Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-09-13 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: September 13, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00212]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a Multi- Use Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Structure Over Highway 101 Near San Antonio Road; Construction of the Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail; and, Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment On September 1, 2017 and Circulation Ends on October 2, 2017. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, with a Focus on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 There are no minutes to be approved at this meeting. Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Michael Alcheck Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Susan Monk Commissioner Eric Rosenblum Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7773) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: Attachment A: September 13, 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa, 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Lauing 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck Subcommittees Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda July 19, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics September 27 Comp Plan Update: Final Recommendation October 11 Downtown Parking Management #2 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Scoping October 25 PTC Annual Report to Council PF Zone Standards Amendment for City Garages Stanford GUP 2018: DEIR Comment Letter November 8 Title 18 Code Clean-up November 29 Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 PTC Annual Report to Council December 13 ADU Six Month Report Eichler Design Guidelines and Potential Zone Changes Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8258) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00212]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a Multi-Use Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Structure Over Highway 101 Near San Antonio Road; Construction of the Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail; and, Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment On September 1, 2017 and Circulation Ends on October 2, 2017. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1.Consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in Attachment E. 2.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Report Summary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 On June 12, 2017, the City of Palo Alto Division of Public Works Engineering filed an application for Site and Design review to allow construction of a Highway 101 Multi-Use Overcrossing between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101. The overcrossing would replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Highway 101 underpass to provide year-round connectivity between residential and commercial properties west of Highway 101 and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Business Park, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. There are five distinct sections of the overcrossing and trail that are discussed in more detail throughout this report. These are referred to as the Principal Span Structure, the West Approach Structure, the East Approach Structure, the Adobe Creek Bridge, and the Abode Creek Reach Trail. These distinct sections of the overcrossing/trail are designed using different structure types to respond to site constraints and ensure the structural integrity based on the proposed span and alignment of that section. The project also includes a new trailhead connection to the Adobe Creek Bridge and West Approach Structure from East Meadow Drive that follows the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road, herein referred to as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The project also includes site amenities, signage, landscaping, and lighting improvements and the minor reconfiguration of Google’s private parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road to accommodate the West Approach Structure. A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. The project plans are provided in Attachment G. Staff recommends that the PTC recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council based on the draft findings and conditions included in Attachment B. The project will also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for consistency with the architectural review findings. A hearing with the Architectural Review Board is tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2017. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Civil Engineer/Architect: Roy Schnabel, Principal, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc./ Claudia Guadagne, President, FMG Architects Representative: Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Sr. Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: Approximately 0.3 miles north of San Antonio Road (West Approach Structure crosses over 3600 West Bayshore) Neighborhood: Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park Neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: 008-05-005 (44,645,693 sf); 127-10-076 (89,941 sf); 127-10-100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 (89,941 sf); 127-56-006 (38,619 sf); 127-56-007 (34,843 sf) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: There are four protected trees within the project area all of which will be retained and protected during construction. Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Crosses existing roadways, including East and West Bayshore Road frontages and Highway 101; crosses over, and requires reconfiguration of, the existing Google parking lot; and follows an existing SCVWD maintenance road on the west side of Highway 101 out to East Meadow Drive. Existing Land Uses: The majority of the project spans Caltrans right-of-way over Highway 101 or City right-of-way across the Bayshore Road frontages. The overcrossing approaches would be located on publicly owned conservation land on the east side of Highway 101 and land designated as Research Office on the west side of Highway 101. Most of the western approach structure, the Adobe Creek Trail bridge, and the Adobe Creek trail improvements would occur within Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) property adjacent Adobe Creek, which crosses land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Research Office and Light Industrial but which is currently used as a SCVWD access road. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Office, Caltrans right-of-way, and Publicly Owned Conservation land uses (ROLM and PF[D] Zone Districts) West: Research Office land use and some multi-family residential land uses (ROLM Zone District) East: Publicly Owned Conservation Land (Palo Alto Baylands) (PF[D] Zone District) South: Office/manufacturing Uses (GM Zone) on the east side of Highway 101, Caltrans and City street right-of-way and Research office and Research office/City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering offices on the west side of 101 (ROLM (D)(AD) Zone District) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Sources: Google Maps; Biggs Cardosa Associates Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PF (D), PF, ROLM, GM Comp. Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Light Industrial and Research Office on the west side of Highway 101 and Publicly Owned Conservation Land on the East side of Highway 101. Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Other: The pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing alignment must comply with applicable Caltrans and CPUC clearances. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail path located within SCVWD property must conform to Santa Clara County’s Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable. Although the Adobe Creek Reach trailhead is located within 150 feet of multi-family residential uses in the ROLM Zoning District on the west side of Adobe Creek, the overcrossing is not located within 150 feet of residential uses or districts. Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Utility Easement/Corridor High voltage electric overhead and high pressure gas main PG&E utility easements, City utility easements, U.S. Highway 101, and SCVWD Rights-of-Way /corridors Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Council conducted a hearing on November 7, 2016; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54482 During the hearing, Council approved a motion to increase the budget for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, capital Improvements Program (CIP) Project PE-11011; accept the $1 million contribution from Google to use towards contingency funds; and to incorporate “enhanced amenities” for an additional cost of $0.13 million. Through several previous study sessions and hearings, Council selected the bridge alignment, height, width, and structure type. Prior Council Actions on Project Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/facilities/bridge_project/default.asp PTC: May 31, 2017 Preliminary Study Session; Staff Report link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57977 Meeting Minutes Link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 On May 31, 2017, the PTC conducted a preliminary study session to provide input on the 15 percent design concept for the project. During the hearing, PTC provided City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 feedback on the design of the bridge, asking for additional consideration of specific details, particularly at trail/bridge intersection points to ensure safety for users. Commissioners asked about lighting, provided feedback on amenities, provided feedback on signage for user etiquette and wayfinding and asked staff to work with SCVWD to try and open the access road to the public as soon as possible and to maintain the undercrossing, if feasible. No action was taken during this study session. HRB: None ARB: August 7, 2014 Study Session of Design Principles https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43282 No action was taken during this study session. May 4, 2017 Preliminary Study Session; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57467 Meeting Minutes Link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57836 On May 4, 2017, the ARB conducted a preliminary study session to provide input on the 15 percent design concept for the project. During the hearing ARB provided preliminary feedback on the proposed finish of the bridge, asked for refinement in the design of the bow string truss/pratt truss connection, commented on signage and lighting, and discussed the location of amenities. One board member asked to explore a better connection of the east approach structure and the trailhead; the idea of a traffic circle at the east approach structure trailhead entrance was encouraged. No action was taken during this study session. PRC: One session March 28, 2016; Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56624 No action was taken during this hearing. Commissioners primarily commented on the lighting, landscaping, and overlook, and encouraged staff to explore other options for material of the pathway connecting the Adobe Creek Bridge and the entrance from East Meadow Drive. Project Description The project description is provided in Attachment F and the project plans are included in Attachment G. The stated purpose of the project includes reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips by encouraging walking and biking to the Baylands area, improving safety for bikers along East Bayshore Road, and providing a year-round connection to the regional trails in the Baylands for bikers commuting to/from nearby cities. The project includes five sections of the overcrossing/trail, which are discussed in further detail below. As shown in the plans, other amenities such as lighting, signage, benches, bike racks, and drinking fountains are proposed as part of the project. The existing Google parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulation and accommodate the new access ramp, as discussed further below. The landscape area around the parking lot would be improved and would serve as a bio-retention area. Any trees removed would be replaced. No protected trees would be removed. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Principal Span Structure The Principal Span Structure is perpendicular to and spans Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans, spanning 165 feet across Highway 101 and 72 feet across both East and West Bayshore Roads. The maximum height of the principal span is approximately 34 feet above the center highway surface and the top of the truss arches over East and West Bayshore roads are approximately 30 feet at their maximum height. There is an eight foot galvanized wire mesh safety fence located on the inside edges of this span. The safety fence includes one inch square opening per Caltrans standards. The Principal Span Structure is 15 feet wide, as measured to the exterior, which provides a 12 foot internal clearance along the multi-use path. West Approach Structure The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and connects to the Principal Span Structure. The West approach consists of a four span reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2 foot 6 inch by 5 foot rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts. The span lengths vary between approximately 40 to 50 feet. The eight foot galvanized weave wire mesh safety fencing over the Highway 101 portion of the bridge reduces to four feet high along the concrete approach ramps and becomes slightly more open, as shown on the materials board. East Approach Structure The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximately 168 degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail parallel to East Bayshore Road. The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2 foot 6 inch by 5 foot rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts, consistent with the design of the West Approach Structure. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long. The safety railings will be four feet high on the East Approach Structure. As discussed further below, this reduction ensures visibility while still meeting safety requirements. It also ensures that views of the Baylands from the East Approach Structure are less obstructed for users. The East Approach will include an overlook between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide trail users a viewing point toward the Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle traffic. It will also include seating and a bicycle rack, providing a place to pause and rest. Adobe Creek Bridge The Adobe Creek Bridge will connect the West Approach and the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. It consists of a 140 foot long, 14 foot wide prefabricated steel pratt truss spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the four foot high safety railing of the structure. The abutments will be concrete, supported by large diameter piles. This bridge design was selected to mirror a similar existing bridge over Adobe Creek on the east side of Highway 101 within the Baylands. