HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-12 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1
Summary Minutes: February 12, 2025 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
5
Call to Order / Roll Call 6
6:00 PM 7
Vice-Chair Akin called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation 8
Commission for February 12, 2025. 9
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner 10
Hechtman, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Summa, and Commissioner Templeton were 11
present. Chair Chang was absent. 12
Oral Communications 13
None 14
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 15
None 16
City Official Reports 17
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 18
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer presented the Director’s Report. 19
A Vesting Tentative Map for 4345 El Camino Real, the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) application 20
for 70 Encina, and a Bike and Pedestrian Plan Update were on the PTC’s agenda for February 21
26, 2025. A PHZ for 660 University and the El Camino Real Focus Area ordinance changes were 22
tentatively scheduled for the PTC meeting on March 12, 2025. 23
A PHZ for 3265 El Camino Real was recommended for approval by the PTC on January 15, 2025, 24
and was approved by City Council on February 10, 2025. The Council appointed new Planning 25
Commissioners Kevin Ji for a full term beginning in February, Forest Olaf Peterson for a partial 26
term beginning in February, and Todd James for a full term beginning in April. 27
On November 13, 2024, the PTC recommended transmittal of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan 28
and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, and is scheduled for City Council’s review on 29
February 24, 2025. 30
Commissioner Templeton stated she was unable to attend the next PTC meeting. 31
Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Rafael Rius provided an update. Yesterday, the 1
December collision data was sent to the PTC. Transportation staff anticipated bringing the 2
Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project to the PTC in early April. Caltrans’s El Camino Real 3
Repaving and Bike Lane Project was in the striping phase but potentially will be delayed by the 4
weather. Completion of the detection loops and traffic signals was scheduled for June. 5
Action Item 6
2. Recommend that Council Adopt a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan to 7
Reclassify a Portion of Ramona Street and California Avenue as Car-Free Streets. 8
CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact 9
Report (EIR) (SCH#2014052101) Has Been Prepared. Zone District: Not Applicable 10
(Public Right-of-Way). 11
Ashwini Kantak, Project Manager with the City Manager’s Office, addressed the Commission. 12
Portions of California Avenue and Ramona Street have been temporarily closed to vehicular 13
traffic since June of 2020. In November of 2023, Council directed staff to bring back actions for 14
permanent closure with the objective of enhancing outdoor dining, retail, and supporting 15
economic vibrancy. 16
Two new street classifications were proposed, Community Street and Pedestrian Street. 17
California Avenue between El Camino Real and Birch Street would be reclassified as a 18
Community Street, defined as restricted to pedestrians and bicycles, having a speed limit or 19
another mechanism to ensure slow bike lanes; emergency, utility, and maintenance vehicles 20
were allowed; and commercial vehicles required approval through an exception process for 21
special events and circumstances such as the Farmers Market and 3rdThursday. A 200-foot 22
segment of Ramona Avenue between University and Hamilton would be reclassified as a 23
Pedestrian Street, defined as restricted to pedestrians and unmounted bicycles; emergency, 24
utility, and maintenance vehicles were allowed. 25
The proposed resolutions advance goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) in 26
the Land Use Element, Natural Element, and Transportation Element by reducing emissions, 27
encouraging walkability, revitalizing retail areas, and promoting historic preservation. 28
Staff along with consultants conducted extensive community and stakeholder outreach to 29
stakeholder groups via interviews, focus group meetings, consultation with tribal agencies, 30
monthly California Avenue Merchant workshops, online and in-person community meetings, 31
surveys, and City Committees. 32
City Council will consider the permanent closure in mid-March or early April. Contingent on 33
Council approval, outdoor activation standards will be implemented in summer 2025 and the 34
first phase of street improvements in 2025. 35
There were no new or substantially more severe significant effects compared to those 36
identified in the Comp Plan EIR, and no new mitigation measures were proposed. 37
