Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-26 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: March 26, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 8 9 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 13 [Zachary 20:38] stated that the Transbay Coalition was looking for city councils and PTCs to 14 voice their approval of the $2B in transportation funding pending in the California State 15 Legislature. 16 17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 18 19 There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions. 20 21 Special Order of the Day 22 23 Recognition of Doria Summa for her years of service on the Planning & Transportation 24 Commission 25 26 Chair Chang presented Commissioner Doria Summa with a plaque. 27 28 Commissioner Summa thanked her colleagues and staff. 29 30 PUBLIC COMMENTS 31 32 Jennifer spoke of her positive history with Commissioner Summa. She stated that she listened 33 to problems and was engaging, and she helped the City innovate, to be fair, and to make 34 progress. She congratulated her and thanked her for her service. She hoped to see her on 35 Council in the future. 36 37 Hamilton Hitchings thanked Commissioner Summa for her service. He appreciated her and 38 found her to be insightful. He stated that she was an example of one who made the Palo Alto 39 community great. 40 1 Terry Holzemer stated if the current and future PTC would follow Commissioner Summa’s time 2 commitments the City would be in great shape. He recommended that all follow her lead and 3 achievements. He considered her to be the best, most dedicated, and hardest working Planning 4 Commissioner. He thanked her. 5 6 Lydia Kou voiced that Commissioner Summa had superb skills in knowing the Municipal Code 7 and she applied common sense, practicality, and sensibility. She always appreciated her advice 8 and recommendations to Council. She thanked her for her service, for always speaking the 9 truth, for representing the people, for looking out for the City and its built environment, and for 10 being a friend. 11 12 Shani Kleinhaus found Commissioner Summa to have keen interest, deep compassion, and 13 understanding when it came to the natural environment and the community. She thanked her 14 for her work and for being her friend. 15 16 Jeff Greenfield thanked Commissioner Summa for her service, for being a key resource for the 17 community, and for being a friend. He voiced that it had been a pleasure working with her. 18 19 Liz Gardner thanked and commended Commissioner Summa for her service and for being part 20 of the community. She had always been able to count on her for her in-depth analysis of plans 21 before her. She was excited about what she would do next, which she knew would be 22 thoughtful and thorough. She was disappointed that she was not on City Council. She 23 appreciated that she had taken her calls and met with her. 24 25 Commissioner Summa was grateful to be in the role. She stated that good governance and true 26 public servants were relied on. She thanked her colleagues, whom it had been a pleasure to 27 serve with, present and past staff members, and City Council. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman stated that it was privilege to serve on the PTC with Commissioner 30 Summa who was a model in preparing for and carrying out the work to be done. He found her 31 to be the fiercest advocate for the comfort and concerns of Palo Alto residents. He admired her 32 passion and the civility she brought. It had been a learning experience for him to have her on 33 the Commission with him. He will miss her. He thanked her for her service. 34 35 Commissioner Peterson thanked Commissioner Summer, and he appreciated the example she 36 had set. He commented that she was a great mentor. He believed this was the start of a lot of 37 good work that she would do. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton appreciated Commissioner Summa’s engagement with 40 commissioners, which she would miss. She thanked her for her service, and she looked forward 41 to what she would do next. 42 43 Commissioner Ji was grateful that Commissioner Summa had visited his home and listened to 1 his concerns when he was facing an issue. He considered her to be the best role model. He 2 stated that he would not be on the PTC if it had not been for her encouragement, support, and 3 knowledge. He hoped their relationship would continue to blossom. 4 5 Vice Chair Akin stated that it was difficult to express how much was owed Commissioner 6 Summa for all she had given individually and for all she had given to the Commission and the 7 City. He thought of her as a role model for her conduct and knowledge. He envied her 8 connection to the community. He thanked her. 9 10 Chair Chang thanked Commissioner Summa for her dedication and her principled work ethic. 11 She echoed the comments of the prior speakers. She stated that everything she did was well 12 researched. She had not seen a commissioner who worked so hard to selflessly make the City 13 better. She appreciated her generosity with her time, which she was indebted to her for. She 14 had learned a lot from her. She helped people. She would miss her wealth of knowledge. She 15 thanked her for her service. 16 17 Commissioner Summa thanked everyone. She stated that everyone on the PTC was just as 18 marvelous if not more. 19 20 City Official Reports 21 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 22 23 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer stated that on April 9 there would be a discussion related to 24 the final plans for Crescent Park traffic calming, an update to the ADU Ordinance to respond to 25 comments received by HCD, and there would be an election of Chair and Vice Chair. On April 26 30, they expected to bring the Parking Program update. Council had approved the vesting 27 tentative map at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real on March 17. On March 24, Council had 28 discussed the potential Senate Bill 457, and the discussion would continue on April 7, which had 29 to do with State Housing Law. On April 7, they had scheduled Council review of the Lighting 30 Ordinance, which had been recommended by the PTC on October 30, 2024. A staff report 31 would be published tomorrow, which would have more details. Staff included some 32 modifications to 2 or 3 of the items in their recommendation. The PTC was welcome to join that 33 meeting. 34 35 Transportation Parking Manager Nate Baird stated that the Parking Permits update had been 36 delayed. The South Palo Alto Bike Ped Connectivity Project would develop locally preferred 37 crossing locations and design concepts for 2 new grade separated bike ped pathways of the 38 Caltrain corridor in the southern portion of the city. A community workshop was scheduled for 39 April 2. It was tentatively planned to bring the project to the PTC on May 14. MTC was 40 requesting feedback via an online survey for the planned Bay Area 2050+ implementation. A 41 link to the survey would be emailed to Commission members, and he believed the public was 42 invited through plannedbayarea.org. Regarding the parking programs, attention needed to be 43 given to policies, particularly for downtown. There was an employee program. He explained 1 that, due to congestion, attention needed to be given to 2- and 3-hour parking and the 2 quarterly permits. They wanted to discuss pricing to help turn over the demanded parking spots 3 and to let folks know about available free parking. Public Works would deliver the APGS system 4 to 4 downtown garages. He voiced that with the way the parking programs were set up it was 5 difficult to do good TDM programs. They would speak to business owners and visitors over the 6 next couple months. He requested to be contacted if anyone wanted to discuss parking in 7 downtown. There would be some focus groups and a lot of conversations this spring and 8 summer. 9 Action Items 10 11 2. Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area 12 (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the 13 Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan 14 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, 15 Analyzed Potential Environmental Impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element 16 Including Program 3.4E. (Continued from March 12, 2025) 17 18 Chair Chang asked if there were any recusals. 