Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-26 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: February 26, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 PM 7 Chair Chang called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 for February 26, 2025. Chair Chang welcomed Commissioner Kevin Ji, who will serve a four-year 9 term on the PTC. 10 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao conducted the roll call. Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, 11 Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Summa 12 were present. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 13 Oral Communications 14 None 15 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 16 None 17 City Official Reports 18 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 19 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer presented the Director’s Report. Ms. Armer stated the 20 Transportation Department had nothing to report. 21 A PHZ for 660 University Avenue as well as a discussion and draft language for the El Camino 22 Real Focus Area were scheduled for the PTC meeting on March 12, 2025. The Parking Program 23 Update was on the PTC’s agenda for March 26, 2025. 24 On February 24, 2025, City Council accepted the PTC’s recommendation on the Comprehensive 25 Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports. On March 3, 2025, Council was anticipated 26 to have a discussion on the HIP/AHIP Zoning Regulations Municipal Code Amendments 27 recommended by the PTC on December 17, 2024. 28 Chair Chang announced she will be working with Ms. Dao to update Council liaison assignments 29 before the next packet is sent. 30 Action Item 31 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real [24PLN-00153]: 32 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to 33 Allow for a Condominium Subdivision to Create Eight Units on a 17,406 Square Foot 1 Parcel and to Create 21 Units on a 41,370 Square Foot Parcel. The Subdivision map 2 Would Facilitate Construction of 29 New Residential Units in Five Buildings 3 (24PLN-00152). CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California 4 Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill 5 Development). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information, 6 Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 7 Chair Chang asked commissioners if they had disclosures regarding this project. Earlier this 8 week, Commissioner Ji performed a site visit with Commissioner Summa. 9 Senior Planner Emily Kallas was the project planner for 4345-4445 El Camino Real. The request 10 was for approval of the Vesting Tentative Map for two single-lot subdivisions, creating eight 11 condominium units on the 17,406 sq. ft. parcel at 4335 El Camino Real and 21 condominium 12 units on the 41,370 sq. ft. parcel at 4345 El Camino Real. The existing parcels were code 13 compliant. The CS Zoning District had no minimum lot size or dimension requirements. The 14 proposed private streets met the minimum street width (26 feet paved within a 32 -foot-wide 15 access easement) required per PAMC Title 21 requirements. The findings on the proposed 16 Vesting Tentative Map were detailed in the staff report. This project was exempt from the 17 CEQA in accordance with Guideline 15332, a Class 32 exemption for infill development. Staff 18 recommended that the PTC recommend approval of the proposed Tentative Map to the City 19 Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 20 Austin Lin, Development Manager for SummerHill Homes, delivered a presentation. 21 SummerHill, a local residential developer based in San Ramon, has built more than 7000 homes 22 in the Bay Area since 1976. The project complied with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance 23 by providing four homes onsite for moderate-income families plus a fractional in-lieu fee. The 24 proposed project was all-electric with a solar energy system for every building and all garages 25 wired for a Level 2 EV charger, therefore complying with the City’s Reach Code. This project was 26 reviewed through the City’s streamlined housing development review process, which meant 27 the architecture and improvements were approved. Tonight’s hearing was specifically on the 28 Vesting Tentative Map and draft findings in Attachment B of the staff report. As explained in 29 Attachment B, the Tentative Map satisfied all required findings. The site was suitable for this 30 project. The map was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and Zoning 31 Code. Mr. Lin requested the PTC’s recommendation of approval tonight for the proposed 32 Tentative Map. Also present from SummerHill were John Hickey, Vice President of 33 Development; Kevin Ebrahimi, Senior Vice President of Development; and Ryan Hansen, the 34 civil engineer for the project. 35 Chair Chang asked for the parcel map to be shown because the map in Packet Page 16 36 inaccurately showed Parcels 1A and 1B as part of Parcel 3. Ms. Kallas confirmed Parcels 1 and 3 37 did not include Parcels 1A and 1B. Chair Chang stated the PTC received public comments asking 38 for a bike lane connection through Parcel 1B; however, the PTC could not make that decision 39 because Parcel 1B was not part of this project’s parcels. 40 Commissioner Hechtman asked for an explanation of what was included in the streamlined 1 housing development review. Ms. Kallas replied that the streamlined housing approval covered 2 the architectural review of the units and findings the application was required to make. This 3 evening, the PTC was exclusively looking at the findings for the Vesting Tentative Map. 4 Vice-Chair Akin noted Condition of Approval 4 was missing, which he mentioned to staff at the 5 pre-meeting. Ms. Kallas said it was a typographical error. Condition 5 was after Condition 3L, 6 accidentally skipping Condition 4 but it will be corrected before going to Council. Vice-Chair 7 Akin asked about the daily trip count increase. Ms. Kallas responded that the categorical 8 exemption included an analysis of the trips anticipated for this project. There were 76 total net 9 new daily trips; however, the peak-hour trips were between -1 to +5. 10 Commissioner Peterson wanted to know who owned Lot 1B. Commissioner Summa stated Lot 11 1B was part of 440 Cesano and she assumed that when the street was made it had cut through 12 their property, so two sections ended up on the other side of the street. 13 Public Comments 14 None 15 Commissioner Hechtman thought SummerHill’s project on West Bayshore was terrific and, in 16 his experience, SummerHill did great work. Commissioner Hechtman inquired how the 17 applicant arrived at their configuration of 29 units instead of a greater density when the land 18 use designations for this site appeared to allow as many as 43 units. Mr. Hickey explained that if 19 it was denser than 29 units it had to be in stacked condominiums, which were much more 20 expensive to build and therefore not feasible for SummerHill. Mr. Hickey mentioned the 21 proposal was for a very popular type of housing, especially for buyers who were unable to buy a 22 single-family detached home in Palo Alto but wanted three or four bedrooms. Commissioner 23 Hechtman asked what the affordability level was for the four BMR units. Mr. Hickey replied that 24 the BMR units were for moderate income, so it was a mix of 80-100 percent of AMI and 100-25 120 percent of AMI. On Packet Page 18, Commissioner Hechtman noted the Record of Land Use 26 Action had different figures and he wanted it corrected before going to Council, which was 27 acknowledged by Ms. Kallas. 28 Commissioner Hechtman noted inconsistent language in the final map expiration. In Condition 29 7 in the packet, the T map was two years and a maximum one-year extension; however, in 30 Section 7 on Packet Page 23, the T map was two years with extensions to the maximum limit 31 set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang confirmed it was an 32 inconsistency. The Map Act allowed for a greater number of extensions, so staff could eliminate 33 the duplicate condition. Commissioner Hechtman did not see a reference to open space 34 requirements in the staff report and wondered if it needed to be addressed by the PTC. Ms. 35 Kallas responded that open space was included in the streamlined housing review. There were 36 waivers associated with this project but Ms. Kallas did not recall if open space was one of them. 37 There was common open space provided for residents on Parcels 1 and 3. 