Staff recommended that the PTC recommend that the City Council consider the environmental 1
analysis in Attachment C, adopt the resolution in Attachment A amending the Comp Plan 2
Transportation Element, and adopt the resolution in Attachment B approving the proposed 3
street closures and setting forth the provisions for allowed uses within the street. 4
Commissioner Hechtman knew there were processes in the Streets and Highways Code for the 5
City to vacate or abandon a street and he wanted to ensure nothing was needed to close a 6
street to most vehicular traffic. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang believed his colleagues 7
determined no additional steps were necessary. 8
Commissioner Summa inquired if there was outreach to Caltrain because California Avenue was 9
a route to the Caltrain Station. Ms. Kantak responded that they contacted Caltrans, Santa Clara 10
Valley Transportation Authority, and the tribal agencies but had not reached out to Caltrain. 11
Heather Gurewitz, AICP Senior Planner with M-Group, stated that Santa Clara Valley Transit 12
Authority was making changes to the bus route but did not have any comments or concerns. 13
Commissioner Templeton pointed out that it used to be possible to drive down California 14
Avenue to get to the California Avenue Station, which was a major train stop along Caltrain’s 15
route. Steve Guagliardo, Assistant to the City Manager for Economic Development, explained 16
that the portion of the car-free street did not verge on the Caltrain Station or impact circulation 17
out of the Caltrain parking lot or station. Ms. Armer confirmed no outreach was done to 18
Caltrain. 19
Commissioner Templeton wondered if Caltrans was amenable to fixing the light after the street 20
was permanently closed. Mr. Guagliardo answered yes; staff was working with Caltrans on an 21
encroachment permit for near-term improvements at the intersection of California Avenue and 22
El Camino Real. The action taken tonight by PTC and ultimately by Council to amend the Comp 23
Plan will aid in the processing of the encroachment permit. 24
Vice-Chair Akin asked if it was necessary to make an amendment to the Comp Plan to add a 25
definition in the glossary for bicycles. Ms. Armer did not believe bicycles needed to be defined. 26
If there were concerns about allowing certain modes of transportation, it could be part of the 27
PTC’s consideration and addressed during discussions on design adjustments. Ms. Armer 28
recommended not making the Comp Plan too specific and instead to allow staff to work out the 29
details on a case-by-case basis. 30
PUBLIC COMMENTS 31
None 32
Commissioner Templeton was generally in favor of maintaining the closure on California 33
Avenue; however, she was concerned about not having Caltrain’s input and ensuring their 34
support, which she felt was needed for this to plan be effective and successful long term. The 35
direct access to the Caltrain Station was changed to go in an indirect way, which might concern 36
public buses or other group transit making multiple trips to the Caltrain Station from Stanford. 37
Stanford Research Park runs a shuttle to and from the Cal Ave Caltrain Station as part of their 1
transportation demand management. Mr. Guagliardo stated that Stanford Research Park was 2
supportive of this action. Broadly, Caltrain was supportive of non-single-occupant vehicles as an 3
access mode to their stations. Ms. Gurewitz spoke to VTA in December about routing their 4
transit to and from the Caltrain Station. Bus Route 89 ran down California Avenue. VTA started 5
a new route in January of 2025 going down Page Mill Road. The estimated increase in runtime 6
was 5 percent over a 12-minute ride or approximately 36 seconds. Commissioner Templeton 7
asked about the Marguerite Shuttle route. Mr. Guagliardo did not have the route for the 8
Research Park shuttle nor did he have information about the increased time but staff can have 9
that information when they return to Council. Commissioner Templeton wanted to see a 10
diagram of the new routes. 11
Commissioner Hechtman was supportive and thought it was exciting to make this part of 12
California Avenue and Ramona vibrant and unique. California Avenue had been closed for five 13
years, so Commissioner Hechtman assumed if Caltrain had a concern it would have been voiced 14
to the City but he agreed with Commissioner Templeton and hoped that staff will contact 15
Caltrain. Commissioner Hechtman wanted to include in the motion a recommendation to 16
investigate what other communities were doing to potentially consider monetizing the 17
commercial use of our public streets. During the pandemic, using public property was done 18
nationwide for safety but it was found to also add vibrancy to our communities. Commissioner 19
Hechtman suggested that the fee be appropriate to not dissuade businesses but significant 20
enough to provide additional funding to the City. Mr. Guagliardo stated that previous Council 21