19 20 Commissioner Summa voiced why she would recuse herself from the major portion of the item. 21 22 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang announced that the item would be segmented into the 23 portion that created the conflict and then there would be a later portion where there was no 24 conflict. The PTC would first take action on the portion that created the conflict. There would 25 be a combined staff report and public comment. He declared that Commissioner Summa could 26 recuse herself after the public comment. 27 28 Consultant Jean Eisberg commented that there was an existing El Camino focus area, and 29 consideration should be given to expanding the geographic boundaries and changes to 30 development standards to incentivize housing production in appropriate locations as an 31 alternative to State Density Bonus Law. Staff requested that the PTC make a recommendation 32 to Council on the draft ordinance. The expansion areas, development regulations, affordable 33 housing requirements, and special setbacks on Hanson Way would be discussed. Separate from 34 that, they requested feedback on future action and planning for the remainder of the corridor 35 not included in the focus area and also the potential rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue. In 36 December, staff had met with the Planning Commission and the ARB, and they had received 37 feedback related to the expansion areas and whether to adjust development standards, 38 incentivize lot consolidation, and adjust the height transition standards. The ARB had 39 recommended expansion through all the tiers. They had discussed adjustments to the daylight 40 plane, height transition standards, and the upper story step-back on El Camino Real. The 41 ordinance proposed expansion of the El Camino focus area boundaries. She displayed a map 42 outlining the proposed expansion area. Tier 1 sites were the best sites for potential 43 redevelopment under the focus area. She explained why a Tier 2 site had been included. She 1 discussed why sites had been limited for inclusion in the focus area. Future analysis of the 2 corridor and inclusion in the focus area would require additional CEQA review. The draft 3 ordinance recommended modifications to development regulations, which she elaborated on. 4 She stated that the 3300 El Camino site had an approved office building, and the developer was 5 interested in a multifamily product on the site, and if the PTC was interested in the 0.4 FAR 6 currently allowed, it would need to be added to the draft ordinance. The draft ordinance also 7 modified development regulations related to daylight planes and height transitions, which she 8 outlined. It also proposed to modify the upper story step-back on the El Camino frontage side 9 of the buildings to streamline and simplify the standard. Concerning affordability requirements, 10 a new State law changed the amount of affordable housing a builder’s remedy project needed 11 to provide, which she detailed. It questioned whether the City should revise the focus area 12 affordability requirements to make them more comparable to State law, to consider an in-lieu 13 fee payment or changes to the 20-percent standard. It appeared that the existing focus area 14 standard and the new builder’s remedy requirements pertained to existing builder’s remedy 15 projects that had already been submitted. The draft ordinance called for waiving fees for BMR 16 units, staff recommended that the waiver of fees pertain to only the units restricted to lower 17 income levels, not to moderate or above. She discussed the Hansen Way special setback and 18 stated that there was a potential development constraint at the 3300 El Camino site. The 19 Transportation Division recommended not removing the special setback at this time. There was 20 potential to reduce it, but they wanted the PTC’s input on removing it just in the El Camino 21 area. The setback had been removed for mixed use and hotel projects across the street. 22 Regarding the rest of the corridor, staff received direction from Council to prepare an area plan 23 for El Camino, which was not yet scheduled. They were interested in the PTC’s input on a 24 planning approach for the remainder of the corridor. There was interest from the property 25 owner of 470 Olive Avenue to rezone. She explained that it was unlikely that it would be 26 developed as a single-family use, but mitigations could be in place to allow for redevelopment 27 of the bigger site as multifamily housing, and a potential proposal would be to rezone the NVR1 28 site to NV-MXM. The question was if the PTC would support rezoning the site as a future action. 29 She furnished a slide with the staff recommendation. 30 31 PUBLIC COMMENTS 32 33 Peter Giovannotto congratulated Commissioner Summa. They owned the 3606 and 3781 El 34 Camino Real sites, and they were set to create about 500 apartment homes via the builder’s 35 remedy process. They were exited to hear that their sites were being added to the expanded El 36 Camino Real focus area. He discussed 3 standards blocking the pathway – the 70 percent lot 37 coverage cap, the 10-foot step-back above 55 feet, and a catch all issue that was in the staff 38 recommendations. They supported 80 percent maximum coverage and suggested a 2-foot step-39 back or no step-back and using material changes at the 55-foot height. His brother had sent a 40 letter to the PTC showing examples of successful projects using both methods. Tying 41 development standards and design criteria to the base district rules would create issues, which 42 he detailed. They recommend that the focus area control over the base district standards. He 43 asked the PTC to support the 80 percent lot coverage, a low to no step-back approach, and a 1 focus area-led standard. 2 3 Laura Bowser with Sand Hill Property Company stated that they were working on a mixed-used 4 project at 3300 El Camino. They supported the revisions to the focus area. They recommended 5 reducing the Hansen Way special setback to match the proposed El Camino Real setback. They 6 requested that rear and anterior setbacks not apply to below-grade structures, which she 7 voiced would maximize parking. She detailed why they were requesting that the PTC revisit the 8 20 percent BMR on-site requirement. She added that the remainder of the City had the ability 9 to pay an in-lieu fee for affordable housing, and they asked that the focus area be held to the 10 same standard. They had submitted a letter addressing these topics. 11 12 Liz Gardner spoke on behalf of the low-income working class in the city, and she did not believe 13 the 20 percent low-income threshold should be reduced as she felt more affordability was 14 needed to balance jobs and housing. She added that housing was needed in the center of the 15 city. She requested that light, air, and noise pollution at Mayfield Place be addressed. 16 17 Commissioner Summa exited the dais. 18 19 Chair Chang stated that Item 1A through C and Item 2 could be addressed and then 20 Commissioner Summa could return to the meeting. 21 22 Commissioner Ji requested that the map showing the tiers be displayed. He asked if Olive was 23 included in Tier 2. He questioned what a 70-percent front setback would look like. 24 25 Jean Eisberg affirmed that for the purpose of this exercise 470 Olive was included in Tier 2. She 26 stated that there would have to be at least a 10-foot setback across 70 percent of the façade. 27 The remaining 30 percent could extend to the property line or the front of the façade 28 depending on the definition. 29 30 Chair Chang referenced Packet Page 208 and queried if the new affordability requirements for 31 the builder’s remedy were linked in any way to Density Bonus. She noted that one site with an 32 SB 330 application, which had originally been included in Tier 1, had been included in this 33 recommendation, and she questioned if there were any other sites in Tiers 2 through 4 that had 34 SB 330 applications. She referenced the 3300 El Camino Real proposed development and asked 35 if the staff recommendation would limit the height of office. 