38 Commissioner Summa noted all the trees associated with this property were being removed 1 and replaced with smaller trees. Commissioner Summa wondered if it was possible to save Tree 2 16, a huge cedar tree, but she could not find the arborist’s report to see if there was any health 3 or safety reason for its removal. Mr. Hickey explained this was addressed in the streamlined 4 review. Tree 16 could not be kept because its location did not allow fire access. Commissioner 5 Summa asked if it was possible to save the largest camphor tree in the southwest corner, which 6 had a larger canopy but smaller diameter than Tree 16. Mr. Hickey reiterated that this was 7 addressed in the streamlined environmental review, so it was not part of the PTC’s discussion 8 this evening. Mr. Hickey stated it was not feasible to save any of the trees onsite because of the 9 utilities, grading, roadways, and homes proposed. 10 Motion 11 Commissioner Hechtman moved the staff recommendation with the modifications to the 12 Record of Land Use Approval noted during tonight’s discussion. 13 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 14 Commissioner Peterson asked why AMI was set at 80 percent and if there was a large stock of 15 sub-80 percent units in Palo Alto. Ms. Armer replied that the affordability level of the units was 16 not applicable to the Tentative Map application before the PTC; therefore, she recommended 17 tabling further discussion to another time. Ms. Armer had been speaking to the Chair about 18 having a retreat for the PTC to discuss some items, potentially on some new housing rules, so 19 that may be a more appropriate time for this discussion. Ms. Kallas explained that this project 20 was streamlined under the State Density Bonus Law, which set the affordability levels. 21 Commissioner Peterson asked if that was mentioned in the PTC’s packet. Ms. Armer responded 22 that it would have been part of the reports for the review of the buildings rather than the 23 subdivision. 24 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to clarify for the record that the affordability rate for this 25 project, as stated on Packet Page 10, was a range of 80 to 120 percent. Mr. Yang stated it 26 should be two tiers of BMR units, two-thirds of the BMR units at a maximum of 100 percent 27 AMI and one-third of the BMR units at a maximum of 120 percent AMI. 28 The motion passed 6-0-0-1 with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, 29 Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Summa voting yes by roll call 30 vote. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 31 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: 32 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an 33 Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a 34 Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New Three-Story, 19,035 Square Foot 35 Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. CEQA Status: Streamlined Review 36 in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan 37 Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information 38 Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org. 39 Chair Chang asked commissioners if they had disclosures regarding this project. Commissioner 1 Hechtman had driven by this site many times, probably most recently in the last week, but he 2 had not met or spoken with anyone about this project since prior to the last PTC meeting on 3 this matter. Commissioner Ji met with the architect and developer, and had been to the site 4 numerous times with his most recent visit probably within the last week. Commissioner 5 Peterson walked by the site weekly or every other week. 6 Ms. Kallas delivered a slide presentation. This PHZ/PC had a Council prescreening in September 7 of 2022, although the project presented at that time was substantially different than the 8 project formally submitted. Initial feedback was obtained from the Architectural Review Board 9 (ARB) in December of 2023. Formal application was submitted in March of 2024. The initial PTC 10 hearing for the 10-unit development was in September of 2024. ARB hearings were held in 11 November of 2024 and February of 2025. The ARB recommended approval, and now it was 12 before the PTC for a recommendation for City Council’s decision. 13 A map of the proposed project location was shown, which was on two properties separately 14 owned from the remainder of Town & Country Village and not included in Town & Country’s 15 required parking. This site was within ½ mile of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. The proposed 16 project was for 10 condominium units with garages in a three-story building organized around a 17 central driveway. Two BMR units were proposed at 80-100 percent AMI. This Planned Home 18 Zoning (PHZ) project was asking for the following exceptions to the development standards 19 normally required in the CC(2) Zoning District: 1.57 FAR (maximum 1.25 allowed), 58 percent lot 20 coverage (maximum 50 percent allowed), 0-foot rear setback (minimum 10 feet required for 21 residential uses), the usable open space varied between 79-155 sq. ft. for second-floor deck 22 areas facing the central courtyard (minimum 150 sq. ft. per unit required for multifamily use), 23 and minimal ground-level landscaping was provided with perimeter planters (minimum 30 24 percent of open space required). Of note, prior reports had an FAR of 1.8. The design did not 25 change; however, it came to staff’s attention that garages were being included in the FAR but 26 should not have been per the zoning code. The site plan, floor plan, as well as front, rear, and 27 side elevations were shown. 28 Key considerations for the PTC included: The application’s consistency with the findings, 29 Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Code, which were summarized in attachments to the staff 30 report; the proposed site development regulations that differ from the standard requirements; 31 the public benefit and affordable units provided; and the relationship between Town & Country 32 Village and this development. This project was streamlined under CEQA Guideline 15183, 33 consistency with the community plan, which was the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Therefore, 34 mitigation measures from the Comprehensive Plan EIR were applicable to this project. 35 Staff received public comments including letters of support. The most recent letter from Ellis 36 Partners, the operators of Town & Country, advocated for a more collaborative approach to 37 housing in this area. 38 Staff recommended that the PTC recommend approval of the proposed project to the City 39 Council based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. 40 Jeffrey Galbraith, Principal at Hayes Group Architects, delivered a presentation. This project 1 would be the first residential development on the south side of Encina Avenue. The feedback 2 from the PTC hearing on September 11, 2024, included opposition to the proposed bulb-outs in 3 the street to provide space for electrical service to the project and street trees, concern about 4 the front entry gate and vehicular maneuverability, additional landscaping to soften the project 5 exterior, and interest in seeing a vision of what this development might become a part of. The 6 proposed plan changes to the ground floor were shown, which kept the street edge in its 7 current condition to allow parallel street parking along both sides of Encina Avenue. Studies 8 from BKF, their civil engineer, depicted garage ingress and egress for the various units. Rough 9 feasibility design studies were shown of what Encina could become. In response to ARB 10 comments, the fence and trellis members were eliminated on the side facade and now the 11 green walls were more visible, the rear unit rooflines were now flat to reduce facade height 12 facing Town & Country, and the positioning of third-floor windows was changed to minimize 13 visibility across the central courtyard between bedrooms. The materials palette and renderings 14 from various angles and locations were shown, including the view from Town & Country. 15 At the bottom on Packet Page 35, Commissioner Ji noted the rear setback was 7 inches but Ms. 16 Kallas mentioned in her presentation that the setback was 0. Ms. Kallas confirmed the rear 17 setback was 7 inches but she rounded down in her presentation. 18 Commissioner Peterson asked if the PTC could comment on walkability only within the property 19 lines or to and from the site. Ms. Armer replied that the applicant did not have control beyond 20 their property lines and any sidewalk improvements required by Public Works. Commissioner 21 Peterson queried if the Comprehensive Plan EIR mitigations included walkability. Ms. Armer 22 responded that many of the Comprehensive Plan’s broader policies and implementation 23 programs touched on what the City would do for walkability; however, for a development of 24 this size, no mitigation measures went beyond the site and immediate vicinity. 