2-2 (Akin, Chang, Summa) (Hechtman, Templeton no) (Reckdahl, Lu 9 abstained) 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman thought all 3 findings could be made for the 16-unit proposal and that 12 it would be hard to justify not making all 3 findings retaining the 4 second-floor units on the 13 Wilkie Way side, which he thought was minimal impact. He also believed the office would have 14 minimal impact. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton would have supported the motion if nine units had not been stricken. 17 She thought seven was too few for this opportunity to expand in Palo Alto. 18 19 Chair Kou invited Vice Chair Reckdahl and Commissioner Lu back to the dais. 20 21 3. Recommendation on an Ordinance Implementing Programs 3.3A, B, and D and 22 3.4A-D of the Housing Element, Including Modifications to: 1) Chapter 18.14: 23 Housing Incentives to Update Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive 24 Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP); 2) Section 18.40.180: Retail 25 Preservation; and 3) Modifications to Base Zoning Districts Throughout Title 18. The 26 Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 27 considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental 28 impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Programs 3.3 and 3.4. 29 30 MOTION #2 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman moved to continue this item on Tuesday, December 17. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 37 38 VOTE MOTION #2 39 40 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 41 42 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Templeton, Summa, Reckdahl, Hechtman, Lu, Chang, Akin) 43 44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 2 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 3 Minutes of October 30, 2024 4 5 MOTION #3 6 7 Commissioner Summa moved to approve the draft verbatim and summary minutes of October 8 30, 2024. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 13 14 VOTE MOTION #3 15 16 Chair Changed conducted a voice vote. 17 18 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Lu, Summa, Templeton) (Hechtman abstained) 19 20 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 21 Minutes of November 13, 2024 22 23 MOTION #4 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the draft verbatim and summary minutes of 26 November 13, 2024, as revised. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 31 32 VOTE MOTION #4 33 34 Chair Chang conducted a voice vote. 35 36 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Templeton) (Summa abstained) 37 38 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 39 40 Chair Chang congratulated new Council members Lu and Reckdahl. 41 42 Commissioner Summa congratulated Commissioner Lu and Vice Chair Reckdahl. 43 ADJOURNMENT 1 2 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. 3