Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-12 Planning & Transporation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: March 12, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 pm 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order. Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called the roll 8 and declared there was a quorum. 9 10 Oral Communications 11 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 12 13 There were no requests to speak. 14 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 15 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 16 There were no agenda changes, additions or deletions. 17 18 City Official Reports 19 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 20 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer provided the Director’s Report with a slide presentation 21 including an update on the upcoming 2025 PTC meeting dates and Council dates targeted for 22 PTC-reviewed items. 23 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius gave an update that the pedestrian rectangular rapid flashing 24 beacon on the Crescent Park Traffic Calming project was completed. 25 Commissioner Ji described issues with the signal light on the El Camino side of the tracks. 26 Commissioner Templeton had experienced the same issue. 27 Rafael Rius stated he would have their crews look into that issue. 28 Action Item 29 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 30 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 31 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: 2 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned 3 Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 4 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of 5 Existing Medical Office Buildings, and Construction of a New Six-Story Mixed- Use 6 Building with 66 Residential Rental Units, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, 7 and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact 8 Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 9 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information 10 Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman reported no disclosures. 13 Commissioner Ji disclosed he did a site visit for this location. He talked to the FEMA Mapping 14 and Insurance Exchange who mentioned the FEMA requirement on the underground parking 15 was only for their specific insurance program and not a FEMA overall requirement. His 16 understanding was that the reason they had the commercial office space mentioned in 17 Attachment E was in order for mixed use and non-residential projects to have an underground 18 parking garage in this specific flood zone, which was designated as AH flood zone type, it 19 needed to be no more than 75% residential in order to qualify for this insurance. The packet 20 seemed to state that was a FEMA overall requirement but in his discussion with the FEMA sub-21 agency, they said it was not a requirement by FEMA itself but only for this insurance program. 22 The developers and other folks living at this establishment may choose alternative insurances if 23 they choose to develop fully residential. 24 Chair Chang did a site visit. 25 Vice Chair Akin did a site visit. 26 Commissioner Summa did numerous site visits over the period of application process. 27 Commissioner Peterson had nothing to report. 28 Commissioner Templeton had no disclosures. 29 Senior Planner Emily Kallas provided a slide presentation for the 660 University and associated 30 other addresses project including an overview of the proposed project, background/process, 31 major changes from prior design, floor plan for the ground floor, elevations compared to prior 32 PTC, key considerations, detailed height and daylight plane, open space, CEQA, PC findings and 33 recommended motion. 34 Lund Smith, Smith Development, highlighted key elements of the project via slide presentation 35 including a project overview and 2024 revised project specifications. 36 Ted Korth, KSH Architects, provided details of slides showing the site, context of the site, 1 existing buildings on the site, adjacent buildings, view of the project from Middlefield and 2 University, art design for the building, view from Byron, view along Middlefield Road, ground 3 floor plans, first level below grade, floor plans of each floor, March 2025 versus May 2024 4 proposed units and unit distribution, views of the proposed building from different locations, 5 section through the building showing the setback on Middlefield Road, section along 6 Middlefield Road showing the adjacent home and daylight plane and materials and details 7 requested by the ARB. He presented a list of different changes made in response to comments 8 from neighbors, staff and policymakers. 9 Paul Lettieri, Guzzardo Partnership, used slides to describe street tree plans, landscaping and 10 materials. 11 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to confirm the applicant is holding a Builder’s Remedy 12 application that would be 88 units, the same amount of office and would not have the setback 13 on Middlefield that the proposed project has. He had questions about the rendering on the 14 Byron side. 15 Emily Kallas confirmed that to be correct. That application was on hold while this one was being 16 processed. 17 Ted Korth explained the area in question on the Byron side was a roll down door for service 18 features in the building with a ramp to get up to the first floor. 19 Commissioner Templeton had questions about an area on the daylight plane slide. 20 Ted Korth half of the building was set back and the half adjacent to Byron would come out to 21 the face of the building below. 22 Vice Chair Akin asked for clarification on the bird friendly glass, if they had considered using 23 bird friendly material for railings and about the windows on the oak tree side. He inquired if 24 there was a notion of what the price for a parking space in the building would be. 25 Ted Korth stated the bird friendly glass for the sixth floor was a grid of white dots and could be 26 incorporated into the railings. They had not considered bird friendly glass on the oak tree side 27 windows but they could. 28 Boyd Smith replied they had not yet thought through the price for parking spaces. 29 Commissioner Peterson queried if this would be a steel, wood or concrete structure. 30 Boyd Smith answered all the above had been contemplated but they were not sure yet. 31 Commissioner Ji wanted to understand the dark gray space in the bottom right corner of the 32 landscape slide. He wanted explanation in the discrepancies in height of a nearby building and 33 what a typical height was for a floor. He asked the ARB recommended plans on packet page 55 34 was accurate to what the ARB most recently recommended. He wanted to understand the 1 section called other and about the increase in square footage in the max total floor area ratio in 2 the new proposed. He asked if the other being used for the FEMA calculation would be 3 residential or non-residential. 