25 In reply to Commissioner Ji inquiring if any greenspace additions had been made since the last 26 PTC hearing, Mr. Galbraith answered no. The open space requirement precluded the driveway 27 space being counted toward open space; however, the courtyard in the middle of this project 28 will be a usable, beautiful space. 29 Chair Chang was aware the public and the Commission had concerns about queuing on a busy 30 street. Mr. Galbraith was not concerned about queueing due to it being a 10-unit project and 31 the ground-floor front facade diagram showed a vehicle turning in was able to get out of the 32 way of ongoing traffic because there were about 8 or 10 ft. along the curb for parallel parking. 33 Chair Chang asked if there would be sound walls or what the applicant was doing to minimize 34 noise impacts on the residents from the commercial and restaurant uses on the backside of the 35 property. Mr. Galbraith explained that the California Code required buildings to be designed in 36 a way that limited noise levels inside of spaces to a certain number of decibels. When the 37 applicant moves into the building permit phase, an acoustical engineer will be hired to take 38 measurements by leaving sound-recording devices onsite to determine the loudness levels 39 throughout the day and at what times it is loudest. From past projects, the loudest things were 40 Caltrain and early morning truck traffic on El Camino. The acoustical engineer uses the data to 1 provide a plan for the applicant to design the windows and walls to achieve the decibel 2 requirement for noise inside the units. 3 Referring to the garage plans, Commissioner Summa wanted to verify if two cars could fit in the 4 locations where there were planters for trees. Mr. Galbraith answered yes; the width of the 5 courtyard was 30 ft. and a typical two-way was 20 ft. On Commissioner Summa’s site visit, 6 behind the project she noticed parking spots under the cyclone fence and wondered if the 7 fence was on the property line. Mr. Galbraith replied the fence was very close to the property 8 line. In response to Commissioner Summa thinking some garage accesses required five 9 maneuvers, Mr. Galbraith confirmed some accesses were tighter, such as for Unit 2. 10 Public Comments 11 1. Director of Development Dean Rubinson spoke on behalf of Ellis Partners, owners of 12 Town & Country Village. Mr. Rubinson believed this proposal would result in an isolated 13 and architecturally incompatible project that did not address many of the operational 14 concerns they had raised. Ellis Partners was made aware in November of 2024 by the 15 City that the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan now allowed their parking lots to 16 be converted to residential use, despite longstanding indications from staff to the 17 contrary. Due to this recent change and with the ARB’s encouragement, Ellis Partners 18 was working with their architects, contractors, and brokers to explore the design and 19 financial feasibility of a housing development project in the remainder of the north lot. 20 Ellis Partners recently spoke with Stormland Development to discuss the potential of a 21 combined masterplan housing project on all the parcels in the north lot to ensure 22 operational compatibility with the existing retail center and any future housing 23 development. Ellis Partners believed a combined project was best for all parties, 24 including the community and visitors to Town & Country. A holistic development 25 solution would result in over a hundred new housing units, including a wide range of 26 unit sizes and affordability levels. 27 2. Herb Borock said the PTC should not take any action on this item tonight because he 28 believed the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s 29 Zoning Ordinance. The application needed to go back to the ARB for review of the entire 30 project’s environmental review document before recommendations could be made by 31 the ARB or PTC. Environmental regulations defined a project as the whole of an action 32 and each discretionary approval was not a project, therefore they needed to be 33 evaluated together in the environmental review. Five days after this project was 34 considered and acted upon by the ARB, the applicant submitted a discretionary approval 35 for a tentative subdivision map. Staff needed to prepare a complete environmental 36 document for the project that included the rezoning, tentative subdivision map, and any 37 other discretionary approvals requested for the project. Furthermore, the PHZ criteria 38 that provided additional entitlements had not been adopted as part of the Zoning 39 Ordinance. To use the PHZ criteria, an amendment needed to be made to the Zoning 40 Ordinance as required by Chapter 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This afternoon, 41 Mr. Borock submitted these comments by an email addressed to the Commission but he 1 did not receive an acknowledgement. 2 Chair Chang asked for Mr. Yang’s response to the legal issues raised by the commenter. Mr. 3 Yang stated that staff did not believe there were any violations of CEQA or the Zoning Code. 4 The environmental analysis, the Class 32 exemption, considered the project as a whole, so it 5 could consider the rezoning and tentative map even if those were not being presented for 6 decision at the same time. The tentative map changed the method of ownership for the units 7 but did not affect the environmental impacts of the project. Mr. Yang said PHZs did not need a 8 separate section in the Code because the City Council indicated they were open to reviewing 9 these types of PCs and Council considered a certain level of affordability to be a public benefit. 10 Chair Chang recalled a previous staff report mentioned the level of affordability and she asked if 11 staff could elaborate. Ms. Kallas remarked that the Council recommended at least 20 percent of 12 units be deed-restricted below market rate. Council provided three or four options for how the 13 affordable units could be divided amongst various levels. This project had 10 units, two of 14 which will be at 80-100 percent AMI. 15 Ed Storm, the proponent of this project, requested the PTC’s approval to move this application 16 forward, which would show that the City cared about housing. 17 Commissioner Peterson asked what the process was for the applicant to come back with a 18 more expansive project. Mr. Galbraith wanted to get through the entitlement process while Ed 19 Storm and Stormland continued talks with Ellis Partners. Nothing prevented another project 20 application from being submitted simultaneously even though they might overlap but only one 21 could move forward through the building permit phase. 22 Regarding Condition 17 on Packet Page 54, Commissioner Hechtman wanted to confirm that 23 public art requirements applied to residential projects of this size. Ms. Kallas answered yes; 24 residential projects with more than five units were subject to public art requirements, which 25 may be provided onsite or paid as in-lieu fees. This project will pay in-lieu fees. Commissioner 26 Hechtman reminded staff to correct the FAR and square footage in the draft ordinance going to 27 Council, which was corrected in the staff report to not include the garage. With a range of 80-28 100 percent AMI, the two affordable units would likely be at the upper end of the range at 29 approximately 100 percent AMI. Commissioner Hechtman wondered if the PTC had the 30 authority to request and if applicant was agreeable to provide one unit at 80 percent AMI and 31 one unit at 120 percent AMI, which resulted in the same total dollar amount as two units at 100 32 percent AMI. Ms. Kallas stated this was a fully discretionary project, so they were using the 33 guidelines provided by Council but the PTC could make a recommendation to Council that a 34 different mix would provide a better public benefit. Mr. Yang agreed. Mr. Galbraith was open to 35 the concept. 36 Mr. Galbraith wanted an answer to a question he had asked of the City several times, which 37 was how were the prices fixed before they were sold because he did not know if it was 38 completely their choice. 39 Commissioner Hechtman noted the ARB made a recommendation encouraging Council to look 1 at rezoning the entire north lot. Commissioner Hechtman thought it was terrific if the parking 2 lot had 100 units along Encina. Commissioner Hechtman believed this project before the PTC 3 was worthy of approval. Commissioner Hechtman urged Ellis Partners to make a deal to be part 4 of a bigger and better project, which gives them the expertise of one of the more experienced 5 residential developers in the South Bay. Commissioner Hechtman was supportive of this project 6 moving forward per staff’s recommendation with the possibility of splitting the BMRs. 7 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Commissioner Hechtman’s suggestion to split the BMRs. 8 Commissioner Peterson stated there was a beautiful walking path along the railroad tracks but 9 the sidewalk ended about 12 feet short. It was not a safe route to school to have kids going into 10 the street to access the walking path, so Commissioner Peterson encouraged consideration of 11 continuing the pathway from the applicant’s site to connect with the rest of the neighborhood. 