direction was to develop guidelines for the use of that space by private entities for permanent 22
outdoor dining. The City’s parklet program had a permit fee and license fee for outdoor dining 23
establishments sited next to vehicular traffic. 24
Commissioner Summa felt it was prudent to obtain Caltrain’s input and was concerned that 25
Caltrain had not been contacted. Commissioner Summa recommended including the speed 26
limit for non-pedestrians modes of transit such as e-scooters and e-bikes in the rules for closed 27
streets on Packet Page 29, Section 3. Definitions of different types of streets were not listed in 28
the Comp Plan and there was no differentiation between local and collector streets. Packet 29
Page 11 referred to Map T-5 in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Summa believed that the map on 30
the City of Palo Alto website for the Office of Transportation was more accurate and therefore 31
might be better to use instead of Map T-5 in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Summa noted on 32
Packet Page 14 that two of the three identified ADA parking spaces will be replaced on Cal Ave. 33
Moving forward, Commissioner Summa urged staff to have a goal to replace all or as many ADA 34
parking spaces as possible because it was important for persons with disabilities to park close 35
by. Commissioner Summa recalled a member of the public mentioning they believed they 36
would no longer be able to use California Avenue because of ADA accessibility issues. 37
Commissioner Summa did not see an analysis or consideration of potential impacts on 38
circulation for vehicles to and from the new Safety Building. Ms. Gurewitz explained that the 39
traffic engineer’s traffic impact analysis was not specific for each building but the analysis 40
revealed that prior to street closure there had been a decrease in vehicular traffic, so there 1
would be no impacts from this project. 2
Commissioner Peterson asked about doing improvements on the alleyways running on either 3
side of California Avenue to make them more of a frontage road for the businesses and maybe 4
replace the ADA parking on the alleyways. Mr. Guagliardo stated that the New Mayfield and 5
Jacaranda alleyways became the primary delivery routes since the street closure in summer of 6
2020. Staff ensures the alleyways are being used effectively and efficiently. Public Works 7
started a project to evaluate what could be done at Lot 8 on Jacaranda. Staff continues to work 8
with businesses to ensure their dumpsters and waste enclosures were sited appropriately in 9
those alleyways to allow vehicles to navigate. As discussions continue about the future of Cal 10
Ave, Mr. Guagliardo was happy to look at potential options for further alleyway improvements. 11
Regarding the pathways for egress, Commissioner Peterson thought the handicap ramps 12
probably met legacy code but did not meet today’s code. Commissioner Peterson remarked 13
that he had to watch where he was going when he walked from the parking lots onto Cal Ave to 14
make sure he did not fall over something. Mr. Guagliardo stated that when envisioning the 15
proposed designs, they will consider how to functionally and aesthetically enhance the patron’s 16
experience with the full path of travel to California Avenue from the parking lot and including 17
the alleyways. Commissioner Peterson commented that an elderly resident stopped him on 18
California Avenue to ask him for help carrying her bags to her car in one of the parking lots. 19
Vice-Chair Akin reviewed the EIR addendum and believed it looked fine. Vice-Chair Akin was 20
comfortable with the determination that there would be no new significant impacts. 21
Commissioner Hechtman wanted the motion to include latitude for staff to make any changed 22
they consider appropriate based upon the PTC’s feedback. The resolution for closure on Packet 23
Page 24 had Recitals A through Y, which Commissioner Hechtman suggested eliminating 24
Recitals C through I, N, O, P, and R because they distracted from the purpose of today’s 25
resolution. For example, Recital R referred to the high likelihood the pandemic will continue 26
through the end of 2021. Recitals X and Y were at the top of Packet Page 27, X was the PTC’s 27
recommendation and Y was for Council to consider those recommendations. The PTC’s 28
recommendation was to amend the map and glossary, which was reflected in Y but the glossary 29
was not in X. Commissioner Hechtman suggested that staff consider adding “and the glossary” 30
after the reference to Map T-5 to have consistency. 31
On Packet Page 29, Section 3.1 stated in part “as determined by the City Manager, emergency 32
vehicles shall be permitted access only during emergency...” Police or Fire do not have to check 33
with the City Manager if there is an emergency, so Commissioner Hechtman suggested staff 34
consider rewording it by moving “as determined by the City Manager” from the beginning of 35