4 Paul Lettieri remarked it was turf block. He described the inside of the gate would be turf block 5 with gravel filling it in and the outside would have planting growing in it. It would be access to 6 the transformers that would be behind it and an egress for people to get out of the back of the 7 building. 8 Ted Korth explained the ground floor and office space would be a little higher than the pure 9 residential floors. 10 Jennifer Armer commented that over time the floor to floor heights have been increasing. 11 Commercial space can also affect it. 12 Emily Kallas stated the ARB recommended plans on packet page 55 was in comparison to the 13 pre-October plans that the ARB had reviewed in April. What Attachment D was reflecting was 14 what she had shown on the slide that she described as changes. The increase in square footage 15 in the max total floor area went to the ground floor amenity fitness area. It was pulled out 16 because it would be available for use by both the office tenants and the residents. The areas 17 withing the units and floors two through five would be residential and the ground and sixth 18 floor uses were being counted as non-residential. 19 Vice Chair Akin asked for a brief explanation of what would be needed to consider changing the 20 configuration of Byron as a future project. 21 Rafael Rius presumed it would be a process where City Council would direct Staff to look into 22 different configurations who would then bring it through the various committees as options. 23 Chair Chang wanted to know the amount of the tree protection bond. She asked if there was 24 any space that could used as a loading zone. She had questions about the planter setback from 25 Middlefield. She wondered about the setback from Middlefield to the planter and Middlefield 26 to the patio. She asked if there was an impact of this building on the buildings across the street 27 on Byron. She asked Albert Yang to speak to the public comment they received from YIMBY 28 Law. 29 Urban Forestry Manager Peter Gollinger explained none of the submitted arborist reports 30 included the calculated reproduction value of the tree, which would be used to determine the 31 bond. Based on some of the data in the arborist report, he estimated the reproduction cost of 32 the tree to be about $80,000 to $90,000 so it would be double that. He added an actual 33 appraisal would be more in-depth. 34 Emily Kallas commented the area in front of the trash room was intended to also be able to be 35 used as a loading zone. She stated the planters at the Middlefield setback were not required 36 but that was how the architect designed the step up from the existing sidewalk to the finished 1 floor of the building. She stated they did not ask for a shadow study to be completed for this 2 project. The intent of the daylight plane was looking at how the building massing would impact 3 projects on the same block. 4 Jennifer Armer added they could have that be a loading zone so there would not be permanent 5 parking to prevent that access being blocked but short-term loading would likely work. 6 Ted Korth explained from Middlefield there would be a 12-foot sidewalk and from the property 7 line, the building above would go back 24 feet and to the place where the stair lands would be 8 10 feet so it would be 14 feet from the property line to the berm. The patio was an exit path for 9 people coming down the stair to leave the building. 10 Paul Lettieri added the soil and the planters slope down. There would be a six-inch curb at the 11 street. The building would be a couple feet above the grade of the street. On the University 12 side, the planter walls were the height of the finished floor of the building. The garage would be 13 below the planter. 14 Albert Yang explained the letter from YIMBY law accurately quoted the state law but it was 15 factually incorrect about this project. He added the Housing Accountability Act says if there is 16 inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning ordinance a project just has to be 17 consistent with the general plan. In this case, the project would require a change to the 18 comprehensive plan and that is part of the application. The letter also interprets the Housing 19 Accountability Act where it says consistent if the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the 20 general plan to mean that there is a difference between the two whereas they understood it to 21 mean there is a conflict between the two. In most cases, the zoning ordinance would be more 22 detailed than the general plan. They did not view that as an inconsistency. 23 Commissioner Summa asked about the raised planted area and wanted to confirm that three 24 feet of soil would be adequate to plant trees. 25 Paul Lettieri explained the corner of the plan and the back of the building in the bottom right 26 corner would both have three feet of soil. The ones on the Middlefield side would be sitting on 27 top of the garage completely and would have access to all the other soil shallower than three 28 feet as it sloped down. The hill would come up and flatten out so there would be a zone where 29 they would have depth. Then there would be less depth but the roots would still grow out into 30 that. They would have soil piled on top of the curve of the ramp in the back. The trees there 31 would have access to native ground because there would be no wall around it. 32 PUBLIC COMMENTS 33 Christopher Ream (Anne, Peggy, Marilyn, Dennis) provided a slide presentation describing 34 concerns about the coast live oak tree, parking, the daylight plane, safety issues of the 35 balconies and having no step back on the garage. He agreed with a comment made by David 36 Hirsch’s that the building was being built on too small of a space. 37 Carol Gilbert (Kay, Joann) provided a slide presentation describing concerns with the lack of 1 parking stalls being proposed and increased traffic on the road. She acknowledged good 2 positive changes in habits would be encouraged but there would be no way to enforce them. 3 She thought they needed a reconfiguration of Byron Street. She advised considering making use 4 of the underused Cowper/Webster Garage as the go-to plan for neighborhood parking permits. 5 She hoped the Commission would lend credence to her comments and include them in 6 whatever they send on to City Council. 7 Justine Forbes talked about the safety issues of the elderly people having the entrance and exit 8 for the 660 University project emptying on Byron. 9 Eli Robles remarked that in order for the project to benefit the community, it must be built with 10 a responsible contractor that pays area standard wages, provides health care to its workers and 11 hires from accredited apprenticeship programs in Santa Clara County. He wanted to extend his 12 hand to the Commission to help get the project to the finish line the right way. 13 Xenia Hammer shared the concerns that had been raised about the size and height of the 14 building, parking, daylight planes and the impact on senior pedestrians in the area. She urged 15 the Commission to consider there was no FEMA requirement for the building to include office 16 space. She concurred with former Commissioner Hirsch’s comments that this was too big of a 17 building for too small of a space. 