12 Vice-Chair Akin recalled this issue coming up previously, so he wanted the Commission to 13 consider recommending that staff ask for direction from Council on affordability levels for 14 rentals versus ownership projects, as mentioned on Packet Page 37. This project’s affordability 15 exceeded current standards but Vice-Chair Akin was interested in having Commissioner 16 Hechtman’s BMR proposal examined. Vice-Chair Akin hoped the negotiations for a more 17 comprehensive project succeeded. Vice-Chair Akin believed he could make all the necessary 18 findings and this project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIR, so he will support 19 this project. 20 Commissioner Summa pointed out that if the municipal code was changed, there would be no 21 questions about affordability level, etc. Commissioner Summa was excited by the possibility of 22 having a larger project on this site but was troubled by discussing this project with the larger 23 project in view. A larger, more cohesive project could have better circulation onsite and a more 24 realistic landscape plan for everyone’s enjoyment. Commissioner Summa was concerned about 25 this project’s circulation and access, reducing the development standards to no rear setback as 26 rounded up by staff, and no landscaping at grade unless it was clinging to the side of the 27 building. Commissioner Summa stated a driveway could not be used as a courtyard. Units were 28 looking down on a driveway. Commissioner Summa had problems making Finding 3. 29 Commissioner Summa wanted clarification from Council on the AMI levels. Commissioner 30 Summa did not mind the lot coverage and FAR but thought the project would be more 31 successful if it had some room around it because it seemed too big for the lot. Commissioner 32 Summa recalled that when Trader Joes was approved for Town & Country, they were required 33 to remove buildings from parcels in the north lot to have sufficient parking. Commissioner 34 Summa wanted to ensure that Town & Country had sufficient parking because it was a hugely 35 successful part of the community. 36 Commissioner Ji was excited about this project because there were very few sites within Palo 37 Alto where you could walk to your grocery store and go to school on a safe bike path behind 38 your house. Commissioner Ji wanted more greenspace, if possible. Commissioner Ji agreed with 39 Commissioner Summa on a concrete driveway not considered sufficient greenspace. Finding 3 40 for the Planned Community talked about being compatible with existing and potential uses on 1 adjoining sites. Commissioner Ji was worried about a 0 setback being compatible with potential 2 adjoining sites, living immediately next to another building. Other residential properties in Palo 3 Alto had larger setback protections. Encina was always completely parked, so Commissioner Ji 4 was interested to see if other solutions could be brought forward. 5 Chair Chang noted the positives of this project were proximity to services and transportation. 6 Chair Chang thought it was a fantastic opportunity to potentially have a five-story development 7 that could provide many units of needed housing for people who want to live close to services 8 in a more urbanized environment with the ground floor providing sufficient parking for the 9 building and Town & Country. Chair Chang struggled with making Finding 3, compatibility with 10 future uses, particularly due to the setbacks. Setbacks protected people on the subject property 11 and owners of adjacent properties. At the last hearing, the PTC was told there was an adjacent 12 parking lot for the foreseeable future because of a long-term lease but now the PTC was being 13 told something different. Chair Chang did not want to end up with a project that did not work 14 but she was stuck because this was a discretionary approval for something that did not look at 15 the whole parcel. 16 Commissioner Summa appreciated Commissioner Peterson’s request to add access to the 17 bicycle and walking path. 18 Mr. Galbraith pointed out that Finding 3 was about a project being compatible with future 19 adjacent uses. There was an important distinction between a future use and a future project. It 20 was impossible for any project to know what future project may come. Mr. Galbraith did not 21 see conflict between adjacent uses for a parking lot, retail, or residential. Ms. Kallas mentioned 22 that staff was reviewing this project as proposed and looking at the findings for this project. 23 Any potential future project needed to go through the review process. Ms. Armer stated that 24 when two applications were being processed at the same time, staff often included submitted 25 materials as part of the discussions but it was difficult to evaluate this project in relation to a 26 potential future development that may or may not occur and not knowing what it would look 27 like. The guidance was to look at allowed uses on adjacent sites, which this site would not have 28 an adjacent disruptive industrial use, and this project was designed in a way that did not 29 prevent adjacent sites from future development. Staff will continue to work with and 30 encourage the applicants to do a more comprehensive plan but staff strongly recommended 31 continuing to move forward with this proposal. 32 Chair Chang asked how Fire would access the rear and sides with a 7-inch rear setback. Ms. 33 Kallas replied that the plans included fire egress diagrams. Mr. Galbraith explained that the side 34 yards had 5-foot setbacks. The Fire Department wanted the ability to move freely down both 35 property side lot lines to the back of the lot and ensure they could get to the rooftop from a 36 couple locations. Fire ladders were built into the front and rear facades, the rear ladder was 37 screened and the front ladder was concealed adjacent to a private patio, so the Fire 38 Department could lean their ladders against the building and climb the rest of the way up, with 39 the bottom of the ladder on the sidewalk or in the road on Encina. 40 Commissioner Summa recalled the plan set had left and right setbacks varying from 7 inches to 1 5 feet. Mr. Galbraith stated that the back of the property adjacent to Town & Country will pop 2 out and the back corners come out closer. On the ground-floor plan, the garages for the four 3 units on each side closest to Encina pull in 5 feet off the lot line but the last garage comes out 4 closer. A landing was created for the fire department to lean their ladders. Powerlines run along 5 Encina Avenue and the transmission lines cannot be undergrounded. The fire department did 6 not feel it was safe to use an aerial access lift with high voltage at 50 feet, which was why 7 ladders were built into the building. 8 Commissioner Ji questioned the timeline of when staff changed from saying residential was not 9 appropriate for this site to now allowing residential. Ms. Kallas replied it was a Comprehensive 10 Plan policy, which was in the Findings. Chair Chang believed the Comprehensive Plan policy was 11 amended to say housing was appropriate in certain CC areas after the Housing Element was 12 approved. Ms. Kallas agreed that was part of the reason. This site was designated as a Housing 13 Inventory Site when the Housing Element was adopted last year. One of the findings referred to 14 a Land Use Element policy about maintaining retail at Town & Country and not allowing 15 conversion of retail to residential. Ms. Kallas did not know the timeline but there was discussion 16 on this project being in the parking lot did not constitute conversion of retail since all the retail 17 remained. Ms. Armer said the language in Program L2.4.4 from the Comprehensive Plan talked 18 about assessing nonresidential development potential in some zones. The last sentence read: 19 Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town & Country Village. Staff’s 20 current understanding of that language, based on it talking about nonresidential uses and then 21 conversion, meant residential was allowed as long as there was not loss of other uses on that 22 site. In the current environment, there was interest in finding opportunities for additional 23 housing. Ms. Armer stated the other lots of the north parking lot could potentially be converted 24 if the shopping center met the parking requirements. 