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Adobe Creek Reach Trail and West Plaza The Adobe Creek Trailhead/West Plaza is approximately 1,300 sf and connects the overpass to the proposed Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail as well as to West Bayshore Road. The raised sidewalk and access ramp from West Bayshore Road to the plaza is eight feet wide and 115 feet long. The new Adobe Creek Reach Trail follows the Adobe Creek maintenance road out to East Meadow Drive where it would connect to a proposed bicycle boulevard. It would be 620 feet in length and approximately 14 to 16 feet wide. The new trail would include a four foot fence mounted to the existing concrete barrier along Adobe Creek to meet ADA requirements. The City’s Public Works Engineering Division is working with the SCVWD to negotiate paving the access road. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary approval is subject to PTC review: Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forward to the City Council for final action. Site and Design projects are evaluated against specific findings that include both the ARB findings (ARB purview) and Site and design findings (PTC purview). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project re- design or denial. The findings for PTC to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B. Additionally, the project requires approval for the following, which are not subject to PTC review: Park Improvement Ordinance: The project would also require a Park Improvement Ordinance, which would be reviewed for recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission and forwarded to City Council for final action. Public Art: The applicant is exploring options and artists for on-site public art. The Public Art Commission (PAC) will review and issue a determination on the proposed public art work in accordance with PAMC 16.61.070 prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The on-site art work is subject to the requirements outlined in PAMC 16.61.050 and 16.61.060 for eligible artwork. Exception Permit: The proposed project will require at least one temporary closure on Highway 101. This closure must be performed late at night in accordance with Caltrans requirements to avoid impacts to traffic. Work outside the requirement construction hours outlined in PAMC Section 9.10 requires approval of an exception permit from the City Manager or his designee in accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.070. The City Manager or his designee may require conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such an exception. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Analysis1 To the extent the project is comprised of pedestrian and bicycle paths of travel, it is not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone district or land use designation (similar to City streets and sidewalks). However, the project has been evaluated to ensure the design meets the intent and objectives of the Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Baylands Master Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and other city policies. Neighborhood Setting and Character The overcrossing connects existing roadways and trails to adjacent commercial and residential areas. West Bayshore Road includes several commercial centers along the road frontage and there are many newer multi-family housing units as well as single family residences in the Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/Meadowview Park neighborhoods adjacent West Bayshore Road. The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail would connect to East Meadow Drive providing improved year-round access to the Baylands for residents or employees walking or biking in the area. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail also connects to the west plaza and provides safer access between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive than the current access from Fabian Drive. Because the East Approach Structure is located within the area covered under the Baylands Master Plan, the structure design, location, proposed amenities and proposed vegetation planting is all designed within the context of consistency with the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines and Baylands Master Plan. PTC Requested Revisions and Clarifications User Safety Several commissioners asked that special consideration be paid to the bridge/trail intersection points to ensure user safety. One commissioner noted that mirrors may also be an option to improve safety. In response to PTC comments, special consideration has been given to site design at intersection points where there are curves or the ramp connects onto a trail to ensure pedestrian/bicyclist safety at those points. The railings around all of the curves are 48 inches high (the maximum required height for safety) and are designed to have a more open galvanized steel mesh (i.e. greater than 1 inch squares as required over Highway 101). These design features ensure that users will have full visibility around all curves, particularly where the West Approach Structure meets the West Plaza area adjacent the Google property. The addition of mirrors is not typically encouraged and because the design would provide visibility around all curbs, mirrors have not been included in the proposed design. On the east side of Highway 101, based on input from the PTC and the ARB, the design option that includes a traffic circle was selected over the “T” design to calm traffic and to reduce collisions. Based on input from staff and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, directional signage will be 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 provided through surface marking/striping and the center of the circle will be hardscaped with cobblestones and delineated with a different coloring from the circle around it. Design/Inclusion of Amenities The PTC and members of the public expressed mixed feelings about the inclusion of the overlook. Based on direction from Council, input from the ARB, and to ensure that the bridge sufficiently addresses the needs of all potential users, the overlook will remain part of the proposed design. This rest area provides a place to pause for users without affecting the flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the bridge. Benches would be part of the public art design included in the proposed project and the unique bench design now includes back rests consistent with comments from at least one commissioner and multiple members of the ARB. This rest area also provides a turnout for someone that may need to stop on the bridge (e.g. to fix a bicycle or tie their shoe) without affecting other users. In addition, members of the PTC indicated that amenities should be minimized and commented on whether some amenities were necessary (e.g. trash bins). Based on direction from Council and input from the ARB, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Community Services Division, amenities will be included but will be minimal so as not to clutter the area. These amenities would be provided at trailheads along West Bayshore and East Bayshore Road where bins are easily accessible for pickup. Based on a comment from a member of the public, a small dog hydration station will be provided in addition to a regular water fountain. Lighting Improvements One commissioner asked that staff further explore the use of fewer pole lights to reduce spillover and improve the site aesthetics. The overall number of light poles has not been reduced. However, the city’s Public Works Engineering Division notes that the light poles are preferred because they are more efficient and provide a better lighting distribution than bollard or railing type lighting. As a result, they tend to be more cost effective and create a cleaner, softer, more uniform light distribution which improves both the user feel and the safety of the overall project. The City’s Public Works Engineering Division has made revisions, however, to the aesthetics of the light poles to create a more cohesive and unified look based on input from the ARB. The light poles will be high-efficiency lighting and are customizable in order to control lighting temperature and distribution to mitigate any spill over and light pollution. The lights will also be controlled by occupancy sensors that will improve overall power consumption and lower the light level when unoccupied and increase lighting as the sensor is triggered. Coordination with Santa Clara Valley Water District/ Adobe Creek Trail Paving Several commissioners asked that staff coordinate with SCVWD to open the access road from East Meadow Drive to West Bayshore Road as quickly as possible and to pave the trail as part of the project. In addition, one commissioner asked that staff work with SCVWD to keep the underpass open, if feasible, as an alternate access across Highway 101 following completion of this project. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Public Works Engineering Division staff met with the SCVWD in June and has been in ongoing discussions with the agency regarding these requests. The proposed design of the trail, Adobe Creek Bridge, and proposed improvements to the bicycle trail and sidewalk along West Bayshore Road would not allow for the underpass to be kept open following completion of the proposed project. Therefore, this request cannot be accommodated. Although staff shares the PTC’s interest in opening the trail as soon as possible, there are several required milestones before the trail can be safely opened to the public. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Engineering Division is working with the SCVWD on an encroachment permit for access and improvements within the SCVWD right-of-way as well as a joint use agreement to allow for public use of the trail. These cannot be issued/approved until the project has been approved and the CEQA has been adopted. In addition, safety improvements (e.g. adding a railing and improvements to the trail) are required and must be approved and constructed as part of this project prior to opening this trail. Because of these requirements, this area will not be opened to the public prior to approval of this project. However, staff will continue to work with SCVWD to complete improvements on the west side of Highway 101 as early as feasible, as part of the project, to improve safety and provide a better connection to East Meadow Drive. Based on the PTC’s comments, paving of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail will be completed as part of this project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly goals, policies, and programs outlined in the Transportation Element, the Community Services Element, the Land Use and Design Element, and the Natural Environment Element, as outlined in Attachment C. Overall, the Comprehensive Plan programs, goals, and policies support land use decisions and facilities that: promote pedestrian and bicycle use, support reductions in single-occupancy vehicle use, improve the Bay trail network, and that include responsible management of public open space areas to meet habitat protection goals and support public safety. The proposed project is consistent with these goals. Baylands Master Plan A portion of the proposed overcrossing is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve at the border of one two areas identified as “The Natural Unit.” The project would be consistent with Natural Unit Policy 1, “Maintain the trails described in the access and circulation section.” The Baylands Master Plan also notes that the original vision for a natural environment was ample pedestrian and bicycle trails that link to regional trails with a limited role for automobiles. The project would be consistent with this vision. In addition, the project is consistent with the following specific policies outlined in the Baylands Master Plan: 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Policy 3: Expand Bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible. Policy 13: Follow Guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature preserve published in 2005. Policy 14: Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The project expands opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians to enjoy the Baylands, providing opportunities to safely access this area without the need to drive and park. Consistent with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, the rustic design selected for the bridge is intended to integrate into the Baylands design theme, which focuses on low-profile features, natural colors, and low maintenance. The principal span trusses will be constructed using self-weathering steel, which results in a muted, natural coloring that is consistent with the general design principals. The bridge is designed to have as low of a profile as feasible while still meeting separation requirements between the City roads and Highway 101 below. The project is not within the Airport Influence Area, as identified in the Airport Land Use Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project addresses two key Capital Improvement Projects identified in Table 7-1 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan3 to improve across barrier connections and trails. As outlined in Attachment C, the project is also consistent with specific objectives identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to reduce emissions and upgrade bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. The project improves multi-modal transportation in all directions and serves a variety of users choosing forms of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicles for commuting, utilitarian, and recreational purposes. The proposed width of the Highway 101 overcrossing was designed in coordination with Council to provide sufficient maneuvering space for pedestrians and bicyclists while also attempting to slow bicyclists so as not to speed. Both wayfinding signage and signage identifying desired user behavior will be added for improved usability and to ensure user safety. Specifically, based on previous input from the PTC, signage will be added to: direct bicyclists to slow at intersection points, direct bikers going southbound on West Bayshore Road on how to access the bridge, and provide destinations and distance, especially at trail connection points in the Baylands. Because the proposed project would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by providing a multi- use connection between commercial and residential areas and regional trail networks for commuting and recreational purposes, no traffic study is required. In addition, because the project does not add new floor area or generate new vehicle trips, no new public parking is required or proposed as part of the project. Minimal short term traffic impacts associated with construction are assessed in the environmental analysis and were determined to be less than 3 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 significant without the need for mitigation. Per the Transportation Division’s request, the driveway and parking stalls at the existing Google Parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road would be reconfigured to improve circulation, avoid conflicts with the east approach ramp overcrossing column supports, and to accommodate the raised sidewalk and accessible landing of the ramp. There would be no net loss or increase of private parking stalls. The project also improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians by providing an alternate connection between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive via the new Adobe Creek Reach Trail. A new at grade crossing is proposed on East Meadow Drive for the safety of those entering and exiting the trail. The project includes a trailhead along West Bayshore Road that provides connections to both the new Adobe Creek Bridge and over Highway 101 and the bicycle path along West Bayshore Road. Because the project eliminates the need for the existing sidewalk along West Bayshore Road over Adobe Creek, a dedicated southbound bike lane for West Bayshore Road is included as part of the project. Consistency with Application Findings A portion of the project is located within an area identified as Open Space and is therefore subject to Site and Design review. The project must be found to be consistent with the Site and Design objectives (PTC purview) and the Architectural Review findings (ARB purview). The project enhances the existing conditions at the site by improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along West Bayshore Road. The project is part of a Capital Improvement Project identified as a priority project in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to improve across barrier connections and trail connections in the City. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Natural Element, Transportation Element, Land Use Element, and Community Services Element as well as the Baylands Master Plan, as outlined in Attachment C, because it focuses on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips and associated emissions, and providing improved connections between open space/recreational areas and nearby residential and commercial uses. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Site and Design objective findings is included in Attachment B. Although the Architectural Review findings are not subject to PTC review, an analysis of the project’s consistency with those findings is also included for informational purposes. Those findings will be reviewed by the ARB following a recommendation from the PTC and prior to Council’s decision on the project. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on September 1, 2017 and is available for public review. A link to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment E. The PTC must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may comment on the draft. Following completion of the public review period and the ARB hearing, a Final Draft MND and MMRP would be prepared for the City Council. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 Mitigation has been included, in particular, to reduce direct and indirect impacts on animal species within the Baylands and to address the discovery of any unanticipated cultural or tribal resources that could be found during excavation or grading activities. With the incorporation of mitigation, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 1, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing also occurred on September 1, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Public comments received during the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission March 28, 2017 study session included the desire to complete a functional, cost-effective bridge as soon as possible, consideration to enhance the site vegetation within the Baylands, and requests for the public art component of the project to be bird friendly, to not have an overlook because it may not be used, and a request for a dog drinking fountain. Some public comments sent to commissioners prior to the meeting would like to see the Pope/Chaucer and Newell Road Bridge projects built first. Additional oral and written comments were provided at the ARB hearing held on May 4, 2017. Oral comments expressed an interest again in a dog drinking fountain, an interest in exploring bird friendly features (e.g. soffit areas) for swallows to nest, and noted that LED lights should not be used if feasible because they are not bird friendly. In addition, one commenter noted that this bridge will be an important connection to the regional bay trails to provide a better route for those biking to work in neighboring cities. Many commenters noted that this project should be finished as soon as possible. During the PTC hearing, comments included requests to open the SCVWD access road to the public as soon as possible, requests to improve and provide as much vegetation as feasible around the west approach ramp and Adobe Creek Bridge, a request to reconsider the overlook, and a request to look into improving the sidewalk and bicycle connection between the new bridge and Amarillo Avenue to the north. Written comments provided since the PRC hearing are included in Attachment D. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (PDF) Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan (DOCX) Attachment D: Written Public Comments (PDF) Attachment E: Environmental Assessment (DOCX) Attachment F: Project Description (DOC) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 01 09-001 127-09-002 127-09-003 127-09-004 127-09-005 127-09-006 127-09-007 127-10-106 127-11-065 127-09-008 127-09-009 127-09-010 127-09-011 127-09-012 127-10-050 127-09-013 127-10-049 127-09-014 127-10-107 127-09-015 127-09-016 127-09-017 127-09-018 127-09-019 127-09-020 127-09-021 127-10-084 127-09-022 127-09-023 127-36-026 127-36-029 127-10-099 127-36-032 127-10-098 127-36-031 127-68-077 127-68-076 127-68-075 127-68-078 127-68-058 127-68-057 127-68-079 127-68-080 127-68-059 127-70-046 127-68-056 127-68-074 127-68-073127-68-072 127-68-071 127-70-047 127-70-072 127-68-060 127-70-026 127-68-055 127-70-073 127-70-074 127-70-075 127-68-061 127-70-048 127-70-027 127-68-054 127-70-076 127-70-039 127-70-040 127-68-062 127-70-041127-70-042 127-70-043 127-70-049 127-70-044 127-68-053 127-70-045 127-10-094 127-70-028 127-68-005 127-68-063 127-68-052 127-68-070 127-70-050 127-68-004 127-68-066 127-70-029 127-68-003 127-68-069127-68-068127-68-067 127-68-064 127-70-071 127-68-051 127-70-070 127-70-030 127-70-069 127-68-065 127-70-051 127-70-068 127-68-050 127-70-067 127-70-031 127-70-052 127-70-032 127-70-038 127-70-034 127-70-035 127-70-036 127-70-033 127-70-037 127-68-006 127-70-024 127-68-007 127-68-008 127-68-036 127-68-049 127-70-025 127-68-035 127-10-076 127-68-026 127-70-023 127-68-037 127-68-048 127-70-022 127-68-034 127-68-027 127-70-053 127-68-038 127-68-047 127-70-021 127-68-033 127-70-016 127-70-066 127-68-028 127-70-015 127-70-054 127-70-002 127-68-039 127-68-046 127-70-018 127-68-032 127-68-029 127-70-003 127-70-065 127-70-014 127-70-017 127-70-055 127-68-045 127-68-011 127-70-013 127-68-010 127-70-004 127-70-020 127-68-009 127-68-040 127-68-031 127-68-044 127-70-056 127-70-064 127-68-030 127-70-019 127-70-005 127-70-012 127-68-043 127-70-063 127-70-057 127-10-103 127-68-042 127-70-062 127-70-006 127-70-011 127-70-058 127-70-061 127-70-009 127-70-059 127-70-010 127-12-023 127-70-060 127-70-007 127-70-008 127-68-015 127-68-021 127-68-016 127-68-022 127-68-020 127-68-024 127-68-014 127-68-023 127-68-017 127-68-018 127-68-019 127-68-012 127-68-013 000-00-000 127-12-017 127-12-018 127-12-019 127-12-020 127-12-021 127-12-022 127-12-025 127-12-026 127-12-027 127-68-002127-68-041 127-10-035 127-10-060 127-12-083 127-56-007 127-56-006 127-10-100 116-01-049 127-56-008 127-56-004 127-56-005 116-01-041 127-56-003 116-01-048 116-01-046 116-01-050 116-01-045 116-01-024 116-01-023 127-56-002 116-01-052 116-01-051 116-01-033 116-01-014 116-01-013 147-01-097 private MFG Space Systems Loral CAFETERIA CPA Utilities Engineering OFFICES OFFICES Eichler Swim & Tennis Club OFFICES OFFICE BATTERY LAB OFFICE 22.7' 69.5' 31.4' 36.1' 89.1' 88.0' 109.8' 65.0' 110.0' 50.2' 14.8' 104.1' 67.0' 109.8' 67.3' 76.8' 88.0'75.0' 104.1' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 110.0' 89.1' 101.4' 25.0' 38.4'60.0' 50' 115.0' 60.0' .0' 56.1' 9' 101.0' 37.3' 26.6' 81.9' 11.8' 86.9' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 53.0' 31.4' 69.5' 10.5' 73.1' 100.0' 90.9' 74.9'117.6' 129.6' 67 50.6'107.2' 503.3' 310.8' 80.0' 31.4' 51.8' 100.0' 71.8' 72.9' 115.4' 69.9' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 111.6' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 111.8' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.6' 78.0' 63.0' 109.3' 63.0' 37.8' 13.0' 72.4' 78.1' 110.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 61.5' 115.5' 61.5' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 55.0' 31.4' 95.4' 75.0' 115.4'.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 69.7' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 75.0' 45.4' 54.4' 27.4' 49.9' 115.4' 97.0' 73.3' 97.0' 73.3' 78.0' 86.9' 74.2' 4.7' 97.0' 82.0' 97.0' 62.6' 104.8'77.8' 104.8' 42.5' 18.1' 125.6' 105.4' 126.3' 59.8' 31.4'25.0'18.2' 63.0' 146.3' 66.3' 125.6' 100.8' 70.0' 100.0'11.6' 50.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 104.0' 69.2' 100.0' 63.0' 65.0' 104.4'34.4' 30.7' 104.8' 34.4' 47.0' 100.8' 52.4' 104.4' 106.7'76.0' 102.0'54.0' 76.0' 104.0' 54.0' 102.0' 124.2'65.5' 116.8' 65.0' 20.7' 45.5' 124.2' 65.0' 113.8' 109.2' 65.0' 113.8' 68.7' 20.7'96.4'18.5' 46.0'106.6'22.4' 37.6' 106.6' 52.0' 111.1'14.2' 62.4' 111.2'60.0' 111.4' 60.0' 111.1'60.0' 111.2' 60.0' 111.4'31.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 20.5' 157.9' 120.0' 80.0' 140.0' 242.4' 34.8' 36.0' 96.7'60.0' 134.3' 64.6' 134.3' 60.0' 157.9' 64.2' 1.3' 150.8' 60.0' 176.7' 63.0' 131.6' 60.0' 150.8' 31.5' 131.6'31.5' 50.4' 116.8' 81.8' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 102.0' 69.5' 100.0'24.4' 36.2' 70.0'65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 104.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.1' 107.4'20.5' 49.4' 104.0' 61.9' 100.0' 65.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 101.1' 80.0' 100.0'4.2' 59.7' 114.1' 75.0' 101.1' 60.5' 238.1' 125.9' 347.6' 164.5' 509.6' 147.2' 174.8' 660.1' 1204.1' 175.0' 156.2'30.4' 1138.1' 175.0' 1165.7' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 90.0' 101.6' 19.3'16.8' 24.3' 112.8' 135.1' 165.3' 44.7' 101.6' 161.0'95.7' 38.4' 165.3'28.5' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 73.3'72.1' 31.4' 39.7' 44.0' 100.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5'70.0' 100.0' 125.0' 131.2' 4.1'37.0' 95.7' 105.0' 20.0' 105.4' 38.7' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 49.9' 17.1' 153.2' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 80.0' 31.4' 50.0' 100.0' 126.7'135.0' 53.2'153.7' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 256.2' 195.7' 170.9' 48.0' 177.4' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0'100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 25.0' 50.3' 62.4' 100.0' 42.0' 39.3' 115.2' 81.6' 96.4' 60.0' 104.5' 63.5' 109.2' 67.2' 117.8' 44.9' 104.5' 87.5' 101.8' 52.9'117.8' 1.3' 77.4' 101.4' 69.3' 100.0' 52.6' 100.0' 69.0'50.2' 25.0' 39.3' 40.1' 27.0' 76.5' 115.2' 53.3' 138.3' 105.7' 77.4' 128.4' 54.7' 17.0' 80.0' 75.0'105.7' 45.0' 31.4' 98.1' 109.1'63.7' 103.7' 238.6' 602.2' 171.7' 26.0'470.1' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 61.3'100.0' 61.3' 67.5' 80.0' 31.4' 47.5' 100.0' 67.5' 100.0' 47.5' 31.4' 80.0' 100.0' 78.0'100.0' 78.0'107.4' 57.9' 10.1' 100.0' 113.0' 44.4'100.3' 119.5' 56.0' 107.4' 2.6'10.1' 41.0' 119.8' 117.9' 173.6' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 69.4' 2.9' 14.5' 65.3' 32.6' 24.1' 31.0' 100.0' 48.7' 134.4' 109.0' 20.6' 135.8' 41.5' 135.8' 175.8' 138.8' 167.3' 81.1' 45.0' 138.8' 74.7' 105.9' 39.0' 25.9' 80.6' 14.5' 81.1' 116.0' 31.7' 148.7' 45.3' 74.0' 114.1'58.0' 105.9' 89.0' 116.4'58.0' 145.8' 65.0' 173.6' 74.0' 209.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'100.0' 65.0' 80.0' 31.4' 45.0' 65.0' 108.3' 65.5' 100.0' 65.0' 101.9' 37.9' 27.2' 100.0' 80.0' 104.4'60.5' 101.9' 35.0' 56.9' 111.3'60.5' 104.4' 65.0' 100.0' 45.0' 31.4' 80.0' 7.4' 71.7' 111.3' 49.5' 108.3' 73.0' 114.0'54.4' 111.3' 116.4' 82.5' 102.0' 55.0' 103.5' 74.5' 107.4' 48.0' 73.0' 103.5'59.4' 114.0' 111.3'56.9' 20.0' 114.1'60.5' 114.1' 140.6' 100.0' 85.7' 80.0' 31.4' 21.9' 26.8' 101.8' 75.0' 118.9' 12.0' 104.8' 124.5' 100.0' 60.4' 59.1' 21.9'31.4' 50.0' 76.0' 106.7'57.4' 97.1' 22.2' 58.0' 97.1'58.5' 100.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3'108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 94.0' 108.3' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 75.7' 106.0' 115.4' 72.9' 95.5' 31.4' 52.9' 100.0' 71.0'100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 51.5' 31.4' 80.0' 71.5' 145.0' 318.8' 148.5' 287.0' 121.9' 67.9' 125.3' 60.0' 121.9' 60.2'122.9' 60.0' 125.3' 60.1'119.6' 65.0' 122.9' 20.2'39.7' 135.0' 150.0'143.5'148.5' 27.7' 331.7' 31.4' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 36.2' 110.6' 59.6' 32' 70.0' 100.0' 36.1' 0.6' 133.8' 2 0' 70.0' 11.4' 99.8' 65.0'00.0' 35.9' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 39.1' 38.4' 50.0'2.1'31.4' 56.7' 100.0' 113.3' 98.7' 122.4' 40.0' 54.4' 30.0' 59.4'3.8'31.4' 64.4' 99.3' 92.3'117.5' 36.0'100.2' 50.7' 19.7'100.2'2.3' 79.0' 59.6'1.3'100.0' 46.3' 100.0' 51.9' 21.9'14.5'47.3'31.4' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 117.5' 51.3' 26.8' 94.0' 66.3' 91.6' 46.4'8.8' 99.8' 99.0' 32.2' 80.6' 99.7'21.9' 73.1' 46.4' 46.3' 31.4'47.3'14.5' 21.9' 51.9' 100.0' 88.0' 100.0' 46.3' 31.4'3.8'80.3' 139.5' 100.0'119.6' 50.2' 150.1' 139.5' 72.8' 24.2'18.1'23.2' 120.7' 110.0' 150.1' 54.3' 99.7' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 50.0' 101.5' 70.0' 81.5' 31.4' 70.0' 112.8' 50.0' 31.4' 92.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 42.0' 165.5' 97.0' 147.1' 109.3' 147.1' 54.3' 165.5' 21.7' 165.5' 101.5' 145.0' 120.7' 145.0' 40.9' 165.