18 Ali Sapirman, Housing Action Coalition, stated her organization endorsed the project. They 19 appreciated the reduction of parking. She stated the office space was critical in the funding of 20 the project. They commended the steps taken to preserve the oak tree. She hoped the project 21 would move forward without further delays. 22 Neilson Buchanan made the following suggestions: use this building as an example of data-23 driven decision-making of where parking actually goes, draw a radius around the building and 24 have the Office of Transportation create regular maps on the parking density on street faces in 25 the residential neighborhoods, get a statement about the quality standard for residential street 26 faces, open Cowper/Webster garage to the public and determining the parking incentives that 27 will be created by the landlord of this building. 28 James Suh spoke in support of the project. He hoped the Commission would approve this 29 project be sent to Council and it could move forward as quickly as possible. 30 Amie Ashton supported the project. She noted if the project was one block over, zero parking 31 would be required under AB 2097. She reported that a survey by the City of Palo Alto found 32 that occupied parking rates for mixed-size downtown apartments was 0.75 spaces per unit and 33 pointed out this project would exceed that ratio. She urged the Commission to move the 34 project forward to City Council. 35 Zachary Anglemyer commented they needed to have projects approved in such a way to not 36 only provide housing for those at or below market and improving accessibility without a car but 37 that renew land, improve air quality, become less expensive to run over the course of their life 1 and use novel building techniques that cost less. He said the only way for such structures to get 2 built was if the Commission required it. He agreed with the concerns about traffic on Byron and 3 thought rezoning was required. He remarked this should be the light that would show the 4 future of Palo Alto and neighborhoods like it. 5 Michael Quinn advised every objection raised by the speakers opposed to the project could 6 have been said about the building they were living in. He encouraged seniors to consider if they 7 wanted younger relatives to live near them. He thought a traffic camera would be a benefit to 8 the intersection everyone was concerned about. He encouraged the Commission to think about 9 how the future was going to look and how maintaining local control would be possible. 10 Lund Smith acknowledged there were varying opinions on the project. He stated they were 11 committed to keeping the construction phase of the project along with the finished project to 12 be safe for the neighbors. He pointed out that David Hirsh approved the project. The entrance 13 shifting from Middlefield Road to Byron because of concerns voiced by The Hamilton. A study 14 had been done by a third-party consultant hired by the City that said there was a negligible 15 difference between the two; however, they made the change and there were significant 16 parking stalls lost as a result. He pointed out that if they were one block closer to the train, zero 17 parking would be required by state law. They had done everything they could to minimize the 18 impact on parking. They would have tons of bike parking. It was realistic to realize residents and 19 employees of the building would use Caltrain. They expected some units would be occupied by 20 people who both live and work in the building or work downtown within walking distance. They 21 felt confident parking would be minimized. They wanted to preserve and maintain the tree as 22 well as possible. They had gone through extensive lengths with their arborist to come up with a 23 tree protection plan that had been endorsed and approved by the City arborist. They were 24 confident in the ability to keep the tree. They were asking for an exception to the daylight 25 plane. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind this was a gateway project. The one 26 residential neighbor who would be directly impacted by the daylight plane preferred the six-27 story option encroaching the daylight plane versus the four-story option. The project would not 28 be feasible if they could not get an exception to the daylight plane. 29 Commissioner Templeton described having concerns about having a deck under the oak tree 30 due to a specific type of caterpillar that loves those trees and would interfere with enjoyment 31 of the deck. She found the commentary about the safety of the oak compelling and wanted to 32 explore it further. She wanted to know how much of the tree roots would be not disturbed 33 going edge to edge with the underground parking lot. She asked for confirmation that the tree 34 protection zone would indeed be 30 feet. She wanted to know about the trimming of the 35 branches that would go up against the building and balconies. She asked if three feet depth 36 would be enough to secure trees on a windy day. She more details of the FEMA requirements 37 and about the street-level parking requirement that was brought up by the member of the 38 public. She questioned what was in their scope regarding the parking requirements. 39 David Babby, consulting arborist retained by Smith Development, explained coast live oaks 1 were generally known to be very tolerant of root impact. He described a similar tree scenario 2 where the tree continued to thrive. He explained he recommended a 20-foot setback from the 3 trunk of the tree as being a tolerable limit of root impact. For the canopy, he recommended a 4 30-foot setback. The proposed project decided to implement a 30-foot setback for the roots. 5 His recommendation was to set back at least 30 feet from the building and the additional minus 6 5 to 6 feet to accommodate for construction scaffolding and so forth. The balconies would be 7 constructed within the five to six feet inside away from the building toward the tree. The 8 balconies would be erected per the general contractor in a way they would not have to use 9 construction scaffolding closer to the tree than the balconies. The five to six-foot wide swath 10 toward the tree away from the building would be there for construction scaffolding only. Once 11 the balconies were in place, additional pruning done by the residents would be something that 12 would have to be reviewed by someone like himself. He confirmed three feet would be 13 sufficient. 