25 On Packet Page 35, Chair Chang noted the top paragraph talked about the Comprehensive Plan 26 designation of Community Commercial, which was edited to add the last sentence after the 27 adoption of the Housing Element. Based on Chair Chang’s recollection, the Comprehensive Plan 28 changes were effective January of 2024. Ms. Armer believed the changes were made about a 29 year ago, as the Housing Element process was moving forward but prior to actual certification. 30 Chair Chang pointed out that was after this team started their application. 31 Commissioner Ji remembered reading in the packet that one of these lots was a Housing 32 Element lot and he asked if any of the other lots in the north parking lot were considered 33 Housing Element sites. Ms. Kallas replied that this site was comprised of two lots with individual 34 APNs, one of which was listed as a Housing Element site with a capacity of four units. The other 35 lots in the north parking lot were not on the inventory. 36 Commissioner Hechtman wanted further understanding of the issue Commissioner Peterson 37 raised about walkability from this site to the existing pedestrian and bike path. Ms. Kallas stated 38 the existing sidewalk continued across the entire frontage of this property but she believed the 39 section Commissioner Peterson referred to was at the end of Encina, not abutting this property. 40 Commissioner Peterson explained there was a driveway for each of the commercial lots on 1 either side on Encina at the cul-de-sac. The sidewalk runs to the driveway but did not continue, 2 leaving 8 feet from the other side of the driveway to the bike path. From the end of the cul-de-3 sac, there was a bollard and an entrance to the bike path but Commissioner Peterson opined it 4 was dangerous to walk through that entrance because you have to walk into the street, into the 5 rain gutter, and then out of the street to access the path. Commissioner Hechtman thought this 6 could be of interest to the developer since there could be kids living in the 10 proposed units. 7 Commissioner Hechtman will include it in his motion as an exploration item for staff and the 8 applicant to perhaps address it as this project moves toward Council. 9 Commissioner Summa asked where was the 25-foot setback from Town & Country Village 10 mentioned on Packet Page 48. Ms. Kallas replied it was a 25-foot distance between the 11 proposed building and the existing shopping center building. Ms. Armer agreed it was the 12 measured distance between the proposed development and the existing buildings on the 13 adjacent lot but it was not a 25-foot setback to the property line. 14 Commissioner Ji inquired if Town & Country’s existing CC Zone required a 10-foot setback; 15 therefore, the current 25-foot distance could reduce to 10 feet 7 inches if it was rebuilt. Ms. 16 Kallas stated it depended on the proposed use. Chair Chang asked if it was considered the back 17 or side setback for Town & Country. Ms. Armer said staff will look up the regulations. Ms. Kallas 18 mentioned that if there was north parking lot development, there was a property line, so it 19 would not necessarily be combined with the shopping center properties. If the shopping center 20 property were to propose a redevelopment, there was no requirement for a setback from an 21 interior property line but there were fire code regulations for separation distances between 22 existing buildings, which was typically about 5 feet. Ms. Armer pointed out that any future 23 development would be reviewed based on what had been approved or constructed on the 24 adjacent lot. Ms. Armer confirmed that any future development adjacent to residential had a 25 10-foot setback requirement. Ms. Kallas mentioned that Packet Page 39 showed the 26 configuration of the property lines. 27 Motion 28 Commissioner Hechtman moved the staff recommendation with the FAR and square footage to 29 be corrected in the ordinance, and including a recommendation that staff and the applicant 30 explore as this moves toward Council (1) the potential for offsite improvements to enhance 31 walkability safety to the pedestrian/bike path at the end of Encina, and (2) the potential to set 32 one of the BMRs at 80 percent AMI maximum and the other at 120 percent AMI maximum. 33 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 34 Commissioner Hechtman emphasized that Finding 3 on Packet Page 47 was written as being 35 compatible with future potential uses, not potential structures. A parking lot or residential use 36 on the adjacent Ellis properties was compatible but a residential use was not compatible with a 37 manufacturing or industrial use. Regarding the proximity to its boundaries, Commissioner 38 Hechtman stated three sides of this proposed structure will have a vehicle path: One side was 39 Encina, the rear of the property had a back road servicing Town & Country’s row of retail, and 40 on one side currently you can drive through Town & Country out to Encina. Commissioner 1 Hechtman thought exits to Encina in addition to Embarcadero and El Camino were needed for 2 fire safety purposes. Commissioner Hechtman suspected if housing was built on the north lot, 3 the road will remain or maybe housing will be built over the top of it. One side was the street 4 and one side was Town & Country’s, so the closest potential residential use was across a private 5 street going out to Encina. If residential was built, Commissioner Hechtman expected it would 6 mirror the existing 5-foot setback, creating a total of 10 feet of setback. Commissioner 7 Hechtman thought the PTC should move this project forward to Council. 8 Town & Country had a fourth entrance at the end of the cul-de-sac and the entrance from 9 Encina to Town & Country was largely to access parking, so Commissioner Summa wondered if 10 the Encina access was required for fire purposes. Ms. Armer stated it was a reasonable 11 supposition; however, if any of those sites were redeveloped, a traffic circulation study was 12 required to ensure fire access and to determine vehicle circulation impacts. 13 Vice-Chair Akin thought he could make Finding 3 that the uses were compatible, based on the 14 interpretation of it referring to potential uses rather than potential projects. If it was 15 interpreted as potential projects, Vice-Chair Akin might argue that whatever was proposed on 16 the other lots was probably subject to the PC rules, so the PTC could enforce a condition of 17 approval to ensure sufficient space around the building. 18 Chair Chang felt it was a question of fairness to allow a 7-inch setback for this site when the fire 19 code would not allow the adjacent parcel to build housing with a 7-inch setback. 20 Commissioner Peterson did not see a need to eliminate a housing project based on how 21 another lot might be used. 22 The motion failed 3-3-0-1 by roll call vote with Chair Chang, Commissioner Ji, and Commissioner 23 Summa voting no; Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Hechtman, and Commissioner Peterson 24 voting yes. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 25 As to her no vote, Commissioner Summa felt uncomfortable with making Finding 3, particularly 26 since the information on the following page in the staff report was about two Comprehensive 27 Plan things she opined were incorrect. Commissioner Summa thought this standalone project 28 was not compatible with the current use. Commissioner Summa was uncomfortable with the 29 circulation, setbacks, lack of open space, and calling the driveway a courtyard. Commissioner 30 Summa stated it was not fair to this applicant for the PTC to have in mind the potential use. 31 Commissioner Ji echoed many of Commissioner Summa’s concerns. Commissioner Ji was 32 extremely sympathetic to the small 7-inch setback. Policy L2.11 on Packet Page 48 encouraged 33 new developments to incorporate greenery. Commissioner Ji wanted to see more greenery. 34 Regarding NL6.7, Commissioner Ji did not think the 25-foot setback was a fair statement as 35 previously discussed in Commissioner Summa’s comment. 36 Chair Chang had difficulty making Finding 3. Other than the bulb-out, Chair Chang did not see 1 the PTC’s concerns adequately addressed. Chair Chang was hopeful to see something much 2 bigger and better. 3 Ms. Armer pointed out that the PTC needed to make a motion that passed to move this forward 4 to Council, which could be a split recommendation. Chair Chang asked for Mr. Yang’s advice, 5 who agreed the PTC needed to have a vote that passed affirmatively, which could be to send 6 this to the Council noting that the PTC was split evenly. 7 Motion 8 Chair Chang moved that the PTC move this on to Council, letting Council know that the PTC was 9 split on the staff recommendation, and with the additions of Commissioner Hechtman’s good 10 additions. 