36 37 Jean Eisberg answered that the new affordability requirements for the builder’s remedy were 38 not linked in any way to Density Bonus. A project proposed under State Density Bonus Law 39 instead of the El Camino focus area may have a different or overlapping set of affordability 40 requirements. She did not believe anything in AB 1893 changed the incentives offered for State 41 Density Bonus. There could be other SB 330 preliminary applications. All builder’s remedy 42 applications were included in the existing and the proposed focus area. The draft ordinance 43 would limit the height of the office to 85 feet and it would allow the entire site to build out as 1 4.0 FAR. It would require that a housing development project be 2/3 residential. 2 3 Jennifer Armer added, concerning office height, that if was just an office building it would not 4 be able to take advantage of the rules. 5 6 Albert Yang understood that the office component would be limited to 0.4 FAR, but he would 7 check that. To use the 85-foot height, a developer could build the project with residential on 8 the bottom floor and office on the top floor. 9 10 Chair Chang did not think anyone was envisioning 85-foot office buildings. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman understood that the current plan for the El Camino area would 13 require a 20-percent BMR. He stated that the staff report asked if 20 percent should be lowered 14 to AB 1893 so developers would use the City’ ordinance rather than State law. He was not clear 15 if “rather than State law” applied to only builder’s remedy projects or if it would potentially 16 apply to existing builder’s remedy in Tier 1 plus the other one or the existing areas or if there 17 were other possible State law housing projects that could come in under other state laws. He 18 asked if an applicant could apply tomorrow for a housing development in the corridor using a 19 tool which might include 7-percent affordability, for extremely low income households. He was 20 trying to determine if just builder’s remedy projects already before the City would be 21 incentivized or if the PTC should be concerned with new projects not using the City’s ordinance 22 needing to be incentivized to use the City’s ordinance. 23 24 Jennifer Armer believed both were being spoken of. The 20 percent affordability requirement 25 was somewhat the core purpose of the El Camino Real focus area. With the knowledge of the 26 somewhat changing rules for builder’s remedy, staff felt it should be considered in terms of the 27 recommendation to Council. An applicant could not apply tomorrow for a housing development 28 in the corridor using a tool like SB 330, which might include 7-percent affordability, for 29 extremely low-income households. New builder’s remedy applications would not be received 30 until the next cycle. She believed they were looking at Density Bonus Law and that this was an 31 alternative to that, but she did not think the percentages applied to Density Bonus Law. 32 33 Albert Yang clarified that the percentages were for the builder’s remedy. For Density Bonus 34 Law, someone could provide the percentages and they would get a density bonus according to 35 the table in the Density Bonus Law. He thought the program was targeting both. The 36 Commission may want to consider a different standard for a project having a pending builder’s 37 remedy application. 38 39 Commissioner Peterson inquired who would be responsible for enforcing this and ensuring that 40 the units existed. 41 42 Jennifer Armer answered that they would need to be deed restricted to the affordability levels. 43 44 Albert Yang added that before occupancy and before issuing a building permit, an agreement 1 would be entered into, which would require a certain number of units be offered at restricted 2 prices. All the units were typically administered by the City’s BMR administrator, ALTA Housing, 3 which maintained a list of the units and wait lists to fill the units and they ensured that folks 4 would be qualified. 5 6 Commissioner Peterson stated that that was the lower end of enforcement. 7 8 Chair Chang suggested that commissioners comment on everything except Hansen and 470 9 Olive, and then it may be decided to make separate motions. 10 11 Vice Chair Akin was disappointed that the Tier 2 sites would be postponed, but he supported it 12 because the rationale was sound. He liked the incentives for lot consolidation. As for 13 affordability, he expressed that AB 1893 was disappointing. He would rather use inclusionary 14 requirements so as not to segregate people by income level but, given the low requirements, 15 another standard may need to be established, which he was open to. If that did not happen, he 16 wanted to allow the use of in-lieu fees. 17 18 Commissioner Ji supported Tiers 1 and 2, and he generally did not approve of the areas labeled 19 Tier 3 and 4. He agreed with the previous recommendation on Item 1A. As for Item 1C, he 20 preferred that there be a 20-percent BMR. He requested to see a map so he could get a sense 21 of the 10,000-square foot lots. 22 23 Jean Eisberg stated that she would locate and pull up a map that had been included in 24 December’s packet. 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman supported the limitation on the fee waiver to 80 percent and below 27 and the applicability of an in-lieu fee, although that being a complete or partial substitute may 28 need to be discussed. He believed he supported a special BMR rule for the existing builder’s 29 remedy projects in this zone, particularly Tier 1 plus the one, to match 1893 to possibly allow 30 that group of developments to use the City’s ordinance. He suggested later revisiting applying 31 the alternatives provided in 1893 as it related more broadly to outside of just an incentive for 32 those with builder’s remedy. He voiced that for now it could be limited applicability to existing 33 builder’s remedy. Regarding the development regulation changes, he supported the 34 encouragement of assemblage for larger projects and incentivizing that through the increased 35 lot coverage or FAR going from 70 to 80 percent. He wanted to hear staff’s perspective on 36 basement setbacks. He did not understand why there would be a requirement for a 10-foot 37 setback above 55 feet, and he wanted to know what some of the neighboring cities were doing 38 in that regard. 39 40 Chair Chang found staff’s rationale concerning 1A to make perfect sense. She referenced Packet 41 Page 206, development regulation changes, and commented that she was uncomfortable with 42 a 45-degree daylight plane. She supported removing the height transition. She thought the 43 simplified upper story setback was an effort by the ARB to avoid the canyon effect. When doing 44 investigation on retail nodes, she noticed that south of Palo Alto the El Camino setback was 1 much larger than what it was in Palo Alto, and she explained why she was inclined to proceed 2 with the ARB’s recommendation. She supported standardizing setbacks, but she queried if 3 there were parcels where a rear yard might become a side yard. She queried if on El Camino, 4 with the 12-foot sidewalk, there would ever be a 5-foot setback if it was not wanted. She 5 supported the incentives for consolidation. As an additional incentive, she wondered if there 6 should be a greater percentage of in-lieu fees for affordable housing instead of inclusionary for 7 lot consolidation. She supported providing incentives for BMR units as long as they were 80 8 percent of AMI, which was the current affordability level set for the focus area. However, she 9 might be less supportive if things changed as it related to AB 1893. She wanted to incentivize 10 the 80-percent AMI and waive fees there. She did not understand the implications, but she was 11 open to changing the affordable housing requirements for just the builder’s remedy projects. 12 She queried which parcels in the El Camino Real focus area were builder’s remedy projects or 13 which would be proposed to add this round. She was uncomfortable calling the 120 percent 14 AMI small units affordable. 