14 Paul Lettieri declared there would be no garage underneath the deck. 15 Emily Kallas explained the Public Works Engineering Department would look at conformance 16 with the local standards as well as standards required at the state and federal level. Their 17 understanding was that as a part of what the Public Works Engineering Department required, 18 the building would need to be 25% non-residential for the purpose of providing the parking 19 below grade. If that were to change as a part of the Commission’s recommendation, it would 20 potentially require loss of parking and providing above grade parking, which would go against 21 the objective design standards for downtown for this type of building. She stated the street-22 level parking requirement was reflected in Attachment D as one of the exceptions they were 23 asking for from the zoning code. Any project that provides more than 50 housing units would 24 be required to provide an on-site loading space based on the zoning code; however, as a part of 25 the PHZ application, they were requesting that space be on the street instead. The Office of 26 Transportation reviewed it and acknowledged it was a discretionary part of this application. She 27 noted as this was a fully discretionary project where the zoning requirements were set as a part 28 of this decision, they would be able to allow for no parking to be the requirement. 29 Commissioner Hechtman talked about the context of the project and opined they had to make 30 the project as good as they could without breaking the applicant and turning them toward their 31 Builder's Remedy application. He supported the arborists’ conclusion that the nine balconies 32 would be safe in relation to the tree. He did have concern about the possibility of regular 33 blockage of traffic for deliveries given the narrowness of Byron. He thought they should explore 34 how much of the time the off street area could be used for loading and unloading deliveries and 35 such. 36 Commissioner Peterson queried if contaminants were an issue in dewatering in this part of the 37 City. He asked if there was a requirement on noise for construction projects. He wanted to 38 know about dust mitigation specific to the project. He asked if he was correct in understanding 39 that widening the street would put the basement underneath the roadway. He questioned if 40 there was a responsible contractor ordinance in Palo Alto and economic development 1 provisions for workforce development, education and such. He recommended talking to the 2 representatives of the Carpenter’s Union if they chose to go with timber. 3 Emily Kallas did not believe the project was on a site that would require any type of 4 remediation. Additionally, the Public Works Engineering Department had standard regulations 5 for dewatering which would be followed. She stated construction noise was analyzed as a part 6 of the environmental impact report and mitigation measures would be applied to ensure it 7 would be below significant levels. She remarked dust gets analyzed as a part of construction air 8 quality and this project would be required to meet the standard requirements. She stated 9 citywide special setbacks were potential places where the Office of Transportation may go 10 through processes that would allow street widening. That would include procuring the land in 11 the special setback through some type of easement across the multiple properties along the 12 corridor. There were no current plans to do that along Middlefield but should be taken into 13 consideration. She stated one component of the PHZ process was an intent to create more 14 housing than jobs. That was looked at as a part of the project. The 66 housing units compared 15 to the 9,000 square feet of office would be a net gain of housing compared to jobs. 16 Katie Green, Rincon Consultants, described a construction noise control plan that would include 17 measures such as mufflers, silencing, signage, a noise complaint coordinator and a construction 18 vibration control plan. 19 Jennifer Armer added there were standard requirements for construction that have to do with 20 watering down the trucks as they do excavation to reduce dust. She was not aware of a 21 responsible contractor ordinance in Palo Alto. 22 Commissioner Summa described the project as straining at the seams to fit in the parcel. She 23 felt it would be a more successful project with the office component. It was not clear to her 24 whether it was an absolute building requirement of FEMA or a requirement to apply for the 25 federal flood insurance. She noted the flood risk was very low. She remarked most government 26 processes had mitigations or waivers that could be built in. She felt the staff report did not have 27 a very full discussion about this. She was curious about the underground garage going to the 28 property line, if there would have to be underpinnings in the public right away or if it could be 29 built without that. She thought the parking and circulation generally in the area would be 30 difficult and the onsite loading spaces were more important than ever. She was not sure it 31 would be fully waterproof to the extent it could be underground and if that could cause a 32 waiver of the office requirement. She explained why engineering the underground under the 33 special setback was important. She said it was a situation of using parcels at denser levels and 34 could work with the first projects but as more projects want the same privileges, it gets to the 35 point where the neighborhood does not work anymore. She was interested in the public 36 comments that this would be a good opportunity to figure out what would be going on with the 37 residential parking zone and use of the public parking garage. She wanted clarification from 38 Staff on the Builder's Remedy. She wanted to know about underpinnings or using the public 39 right away since the garage goes right to the property line. She advised bird friendly glass would 1 be a welcome improvement to the project. 2 Albert Yang explained the project submitted its SB 330 pre-application in May 2024. The City's 3 housing element was certified by HCD in August. As a result of AB 1893, the legislature clarified 4 that if the SB 330 pre-application was in before HCD determined the housing element to be 5 substantially compliant, then the Builder's Remedy was available. The project would be able to 6 utilize the Builder's Remedy. 7 Emily Kallas stated the conceptual plans did not include fully engineered plans for the purpose 8 of the decision, they did not have a good sense of how the underpinnings and structure for the 9 garage may or may not encroach. There were techniques that could minimize that. 10 Commissioner Ji was excited about the location and the extremely low-income changes. He 11 applauded the work to protect the tree. He asked for clarification about the tree protection 12 zone. He asked if the fitness area and other amenities count for the 25% non-residential for the 13 FEMA calculation. He wanted to see significantly reduced to no office at the location. He 14 mentioned other underground garages in the area and asked if there was any commentary 15 about that. He wanted to see more data on the parking and traffic situation. 16 David Babby explained additional space would be needed to erect the scaffolding in order to do 17 the exterior work around the building thus the need of the additional five to six feet beyond the 18 existing building. The root zone would be protected up to the garage walls. He noted his report 19 made mention that there could be maximum 18 to 24 inches from the wall limit for any 20 excavation needed for piers. There would be shoring along the deltas and straight edge of the 21 garage. They were working with the general contractor in identifying how best to achieve that 22 without the need to over-excavate. 