11 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 12 The motion passed 5-1-0-1 by roll call vote with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner Ji, 13 Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Summa voting yes; Commissioner Hechtman voted 14 no. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 15 Commissioner Hechtman wondered if the PTC would have reached a consensus if they had 16 spent more time dialoguing. It was very rare for the PTC to have split votes. Commissioner 17 Hechtman voted no as a way to express that the PTC should strive to find some consensus even 18 if there were minority votes because the PTC was depriving themselves the ability to imprint a 19 majority view on Council. 20 Commissioner Summa understood Commissioner Hechtman’s viewpoint and acknowledged a 21 feeling of incompleteness; however, she thought this was a good outcome to move this along 22 for the applicant since Council was the ultimate decider. 23 The PTC took a break at 8:17 PM and resumed at 8:30 PM with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, 24 Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Summa 25 present. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 26 Study Session 27 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update: Provide Feedback on 28 Draft Proposed Bicycle Network and Facilities, Pedestrian District Guidelines, and 29 Program and Policy Recommendations. 30 Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner in the Office of Transportation, encouraged the 31 commissioners to review the several supplemental attachments in the packet. The PTC and the 32 public had until April 30 to review the material and provide feedback. Mr. Arce made himself 33 available to meet with individual commissioners to answer any additional questions. 34 Nick Falbo from Mobycon delivered a presentation. Network and corridor recommendations 1 were developed between June of 2024 and April of 2025. It was anticipated to have the plan 2 finished by the end of 2025. 3 Recent plans including projects that have been built were cross-referenced to related active 4 transportation networks to identify new or alternate routing. Network development primary 5 inputs included the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, High-Injury Network, 2024 6 Existing Bicycle Facilities Map, Palo Alto Bicycle Map, Walk and Roll suggested routes, 2016 7 Bicycle Boulevard planning, as well as regional plans from MTC and Caltrans. The selection of 8 final network links will be refined by observation counts and community input. 9 The proposal included designations of bikeways and bike-friendly zones. Bikeways were street 10 corridors including trails that were enhanced to support bicycling and connect to form the city’s 11 bikeway network to serve high volumes of bicycle traffic to provide direct, seamless, and 12 efficient travel across the city. Bike-friendly zones were cohesive areas with concentrations of 13 destinations, commercial activity, and high levels of pedestrian activity that have investments in 14 amenities such as adjusted signal timing, bike parking, and traffic calming. The proposed Draft 15 Updated Bike Network was displayed. Changes were proposed in the University Avenue area 16 for a bike-friendly zone. Alma Street was removed from the network in favor of parallel bike 17 boulevard routes on Bryant Street and Park. 18 The plan identified different types of infrastructure to create a safe, comfortable experience for 19 users of all ages and abilities. The plan recommended a set of facilities including bike 20 boulevards, bike lanes, advisory bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and 21 shared-use paths. Bike boulevards were streets designed to prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians 22 with features to reduce vehicle speed and limit motor vehicle traffic volumes. Bike lanes were 23 dedicated spaces demarcated for bicycle use separate from motor vehicle traffic; however, bike 24 lanes should be configured with a buffer where speeds or volumes were high. Protected bike 25 lanes were a separated space with a vertical element to create a safer and more comfortable 26 space on streets with high motor vehicle volumes and speeds. Shared-use paths were 27 independent rights-of-way shared between people walking and biking, separate from the road 28 network. Bicycle facility selection was based on traffic conditions. Recommendations followed 29 best practice guidance from the Federal Highways Administration and the National Association 30 of City Transportation Officials. 31 A map was shown of bicycle facilities. The bicycle facility selection approach was significantly 32 changed from 2012. Now, the intent was to increase comfort for all users. Key changes included 33 embracing big streets such as San Antonio by providing separated facilities such as protected 34 bike lanes, strict application of facility thresholds and use of high-comfort design, and filling 35 gaps to offer door-to-door connections. Projects across the city were recommended, including 36 25 bicycle boulevards, 11 bike lanes, 9 buffered bike lanes, 26 protected bike lanes, 13 shared-37 use paths, 2 advisory bike lanes, 28 crossing projects, and 7 studies and special projects. 38 The plan identified three Pedestrian Districts (University Avenue District, California Avenue 39 District, and Midtown District) and two Neighborhood Commercial Centers (Embarcadero 40 Neighborhood Commercial Center and El Camino Real Neighborhood Commercial Center). The 1 Pedestrian Toolbox included enhanced crossings, signal adjustments, activation, 2 reconfiguration of streets, design enhancement to include aesthetic treatments such as 3 decorative lighting, and other adjustments to major intersections. 4 Program and policy recommendations included programs that institutionalized safety in current 5 City practices, elevated pedestrian and bicycle priorities, and included efforts to make walking 6 and biking more convenient, useful, and enjoyable. 7 Upcoming engagement in Phase 3 included meetings with the Pedestrian and Bicycle 8 Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, and focus groups. A community 9 workshop on April 2 at Mitchell Park Community Center will discuss this plan in more detail. 10 Commission Peterson noted the pathway along the railroad tracks from Palo Alto High School 11 to California Avenue had a missing section. Commissioner Peterson walked to the end of 12 California Avenue and reached a dead end with a locked chain link fence. Addressing this would 13 help businesses in that area of California Avenue. Commissioner Peterson suggested connecting 14 north and south Palo Alto. The El Camino and California Avenue intersection was dangerous. 15 Commissioner Peterson understood Caltrans was responsible for the traffic signals and turn 16 lane but he wanted something done to make the intersection safer. 17 Vice-Chair Akin clarified that a conceptual plan was before the PTC, not a commitment that 18 every proposed project and program will be executed. Mr. Arce stated that Attachment E 19 included the prioritization framework memo to have a ranked list for the plan. After plan 20 adoption, the feasibility of projects will be analyzed. Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning 21 Manager, stated part of the reason bike plans were done was for the City to be eligible to apply 22 for funding to study if these projects were feasible. 23 Public Comments 24 None 25 Mr. Falbo confirmed Commissioner Hechtman’s understanding of two-toned paths on Packet 26 Page 116, the Recommended Bicycle Facilities Map, denoting something existing and the 27 proposed change. Where Embarcadero crossed 101, the solid yellow line was the existing 28 shared roadway with a lane marking for bicyclists; the dotted line was the proposed bike lane 29 with a designated space for bicyclists separate from the roadway. Commissioner Hechtman saw 30 two bike bridges in the Oregon Expressway area and near San Antonio on the Bike Network 31 Update on Packet Page 115 but he did not see the bike bridges on Packet Page 116. Mr. Falbo 32 agreed the bike bridges should have been on Packet Page 116 and thought maybe they were 33 inadvertently missing. 34 Vice-Chair Akin felt it was difficult to absorb the massive amount of material but thought the 35 draft plan was great and would be widely supported. Vice-Chair Akin believed the project list 36 was a good presentation tool and helpful in translating the principles into realities. Vice-Chair 37 Akin thought the Pedestrian District Guidelines was nicely done. Palo Alto’s population will 38 increase substantially and the analysis in the Housing Element Supplement for the 1 Comprehensive Plan EIR suggested the VMT per capita would stay roughly the same, which 2 implied a lot more vehicle volume. 