15 16 Jean Eisberg stated that the rear and anterior yards would have the same requirements. Just 17 the front and the street sides would have a streetside condition, even if the front was not El 18 Camino. There would never be a 5-foot setback on El Camino if it was not wanted. She provided 19 a map showing the 4 builder’s remedy applications. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton was interested in staff being clearer about the 120 percent small AMI 22 units. She considered upper story setback to be controversial. She wanted there to be 23 architectural interest, and she thought that could be accomplished with 10 feet. She wanted to 24 maximize the housing yield if buildings were going to be 55 feet tall. She discussed it being 25 possible to get the visual interest needed without sacrificing housing. She wanted to ensure 26 that pedestrians on El Camino would enjoy the Palo Alto experience, which she explained. She 27 wished to maximize the housing tradeoff/balance when approving these special situations. She 28 wanted to encourage builders to build something that would fit in Palo Alto. She did not want 29 to restrict them from building the maximum number of units on a property. 30 31 Commissioner Peterson requested maps showing the overlay with the super-fun sites and the 32 interaction with housing. 33 34 Jennifer Armer requested that Commissioner Peterson request that via email. 35 36 Vice Chair Akin mentioned that it appeared that the height transition standard was going away 37 for good reason. He shared slides outlining building envelopes and different daylight planes, 38 building volumes for the 3 daylight plane options he spoke of, and volumes versus the 45-39 degree daylight plane. He noted that around 200 feet into the lot, the 30-degree daylight plane 40 would give 90 percent of what could be obtained from the 45-degree daylight plane and that it 41 went up from there. He remarked that the Creekside lot was one place where the standards 42 would apply. He remarked that there was plenty of room there and that a 30-degree daylight 43 plane would be sufficient to build about 95 percent of what could be built with a 45-degree 44 daylight plane and it would reduce impacts on the low-density residential properties close to 1 the property line. He found the 30-foot daylight plane to be viable. He remarked that the upper 2 story setback and the daylight plane could be treated independently. 3 4 Commissioner Ji requested that the lot map be displayed. 5 6 Jean Eisberg supplied a map which broke down parcel sizes. She stated that 10,000 square feet 7 was just under 0.25 acres. 8 9 Commissioner Ji was in favor of providing incentives based on the map. He was uncomfortable 10 with a 45-degree daylight plane. He was open to the idea of a 30-degree daylight plane given 11 that it would include about 95 percent of the buildable area. He was empathetic to not having 12 the 45-degree daylight plane behind an R1 or a residential neighborhood. He supported 13 removing the height transitions. He deferred to the ARB’s expertise as it related to the upper 14 story setback – a 10-foot setback at 55 feet with the 70-percent façade. He referenced Packet 15 Page 213 and the rear and anterior side setbacks being based on Code 18.13.040, and he asked 16 what was the most and least restrictive for the zones provided on the right. He wanted to know 17 what the value was being changed from. He asked how the 12-foot sidewalks and the 5-foot 18 street setbacks interplayed. 19 20 Jean Eisberg replied that they were trying to standardize the setbacks for the focus area. The 21 right-hand column on the slide showed the setbacks currently applied to the CS, CN, and CC 22 zones, which was generally the zone along El Camino and in the focus area. She provided an 23 example of a setback that would go from 20 feet at the streetside in the front, rear, and 24 anterior to the setbacks that were shown on the slide. Some PC zones on El Camino would vary. 25 Some of the RM zones might change but not be the front setbacks. She would look up the 26 details concerning the setback changes. She explained how the 12-foot sidewalks and the 5 feet 27 street setbacks interplayed. 28 29 Chair Chang asked what the previous streetside setbacks had been. She noted that Page 213 of 30 the Ordinance did not make reference to the special setback on Hansen as it related to the 31 streetside setback. 32 33 Jean Eisberg responded that the 5-foot setback applied in the CN, CC, and CS zones. The RP 34 zone streetside setback could be 5 feet instead of 20. She stated that any other special setbacks 35 on Hansen would still apply. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton inquired why staff was requesting that blanket, uniform zoning be 38 created along El Camino when some were commercial and some abutting low-density housing, 39 why something adjacent to R1 was in the existing focus area block, if the daylight plane would 40 apply to any other part of the existing focus area, and if part of this discussion concerned other 41 properties along El Camino, some of which being builder’s remedy. She discussed why she did 42 not see a way forward because there was not an ability to customize as necessary. She asked if 43 the Vice Chair Akin had vetted the information in his presentation. She wanted to know what 44 the process would be for making decisions and if staff was providing the needed analytical tools 1 to make good recommendations. She inquired if recommendations were being made on the 2 presentation of the Vice Chair Akin and if staff verified and validated the information he 3 presented. If a decision was made based on the graphs he presented, she wanted to know how 4 the PTC would own the data that the decisions were being made on, if staff owned the material 5 he presented. She wanted to ensure that information presented would be factual. 6 7 Jean Eisberg pointed out that the daylight plane was one of the regulations that was being 8 proposed specifically for the sites adjacent to low-density residential to add an extra level of 9 protection and transition. She noted that a lot of the daylight plane and height transition details 10 came from the conversation with the ARB. 11 12 Jennifer Armer added that the Housing Element Program called for looking at height transitions 13 or daylight planes. As for the setbacks, there was a distinction between adjacencies to low-14 density residential and the existing CN, CS [inaudible 2:21:17]. Concerning the material 15 presented by Vice Chair Akin, she voiced that there were infinite options for any situation like 16 this. It was common to have a suggestion from a member of the public, an advocate neighbor, 17 or a commissioner. Staff was unable to vet everything, so certain information may not be 18 confirmed. What was shown on Vice Chair Akin’s graphs appeared to be accurate. She thought 19 it could be used to inform the discussion, and staff would be happy to take the PTC’s 20 recommendation forward. Staff would be happy to verify information. Vice Chair Akin had 21 provided questions to staff in advance of the meeting, and staff discussed the possibility of the 22 30-degree daylight plane. 23 24 Albert Yang explained that something adjacent to R1 was in the original and existing focus area 25 block. The daylight plane was proposed to apply only when there was a direct adjacency to low-26 density residential. He discussed why other properties along El Camino were included. He 27 understood that the 45-degree recommendation was a compromise. 28 29 Vice Chair Akin remarked that daylight plane and height transition had been discussed with 30 staff before the meeting, and he had sent questions in several days before. His presentation 31 was a way to explain what he had in mind. He stated that the decisions being made were no 32 different from any other quantitative decision made by the PTC, regardless of vetting by staff. 33 34 Chair Chang noted that Vice Chair Akin’s presentation was an aid. She voiced that she had 35 encouraged him to present the information. It was not intended that staff would vouch for the 36 information. She added that such presentations could be discussed at the retreat. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman supported standardizing the setbacks on Page 206. Regarding the 39 BMR distribution referenced on Page 208, if the new staggered BMR concept was allowed in a 40 limited way, maybe it should be for the builder’s remedy projects and the other applications 41 that had been displayed on the slide. He stated that some of the other Commissioners thought 42 the ARB was right about the 10-foot setback on the El Camino side but not about the steeper 43 setback on the backside next to R1, which would reduce the number and/or size of units. He 44 discussed not all R1 zones being created equal. He requested that Vice Chair Akin’s daylight 1 plane presentation slide be displayed, and he stated that the difference between cost and 2 profit was missing. He remarked that choosing a daylight plane without understanding whether 3 there would be a surmountable or insurmountable obstacle for developers was risky. He 4 referenced Vice Chair Akin’s slide related to building envelopes, which was one possible way of 5 doing it, but that there was a range of things in between and on either side, which he found 6 fascinating. He was not wedded to ARB’s recommendation. In the El Camino focus area, he 7 wanted to think about a higher degree than what might be considered in other areas because 8 of the desired density. He stated that the degree along El Camino might be between 30 and 45 9 degrees. He felt more information may be needed. He wanted to protect the R1 neighbors and 10 have a standard that developers could and would build to. 11 12 Chair Chang stated that the staff recommendation would apply only to lots that backed onto 13 R1, which currently consisted of one parcel. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson wanted to see pedestrian traffic overlaid with the corridor. 16 17 Jennifer Armer stated that such requests should be sent to staff in advance because they could 18 not present the information quickly. She could look into it, but she did not know if volume 19 numbers existed. The Bike Ped Master Plan had information about what routes would be used 20 for different purposes. 21 22 Commissioner Peterson stated that he would request the information via email. He was 23 interested in seeing the walkability path. He found the slides to be technically outdated. 24 25 Jennifer Armer stated that the southside near Mountain View was not part of this 26 recommendation. The El Camino Real focus area sites were near California Avenue with some 27 expansions, but they were limited due to the environmental review. She supplied the slide 28 showing the proposed expansion area, and she noted that they were not proposing changes to 29 the blue outline except for the development regulations. The pink areas were the expansion 30 areas. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton was concerned with what making a recommendation now would 33 mean for future recommendations. She wanted thought to be given to how information would 34 be presented because Vice Chair Akin’s vision was competing with staff’s vision. She noted that 35 historically this group of homeowners/occupants had been underrepresented, so she wanted 36 to take extra care with this decision. 37 38 Jennifer Armer believed similar diagrams with the daylight plane and the step-backs had been 39 part of the information staff had provided in the past. 40 41 Vice Chair Akin announced that Chair Chang had stepped away briefly. 42 43 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments. He pointed out that he, as a 1 member of the public, had brought diagrams of daylight planes. He was sensitive toward 2 daylight plane issues and the importance of a good diagram. He deferred to the ARB’s expertise 3 as it related to the upper story setbacks. He commented that he would rely on his personal 4 lived experience as it related to the daylight plane. He was worried about the canyon effect. 5 6 [The Commission took a 7-minute break] 7 8 Chair Chang discussed why she wanted to waive development fees for units at 120 percent 9 AMI. She was concerned about eliminating setbacks for underground parking, and she stated 10 she would need staff to evaluate that more. She did not support extending the AB 1893 11 affordability thresholds to the builder’s remedy sites for any other application in process. 12 13 Commissioner Ji asked if the setback in the current ordinance applied to underground. 14 15 Jennifer Armer answered that the setbacks applied to above and below ground structures. To 16 change it would require a modification. She summarized what she had heard from the PTC as 17 follows: There was general agreement that the proposed expansion area was appropriate at 18 this time but potentially there might be discussion of additional expansion in the future. There 19 was general agreement as it related to the development regulations. There was ongoing 20 discussion about refining the daylight plane. There was agreement to remove the height 21 transition. There was discussion of the upper story step-back. There was general agreement for 22 the standardized setbacks and the incentives for consolidation and BMR units. There was 23 discussion of affordable housing retirements if the Commission might want to recommend a 24 change to the 20 percent required to be affordable. The daylight plane, the step-back, and the 25 affordable housing requirements were still being discussed. There had been general consensus 26 and agreement with staff’s recommendation on the other topics. 27 28 Chair Chang asked what the current setbacks were versus what was proposed in the ordinance. 29 30 Jean Eisberg replied that in addition to the RP zone, the RM zone side and rear yard setbacks 31 would change and depended on lot width. 32 33 Commissioner Ji asked if it would be an increase. 34 35 Jean Eisberg explained that it would generally be about the same but it would depend on the 36 condition. 37 38 Albert Yang followed up on the allowed commercial FAR, which he commented was not clearly 39 stated but staff intended for it not to exceed the base district commercial FAR. He would make 40 that clearer [inaudible 3:13:00]. 41 42 MOTION #1 43 44 Commissioner Ji motioned to remove the height transition pending the next motion on daylight 1 plane, to standardize the setbacks as provided, to provide incentives for consolidation, and to 2 expand the Tier 1 site as proposed. The aforementioned had been recommended by staff. 3 4 Jennifer Armer added that she had the height transition, standardized setbacks, and incentives 5 for consolidation and BMR units. 6 7 Commissioner Ji added [the waiver at 80 percent or below for BMI 3:14:39] to the motion. 8 9 Chair Chang wanted to explicitly emphasize that the office FAR would be subject to the 10 underlying FAR. 11 12 Commissioner Ji accepted the amendment. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion mostly described by Commissioner Ji and 17 augmented by the Chair. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton questioned if the motion included changes to the staff 20 recommendation. 21 22 Chair Chang responded that it was the staff recommendation for everything, but there was an 23 unwritten staff recommendation, which was the intention that office built within the El Camino 24 Real focus area would be subject FAR limitations and Bay Zoning. 25 26 VOTE MOTION #1 27 28 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 29 30 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Templeton, Peterson, Ji, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Summa abstained) 31 32 Chair Chang turned the discussion to the daylight plane in the El Camino Real focus as it related 33 to a parcel being adjacent to an R1 and low-density residential property. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman inquired where the R1 was in relation to the projects. 36 37 Jean Eisberg pulled up the map and noted that the beige areas were R1 zones. There was only 38 one site abutting an R1, which was an existing builder’s remedy application. 