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'63.5' 145.0' 63.5' 145.0' 37.6' 135.5' 283.4' 31.3'231.1' 285.0' 32.3' 218.7' 63.2' 50.3' 285.0' 94.1' 106.8' 116.1' 295.5' 212.0' 295.5' 212.6' 311.6' 61.4' 112.9' 532.5' 15.0' 358.7' 76.1' 215.0' 183.4' 228.3' 376.8' 31.5' 207.9' 384.3' 206.1' 250.2' 167.8' 76.1'137.5 159.5' 90.0' 50.0' 116.4' 219.9' 206.1' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 193.0' 82.6' 144.7' 14.1' 256.2' 159.9' 48.9' 115.2' 230.0' 215.1' 241.2' 189.5' 230.0' 189.5' 230.0' 96.0' 67.4' 244.9' 212.4' 230.0' 337.3' 165.1' 244.9' 77.2'95.8' 96.9' 106.8' 220.1' 183.3' 28.4'158.0' 332.3' 156.9' 264.0' 199.9' 259.2' 10.8' 113.1' 91.0' 35.7' 131.0' 32.8' 131.0' 100.0' 120.0' 38.0' 63.3' 120.0' 100.0' 122.6' 75.0' 122.6' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 68.5' 120.7' 10.0'49.9' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.2'8.8' 61.2' 100.2' 85.0'115.5' 48.7' 100.5' 60.0' 100.0' 46.5'13.5' 115.5' 9.7' 90.0'100.5' 54.9' 100.0' 17.1' 86.3' 7.0' 100.0' 14.5' 24.7' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 111.5' 123.3' 39.3' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 104.9' 123.8' 10.4'22.1' 100.0' 19.2' 89.9' 113.3' 30.0' 223.7' 115.6' 94.2' 26.9' 225.8' 214.6' 201.1' 215.4' 36.0' 181.3' 194.0'201.1' 236.0' 156.1' 31.1' 54.7' 166.7' 106.8' 96.9' 291.6' 240.3' 46.7' 220.8' 389.7' 14.0' 181.5' 478.6' 130.4' 384.3' 74.9' 162.5' 242.0' 215.0' 76.1' 58.2' 46.5' 211.5' 179.0' 242.0' 20.8' 197.2' 385.2' 218.7' 82.6' 216.0' 293.4'279.3' 304.5' 154.8' 182.0' 203.3' 34.5' 241.3' 311.6' 72.0' 239.9' 174.8' 146.1' 293.4' 145.7' 304.5' 408.0' 127.9' 385.2' 286.9' 389.7' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.6' 60.0' 108.7' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.9' 60.0' 112.1' 33.4' 26.8' 78.1' 59.7' 7' 63.8' 32.2' 73.1'8' 113.7' 73.8' 113.7' 9.8' 135.6' 77.7'45.3' 115.4' 20.0' 115.4' 25.6'38.8' 73.2' 102.0' 80.0' 102.0'82.0' 80.6' 104.0' 80.6' 84.9' 27.5' 45.0' 27.4'57.8' 72.4' 79.9' 104.0' 100.0' 96.0'100.0' 79.9' 55.0' 42.5' 14.5' 38.8' 33.9' 52.8' 104.5' 65.0' 104.5' 00.0' 30.0' 140.1' 44.2' 120.0' 131.0' 120.0' 90.5' 38.4' 140.1' 72.8' 100.0' 21.7' 10.1' 35.3' 90.5' 72.8' 107.8' 100.8' 77.9' 100.0' 65.0' 94.2' 55.4' 9.5'20.9' 100.0' 72.1' 100.0' 60.0' 60.2' 100.0' 72.8' 100.8' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 29.2' 57.8' 65.5' 77.2' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 60.0' 140.0' 40.4' 9.5' 11.4' 133.4' 107.5' 133.4' 50.4' 147.7' 50.0' 147.7' 32.7' 101.9' 156.3' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 96.3'100.8' 96.3' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 130.2' 27.7' 9.5'24.4' 140.0' 39.7' 130.2' 75.4' 36.2' 122.4'122.4' 131.4' 110.0'9.5' 67.4' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 77.0' 100.0'22.0' 34.5'105.4' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 90.8' 105.4' 50.8' 136.3' 19.5' 73.7' 100.0' 41.8' 107.9' 103.2' 136.3'58.4' 103.3' 74.0' 19.5' 107.9'42.2' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 80.0' 103.3' 26.9' 37.3' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 102.4'80.6' 96.0' 100.0' 64.0' 100.0' 65.0' 40.0' 65.0' 25.0'81.1' 39.4' 77.7' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 6601' 175.0' 246.8' 134.0' 120.5' 156.1' 255.5' 237.9' 196.7'214.6' 56.6' 75.8' 134.0' 214.6' 215.0'214.6' 215.0' 95.0' 98.4' 70.1' 32.5' 16.8' 173.7' 162.1' 149.2' 47.1' 90.6' 98.9'158.9' 150.3' 158.9' 234.8' 173.7' 93.6' 221.0' 63.6' 47.1' 191.0' 93.6' 221.0' 93.6' 221.0' 119.5' 130.0' 214.4'187.3' 125.3' 32.5' 82.6' 37.0' 199.7' 119.5' 50.0' 214.6' 219.8' 214.6' 55.8' 98.4' 95.0' 200.8' 136.5'136.5' 136.5'136.5' 71.9' 61.8' 131.2'66.3' 58.0' 74.6' 73.8' 136.5' 32.2' 100.0' 125.1' 136.5' 60.9' 66.0' 99.3' 81.1' 45.0' 2.0'96.8' 50.1' 37.4'1.9'47.7' 96.8' 109.2'109.2' 100.0' 65.0' 70.0' 102.4' 25.0' 127.0' 299.5' 360.0' 374.2' 299.5'221.5' 274.8'274.8'219.6' 196.6' 197.8'252.5'252.5' 223.2'223.2' 284.5' 266.2' 335.5' 54.3' 478.6' 118.9' 112.6' 18.0' 180.6' 54.3' 735.7' 156.9' 28.7' 123.4' 21.1' 20.6' 57.2' 264.2'264.2' 139.8' 30.2' 196.8'196.8' 67.1' 124.3' 180.6' 112.6' 18.0'118.9' 170.0' 809.4' 228.6'228.6' 616.4' 109.9' 581.0' 115.1' 58.0' 34.8' 464.2' 104.6' 312.1' 109.9' 280.0' 1133.1' 205.6' 62.0' 91.2' 401.7' 30.3' 663.2' 209.9' 391.5' 454.0' 170.0' 265.4' 170.0'440.0' 387.0' 564.0' 439.7' 490.5' 238.1' 338.7' 419.2' 200.0' 400.0' ' DRIVE ASPEN WAY LUPINE AVENUE FABIAN WAY LOUIS ROAD EVERGREEN DRIVE LOUIS ROAD FABIAN WAY NATHAN WAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY BA Y S H ORE FREE W AY EAST MEADOW CIRCLE EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FABIAN WAY CORPORATION WAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY FABIAN WAY SAN ANTONIO ROAD KENNETH DRIVE THOMAS DRIVE GREER ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY WEST BAYSHORE ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAYWEST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY ELWELL COURT E NNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE ORTEGA CO EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW CIRCLE UTUS AVENUE EAST BAYSHORE ROADWEST BAYSHORE ROAD EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY DRIFTWOO D D R I V E D G R E E R R O A D EAST MEADOW DRIVE QUAIL DR QUAIL DR PALOMA DR HERON WY EGRET LNPLOVER LN SANDPIPER LN MALLARD LN CURLEW LN FEATHER LN KLAMATH LN PALOMA DR TRINITY LN STANISLAUS LN TUO LUMNE LN Almanor Lane Barron Creek Creek3623 GM PF R-1 ROLM (D)(AD) (8000) ROLM PF PF(D) ROLM This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Highlighted Features Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'467' Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2017-04-14 10:17:19 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2017-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR ADOBE CREEK MULTI-USE PATH BRIDGE: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [FILE NO. 17PLN-00212] On ________, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approved the Site and Design Review for the Adobe Creek Multi-Use Path Bridge making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 12, 2017 The City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division applied for Site and Design Review for the development of the Adobe Creek Multi-Use Path Bridge. B. The project site cross six parcels, including: APN No. 008-05-005, which is owned by the City of Palo Alto; APN No. 127-10-076 which is owned by a private entity; APN Nos. 127-10-100, 127-56-006, and 127-56-007, which are owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and APN No. 127-56-004 which is owned by a private entity. Work on property owned by private entities and the Santa Clara Valley Water District require access/encroachment permits, which will be obtained by the City following adoption of the environmental analysis and approval of the site and design. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on September 13, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. D. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on __________, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. E. On ________, 2017, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design subject to the conditions set forth in Section 5 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on ________, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project(s) would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review on the City’s web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59347. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Attachment B Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Nearby uses primarily include commercial and residential uses on the west side of highway 101 and bicycle and walking trails within the Baylands on the east side of Highway 101. The proposed project would provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection from commercial and residential areas to the regional trail network in the Baylands for recreational and commuting purposes. The proposed project includes two key capital improvement projects identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation plan for improving trail connections. The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable clearance requirements for Highway 101, east and west Bayshore road below the bridge as well as California Public Utility Commission Clearance requirements for utility lines above the bridge. It improves the vegetation on both the Google Property at 3600 West Bayshore Road as well as restores and improves vegetation within the Baylands. It provides a needed connection to reduce single occupancy vehicle use. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, short term impacts during construction would be less than significant. Operation of the project is intended to reduce traffic, reduce emissions, and would not generate any noise. The bridge is designed to have extremely minimal, if any, light spillover. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project is consistent with Objective B in that this capital improvement project improves access for employees and residents to open space/recreational areas. This infrastructure improvement project is an improvement to existing conditions in the area and therefore improves the desirability of investment, the conduct of business, research, and other educational activities in adjacent areas. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, providing a better connection for commuters and recreational users to access the regional network of bay trails. The project is designed to avoid wetland areas, improve vegetation in the area, reduce overspill lighting, and contribute to a long-term reduction in single-occupancy vehicle uses (and associated traffic and emissions) by providing a year round pedestrian/bicycle connection to the baylands. No protected trees would be removed. New vegetation would be designed to improve habitat for avian and riparian species. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project encourages reductions in single- occupancy vehicle use between residential/commercial areas and recreational/open space areas so that residents and employees can enjoy use of these areas without using their vehicle. Specific policies with which the project is consistent are outlined in Attachment C. As summarized below, the project is consistent with the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Natural Element, and the Community Services Element. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan because it enhances a gateway site near the entrance to the City over Adobe Creek, consistent with Policy L-71 and Program L-72. It enhances vegetation in these areas, includes public art, consistent with policy L-72, improves bicycle safety in this area, and provides trailhead improvements. The design connects residential and commercial areas to open space/recreational areas to improve across barrier connections. The project is consistent with the Transportation Element because it would encourage reduced reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by creating more accessible connections to recreational/open space areas for pedestrian and bicyclists, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the City’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is designed to be low-maintenance so as to avoid the need for extensive Attachment B infrastructure maintenance in the future but improves the City’s overall infrastructure by creating a year-round across barrier connection. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide public art and pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. The project includes coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to use existing access road to improve off-road bicycle/pedestrian pathways, consistent with Policy T-14. The project is consistent with the Natural Element because it is designed to avoid impacts to habitat within the Baylands through the location of the bridge, the lighting, and proposed vegetation improvements. The project is consistent with the Community Services Element because the bridge is designed to accommodate a wide range of users choosing alternate transportation to single-occupancy vehicles. For example, the bridge is designed to safely accommodate bicyclists that may have a trailer; it provides a rest area so that users can pause to rest, fix their bicycle, etc. without impacting the flow along the bridge; and it provides access from various access points to accommodate a variety of users from East meadow drive and west Bayshore. Therefore, the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As discussed above under Site and Design Objective D, the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment, and Community Services Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is designed and located to reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicle trips by creating an across barrier connection between residential and commercial uses and nearby open space/recreational uses. It is also designed to better connect to the regional bicycle trail network for those that commute in and out of the City. As a city infrastructure project it is not subject to the same zoning development standards or identified under a specific land use in the City’s zoning code in the same way that buildings or associated accessory structures are. However, the project is designed to fit in with the adjacent area and be consistent with the intent of the code (e.g. reducing height to the extent feasible) and complying with all applicable requirements for work in open space areas. There is no applicable coordinated area plan for this area; however, the portion of the project east of Highway 101 is located within the area defined in the Baylands Master Plan. The project would be consistent with applicable policies identified within the Baylands Master Plan and the associated baylands design guidelines, as described in the staff report. The project would not be subject to any other design guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Attachment B The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: It enhances the existing conditions at the site by improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along West Bayshore Road; creates a year-round connection from commercial/residential uses to the Baylands where an unreliable connection exists; and improves the connection for residences along East meadow drive to access West Bayshore Road and the Baylands area without the need to use their vehicle. There are no historical features at/immediately adjacent the site. The project preserves natural features on the site, including existing wetlands and protected trees while also improving landscaping/riparian habitat in the areas around the bridge. It enhances living conditions by providing better connections for residents in the area. The project is designed using materials such as self-weathering steel that are intended to provide a more natural feel to the bridge, consistent with the Baylands theme. The bridge is designed to be as low as possible while still meeting all applicable Caltrans and City of Palo Alto clearance requirements beneath the bridge. The bridge height is well below the typical height limit for buildings in the area. The bridge width is designed to be wide enough to accommodate various users traveling in both directions while also being narrow enough to slow bicyclists. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project uses high quality materials while still balancing the engineered design of the project to meet all clearance and safety requirements. Specifically, the project uses core-ten, self-weathering steel, consistent with the architectural review board’s recommendations. This material is intended to provide a natural feel to the bridge consistent with the character of the Baylands. The self-weathering steel also reduces long-term maintenance of the project, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals. In addition, consistent with ARB comments, the project uses a high quality galvanized wire mesh material for required fencing instead of vinyl- clad chain link fencing. All signage will be consistent with the Baylands design guidelines, which discourages the use of bright colors/signage. The vegetation is being developed in accordance with the City’s landscape architects and urban forestry division to fit into the Baylands theme and enhance the habitat within the project area. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding 3. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The project is a multi-use trail, which is specifically designed to improve connections for pedestrian and bicyclists and other users seeking alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. It has been identified as the highest priority across barrier connection capital improvement project in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Special consideration has been given to ensuring safety of all users by ensuring visibility around corners, providing etiquette and wayfinding signage, ensuring ADA accessibility, and ensuring that all aspects of the design are functional for a variety of users (such as the elderly, bicyclists, bicyclists with trailers, young kids, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Attachment B The landscape is being design in accordance with the City’s urban forestry division and landscape architects to fit into the Baylands theme and improve riparian and avian habitat in a sensitive area. All protected trees would remain and all trees removed would be replaced with appropriate species for the site that are indigenous and provide habitat. The City is working closely with stakeholders, such as the Audobon society and conservationists to incorporate their input into the species selection and design. The proposed landscaping would improve existing conditions at the site. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project will use indigenous, low water-use, drought resistant plants that are consistent with the Baylands theme and improve the habitat within the project area. The project is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that provides year round connections to the Baylands and regional network of bay trails to improve access to recreational areas without the use of single-occupancy vehicles as well as to provide better connections for commuters. Therefore, the purpose of the project is to reduce vehicle use in order to reduce emissions. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Adobe Creek Multi-Use Path Bridge Site and Design Review Package” dated August 30, 2017 and stamped as received by the City on August 30, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MMRP. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. Attachment B Building Division The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application: 7. RAMP SLOPES. On the previously submitted civil sheet P-1 (dated 6-2-17), Profile of the proposed bridge span appears to show the slope of the bridge between West Approach Structure at 3.0% (over West Bayshore Rd), Principal Span Structure at 4.75% & -4.75% (over Hwy 101). For clarification, can these ramp/ walkway slopes also be shown on the Construction Detail civil sheets C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 (dated 6-2-17). An accessible walkway shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5%) and accessible ramps shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%). If the running slopes are shown on the various sections of the bridge, then it can be determined if that section is to be considered a walkway or a ramp. (CBC 11B -403.3, 11B-405.2) 8. SIDEWALK GRADE. On civil sheet C-2 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, show the slope of the Raised Sidewalk and clarify if it will be a walkway or ramp (see comment 1). Clarify if this raised sidewalk is a continuous grade and the maximum length. All walks with continuous gradients shall have resting areas 60 in in length at intervals of 400-ft maximum. The resting area shall be at least as wide as the walk. The slope of the resting area in all directions shall be 1:48 maximum. Accessible ramps shall have a maximum slope of 1:12 (8.33%) and shall provide landings for a maximum rise of 30-in. Bottom landings shall extend 72-in minimum in the direction of the ramp run with a 60-in minimum width. (CBC 11B-403.7, 11B-405.6. 11B- 405.7) 9. GUARDRAILS. On civil sheet C-2 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, provide a profile or elevation view of the Raised sidewalk. Guards shall be located along open sided walking surfaces that are located 30” vertically to the grade below. Guards shall have a minimum height of 42”. Openings in the guards shall not allow a passage of 4” sphere from the walking surface to the required guard height. Provide details of the guardrails to show compliance. (CBC 1015.2) 10. EAST APPROACH SLOPE. On civil sheet C-3 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, for the East Approach Structure show the maximum bridge running slope and cross slope (1:48 max) to determine if it fits the requirements of a walkway or ramp. It the running slope is between 1:20 & 1:12, then it will be considered a ramp. Ramps that change direction between runs shall have a clear landing 60 in minimum in the direction of the downward travel. Ramps that do not have level landings at changes in direction can create a compound slope that will not meet the requirements of CBC 11B-405.7. Curvilinear ramps with small radii also can create compound cross slopes and cannot, by their nature meet the requirements for accessible routes. (CBC 11B-405) 11. BAYTRAIL APPROACH SLOPE. On civil sheet C-3 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, for the Baytrail Connection, show the running and cross slopes of the bridge. If the running slope is between 1:20 & 1:20 then it will be considered as an accessible ramp and will require a level landing at the bottom that extends 72-in minimum in the direction of the ramp run. (CBC 11B-405.7.3) 12. PRINCIPAL SPAN SLOPE. On civil sheet labeled “Adobe Creek POC Elevation No. 1” (dated 6/1/17), for clarification show the running bridge slope for the “Principal Span Developed Elevation” and the “West Approach Developed Elevation” to determine if these spans are to be considered as accessible walkways or ramps. (See comment 1) 13. TYPICAL SECTIONS. On civil sheet labeled “ Adobe Creek POC Typical Section” (dated 6-1-17), for Typical Section A-A, B-B & C-C, show a 2-in high minimum edge curb that prevents the passage of a 4-in diameter sphere. (CBC 11B-405.9.2) 14. GUARD OPENINGS. On civil sheet labeled “Adobe Creek POC Typical Section” (dated 6-1-17), Openings in the guards shall not allow a passage of 4” sphere from the walking surface to the required guard height. Provide Attachment B details of the guardrails to show compliance. (CBC 1015.2) Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 15. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Note that the discharge of groundwater to both the storm drain and sanitary sewer systems is only allowed during the period of April 1-October 31. Refer to the code for updates before construction. 16. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER (PAMC 16.09.180[b][14]). On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 17. COPPER PIPING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 18. STORM DRAIN LABELING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.165(h) storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. This includes public and private drains. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 19. EXISTING UTILITIES. Building plans shall show the existing WGW utility on the proposed plan sets (utility sheet/s). 20. WATER FOUNTAIN CONNECTION. Identify the drinking water fountain's water meter and its connections on the plan. RECYCLING 21. RECEPTACLES. Waste receptacles must be colored coded - black for landfill (garbage/trash) and blue for recycling. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION 22. Update Landscape Plan Sheet 6.1 to match the corresponding sheets. Attachment B SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 1 PROJECT NAME Highway 101 Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Tail Project APPLICATION NUMBER 17PLN-00212 APPROVED BY City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment DATE 09/01/2017 APPLICANT/OWNER City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Highway 101 Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Tail Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an MND. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1: Dust generated by various construction activities could adversely impact residences and/or other receptors located in the project vicinity. MM AQ-1.1: Implementation of MM AQ-1.1, described below, will ensure that any significant adverse effects associated with construction- generated dust are avoided. • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or covered. • Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • Visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and name of an individual working for the construction contractor who can be contacted regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation regulations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: If project construction occurs during a flooding event that inundates the area Flood Control Basin, there is the potential for project activities to result in take of salt marsh harvest mice and impacts to salt marsh wandering shrews. MM BIO-1.1: The project contractors will implement the following measures to avoid potential take of salt marsh harvest mice and impacts to salt marsh wandering shrews: • Work Schedule: Work within the biological study area will occur between April 15 and October 15. If it is not possible to schedule project activities between April 15 and October 15 within the biological study area, then pre-construction surveys by a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-approved biologist for salt marsh harvest mouse and wandering shrews will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that these species will not be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than one month prior to the initiation of project activities conducted prior to April 15 and after October 15. • Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Before any construction activities begin, a USFWS-approved biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew, their habitats, the importance of the species, general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the project, and boundaries within which the project may be accomplished, and if Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During construction Planning and Community Environment Department; USFWS City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation found (living or dead) their observations must be immediately reported to the Resident Engineer and USFWS-approved biologist.. • Herbaceous Cover Removal. Prior to the start of project activities within the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area (including vehicle/equipment access), herbaceous vegetation will be removed from impact areas to eliminate cover for salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews, thereby discouraging them from occurring in impact areas. The grassland land cover within the project footprint on the northeast side of Highway 101 will be trimmed to within two inches of the ground level prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Vegetation removal will start where the San Francisco Bay Trail crosses Adobe Creek, and will proceed gradually northwards towards the open marsh habitat in the Flood Control Basin. Vegetation will not be removed during a flooding event that inundates the Flood Control Basin, as these are the conditions in which salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews are most likely to be present in the biological study area. A USFWS-approved biologist familiar with the biology of these species will conduct a pre-construction survey prior to vegetation removal, and will monitor the vegetation removal process. Vegetation will be removed using hand-held equipment (e.g., weed-whackers). This will allow any small mammals, including salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews, to City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation escape the biological study area under the cover of vegetation, and will encourage movement of such small mammals towards available vegetated habitat to the north outside the biological study area. Herbaceous vegetation that could potentially conceal a salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew within the biological study area will be removed, including herbaceous understory vegetation on the north bank of Adobe Creek. Vegetation that is removed will be hauled offsite the day it is removed, and will not be left on the site to provide potential cover for small mammal species. It is possible that vegetation within the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area will be removed during the fall prior to construction to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds. In such a case, if sufficient herbaceous cover regrows prior to construction the following year, this herbaceous cover will again be removed by hand prior to initiation of construction activities. • Exclusion Barrier. Following vegetation trimming and prior to the start of construction activities on the northeast side of Highway 101, a fence will be installed at the outer limits of the work area, as shown in the Initial Study. The fence will be designed to exclude salt marsh harvest mice from the project footprint, define the limits of the footprint, and provide a visual screen. This barrier, which will be constructed under the guidance of a Service-Approved Biologist, will consist of a three-foot tall, tight cloth, City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation smooth plastic, or sheet-metal (or similar material approved by the Service) fence toed into the soil at least three inches deep and supported with stakes placed on the inside of the barrier. A USFWS- Approved Biologist will conduct a pre- construction survey of the area where vegetation was trimmed prior to construction access, and will monitor the installation of the barrier. Following the installation of the barrier, designated construction personnel will check its integrity each morning that construction activities occurring, and will initiate repairs immediately as needed. The area of vegetation removal will extend approximately two to three feet beyond the area where equipment and personnel will operate during project construction to create an open area that will discourage salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews from approaching the exclusion barrier • Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing. Within the Flood Control Basin, biological study area limits will also be clearly demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance of any habitat outside of the designated construction area during construction activities. This fencing can be combined with the exclusion barrier but must not be outside that barrier. • Visual Screening. Additional green-screen fencing will be installed along the limits of the biological study area between work areas and natural habitats within the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin to screen project City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation activities from view of the Baylands and avoid potential visual disturbance of salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews. This fencing can be combined with the fencing described above but must not be outside the exclusion barrier. • High-water Work Suspension. All ground work on the northeast side of highway 101, including vegetation trimming, will be suspended while there are flood waters within 100 feet of the project footprint (other than waters within the Adobe Creek channel). • Immediate Work Stoppage. If a salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew, or an animal that could be a harvest mouse or wandering shrew (e.g., a similar species of mouse or shrew), is observed within the biological study area during project activities, all work that could result in the injury or death of the individual