23 Emily Kallas confirmed the fitness area and other amenities count for the 25% non-residential 24 for the FEMA calculation. She mentioned a separate architectural review application in which 25 the below-grade garage predated certain requirements. As a part of that application, they were 26 going to be required to do some upgrades. She remarked there was previously a process to 27 remove properties or portions of properties from a flood zone and FEMA stopped doing that so 28 it was no longer an option for this property. 29 Vice Chair Akin wanted to look for ways to mitigate many of the issues with the project that 30 would not be impactful. He advised a traffic study and reconfiguration of Byron should be done 31 when the opportunity arose. He wanted to submit a condition of approval requiring that the 32 building be engineered so it would be feasible to widen Middlefield by 11 feet on the side 33 nearest the building. He suggested considering a condition of approval stating that the lease 34 rates for the spaces in the project be limited to the corresponding RPP permit rates for the 35 person doing the leasing. 36 Chair Chang was pleased to see the increase in unit size and deeper affordability. She had 37 concerns about the spillover impacts affecting the circulation and safety around the property 38 and that they did not have the full 24 feet setback. She wanted to add an easement to the 1 conditions of approval in addition to making sure they could put roads or a bus on top of the 2 garage. She was concerned about the lack of a loading zone. She suggested increasing the value 3 of the tree bond. She wanted more opinions what gave them confidence the tree would survive 4 and the different percentage values on the condition of the tree and why they were 5 comfortable shrinking the TPZ and the balconies. She asked how they would ensure not 6 accidental damage to the tree during construction. 7 Peter Gollinger explained one reason they were comfortable signing off on this project was Mr. 8 Babby's thorough conditions for mitigating for the tree during construction. Without knowing 9 the exact construction methods, there were recommendations for distances for utilities from 10 the tree, trying to avoid putting anything within the TPZ and providing recommendations for 11 how to put things in the TPZ if necessary. They were comfortable shrinking the TPZ because the 12 impacts were strictly on one portion of the radius of the tree. He stated based on the 30 foot 13 TPZ, the only encroachments into that 30-feet TPZ would be the 1 to 2-foot impacts for the 14 shoring, which they could specify what method would be used as they got closer to that. The 15 diagram showing everything up to 10 feet could potentially be cut was not accurate. He 16 believed the overall amount of canopy loss would definitely be within tolerance for this type of 17 tree. He said if the balconies could be constructed with no additional trimming needed than 18 what was required for the main building, he did not see any reason that that would cause any 19 additional impacts to the tree. He explained one key components of the tree safety was the 20 requirement to have the project arborist be present for any activity that takes place within the 21 TPZ. They would need to make sure to stay on top of that. 22 Commissioner Summa asked if it was best for the tree to leave the asphalt or better to carefully 23 remove it. 24 Peter Gollinger thought it would be best for the tree to remove the asphalt at the end of the 25 project but essential to leave it during the course of construction. He commented when an 26 arborist assesses a tree for health and structure, there are a lot of variables and discretion, 27 especially with a tree this large. The differences in the overall health and vigor of the tree 28 between the two reports were 10%. For the structure it was 50 and 55. Different arborists bring 29 different sets of expertise and different knowledge sets based on their personal experience. He 30 did not see anything dramatically different between the two. 31 Commissioner Templeton wanted to know if they took into consideration what damage had 32 already been done to the tree with the building that pre-existed on the other property. 33 Peter Gollinger guessed that any damage that occurred during the building of that building had 34 been addressed and overcome by the tree based on its health and stature. 35 Commissioner Hechtman opined to move the project forward, they needed a comp plan 36 amendment. He suggested removing the phrase limiting to medical office use on packet page 37 18. He suggested looking at policies including L1.1 and generalizing the statements rather than 38 referring to this particular application. He was supportive of the idea of using some part of the 39 surface area on the setback on Middlefield for transportation uses but warned they needed to 1 be cautious. He advised cleaning up the impact fee discrepancy on packet pages 21 and 42. He 2 did not know if they could put price controls on parking spaces but wondered if they could 3 require that those parking spaces could only be leased to building occupants. He suggested 4 exploring the possibility of converting some other part of the garage to add up to five more 5 stacked parking spaces. He stated money and not FEMA was driving the applicant to retain 6 office space. If FEMA said they did not need all that space, he suspected they would cut some of 7 the shared space on the ground rather than the office space. He supported including a 8 recommendation to study a reconfiguration of Byron in a Council recommendation. 9 Chair Chang commented the applicant mentioned in their presentation they actually were 10 pursuing an all-residential building and then because of the FEMA thing they added the office. 11 Commissioner Templeton discussed some of the feedback they had received about the project. 12 She asked Mr. Yang to describe the nature of the threat hanging over their heads if the project 13 was not approved. She explained her thoughts on how eliminating the garage and requiring 14 parking be handled through some other mechanism such as charging high rates for City parking 15 would accomplish a lot of their goals but she acknowledged it would frustrate people worried 16 about parking, including the applicants. 17 Albert Yang explained the City and developer had agreed to a tolling agreement to place that 18 project on hold while this one was being processed. In the event the PC was approved by 19 Council, the City likely would not agree to extend that agreement and it would expire along 20 with the Builder's Remedy application. 21 Commissioner Peterson stated he wanted to see the building constructed with a high quality 22 workforce. 