3 Vice-Chair Akin was worried that developing a bicycle network in isolation might be a mistake, 4 particularly if something created new zones of conflict. Some of the protected and buffered 5 bike lane proposals will require loss or narrowing of vehicles lanes and parking. When 6 evaluating projects, Vice-Chair Akin wanted the discussion to include modeling of traffic flows 7 for all modes to have a better sense of the overall impact from all the projects in a given area 8 because the negative cumulative effects drop below the level of significance when the analysis 9 was done one project at a time. Vice-Chair Akin stated street closures around schools also 10 needed to be area-oriented. For example, Addison and Hays should be considered together. 11 Vice-Chair Akin noted language in the Policy and Program Recommendations on Packet Page 12 146 talked about decriminalizing walking and biking infractions. Vice-Chair Akin has heard many 13 complaints about cyclists violating the rules of the road. Vice-Chair Akin saw someone on 14 Middlefield bike full speed against the light across Oregon. Vice-Chair Akin did not want to 15 normalize that kind of behavior and wanted to have the option for enforcement. Vice-Chair 16 Akin wanted policies to be consistent with the Safe Streets principles: Responsibility was 17 shared, redundancy was crucial, and education was required. 18 Commissioner Summa opined the map was visually hard to see with some of the colors on top 19 of the dotted lines, so she suggested making the map easier to use. Commissioner Summa was 20 concerned that a visitor using the Bicycle Network Map might interpret it as all those streets 21 having some degree of bicycle path, which they do not. For example, Embarcadero does not 22 have a safe bike lane. It was a network of arterial and collector streets but not all of them have 23 bike enhancements. Instead of having the project list in the attachments, Commissioner Summa 24 thought it should be more prominently featured to ensure everybody saw it. 25 Commissioner Summa did not want to decriminalize or have disincentives for safety. Certain 26 things could be decriminalized, such as leaving your parked bike attached to something it is not 27 supposed to be. Personal mobility devices, especially electric ones, were a safety hazard for 28 people and many use them without a helmet. Commissioner Summa has observed young kids 29 on very fast electric transportation devices. A couple times on the weekends, Commissioner 30 Summa had seen a group of 9 to 11 kids on El Camino on small bikes taking two lanes and 31 dangerously weaving in and out of each other. 32 Commissioner Summa noted two pedestrian zones were on the network map but Midtown 33 Pedestrian District and El Camino District near El Camino Way were not. Mr. Falbo confirmed 34 that University Avenue District and California Avenue District were proposed as pedestrian 35 districts and bicycle-friendly zones but the other pedestrian districts were not. Commissioner 36 Summa thought it would be nice to have special features in Midtown. Commissioner Summa 37 wanted to prioritize addressing issues with parking and bicycle safety on El Camino Way. 38 Commissioner Summa believed it was dangerous to ride your bike in Downtown Palo Alto 39 because the streets were very narrow. Commissioner Summa commented that running red 40 lights was becoming an ever increasing problem, especially at El Camino and California Avenue 1 or Cambridge and California Avenue. Commissioner Summa thought there was a problem with 2 the light at Cambridge because every week she had seen northbound red-light running. 3 Commissioner Summa wanted to have police presence there to start ticketing because she 4 feared eventually someone will get killed. 5 The residents of the condominium at 440 Cesano had previously expressed concerns about the 6 bike lane ending at the Mountain View border, so Commissioner Summa asked if the City could 7 pursue removal of the fence behind the hotel. Commissioner Summa stated the bridge going 8 south was too slippery when wet. Commissioner Summa recommended considering removal of 9 the Ross Road traffic circle or making it much smaller because it never worked, was unpopular, 10 too big, and maybe not needed. Commissioner Summa wanted better signage along the entire 11 Park Boulevard bicycle path because when you come up Park Boulevard and get to the 12 Southgate neighborhood, bicyclists and pedestrians wanting to get to the other side do not 13 know what to do. It was dangerous to cross at Mariposa and Churchill because it was too close 14 to the tracks. Having a sign at Mariposa and Park Boulevard when you enter Southgate and a 15 sign maybe at Churchill would be useful. Commissioner Summa had seen many letters in the 16 past year from people in the biking community who believe the connections needed to be fixed 17 at the intersection of Alma and El Camino by El Camino Park. Commissioner Summa urged 18 everyone to listen to the public comments from experienced bicyclists in our community, such 19 as the letter received today from Mr. Joye who provided specific ideas. 20 Commissioner Ji was an avid biker who biked to school since Kindergarten and grew up in Palo 21 Alto. Commissioner Ji was excited about many of the proposed updates. Commissioner Ji asked 22 for the definition of a bike boulevard and how they compared with bike routes. Mr. Falbo 23 responded that Palo Alto’s Bryant Street was the birthplace of the bike boulevard, which was a 24 federally recognized bicycle facility and defined as a low-speed and low-volume street designed 25 to be a safe place where bicycling was prioritized. Bike boulevards included engineering 26 treatments to bring speeds down to around 20 mph, to limit traffic volume, and to make 27 crossing busy streets easier and safer, and usually had wayfinding identification with a marking 28 or sign. A bike route was similar to a bike boulevard in that bicycles ride in the street and share 29 it with cars but bike routes had no expectations for speed or motor vehicle volumes. 30 Commissioner Ji did not recommend biking on big streets. For example, El Camino was 31 dangerous, so he preferred Park, which was three blocks away from El Camino and they were 32 parallel for the entire pathway through Palo Alto. Commissioner Ji wanted to clarify if Oregon 33 Expressway or Oregon Avenue was on the colored map on Packet Page 116. Mr. Falbo 34 explained that the dashed green line on the map was Oregon Expressway and was included in 35 the network because the County was advancing a proposed project. A segment of Oregon 36 Avenue farther on the east side that connected to the overcrossing was shown on the map. 37 Commissioner Ji wanted to see more prioritization of smaller streets. Commissioner Ji’s 38 preference was to separate bikes onto other streets to avoid pollution from traffic and for the 39 comfort of bikers. 40 Commissioner Ji noted that with the removal of parking on El Camino Real, those RVs moved 1 into the Ventura neighborhood on Park, which Commissioner Ji wanted to see addressed. There 2 was a bike lane on Park but bicyclists have to weave in and out of parked RVs. Garbage 3 accumulated on Park because street cleaners could not clean if the RVs do not move. On El 4 Camino Way coming from El Camino Real toward Meadow, a sign on the Los Robles side said 5 only commercial parking between 7 AM and 7 PM but people illegally parked in the bike lane. It 6 was especially dangerous for kids coming from school because he had sometimes seen five kids 7 biking in parallel going past the median onto oncoming traffic. 8 Commissioner Ji thought the Pedestrian Toolbox was great and he wanted to see something 9 similar for bikes. Commissioner Ji suggested formalizing the provided amenities for bike 10 boulevards, to define if it meant speed bumps, slow streets, bollards, and modal filtering. 11 Commissioner Ji had a background in collision mapping and collision data. Commissioner JI 12 explained modal filtering provided something like a bollard to prevent other types of vehicles. 13 Commissioner Ji enjoyed biking on Bryant because cars do not like having bollards every two 14 blocks, which was common on Park as well. Based on Commissioner’s Ji’s experience living in 15 the Ventura neighborhood as well as from his neighbors, there seemed to be a lot of cars 16 redirected from El Camino to go on Park, especially from Meadow to Margarita, so he wanted 17 to see additional modal filtering there. Commissioner Ji noted there were significantly more rail 18 crossings in north Palo Alto than south Palo Alto on the map. There was no easy way to cross 19 the train tracks between California Avenue and Meadow. Commissioner Ji wanted prioritization 20 of the projects planned for south Palo Alto in the studies. One of Commissioner Ji’s neighbors 21 suggested a crossing at Loma Verde, given it was a strong thoroughfare from both sides of the 22 railroad track, and he deferred to staff on potentially other locations for crossings. 