39 40 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to know what was proposed in that builder’s remedy 41 application in terms of its interface with the R1 and what the daylight plane was. 42 1 Jean Eisberg answered that the design was for a 60-degree daylight plane that currently existed 2 within the draft ordinance. 3 4 Albert Yang added that there was a 3-story townhome development proposed near that end of 5 the parcel adjacent to R1, but he did not know what the setback height was, so they could not 6 speak to the daylight plane. 7 8 Vice Chair Akin mentioned that there had been several proposals with different daylight plane 9 configurations. He did not know which was most current or the implications as it related to the 10 public comment. It was hard to tell what would be essential to make the project financially 11 feasible, and he did not understand the public comment in that respect. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman stated the builder’s remedy did not have to have any daylight plane, 14 so he wanted to think about it in that context. He queried if the PTC should be concerned about 15 the property next to R2. 16 17 Jean Eisberg replied that the draft ordinance would create a new daylight plane when adjacent 18 to an R1 zone and other locations would default to existing standards. 19 20 Jennifer Armer added that the most recent proposal on that site was proposing townhomes at 21 the rear end, so it would be taller closer to El Camino. She did not have information as to how it 22 would relate to the different daylight planes but it was already, at least, in part being 23 accommodated by what was currently proposed. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton questioned if making a decision tonight would change the proposal, if 26 the rules would change and townhomes would not be put in the back, and if the PTC was being 27 asked to provide input on the design of one aspect of a single project without having the whole 28 project in front of the Commission. 29 30 Jennifer Armer thought the townhomes would be 3 stories and so would rely on the 60-degree 31 angle. If a lower angle was implemented, it would likely affect the design. She stated that there 32 should not be discussion about a project that would come before the PTC in the future. That 33 project was a useful example in terms of knowing the current [inaudible 3:25:23]. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton was concerned about the legality of it. 36 37 Albert Yang stated that the Commission was being asked to decide what standards should be 38 offered in scenarios with properties being adjacent to R1. There was only one property now, 39 but that specific project was not being discussed. The Commission could keep that project in 40 mind when considering the standards. 41 42 Commissioner Templeton was concerned that the PTC was being asked to make a decision that 1 would affect only one property without looking at the project, which seemed [inaudible 2 3:27:20]. 3 4 Albert Yang did not believe the project had come before the Commission and he did not know if 5 it would. 6 7 Chair Chang stated that there were 4 tiers and that in the future staff would examine 8 implications for potentially extending the El Camino Real focus area to the other tiers and there 9 were several sites on the other tiers that backed onto R1. The PTC could decide to not make a 10 decision/change now, but then the height transitions could not be eliminated. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton asked if making a decision on Tier 1 would somehow propagate to 13 Tiers 2 through 4. 14 15 Jennifer Armer displayed a map and stated that it was being recommended that the blue area 16 be expanded to the pink properties, so it would apply to those. If in the future there was an 17 effort to expand the focus area, the rules would apply to those, but that would be another 18 opportunity to look at the rules and how they had been working. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton asked if staff would commit to bring back agendized items for the 21 future tiers. 22 23 Jennifer Armer responded that if it expanded to future tiers, she felt there should be discussion 24 about whether the regulations should stay the same. 25 26 Commissioner Peterson referenced the displayed map and stated that the site had a creek 27 running through it, which would be changed by the riparian corridor. He thought it was out of 28 compliance. He inquired if the adjacent residential sites were built with permanent structures 29 or temporary module structures. 30 31 Jennifer Armer stated that the property adjacent to the single-family residential was an existing 32 part of the focus area with the modified regulations. The new creek setbacks applying to a 33 redevelopment project on the site would depend on the timing of the completeness of the 34 project. The adjacent residential sites were flag lots. She did not know what had been 35 developed on the sites. 36 37 Chair Chang responded that there were homes on the adjacent residential sites. 38 39 Commissioner Ji supported the 30-degree daylight plane provided by Vice Chair Akin applied. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton inquired if Commissioner Ji wanted the 30-degree angle to apply to 42 all projects on El Camino. 43 44 Commissioner Ji wanted the 30-degree angle to apply to all projects on El Camino that would 1 abut R1. 2 3 Chair Chang thought a 30-degree daylight plane was a reasonable compromise. 4 5 Commissioner Templeton wanted to consider alternatives to the 30, 45, and 60-degree angles 6 and to hear from those with lived experience as it related to sun exposure. 7 8 Jennifer Armer mentioned that the ARB had provided a recommendation and that they often 9 considered shadow studies. 10 11 Commissioner Peterson stated that doing daylighting analysis on an entire corridor was not out 12 of the question. He did not think the light would be blocked because it was on the south side of 13 El Camino. 14 15 Vice Chair Akin noted that the code had other daylight plane specifications, and 1:1 and 1:2 16 were common, which was close to 30 degrees. He had chosen that because there was existence 17 proof in the code. He wanted the pro formas from the developers so he could see what would 18 be financially feasible. If 30 or 45 degrees was unworkable, he hoped to come up with a proper 19 adjustment for the affected projects. He was reluctant to get too aggressive with allowing 20 larger daylight plane angles, based on the economic situation today, because there were a lot 21 of exceptional conditions in play. He wanted to see something for aesthetics and privacy, and if 22 it was too aggressive, it could be dialed back. He did not want to give up too much up front. 23 24 Commissioner Ji stated that the 1:2 daylight plane specification was 27 degrees. He considered 25 45 degrees to be large and looming behind a building. He reinforced his support for 30 degrees. 26 27 Commissioner Hechtman discussed some surrounding cities having structures and rules that 28 allowed for profitable development. He thought Palo Alto was ignoring developers’ comments 29 as it related to the feasibility of projects. He discussed why he wanted to follow the ARB 30 recommendation of a 45-foot plane at 16 feet. He added that it would apply only to one 31 property because there would probably not be new R1 neighborhoods behind El Camino. He 32 thought future actions for the other tiers would be protected. 33 34 Commissioner Templeton wanted to err on the side of building more units. She thought 45 35 degrees was a good compromise. She would also be happy with 40 degrees if 45 degrees was 36 not acceptable. She felt 30 was too much. 37 38 Commissioner Ji noted that the maximum height on El Camino in Mountain View was 65 and 60 39 in Los Altos. He stated that when he had blanketly measured setbacks on Google Street View he 40 saw 15- to 20-foot setbacks. He considered the 30-degree angle to be an even compromise. 41 42 MOTION #2 43 44 Commissioner Ji motioned to move forward with a 30-degree daylight plane measured at 16 1 feet. 2 3 SECOND 4 5 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 6 7 VOTE MOTION #2 8 9 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 10 11 MOTION FAILED 3-3-1 (Akin, Chang, Ji) (Hechtman, Peterson, Templeton, no) (Summa 12 abstained) 13 14 MOTION #3 15 16 Commissioner Ji motioned to provide a split recommendation. 