23 Commissioner Summa described reasons that she was in favor of continuing this at a later date 24 so everyone would understand what they were getting, they could make a recommendation 25 that had specificity and was not complicated to the Council and so they could consider the text 26 amendment on its own merit understanding its impact before it was included in their 27 application. 28 Vice Chair Akin pointed out in response to Commissioner Hechtman’s comments that the issue 29 was not that the property managers would lease spaces in the building out to non-residents but 30 that residents would choose to go elsewhere because the cost differential was so high. He 31 stated the unbundled parking prices for 3265 El Camino was a precedent to follow. He said they 32 had to leave it to the applicant to decide whether the project would be marketable without 33 parking at all. He mentioned problems with taking advantage of the Webster/Cowper Garage 34 and they did not have the information needed for that. 35 Commissioner Ji thought some kind of easement or something similar should be considered on 36 the Middlefield setback side. He pointed out the total number of parking spaces counting ADA 37 as one would be 68. He was curious about Commissioner Templeton's suggestion about no 38 garage. He thought that may be a reason to continue this while they figure out more 1 information about the parking situation and Cowper/Webster Garage. He reiterated his interest 2 in having a parking and/or traffic study done on Byron. He thought potentially not have office 3 could knock out some of the public concerns. He echoed Commissioner Summa's comments 4 about the text amendment. 5 Eric Tse replied they looked at parking on the traffic analysis. The parking information had 6 already been presented by Staff. There was a reduction in parking based on the City code 7 requirements. 8 Emily Kallas added the parking and transportation analysis completed looked at the CEQA 9 requirements, which included vehicle miles traveled as well as locally LOS when it met certain 10 thresholds, which she believed this project did. However, parking was not considered a CEQA 11 related impact so it was mostly analyzed by the City requirements. There was also a draft TDM 12 plan, which was completed and worked to partner with that 30% parking reduction in spaces to 13 provide alternative modes of transportation and support for multimodal transportation. 14 Chair Chang wanted the applicant’s thoughts about having no parking at all. She announced 15 that Commissioner Templeton had to leave. 16 Lund Smith remarked it was a very iterative process getting to 25% non-residential component. 17 There is an office piece that fits a certain definition per the city then there is a non-residential 18 definition that FEMA calls non-residential. Although they had not categorized the gym space as 19 half office and half residential, they categorized it all as non-residential to get to that 25% 20 threshold. The deliberately did not increase the office from the original proposal. They 21 expanded the non-residential components of the ground floor to satisfy the 25% FEMA. The 22 office would drive the ability to offer affordable housing on the site. If the office component 23 was eliminated, the project would be dead. 24 Boyd Smith added there would be no way the project would get built without parking on site 25 underground. He said they did not want a continuance and asked the Commission to please 26 vote. 27 Chair Chang asked how they would ensure dewatering would occur after construction. She 28 asked how the parking spaces for the offices would be handled. She wanted to know if three 29 feet would be sufficient. 30 Emily Kallas explained there was a standard condition related to dewatering from the Public 31 Works Engineering Department that all of the details regarding the dewatering would meet City 32 code and get determined as a part of the building permit application process. She stated the 33 unbundling would relate particularly to residential units being included in the rent and assigned 34 to individual units as a part of the lease agreement. 35 Rafael Rius acknowledged it would be hard to build anything with the parking garage there. 36 Some of the existing equipment adjacent to the curb would need to go into the setback such as 37 the traffic signal pole at University and Middlefield. Ideally, it would go behind the sidewalk and 1 in most cases behind the sidewalk was still city right away. That would be within the special 2 setback. Moving the pole would require going down at least 12 to 16 feet. Building a bike path 3 to current standards would require some sort of lighting. Lighting, utilities, etc. would typically 4 go in the area to the back of the sidewalk or the back of a new path. Added an 11 foot lane 5 would take the planter strip and the sidewalk so the signal cabinets, roadway signage, signal 6 poles, street lights, etc. would typically go in that setback and the parking garage would 7 prohibit it any kind of real work. They have examples downtown where there's parking or 8 basements that are under the sidewalks that have been prohibited of transportation related 9 improvements. He stated it was possible to put a basement under a roadway but it would be 10 beyond the typical basement and require extra structural stuff and other depth. Even then, it 11 would limit what can be put on it and would not be conducive to any kind of utilities. 12 Commissioner Peterson questioned if the applicant was able to work with the requirement that 13 possibly there would be a roadway on top of the parking garage. He asked about the lighting, 14 signage and signaling being attached to the parking garage and what kind of structural 15 foundation would be needed. 16 Boyd Smith replied they would be happy to look into that further. Their analysis with the 17 current garage design was that it could accommodate things like bike paths. It was not 18 anticipated to be able to support a full lane of traffic in its current design. He asked if the 19 applicant had an answer to the traffic signal. 20 Rafael Rius stated they had about 10 and a half feet, a five-foot sidewalk and then the five feet 21 between the sidewalk and the face of curb. He anticipated the traffic signal poles, street lights 22 and traffic signal cabinets would go over the garage. 23 Lund Smith commented they had done some initial studies. If they pull the garage back, they 24 would lose an estimated eight stalls to accommodate full in ground poles. He stated they were 25 willing to consider that. 26 Commissioner Ji wanted clarification about where a 0 foot setback would be and where the 27 garage would be. He asked if it would be impossible to put a bus lane over the underground 28 garage. He wanted to know if it would be possible to make the garage three floors down and 29 just pull it in. 30 Rafael Rius answered the property line was right at the right at the edge of the grass line, which 31 was the back of sidewalk. The grass would be on top of the garage. He would not anticipate 32 traveling that close to the building but would anticipate either a separated bike path or travel 33 lane to be where the dirt and the sidewalk were. There would be street lighting to the left and 34 all of that stuff would need to be moved out of the way and over the garage area in what would 35 be the setback. The streetlight poles were not as deep but were definitely more than three feet 36 deep. He said if a bus lane was put where the sidewalk was, the traffic signal pole on the corner 37 would need to go where the grass was. The foundation for that would go down a minimum of 38 12 to 16 feet and the conduits to the boxes were about four feet deep. 39 Emily Kallas added the existing street infrastructure and the right of way would need to be 1 moved into the setback to accommodate a wider lane of traffic. It would not be the traffic lane 2 itself that went in the setback, it would be all of the infrastructure. 