the first sentence to the end of the second sentence where it talked about discretionary 36
accesses, not emergency accesses. The definitions for Pedestrian-Only Street and Community 37
Street allowed City Utility and maintenance vehicles whereas private utility or maintenance 38
vehicles required City permission. Commissioner Hechtman noticed the definition on Packet 39
Page 29, Section 3.2, said a Pedestrian-Only Street was restricted to pedestrian, emergency 40
vehicles, and utility and maintenance vehicles only. The word “City” was needed before “utility” 1
to restrict private utility or maintenance vehicles. Similarly, on Packet Page 20, staff should 2
consider in the first resolution to make reference to City utility and maintenance vehicles being 3
allowed. There was reference to bikes but Commissioner Hechtman asked that consideration 4
be given as to whether it should specify if motorized and non-motorized scooters, e-bikes, and 5
skateboards were allowed rather than leaving it vague. 6
Motion 7
Commissioner Hechtman moved the staff recommendation in addition to recommending that 8
staff use their best judgment to make any needed changes to either resolution based upon the 9
comments they heard from commissioners tonight, and that staff consult with Caltrain about 10
the closure of California Avenue before this is reviewed by Council. 11
Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 12
Ms. Armer acknowledged that the motion included a recommendation for staff to consider the 13
changes suggested in Commissioner Hechtman’s final comment. 14
Commissioner Summa proposed an amendment to the motion to consider including no net loss 15
of ADA parking spaces as well as particular attention to improvements of alleyways and 16
pathways for ADA accessibility. Commissioner Hechtman was comfortable with the amendment 17
to recommend that staff investigate if there was a location for the lost ADA parking space. 18
Commissioner Templeton thought it was an achievable goal and was happy to support including 19
it in the motion. 20
Commissioner Hechtman asked how his fellow commissioners wanted to see improvements to 21
the alleyways reflected in the motion. Ms. Armer pointed out that those improvements were 22
part of the next stages of this process and will return to the UAC for further discussion at a 23
future meeting. Commissioner Summa’s idea was to incorporate it into the motion to indicate 24
the UAC’s interest in improvements of alleyways and pathways but not to be prescriptive. 25
Similar to his monetization recommendation, Commissioner Hechtman did not think it needed 26
to be included in the motion because it was part of the plan. Commissioner Templeton believed 27
the UAC communicated very effectively on wanting to see those improvements, so the 28
Commission will say something if it came back to the UAC without the improvements. 29
Commissioner Summa understood it did not have to be in the motion for it to be on the record. 30
Ms. Armer confirmed that staff heard the Commission’s comments. 31
Commissioner Hechtman stated the motion as amended included the consideration of finding 32
an additional ADA parking space. 33
The motion passed 5-0-0-1 with, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, and Commissioner 34
Peterson, Commissioner Summa, and Commissioner Templeton voting yes by roll call vote. 35
Chair Chang was absent. 36
Study Session 37
3. Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules 1
Ms. Armer mentioned that the Chair requested this item be brought forward for clarification. 2
The PTC’s procedural rules stated that speaker time could be reduced down to three minutes; 3
however, it was inconsistent with other City Boards and Commissions as well as the standard 4
language in the agenda where time could be reduced down to two minutes if there were many 5
speakers, so it has led to some confusion. Having a two-minute minimum gave the Chair 6
flexibility to allow five, four, three, or two minutes per speaker. 7
Commissioner Templeton was glad the PTC was finally talking about this because she recalled 8
Commissioner Summa had long brought up this inconsistency. Commissioner Templeton asked 9
staff why two minutes was chosen. Ms. Armer replied it was the more standard number across 10
the boards and commissions that staff managed and she was familiar with from other agencies, 11
so the hope was to bring consistency and uniformity. Commissioner Templeton had seen City 12
Council shorten it to one minute when necessary. Ms. Armer explained that the PTC’s amount 13
of time starting at five minutes rather than three minutes as well as starting with 15 minutes for 14
applicants and appellants was a lot more than many other agencies; therefore, the PTC could 15
consider making other modifications. Commissioner Templeton wanted a one-minute minimum 16
implemented for all City Boards and Commissions when necessary for extreme occasions if 17