will stop and the USFWS- approved biologist will be immediately notified. The animal will be allowed to leave the area on its own and will not be handled before work in that area resumes. • Work Limits. All activity will be limited to the existing and proposed footprint, access, and staging described in the May 2017 Biological Assessment, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and tidal habitat, will be identified on contract plans and discussed in the Special Provisions. Temporary orange fencing or other obvious system will be used to identify City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 8 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation areas of avoidance and will remain in place until all construction is completed. • Night Work Lighting. If night-time work is conducted, the use of temporary artificial lighting during nighttime construction hours will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and will be directed at the associated work zone and away from adjacent tidal wetland habitat. • Trash. Food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a day from the work area. • Firearms Forbidden. No firearms will be allowed on the project except for those carried by authorized security personnel, or local, state, or federal law enforcement officials. • Pets Forbidden. To prevent harassment, injury or mortality of wildlife species, no pets will be permitted on the project site. • Water Quality. The potential for adverse effects to water quality will be avoided by implementing temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Section 7-1.01 G of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Caltrans erosion control BMPs will be used to minimize any wind or water-related erosion. The State Water Resources Control Board has issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Statewide Storm Water Permit to Caltrans to regulate storm water and non- storm water discharges from Caltrans facilities. A Storm Water Pollution City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed for the project, as one is required for all projects that have at least 1.0 acre of soil disturbance. The SWPPP complies with the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP includes guidance for Design staff to include provisions in construction contracts to include measures to protect sensitive areas and to prevent and minimize storm water and non-storm water discharges. The SWPPP will reference the Caltrans Construction Site BMPs Manual. This manual is comprehensive and includes many other protective measures and guidance to prevent and minimize pollutant discharges and can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ construe/stormwater/ manuals.htm. Protective measures will be included in the contract, including, at a minimum: a) No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning are allowed into the storm drain or water courses. b) Vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance operations must be at least 50 feet away from water courses. c) Concrete wastes are collected in washouts and water from curing operations is collected and disposed of and not allowed into water courses. d) Dust control will be implemented, City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 10 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation including use of water trucks and tackifiers to control dust in excavation and fill areas, rocking temporary access road entrances and exits, and covering temporary stockpiles when weather conditions require. e) Coir rolls will be installed along or at the base of slopes during construction to capture sediment and temporary organic hydro- mulching will be applied to all unfinished disturbed and graded areas. f) Work areas where temporary disturbance has removed the pre- existing vegetation will be restored and re-seeded with a native seed mix. Graded areas will be protected from erosion using a combination of silt fences, fiber rolls along toe of slopes or along edges of designated staging areas, and erosion-control netting (such as jute or coir) as appropriate. Impact BIO-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in impacts to nesting birds through the loss of fertile eggs or nest abandonment. MM BIO-2.1: The following measures will be implemented to ensure that project activities avoid substantial impacts to nesting birds and their eggs, which are protected under the migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CDGC). • Avoidance of the Nesting Bird Season. To the extent feasible, project activities will be scheduled to avoid the avian nesting season. If such activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, impacts on nesting birds, including raptors, Applicant/Contractor/Qualified Biologist Prior to and During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation protected under the MBTA and CFGC, will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County typically extends from February 1 through August 31. • Vegetation Removal during the Non- Nesting Season. If project activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, potential nesting substrate (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that is scheduled to be removed by the project, if any, may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February) to reduce the potential for initiation of nests. The project schedule includes vegetation removal in the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area during the fall prior to construction to minimize impacts to nesting birds the following spring. If it is not feasible to schedule vegetation removal during the nonbreeding season, or where vegetation cannot be removed (e.g., in areas immediately adjacent to the biological study area), then pre- construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted as described below. • Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys for Nesting Birds. If it is not possible to schedule project activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre- construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to the initiation of project activities. During this survey, a qualified City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 12 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation biologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasslands, and buildings) within 300 feet of impact areas for raptor nests and within 100 feet of impact areas for nests of non-raptors. • Buffers around Active Nests. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young, or any completed raptor nest attended by adults) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, will determine the extent of a disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Because the majority of the biological study area is already subject to disturbance by vehicles and pedestrians, activities that will be prohibited from occurring within the buffer zone around a nest will be determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, activities prohibited within such a buffer while a nest is active will be limited to new construction-related activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the nest was constructed) involving significantly greater noise, human presence, or vibrations than were present prior to nest initiation. • Screening. As described for salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews above, additional fencing with a green screen will be installed along the limits of the biological study area between City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation work areas and natural habitats within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve’s Flood Control Basin (Flood Control Basin). This fencing will screen project activities from view of the Baylands and minimize potential visual disturbance of nesting birds as a result of the project. • Nest Deterrence. If necessary to avoid impacts to active nests (i.e., nests containing eggs or young), nest starts may be removed on a regular basis (e.g., every second or third day), starting in late January or early February, or measures such as exclusion netting or slippery panels may be placed over nesting sites on the existing bridges to prevent active nests from becoming established. Any netting installed for nest deterrence must be installed appropriately by an experienced deterrence technician, under the supervision of a qualified biologist, and must be inspected and maintained regularly to avoid the entrapment or entanglement of birds. Impact BIO-3: The project could result in potential impacts as a result of bird strikes with the bridge structure; as well as disorientation, predation, and habitat impacts from increased lighting. MM BIO-3.1: The following measures will be implemented to avoid impacts on bird populations due to potential collisions and project lighting: • The overcrossing will be designed to minimize the potential for bird strikes; it will not include highly reflective surfaces, suspension cables, transparent surfaces, or features such as small wires or netting that could injure birds. • No power lines will be suspended above Project Engineer/Applicant/Construction Contractor Prior to Construction (Shown on Building Plans); During Operation Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 14 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation the bridge deck. Night lighting on the bridge will be minimized; only lighting needed for safety purposes will be installed. Lighting will be directed at the bridge deck or downward, not outwards toward natural areas, and lights will be shielded to minimize spillover of light into natural areas. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: Unknown subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources could be present on the site in underlying native soils and could be disturbed during project construction. MM CUL-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Public Works shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include collection, recordation and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 15 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Impact CUL-2: Unknown tribal cultural resources could be uncovered or disturbed during construction activities associate with the project. MM CUL-2.1: In the event that a tribal cultural resource is found during construction, the NAHC will be contacted for information regarding the appropriate tribe and/or persons to notify. Once the appropriate tribal representatives are notified, consultation will take place consistent with Assembly Bill 52 requirements. Mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts (if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation in discussions with the tribal representatives) may include: • Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including: - Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context; - Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria; • Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 16 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: - Preservation in place; - Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; - Protecting the traditional use of the resource; - Protecting the confidentiality of the resource; - Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1: Aerially deposited lead located in soils at the project site could be disturbed during grading and construction activities and potentially impact workers, area residents, or the environment. MM HAZ-1.1: A construction risk and spoils management plan (CRSMP) shall be prepared for the project prior to the start of any ground- disturbing activities. The CRSMP shall include necessary procedures to ensure that excavated materials are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The CRSMP shall include the following components: • A site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR 5192). The HASP shall include required measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security Applicant/Contractor Prior to Building Permit Issuance Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 17 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction area and to reduce hazards outside of the construction area. If prescribed contaminant exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations. • The CRMSP shall include step-by-step procedures for evaluation, handling, stockpiling, storage, testing, and disposal of excavated material, including criteria for: (1) reuse within the project area; (2) stockpiling within the project area; and (3) offsite disposal shall be included. Excavated materials shall be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and spoils that are visibly stained and/or have a noticeable odor should be stockpiled separately to minimize the amount of material that may require special handling. The chemical quality of the spoils intended for reuse shall be characterized, and spoils should be reused onsite only if they meet the reuse criteria established in the Department of Toxic Substances Control Variance obtained by Caltrans (Variance No. V09HQSCD006). If some of the spoils do not meet the reuse criteria and/or debris is identified, these materials shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal waste disposal requirements. The CRMSP shall also include procedures to be implemented if unknown subsurface conditions or contamination are encountered, such as previously unreported tanks, wells, or contaminated soils shall be included in the City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 18 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation CRSMP. NOISE Impact NOI-1: The project could result in exposure of persons in the project area to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. MM NOI-1.1: The following measures will be implemented during construction to lessen the potential for noise impacts: • With one exception, noise-generating construction activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The exception is that, as stated above, there would be up to seven nights of construction including up to three nights to lower prefabricated structures in place over Highway 101, West Bayshore Road, and East Bayshore Road. No construction activities will occur on Sundays or holidays. • For any planned construction outside permitted hours, the project contractor will notify property owners within 500 feet of the proposed work at least one week in advance of the construction activities, require the contractor to implement a construction noise monitoring program and, if feasible, provide additional mitigation as necessary (in the form of noise control blankets or other temporary noise barriers, etc.) for affected receptors. • Internal combustion engine driven equipment will be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences will be strictly prohibited. Applicant/Contractor Prior to construction outside permitted construction work hours Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 19 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation • Stationary noise generating equipment will be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. • "Quiet" air compressors and other "quiet" equipment will be utilized where such technology exists. • Construction equipment will conform to Section 14-8.02, Noise Control, of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications. The contractor will prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities and distribute this plan to adjacent noise- sensitive receptors. The construction plan will also contain these construction noise reduction measures. ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE Highway 101 Multi-Use Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Reach Trail/ File No. 17PLN-00212 Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan because it enhances a gateway site near the entrance to the City over Adobe Creek, consistent with Policy L-71 and Program L-72. It enhances vegetation in these areas, includes public art, consistent with policy L-72, improves bicycle safety in this area, and provides trailhead improvements. The design connects residential and commercial areas to open space/recreational areas to improve across barrier connections. The plaza area along west Bayshore makes the area more inviting and provides a gathering space for the public, consistent with Policy L-48. Program L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. The project would encourage reduced reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by creating more accessible connections to recreational/open space areas for pedestrian and bicyclists, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the City’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is designed to be low- maintenance so as to avoid the need for extensive infrastructure maintenance in the future but improves the City’s overall infrastructure by creating a year-round across barrier connection. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-model transit stations. Policy T-17: Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide public art and pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. The bridge is designed to accommodate a variety of users safely. Planned etiquette and wayfinding signage will also help to improve safety for users. The bridge would not affect future buildout of Highway 101 in this area, which is already built out to its full capacity. The project includes coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to use existing access road to improve off-road bicycle/pedestrian pathways, consistent with Policy T-14. For these reasons the proposed project is consistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Program T-19: Encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities linking trips to parks, schools, retail, centers, and civic facilities, which enables and encourages residents and visitors to bicycle or walk for discretionary trips. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Natural Environment Element Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas … in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. The project is designed to avoid impacts to habitat within the Baylands through the location of the bridge, the lighting, and proposed vegetation improvements. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Community Services Element Policy C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The bridge is designed to accommodate a wide range of users choosing alternate transportation to single-occupancy vehicles. For example, the bridge is designed to safely accommodate bicyclists that may have a trailer; it provides a rest area so that users can pause to rest, fix their bicycle, etc. without impacting the flow along the bridge; and it provides access from various access points to accommodate a variety of users from East meadow drive and west Bayshore. It also provides a connection for commuters using the regional trail connections in the Baylands and coming into/out of Palo Alto. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE Across Barrier Connections [ABC]-1 Adobe Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing and trails [TR]-2 Adobe Creek Reach Trail The proposed project addresses two key capital improvement projects outlined the Bicycle and pedestrian bridge plan. Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. A key strategy of Objective 2 is to remove and/or upgrade substandard bike lanes and trail crossing barriers to improve safety and convenience. The project would be consistent with this strategy and objective because it provides a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Baylands for residents and commercial developments on the East side of Highway 101, discouraging the use of single-occupancy vehicle trips to cross over the highway in order to take year-round advantage of this area. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Key strategies of Objective 3 include prioritizing enhancements to the Bay to Ridge trail corridor and expanding trail networks along creeks through partnership projects with regional agencies including the SCVWD. The project would be consistent with these strategies and this objective because it improves the existing bike lanes along East and West Bayshore Road, better connecting them to trails and residential/commercial areas. 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Comments Hwy 101 Adobe Multi-Use Bridge From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 2:37 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Comments Hwy 101 Adobe Multi-Use Bridge Honorable Commissioners, I cannot attend tonight’s meeting because our family will be celebrating my daughter’s high school graduation. Here are my comments on the Hwy 101 Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge to the baylands: Please encourage staff and Council to move this much–needed project forward expediently. I remember writing letters in support of VTA funding for this important connection more than a decade ago— funding that was awarded and then subsequently rescinded because of project delays. The project before you is a good, cost-effective plan. Please move it forward. The bridge project is well-supported by Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. The current crossing at Embarcadero Road is 1.5 miles away. Using it when the tunnel is closed can add as much as three miles to a bike trip. That is a barrier for young children. For an adult biking at 15 miles an hour this extra distance means added time of 12 minutes, plus up to 3 minutes waiting for a green light at Oregon Expressway. For people who bike commute from south Palo Alto to points south, that would be a significant addition to daily bike commutes. Instead, without the bridge, they are pushed to busy, arterial surface streets during the wettest, darkest months when the Lefkowitz Tunnel is closed. Safety is an issue. For people who enjoy hiking and birding in the baylands, the bridge will provide a new car-free connection to this amazing open, natural space. The Hwy 101/Adobe pedestrian/bike bridge is an important regional connector that is long overdue. Please move it forward quickly. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Penny Ellson Palo Alto resident 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bike Bridge - PTC Meeting From: Boris Foelsch [mailto:borisfoelsch@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:07 PM To: Planning Commission; pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bike Bridge - PTC Meeting Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, In advance of tonight's meeting, which I cannot attend, I'd like to write you about the proposed design for the Adobe Creek over crossing of 101. Upon reviewing the materials, which are very helpful, I was pleased to see that the design is straightforward, functional and simple, yet aesthetically pleasing. I think it's absolutely fine to have a design that is not particularly ornate, especially given that it looks fairly sleek. I ride across the freeway about five or six times a week to take Bay trails to/from work and the availability of a safe, year-round alternative will be very welcome. I'd like to recommend that move the project forward expediently. I see no reason to make changes. Sincerely, Boris Foelsch 3694 Louis Rd. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Ped/Bike Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann Pianetta [mailto:annpianetta@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:43 AM To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips Subject: Ped/Bike Bridge To Whom It May Concern: It is a well thought‐out project except for one thing. There is not enough protection for peds and bikes next to the roadway. There should be a wall. This will keep people from jumping in front of cars and cars hitting peds. And this should be on both sides of the freeway. Also, when is there going to be better landscaping in general at all the entry ways into Palo Alto from 101. It looks horrible and reflects on our city. Please do something about it and let me know. Sincerely, Ann Pianetta 3815 La Donna Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650‐424‐9070 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Joel Davidson [mailto:joelscottd@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:08 AM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bridge To whom it may concern, I am strongly supportive of the proposed Bike bridge on Highway 101. This project has been too long on the waiting list of the Parks and Recreation Commissions agenda. I guessing about 10 years. Please move forward on this project ASAP. Thank you, Joel Davidson former Parks and Recreation Commissioner 504 Thain Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge From: Judd Volino [mailto:gobike20816@typespot.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:33 AM To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Dear ARB and City Staff: I am a Palo Alto resident and cyclist and am writing that you do everything possible to expedite this project to ensure that inflation doesn't catch up again and cause it to be short on funding. A bridge that allows mounted riding and that is much more visible than the Embarcadero bridge will do a great deal to open access to the Baylands and provide safe crossing of the freeway. Please just build this thing! Thank you, Judd Volino 1150 Parkinson Ave 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:21 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa.dusseault@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:11 AM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge Hi, I just wanted to say I'm excited about this bridge. As a family we use the existing bridges (Oregon and Stevens Creek trail) maybe 10 times a week. My husband commutes by bike, and I sometimes go to meetings by bike from the Duveneck area where we live to places like Google. Sometimes we go to the baylands or Shoreline Park with our kids. Sometimes my husband runs in the baylands and Shoreline park and we bike along with him to keep him company. My main frustration with the Oregon bridge is the difficulty getting a bicycle trailer through the slow-down gates. From the images I've seen about the new bridge this will be much easier and we'll have more choices where to cross the 101. I have to admit we totally ignore the "walk your bikes" injunction along the top of the Oregon bridge. I've never seen any problems with people riding their bikes - people are polite and pass each other civilly whether anybody is biking, walking or walking their bike. Perhaps the problems, when they occur, are not with people riding their bikes (which they're going to do anyway) but with being unsafe or inconsiderate (which they're going to do anyway). Lisa 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 2:49 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:lenraven1@gmail.com; Architectural Review Board; Larry; Cornelia and Arne Stoschek Subject:Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Hi Claire, Thank you for responding so fast! Some of my thoughts/concerns regarding the project are (there are 4 key areas): 1) Managing cyclists/pedestrians: I propose that there are separate lanes for both parties. Many cyclists will use this trail for getting to work, pedestrians for pleasure. I have seen many unnecessary near clashes because the walkers spread out over the entire walkway or one or the other had headphones on. This is particularly concerning where there are benches for viewing-as many may congregate there. 2) Transitions Remember what happened to the cyclist on Pagemill that was hit by a car a year ago? I believe part of the responsibility lies in not having an adequate transition. Indeed, there is NO notice-(even a year later!) to motorists that a cyclist may enter a highway and little guidance to a cyclist. Even a stop sign would be a solution. This is a rampant problem. I have seen this many times, where the bike paths, once you are on them are lovely, but getting there and transitioning to another road are nightmares. I don't mean to attribute blame, unfortunately, dead cyclists can not tell "their" side. 3) Safety I'm concerned (from a brief look at the plans) that the fencing over any overpass or high area is not sufficient to deter a person from attempting to "jump" off the bridge. How are we going to ensure this? 4) Cost I have seen many bridge constructed over 101 that takes these concerns into account. They may not be the prettiest, but they look nice and look to be cost effective. Perhaps we should reconsider that? In fact, in so doing, there may be funds to address the transition issues or perhaps to update that "nightmare" of a bridge near Oregon along with getting onto the bike path on the other side of the road. Thank you for permitting me to "vent" , I DO hope I was being constructive in my comments. Please do keep me updated. I have scheduled for myself to be attend on the 25th of May. :-) Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iphone On May 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Good afternoon Lenore and Debbie, Thank you for your comments regarding the Architectural Review Board meeting set for May 4, 2017. All meetings for the Architectural Review Committee are held on Thursday mornings. However, there are several other opportunities for you to provide input on this project. You may: 1) Call, e‐mail, or mail me, the Project Planner for the proposed project, to discuss any questions/comments/concerns about the project. 2 2) We will have a study session in the evening with the Planning and Transportation Commission so that anyone that cannot attend the Architectural Review Board meeting on May 4th could still express comments at that public meeting. The Planning and Transportation Commission hearing for this project is tentatively set for May 25, 2017 and starts at 6pm. 3) Following these two study session meetings the City’s Public Works Engineering Division will work to incorporate/address comments from the public (whether expressed at the hearing or provided separately to the project planner) as well as comments from both the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission study session meetings. 