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 21 22 Commissioner Hechtman asked if there should be discussion on something between 45 and 30. 23 24 Chair Chang discussed how she decided on 30 degrees. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton felt it was okay to provide a split recommendation because the PTC 27 was split. She stated that it had been examined thoroughly and she was satisfied with the 28 amount of discussion that had occurred. 29 30 Commissioner Peterson explained why there should be more of a setback on the north side of 31 El Camino than the south side. 32 33 Commissioner Ji wondered if the no votes on 30 degrees wanted to explicitly state 45 degrees. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton considered the discussion to be evidence of itself and that staff 36 would represent it truly. 37 38 Jennifer Armer remarked that staff would summarize what they had heard. 39 40 VOTE MOTION #3 41 1 Veronica Dao took a roll call vote. 2 3 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Hechtman, Ji, Chang, Akin, Peterson, Templeton) (Summa abstained) 4 5 Chair Chang declared that the next area of discussion would relate to the upper story setback. 6 7 MOTION #4 8 9 Commissioner Templeton moved the staff recommendation on the simplified upper story 10 setback. 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 15 16 Vice Chair Akin stated that the step-back should be zero if building the maximum amount of 17 housing and making things as financially feasible as possible was the guiding principal. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton was happy to adopt that as an amendment. 20 21 Commissioner Ji was not interested in adopting it as an amendment. 22 23 Vice Chair Akin stated that he had no strong feeling. He wanted everyone to analyze things 24 carefully. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton was concerned about the canyon effect, so she wanted to have at 27 least the recommended amount of step-back. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman discussed why he would not support the motion. He had not heard 30 alternatives. 31 32 Commissioner Peterson voiced why he would not support the motion. He stated that a lot of 33 the questions were being approached without knowledge, and he thought knowledge could be 34 gathered by looking at the streetscape model in a virtual environment. He noted that some 35 cities were doing that. 36 37 VOTE MOTION #4 38 39 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 40 41 MOTION PASSED 4-2-1 (Templeton, Akin, Chang, Ji) (Peterson, Hechtman, no) (Summa 1 abstained) 2 3 Chair Chang announced that the discussion would turn to the change in the affordability 4 requirements for builder’s remedy projects introduced by AB 1893 and if the affordability 5 thresholds should be extended to the El Camino focus area. 6 7 MOTION #5 8 9 Commissioner Hechtman moved to recommend to Council that the AB 1893 BMR standards be 10 applied to the focus area but only to the existing builder’s remedy projects. 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 15 16 VOTE MOTION #5 17 18 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 19 20 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Ji, Peterson, Templeton) (Summa abstained) 21 22 Hechtman inquired if the recommendation for use of in-lieu fees needed to be discussed. 23 24 Chair Chang queried if there was mention of in-lieu fees in the current ordinance. 25 26 Albert Yang responded that there was no provision for in-lieu payment currently. 27 28 Chair Chang stated that to do anything about it there would need to be a proposal from a PTC 29 member. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman referenced Packet Page 208 and it appeared that in-lieu fees were 32 posed as a possible option to deal with the State law being more generous to developers on 33 BMR development than the City’s code. He noted that the PTC had voted to address that by 34 using the stepped process, which matched State law. He commented that in-lieu fees would go 35 further than State law. He wanted incentives in other areas. He was okay with not adding an in-36 lieu fee [to give 4:07:17] them the graduated scale. 37 38 Chair Chang agreed. 39 40 Vice Chair Akin interpreted it to mean that the BMR standards could be applied to AB 1893 in 41 the builder’s remedy case. He stated that in-lieu feels might be a more general incentive but, if 42 there was not sufficient interest at this time, it did not need to be pursued. 43 1 Commissioner Peterson was generally not in favor of in-lieu fees, but he was happy to go with 2 the majority of the PTC. 3 4 Chair Chang did not see appetite for this. She wanted to give the El Camino Real focus area a 5 chance to work or not. She voiced that some of the sites on El Camino Real had the best chance 6 of incorporating inclusionary housing, which she wanted to have as a public good. 7 8 Commissioner Ji did not know if the future action on the remainder of the corridor had been 9 voted on. 10 11 Chair Chang noted that in the past the PTC had reached consensus that Tiers 1 and 2 should be 12 [inaudible 4:10:16]. 13 14 Jennifer Armer expressed that she had clearly heard that there was interest in further 15 expansion at some point and that then Council would decide whether to do it as an expansion 16 of a focus area or as part of a broader area plan. 17 18 Chair Chang invited Commissioner Summa back to the dais. She declared that the Hansen 19 special setback and the 470 Olive components would be discussed. 20 21 Commissioner Ji referenced Packet Page 208 and asked if the trapezoid building was in the 22 works. He questioned how far the Utility easement was from the street. He was trying to 23 understand approximately how much area could potentially be built in the top left of the 24 easement. 25 26 Jean Eisberg answered that the trapezoidal shape was not intended to represent a building. She 27 thought it was a potential footprint. That project sponsor had an approved office development, 28 and they had expressed interest in a multifamily building on other portions of the site. She 29 would look for the scaled image and try to provide a measurement. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman asked if, since March 12, the Transportation had communicated their 32 position on removing the setback requirement. 33 34 Jennifer Armer stated that there was not a clear answer currently. Total removal of the special 35 setback would not be supported, but some reduction might be. With no specific plans for 36 changes to the roadway, it was difficult to know how much space would be needed. Staff 37 wanted to know if there was support for it. 38 39 Commissioner Peterson inquired if the GIS link staff had sent him regarding the hazmat and 40 super-fun sites was available to the PRC for discussion. 41 42 Jennifer Armer did not believe the Hansen Way special setback discussion had an impact on this 43 site. As for the Olive site, there was ongoing monitoring required. 44 1 Commissioner Peterson asked what the issue was with the Olive site. 2 3 Jean Eisberg furnished a slide and discussed why the rezoning was being considered. 4 5 Jennifer Armer added that there was contamination on the site, so there was ongoing 6 monitoring, and it often resulted in restriction of allowed uses. It was unlikely that it would be 7 developed as a single-family home, as it was currently zoned, and that it may be more 8 appropriate to zone it commercial. 9 10 Commissioner Peterson asked if there was a tank underground, if it was removed, if it was 11 leaking, or if it was an active tank. He wanted to know if there were contaminated sites within 12 the PTC’s consideration. He thought it was important if it was within a domain of affordable 13 housing. He discussed a certain contaminated site where employees were getting sick, who had 14 offices in the basement of a new building, and he thought the contamination crossed over to 15 Hansen. He voiced that he had mentioned that because a commercial site could include 16 subgrade office space. 