there was a good reason, such as 100 people present. 18
Commissioner Peterson agreed with a one-minute minimum and asked if group speakers were 19
allowed to combine their minutes. Ms. Armer answered yes; a separate section of the 20
procedural rules had specific allowances for somebody to speak on behalf of a group. 21
Commissioner Hechtman opined it was best to give the PTC Chair maximum flexibility to 22
exercise their discretion, so he was supportive of a one-minute minimum. When City Council on 23
occasion provides one minute, Commissioner Hechtman viewed it as a signal to other City 24
Boards and Commissions that there may be appropriate circumstances for limiting time to one 25
minute. Commissioner Hechtman believed five minutes was unusual. In most jurisdictions 26
Commissioner Hechtman worked in, Councils and Planning Commissions typically allowed three 27
minutes for public comment. 28
Commissioner Summa thought it was difficult to say anything substantive in one minute; 29
therefore, she was supportive of staff’s recommendation and Chair’s request for two minutes 30
as she did not see the need to reduce it any further. 31
Commissioner Templeton suggested the Commission work with the Chair and each other to 32
decide to allow two or three minutes, or one minute for rare situations, which the Commission 33
can discuss at a retreat or offline. 34
Ms. Armer noted this item was listed as a study session on the agenda but the intent was for it 35
to be an action item, so staff will bring this back to the PTC probably on consent to avoid 36
further discussion but Ms. Armer will confirm with the City Attorney on the appropriate 37
procedure. 38
Commissioner Peterson knew of some commissions and councils using a calculation based on 1
the number of speakers to determine the minimum amount of speaker time. 2
Commissioner Hechtman did not recall even having seen a consent section on the PTC agenda. 3
Because the Chair initiated this discussion but was unable to attend tonight’s meeting, 4
Commissioner Hechtman preferred making this a future agenda item to allow the PTC Chair to 5
provide input without having to take the step of removing it from the consent calendar. 6
Vice-Chair Akin reviewed the procedural rules before tonight’s meeting and it seemed to him 7
the intent was to target a total maximum time period of 30 minutes for comments, so his 8
inclination was to have a one-minute limit if there were 30 speakers. If there were a lot of 9
appellants, the PTC might want to change the 15-minute limit. 10
PUBLIC COMMENTS 11
None 12
Commissioner Summa agreed with Commissioner Hechtman to have this item come back on 13
the agenda as an action item, especially if the PTC will consider other adjustments. 14
Commissioner Summa had a very strong preference to hear the public and give them as much 15
time as reasonably possible. The appeal process was not free, so Commissioner Summa wanted 16
to ensure appellants were provided a fair amount of time. 17
Commissioner Templeton generally agreed one of the most important functions of the PTC was 18
the ability to hear from the public, so commissioners needed to be thoughtful of that. 19
Commissioner Hechtman noted the current PTC Chair instituted a cutoff time for commenters 20
to make it known they want to speak and he wondered if that procedure was included in the 21
procedural rules; if not, the PTC could discuss having a uniform rule that followed the Chair’s 22
procedure. Vice-Chair Akin did not recall but he thought it was mentioned in the procedural 23
rules for Council not for the PTC, so it could be addressed when this item comes back. 24
Commissioner Summa thought staff added a cutoff time to be consistent with Council. Ms. 25
Armer offered to verify. Commissioner Templeton wanted the application of the cutoff rule to 26
be consistent and fair. 27
Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 28
Agendas 29
Last week, Vice-Chair Akin attended the Stream Corridor Protection community meeting and 30
noted several commissioners attended remotely. The Edgewood residents’ greatest issue was 31
security and their next greatest issue was the 40-foot streamside setback running through their 32
homes. A number of parties expressed concern that not enough was being done to improve the 33
riparian buffers for channelized streams, so Vice-Chair Akin thought the Commission should 34
give more weight on that the next time they consider the issue. Vice-Chair Akin and 35
Commissioner Summa visited several properties on Edgewood. Vice-Chair Akin encouraged his 36
fellow commissioners to make site visits if they had the chance to do so. 37
Vice-Chair Akin mentioned Chair Chang could not attend tonight’s meeting and hoped she 1
recovered quickly. Commissioner Templeton had a family obligation, so she was unable to 2
attend the next PTC meeting. 3
The Commission welcomed Commissioner Peterson. 4
Adjournment 5
7:11 PM 6