23 Commissioner Ji stated that south Palo Alto’s population will be expanding significantly based 24 on the Housing Element, so he wanted that to be taken into consideration when modeling each 25 of the proposed projects. Commissioner Ji lives on Wilkie and uses Wilkie Bridge, so he was 26 excited for the work that staff was doing there. Commissioner Ji encouraged staff to have 27 specialized discussions for specific neighborhoods instead of having general community 28 meetings to talk about all the projects in Palo Alto. Commissioner Ji mentioned that wayfinding 29 was needed on Park Boulevard because he had seen many bicyclists being confused about 30 where to go at Charleston because you cannot find the bridge if you cross there. Commissioner 31 Ji was not sure what should be done about the significant increase in fast e-bikes and e-32 scooters going through the stop sign at Meadow and Wilkie. Commissioner Ji understood the 33 Barron Park neighborhood wanted to keep a rural aesthetic but half the bike lane was a dirt 34 path and not conducive for biking. Commissioner Ji suggested prioritizing Los Robles and maybe 35 El Camino Way through Safe Routes to School. 36 Commissioner Peterson thought the property lines had space for a walkway from the end of 37 California Avenue to loop around to Peers Park as a closed loop. The pathway in the packet was 38 down Park Boulevard, which was not pedestrian-friendly because the walk from the end of 39 California Avenue was essentially a bike highway of people coming from Mountain View in the 40 mornings. Plan 2.2 on Page 134, Cal Ave Section D, mentioned the underpass within a district 41 being planned but Commissioner Peterson suggested expanding the district all the way to the 1 Caltrain Station and the railroad track to get a more complete view of the Pedestrian District. At 2 the end of Page Mill Road, it was easier to walk through the Caltrain parking lot over Oregon 3 Expressway over a bridge where you have to watch for a bus going through there occasionally, 4 and then cross around behind Page Mill. A lot of people come from the housing units over the 5 old Page Mill Road bridge to the Caltrain Station but it was not walkway, everyone walked in 6 the middle of the road, and then you were back on Park, so that was the missing link between 7 north and south Palo Alto. 8 Chair Chang felt like the PTC saw projects that did not consider the impacts on pedestrians, 9 bikes, and traffic. Chair Chang encouraged a closer partnership between PDS and the Office of 10 Transportation because planners looked at applications and gave applicants an indication that 11 the application should be fine but when it comes before the PTC, some of the commissioners 12 may not think it is fine because of special setbacks. Next month, the PTC will hear about a 13 special setback on a high-injury network at a busy intersection with many elderly folks nearby. 14 Chair Chang loved the Pedestrian Toolbox but to ensure we can do those things, we need to 15 preserve some of the special setbacks and think about how the exits of parking structures come 16 out onto bike boulevards. Chair Chang thought a fantastic addition to this plan would be 17 guidelines for development relative to pedestrian safety, a checklist of things you should look at 18 and why. Chair Chang was overjoyed when she saw the El Camino Real Neighborhood 19 Commercial Center on Packet Page 140 because a plan was needed for more retail nodes. A few 20 weeks ago, the PTC saw a map of El Camino that did not look anything like Packet Page 140, so 21 Chair Chang wanted staff to encourage their director and the PDS Director to talk about this 22 important issue. 23 Chair Chang asked for further explanation about what was driving the shift toward arterials. 24 Having heard Ms. Star-Lack’s presentation on Safe Streets for All and the desire to remove 25 kinetic energy from situations, the arterials had the most cars moving the fastest. If bikes were 26 separated, it was better and maybe completely removed the problem. Mr. Falbo explained that 27 they highly prioritized directness as a core principle of designing a bikeway network to 28 effectively get people where they were going and hopefully gave people an option that was 29 competitive with driving. Circuitous routes were at a disadvantage compared to a big street’s 30 directness. People were starting to live in new buildings on bigger and busier streets and that 31 was also the location of commercial destinations, so it was important to consider big streets 32 when designing a bike network plan. To manage the kinetic energy, they were putting a barrier 33 with a curb or some other physical separation between the fast car on the roadway and the 34 fragile human on a bike, so the philosophy was to make those streets safer and more 35 comfortable with a protected bike lane. 36 Chair Chan found it interesting that Alma was removed although there were residences all 37 along it and neighborhoods that funnel into it but Oregon was included. The Oregon underpass 38 had a shrine because somebody died there. When anything happened on Oregon, 280 and 101 39 get backed up in both directions. Chair Chang thought bikes should be completely taken off 40 Oregon because it will create a county traffic problem if not done correctly; however, 41 Embarcadero might be more doable. Chair Chang agreed with modal filtering for certain 1 streets. Chair Chang thought Mr. Joye’s email had some great points. Chair Chang emphasized 2 Commissioner Ji’s point about bike/pedestrian train crossings in south Palo Alto between 3 California and East Meadow, which was especially needed because a lot of housing was coming 4 in along El Camino. Regarding the southern railroad crossings, Mr. Falbo mentioned there was a 5 public meeting on April 2 on an active project examining up to two crossings. Chair Chang 6 echoed the comments about decriminalization of pedestrian and bike behavior. Chair Chang 7 wondered if electrified personal mobility devices should be classified as motorcycles. 8 Mr. Joye stated a concern in his letter about San Antonio not being a Pedestrian District. Vice-9 Chair Akin presumed the reason was the San Antonio Coordinated Area Plan. 10 Matadero Creek was shown on the Bike Network Update and Facilities Map as a bikeway. 11 Commissioner Hechtman suspected the creek had service roads on both sides but he did not 12 think it was open for biking and he wondered it biking was being contemplated on one side. It 13 appeared to Commissioner Hechtman that the proposal was to have an undercrossing for bikes 14 under the freeway that somehow came up and met the bayside pathways. Ms. Star-Lack replied 15 that was something residents have wanted for a very long time. It needed to be studied further 16 but staff has made initial contacts with Valley Water about whether it could be done. 17 Commissioner Hechtman was happy with a Midtown crossing being included. 18 Commissioner Ji commented that San Francisco had a successful Slow Streets Program by using 19 plastic signs on opposite sides to slow the traffic significantly. Commissioner Ji wanted to see 20 something similar in the Bike Toolbox. It was easy to do a study by putting out some pieces of 21 plastic and consider how it affected the traffic, which could be a beta test to see the impacts of 22 modal filtering. 23 Mr. Arce asked the PTC to help spread the word about the upcoming community workshop. 24 Staff will follow up with more information. 25 Approval of Minutes 26 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 27 Minutes of December 17, 2024 28 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 29 Minutes of January 15, 2025 30 Motion 31 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the December 17, 2024, PTC Draft Summary and 32 Verbatim Meeting Minutes as revised. 33 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 34 The motion passed 4-0-2-1 by voice vote with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner 1 Hechtman, and Commissioner Summa voting yes; Commissioner Ji and Commissioner Peterson 2 abstained. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 3 Motion 4 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the January 15, 2025, PTC Draft Summary and 5 Verbatim Meeting Minutes as revised. 6 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 7 The motion passed 4-0-2-1 by voice vote with Chair Chang, Vice-Chair Akin, Commissioner 8 Hechtman, and Commissioner Summa voting yes; Commissioner Ji and Commissioner Peterson 9 abstained. Commissioner Templeton was absent. 10 Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 11 Agendas 12 Commissioner Summa welcomed Commissioner Ji to the PTC. 13 Adjournment 14 9:45 PM 15