3 Boyd Smith stated making the garage three doors down would be prohibitively expensive. He 4 said they would be willing to think through and work with staff on losing a stall here or there to 5 accommodate the street light. 6 Vice Chair Akin ruminated that approach seemed like the fastest way forward. He thought they 7 would get considerable support from the Commission if they could work out some of those 8 issues. He was concerned about the about the comp plan issue, as well, so they would need to 9 revisit that. He questioned whether this could be done to a date certain. 10 Jennifer Armer thought it would depend on the extent of the additional analysis required. She 11 suggested it might be prudent to just re-notice to a date uncertain. The project required a 20-12 day noticing but they had some estimate of when it could get on, they would put it on as soon 13 as possible date. 14 Commissioner Peterson pointed out it would be a fairly minor modification to their design. He 15 did not think it was a major issue to figure out how to attach a traffic signal pole to a 16 foundation. 17 Jennifer Armer remarked they did not know where the traffic pole might be. There was no 18 current design for redesigning the street. The idea of attaching something the City would be 19 responsible for on private property gave her pause. 20 Chair Chang stated they needed to understand more about why the 24-foot setback at the 21 surface would not be sufficient. 22 Boyd Smith indicated they would prefer the Commission to incorporate their ideas into some 23 kind of conditions of approval and let them go to Council. 24 Chair Chang asked if a variance could be done. 25 Jennifer Armer answered this was a modification to the City's comprehensive plan. A variance 26 was something they used for modifications to the zoning regulations. The comp plan 27 amendment would be the path forward to allow this to proceed. She advised if they were not 28 comfortable moving forward that night but wanted to respond to the applicant’s request, they 29 could recommend denial of the project as proposed and list out the items that were of concern. 30 Chair Chang suggested looking at the comp plan amendment piece and doing separate motions 31 or having separate discussions on that. If the Commission approved the comp plan amendment 32 would be a different reason for denying the project. 33 Commissioner Peterson was favorable with whatever it took to finish up the work and move it 34 to Council. 35 Vice Chair Akin asked if Commissioner Summa was more comfortable moving forward with the 1 comp plan change. 2 Commissioner Summa was not because a PC could go anywhere and could also be amended. 3 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to move forward with a favorable recommendation. He 4 indicated this was the first time in his five years on the Commission someone wanted to keep 5 some office and add residential. He was not concerned with that opening the floodgates 6 because it would only apply in a small number of circumstances and there were limitations built 7 into the proposed language. Even if it was in the comp plan, it was still a discretionary approval. 8 However, those would probably not be sitting on top of a Builder’s Remedy application. He was 9 concerned they could frustrate the applicant to the point that they go do the BR. In terms of 10 the street improvements, the PTC had no plan for the corner of University and Middlefield in 11 front of them. He did not think they should be conditioning it. He thought it would be 12 appropriate to put a pin in it to recommend that between now and the time it got to Council it 13 be explored. If they did move forward, he was interested in dialoguing more about the parking 14 rate issue. 15 Commissioner Ji shared concerns about the amendment to the comprehensive plan. One was 16 that there were 98 PC zones in Palo Alto and some were in cul-de-sacs with single family 17 homes. He wanted to see an analysis of the potential different parcels and other impacts there 18 would be by this comprehensive plan amendment here. His understanding was that the PC 19 zone was on a hibernation for a significant portion of time so that may be one reason why these 20 kinds of PC amendments with retail preservation had not come up. He thought there were 21 significant questions brought before them that day that required answers. He was looking 22 potentially toward a continuous. 23 Jennifer Armer indicated that with regard to analysis of all the different planned development 24 or planned communities within the City, she would not advocate for that level of analysis as 25 part of a comprehensive plan amendment. Any change to any of those would be a fully 26 discretionary act. While this would open that as something that could be requested, it was 27 something that would have a project by project analysis. That level of detail of analysis for a 28 comprehensive plan amendment of this sort is not something that Staff would recommend. 29 Emily Kallas added this specifically would not affect existing planned communities because it 30 was saying for properties that had existing commercial use. If they were already zoned for 31 residential use and chose to do a planned community zone, they could keep the existing 32 commercial. It would not affect existing PCs. 33 Chair Chang explained there was an in-depth process that lasted years to create the comp plan 34 and to decide on land use. To make changes like this concerned her when she did not know 35 what the impact would be and they continually hear the need for office or commercial space in 36 order for things to pencil out. She did not understand how much would be affected by making 37 that amendment. She thought it was appropriate in this particular spot because there was 38 commercial all around it. 39 Albert Yang commented the reason there was a reference to retail preservation was because 1 there was a conflict between the retail preservation ordinance and the comp plan in the 2 multiple family designation because retail preservation ordinance says they need to keep retail 3 but if it was not permitted in the comp plan, they cannot. He stated the existing PCs do not 4 figure into this at all because they were already PCs. If they have commercial, it was because it 5 was allowed in the PC. They would not be coming back and looking for an amendment to that. 6 Jennifer Armer requested more specifics on the request for more analysis of the impacts of the 7 comprehensive plan amendment. 