17 18 Jennifer Armer thought it would be interesting to explore some of the details, but she was not 19 sure if that would affect the decision being considered now. The suggestion was to change it to 20 commercial. In the event of a particular development review, staff would bring forth an 21 analysis. 22 23 Commissioner Templeton stated that the happenings at Olive could be found on Packet Pages 24 208 and 209. She commented that the site may need to be redeveloped and, if so, it needed to 25 be done well. However, that was outside of the scope of this meeting. 26 27 Commissioner Peterson was sure environmental contaminates played an important role. 28 29 Chair Chang stated that environmental contaminates played an important role, and she 30 explained why the zoning change was being considered. 31 32 Commissioner Summa queried if it was a COE plume. She noted that the Hillview Porter Plume 33 was under the [Variance 4:24:49] site. She outlined the typical mitigation requirements. In her 34 experience, such did not prohibit building housing. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton requested that the slide related to the PG&E easement be furnished 37 and she asked what was happening there and why it was being discussed. 38 39 Jennifer Armer explained why it was being discussed. The PG&E easement and the 50-foot 40 special setback significantly constrained that part of the site, which was unusual to the site, so 41 the property owner wanted to know if the 50-foot setback could be reduced as it had been 42 done across Hansen Way. 43 44 Jean Eisberg stated that the City could not weigh in on the PG&E Utility easement. Staff was 1 asking about the Hansen Way special setback, which was in the right of way and on the private 2 property, to potentially allow future expansion of the right of way to accommodate pedestrian 3 or bicycle facilities, for example. Packet Page 208 showed a drawing of the combination of the 2 4 easements. 5 6 Albert Yang believed the PG&E easement was for a very high-power transmission line. He did 7 not know why PG&E would run it through Palo Alto. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton questioned if there could be building over the high-powered 10 supercharged electric highway if there was not a 50-foot setback. 11 12 Albert Yang thought the property owner wanted to build on both sides of the PG&E easement 13 but due to the 50-foot setback there was not much space on the other side. 14 15 Commissioner Ji referenced Packet Page 209, which stated it would not be conducive to 16 construction to a single-family R1 site, and he questioned if the sites adjacent to 470 Olive 17 would be conducive to single-family homes. 18 19 Jennifer Armer stated that the suggestion was because there was an existing legal 20 nonconforming commercial use on the site and rezoning it to a commercial use could be 21 appropriate given the circumstances. 22 23 Chair Chang questioned if it was a legal nonconforming use. 24 25 Jennifer Armer answered that she would need to research to confirm the legal status. 26 27 Commissioner Summa stated that it came to the PTC in 2020 as a preliminary. She understood 28 that it was not necessarily a legal nonconforming use and that the buildings were joined at one 29 point. She did not think returning it to its residential state was required. 30 31 Chair Chang asked what staff wanted as it related to Hansen. She asked if staff was requesting 32 action on Olive at this meeting. 33 34 Jennifer Armer stated that there would not be an action on rezoning, but staff wanted to know 35 if it was something the PTC would support. 36 37 Commissioner Summa did not want to make a final decision on Hansen until the Transportation 38 Department addressed it. She did not believe it was important to maintain the 50-foot setback 39 for parcels along El Camino, but she thought Stanford should weigh in on it. She was not in 40 favor of upzoning 470 Olive at this time unless there was a housing project brought forward. It 41 seemed to be more valuable to be zoned residential. 42 43 Commissioner Peterson stated that there was only one lot with known contamination but that 1 not a lot of information was provided as to what the issue was. He stated that it could 2 potentially impact more lots for rezoning. He asked what options would be available in such a 3 scenario. 4 5 Jennifer Armer responded that there was not a specific application for rezoning. Staff could 6 return with an item that had been properly noticed for consideration. If broader than the one 7 parcel, she thought it would become a larger effort, and they would want to do that through a 8 full process with environmental review, etc. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman was not sure that rezoning Olive was the right thing to do, but he 11 thought it was worth bringing it back to the PTC with some analysis. If consideration was given 12 to rezoning 470 Olive to NV-MXM, it would leave 473 Pepper with two sides designated NV-13 MXM. If it came back, he wanted to look at the possibility of rezoning both. Hansen felt 14 premature. He did not see how anything substantial could be built in the setback area unless 15 the PG&E easement was eliminated. He thought it should come back when the property owner 16 produced a plan, and he was comfortable making no recommendation at this time. He did not 17 feel that he could make an informed decision at this meeting. 18 19 Commissioner Templeton asked why Hansen would be changed if it would not be proven to be 20 helpful. As for Olive, waiting until there was a project seemed to the most advantageous for the 21 City’s best interest. She asked if the property owner needed it to be rezoned before putting a 22 project together. 23 24 Commissioner Summa explained why things had not moved forward in 2020. 25 26 Jennifer Armer felt there was a growing consensus that if the 2 changes were desired by the 27 property owners that they could be requested as part of a future development proposal. 28 3. Recommendation on a Resolution Amending the El Camino Real Retail Node Map for 29 Purposes of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.180: Retail Preservation. CEQA 30 Status: Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 31 adopted November 17, 2023 (SCH #2014052101). 32 33 Chair Chang did not think it would be easy to come to a consensus on this at this meeting 34 unless everyone was in complete agreement with the staff recommendation. 35 36 Jennifer Armer stated that designating an ad hoc was an option, but she recommended that 37 staff provide a presentation and that public comment be received before closing the item. 38 39 Commissioner Hechtman thought addressing this issue would take longer than the 1 hour 20 40 minutes allotted for in the agenda. 41 42 Commissioner Summa thought it would take her 4 or 5 days to do justice to the topic. She 1 suggested that an ad hoc look at it. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton wanted to continue the item. She did not think there should be a 4 presentation with no discussion. 5 6 Chair Chang supported there being an ad hoc. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton hoped, if there was to be an ad hoc, that it would be recorded or 9 good notes would be taken to share with the PTC. 10 11 MOTION 12 13 Commissioner Templeton moved to continue the item to April 30. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 18 19 VOTE MOTION 20 21 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 22 23 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Hechtman, Ji, Chang, Akin, Peterson, Templeton, Summa) 24 25 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26 27 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim 28 Minutes of February 26, 2025 29 30 MOTION 31 32 Vice Chair Akin moved to approve the minutes as revised. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 37 38 VOTE MOTION 39 40 Chair Chang conducted a voice vote. 41 42 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Ji, Peterson, Summa) (Templeton abstained) 1 2 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 3 4 Commissioner Ji thanked Commissioner Summa. 5 ADJOURNMENT 6 7 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. 8