8 Commissioner Summa explained that would be an outline of the areas it would affect with 9 minimal information on existing conditions, things nearby and that sort of thing so they could 10 see if there were areas they would not want to do this. 11 Jennifer Armer stated they could provide the land use map. She was concerned about how 12 promptly they could put together a map with that kind of information. She added that since this 13 was only allowed through a new planned community zone, there would be detailed analysis at 14 that time if one were proposed. 15 MOTION: Commissioner Summa moved to continue the motion to give staff the time to bring 16 back the text amendment to the comprehensive plan separately to continue to consider with a 17 more of an analysis of the impacts, to consider Vice Chair Akin’s recommendations for 18 restructuring the monthly fees for the parking spaces to align better with the RPP in the 19 neighborhood, to address the engineering and potential use of the 24-foot setback considering 20 all the issues that came up regarding the needs of actually building additional multimodal 21 contributions to the road there, to keep the asphalt in place where it is not covered up but to 22 remove it after construction is complete, to require bird glass not just for the top story of the 23 building but also for the balconies where glass would be used and to clarify whether the FEMA 24 issue is an absolute building requirement with FEMA or if it is a requirement only of being 25 eligible for the federal insurance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ji. It passed 4-2-26 0-1, Hechtman and Peterson no, Templeton absent. 27 Commissioner Hechtman thought a number of the components coming back to them could 28 have been shaped in a positive recommendation to Council as to things we wanted to make 29 them aware of or as recommended conditions of approval. On the comp plan, he thought 30 planned development had been around since the ‘60s but until that night they never needed it 31 the proposed amendment. That gave him comfort that they would not see this flood of stuff 32 come from all over the City because there were not many circumstances where they could 33 exist. They would still have to apply for the PC and get the City to exercise its discretion. He 34 thought risking the applicant deciding to go with the Builder’s Remedy version was the wrong 35 direction. 36 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Commissioner Hechtman’s comments. 37 3. Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area 1 (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the 2 Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan 3 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, 4 analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element 5 including Program 3.4E. 6 7 MOTION: Commissioner Hechtman moved to continue to the March 26 meeting, seconded by 8 Chair Chang. The motion passed 6-0-0-1, Templeton absent. 9 4. Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules 10 11 Chair Chang explained this was a long-standing problem where the language on the front of the 12 packet and the agenda often did not match what the procedural rules said. It was confusing for 13 the public and to them how many minutes public comment time could get reduced to making it 14 difficult for the public to participate. This was intended to solve that problem and make it 15 consistent with all the other boards and commissions so members of the public when 16 participating in Palo Alto's public process had a consistent time threshold of the two minutes. 17 Other boards and commissions had a different time that applicants were allowed. While looking 18 at that issue, they could decide whether they also want to become consistent with other boards 19 and commissions. 20 Commissioner Summa thought it was a great idea. She agreed with two minutes and aligning 21 with the other boards and commissions. 22 Commissioner Hechtman liked the concept of consistency across the boards. 23 Chair Chang added that PTC projects are often more complex than those going before the other 24 boards. She thought deviating for the applicant was a little different from deviating for the 25 average member of the public because the applicant was provided the information by Staff. She 26 did not want to cut that short. She was more concerned about making the time consistent for 27 the average member of the public. She felt they were generous in asking the applicant for 28 clarification and allowing them time. 29 Commissioner Hechtman supported five reducible to two for public comment. For groups, he 30 said it needed to be clear how many people were required for a group. He pointed out for 31 applicants, 10 minutes could go by fast for a complicated project and 3 minutes for a rebuttal 32 was too tight. 33 Commissioner Ji wanted to know what the language would mean for a group of three. 34 Jennifer Armer stated they could revise it to make it explicit that it's only if it's a group of five or 35 more. 36 Chair Chang thought they should revise it to require groups of five or more. She did not want to 1 increase the time to 15 minutes. 2 Commissioner Ji preferred making it 15 because that would be three minutes for each person. 3 Commissioner Hechtman asked if the intention was to formalize it would be five reducible to 4 two and change the sentence to read like that. 5 Chair Chang opined there was a difference between the public comments on any issue versus 6 public comments on specific agenda items and they should just standardize it for everything. 7 MOTION #1: Chair Chang moved to change procedural rules so all public comments, whether 8 they were for agendized items or not, each speaker would get 5 minutes reduced down to 2 9 minutes at the discretion of the chair. Groups of five or more would get up to 15 minutes to 10 speak reducible to 10 at the discretion of the chair. Commissioner Summa seconded. The 11 motion passed by voice vote 6-0-0-1, Templeton absent. 12 13 MOTION #2: Commissioner Hechtman moved [that all requests to speak will be taken until five 14 minutes after the Applicant’s presentation 5:53]. Vice Chair Akin seconded. The motion passed 15 by voice vote 6-0-0-1, Templeton absent. 16 17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 18 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 19 20 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 21 Minutes of January 29, 2025 22 23 MOTION: Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve January 29, 2025, minutes, seconded by 24 Commissioner Summa. Passed by voice vote 5-0-1-1, Ji abstain, Templeton absent. 25 26 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 27 Minutes of February 12, 2025 28 29 30 MOTION: Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve February 12, 2025, minutes, seconded 31 by Commissioner Summa. Passed by voice vote 4-0-2-1, Ji & Chang abstain, Templeton absent. 32 33 ADJOURNMENT 34 11:40 pm 35 36