4) The City’s Public Works Engineering Division will then come back to the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and to City Council before a decision on the proposed project is issued. The Planning and Transportation Commission and Council hearings will both be held in the evening. I’d be happy to update you once the dates for those hearings have been set. Warm regards, Claire Hodgkins <image001.jpg> Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Architectural Review Board Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:11 PM To: Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc: Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject: FW: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting From: Lenore Cymes [mailto:lenraven1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:38 AM To: Deborah Baldwin Cc: pwecips; Architectural Review Board; Jeff Levinsky; dsfna@yahoogroups.com dsfna@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Good catch Debbie. I didn’t even read it. I agree! Not just this meeting, but no meeting concerning community input should ever be held during the day and this meeting must be rescheduled to a proper time for people to finish their work and show up. If it is not changed, why bother at all - what is the goal of the Arch. Review Committee? Lenore On May 1, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Deborah Baldwin baldwinart@mac.com [dsfna] <dsfna-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi I noticed that the planning meeting set for this important bike bridge is set for the morning. To me, It is very confusing to have the time set specifically at a time many 3 commuters by bikes can not come because they are working. What is the mechanism to have these voices and their wealth of experience heard? Thank you Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iPhone __._,_.___ Posted by: Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. NOTE: By default replies to this message will be sent to the message author only. VISIT YOUR GROUP Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:52 PM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing Attachments:W.BayShore Bike Lane - 02.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 04.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 15.jpg From: roycsnyder@comcast.net [mailto:roycsnyder@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:45 PM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: pwecips Subject: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing To the City of Palo Alto Architecture Review Board - May 4, 2017 (We have lived in the south Palo Alto Palo Verde neighborhood for over forty years. In all but the most inclement weather, we bike at the Baylands 2-4 times per week, using the existing Adobe Creek Undercrossing or the Embarcadero Overcrossing.) Comments: The proposed overcrossing is not a destination, but rather a mere conveyance from South Palo Alto to the main attraction, the Baylands. It should be simple, cost effective, speedily constructed, and, since it crosses a main artery, seismically robust. The concept of an Eastern Approach Overlook is wrong headed: There is nothing of natural beauty nor remarkable wildlife to be viewed from such a point. The proposed location is close to HWY 101 and the constant traffic noise will detract from any "appreciation" of the adjacent Baylands. The proposed Overlook is redundant to existing and better nature viewpoints actually located in the Baylands, only 200-300 meters further along the trail. It adds undue cost. The proposed drinking fountains, trash and recycling containers, trail head art, bike racks, etc. would serve greater purpose if located further up the trail where it joins the Baylands Trail at the Coast Casey Forebay. Again, this structure is not a destination. Such amenities will only impede flow along the trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail should be opened immediately, even if in a temporary configuration. The bike lane along West Bay Shore - northbound is currently unsafe due to south bound vehicles drifting into the bike lane. (See photos attached.) Respectfully, 2 Roy Snyder Thomas Drive, Palo Alto Attachment E Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Commissioners. These documents are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3600 Bayshore Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-09 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” 6. Open the attachment named “Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE PATH OVERCROSSING PROJECT AT ADOBE CREEK WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing (Overcrossing) is located in the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County, between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101, and will replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass of Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor. The grade-separated crossing will provide year-round connectivity from residential and commercial areas west of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands), East Bayshore Business Park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The project will include a new bridge structure over Highway 101 and West and East Bayshore Roads, a trail connection along Adobe Creek to East Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along West Bayshore Road, and landscaping and habitat restoration within the Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. The project lies primarily within City and Caltrans rights-of-way, although the south/west project area includes Santa Clara Valley Water District property and private property owned by Google. The proposed Overcrossing will consist of multiple structure types in order to maximize the benefits of the different structure types for the various constraints present in the project. The Overcrossing structure is divided into the following four major elements: 1. Principal Span Structure: Three span structure over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads 2. West Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located west of West Bayshore Road 3. East Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located east of East Bayshore Road 4. Adobe Creek Bridge: Simple span crossing of Adobe Creek west of West Bayshore Road STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION: PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURE The Principal Span Structure is set to a straight alignment that is essentially perpendicular to the Highway 101 and Bayshore Road alignments. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans spanning across West Bayshore Road, Highway 101, and East Bayshore Road. At this location, Highway 101 is a 12-lane highway with a 162-foot wide right-of-way (See Figure below). East Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with a 20.5-foot wide traveled way and two 6-foot shoulders. West Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with an approximately 20.5-foot wide traveled way and a 5.5-foot shoulder and 6-foot bicycle lane. The span over Highway 101 will consist of a 165-foot long, simply-supported prefabricated steel bowstring truss. The bowstring truss is able to achieve the long clear span while keeping the profile depth from the top of deck to bridge soffit to a minimum. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over West Bayshore Road will consist of a 72’-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over East Bayshore Road will consist of a 72-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. All spans will accommodate a 12- foot clear width pathway. Bents under the Principal Structure spans will consist of 2-foot thick non-skewed concrete pier walls on cast- in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations. In order to reduce traffic control requirements within Highway 101, the pier walls adjacent to Highway 101 (Bents 6 and 7) will be founded on a concrete pile cap supported by CIDH piles located within the medians between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The concrete pier walls supporting the other ends of the steel Pratt trusses (Bents 5 and 8) will be founded on a concrete pile cap which is supported by CIDH piles. Pier walls at Bents 5 and 8 will support both the steel Pratt trusses of the Principal Span Structure and the end of the West and East Approach concrete slab spans. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the Principal Span Structure. The railings will consist of 8-foot tall galvanized welded wire safety fencing. WEST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure over Highway 101. The alignment closely abuts the adjacent Barron Creek to enable retention of all parking spaces with in the Google parking lot and to provide the maximum elevation gain between the adjoining Principal Span Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge crossing. The West Approach Structure consists of a four span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by a large diameter CIDH pile. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the West Approach Structure. The railings consist of 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. EAST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximate 168-degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to conform at the San Francisco Bay Trail. The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by CIDH piles. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Bent 8 supports both the end of the concrete slab of the East Approach Structure and the end of the steel Pratt truss span of the Principal Span Structure. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the East Approach Structure. The railings will be 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. An overlook area consisting of an extension of the reinforced concrete slab will be located between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide the trail users an opportunity to pause, rest and view the adjacent Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle through traffic. The architecture of the overlook will extend from the main bridge structure elements including railings and concrete facing textures and colors. The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in texture and color. The decking and the bench elements could potentially be constructed from the existing timber decking being removed from the adjacent Baylands Boardwalk project that can be recycled, refinished and repurposed as part of the Overcrossing Project. Amenities such as benches and informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for the users. Benches will be located along the overlook to allow users to rest and/or view the surrounding vistas of the Baylands. ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE The Adobe Creek Bridge consists of a 140-foot long prefabricated steel Pratt truss, spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks, adjacent to the existing Adobe Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 37C- 0060) along West Bayshore Road. The bridge will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway allowing for travel in both directions. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the 4 foot high safety railing for the structure. The abutments will consist of concrete seat type abutments supported by large diameter CIDH piles. ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS: WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS A pedestrian access ramp has been incorporated into the Western Approach Structure between the Google property (3600 West Bayshore Road) and Adobe Creek Bridge to provide continuous access for pedestrians along West Bayshore and access to the Overcrossing. For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road the access structure can reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet. This access structure also provides equal access to mobility impaired trail users and provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing bike lane along West Bayshore road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can be used as a primary ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes the trail access area for their channel sedimentation maintenance. STRUCTURE LIGHTING Lighting design will be provided for the Overcrossing that contributes to the project goals of providing connectivity while addressing environmental concerns. The Overcrossing paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support pedestrian and bicycling activates, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from higher illuminated urban areas on the western side of Highway 101 to the lower lighting of the Baylands to the east. Photometric levels will conform to standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society. The Western Approach Structure will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to the surrounding environment. Pole mounted luminaires will provide uniform illumination along the pathway and at landscaping areas leading to the Overcrossing. At the Principal Span Structure, lighting will be integrated into the guardrail where possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Direct view of any light source is to be shielded from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. Lighting at the Eastern Approach Structure and Eastern Approach Overlook will be integrated into the urban infrastructure components, such as railings and benches, in order to reduce visual interferences of the Baylands. Careful consideration will be given to providing appropriate illumination at environmentally sensitive areas such as areas adjacent to Adobe and Barron Creek and the Baylands. Lighting on the Eastern Approach Structure will be minimal in order to reduce potential glare and distraction for wildlife with the Baylands. Step lights will be utilized, meeting photometric requirements, to provide low levels of functional lighting along the pathway. Warm color lighting techniques will be used to reduce lighting effects to migratory birds and other wildlife. The lighting system will be designed to be mindful of the surrounding environment. Lighting poles and bollards with full-cutoff capability will be used in order to reduce light emitted above the 90° plane, limiting contribution to light pollution. Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with limited activity. Light levels dim down on a set time schedule synced with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their presence, allowing the lighting to change in response to pedestrian and bicycle activity. PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER RETENTION Landscaping is limited to restoration of areas disturbed by construction. Primary areas for restoration include: 1. The portion of the Baylands under and adjacent to the Eastern Approach Structure which will be restored with native grasses and planting as well as some hardscape and planting at the east plaza where the East Approach Structure joins the San Francisco Bay Trail. Trail head amenities in the form of trash and recycling receptacles as well as an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 2. Disturbed areas of the Google Parking Lot under and adjacent to the Western Approach Structure will be landscape to provide screening to the structure and will include accommodation of a bioretension area, replacement of existing landscaping trees affected by construction and reconfiguration of the existing Google Parking lot resulting in no net loss of parking. 3. The west plaza at the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Head will include hardscaping at the plaza and existing aggregate base along the SCVWD maintenance road compatible with the regular SCVWD maintenance operations and materials, as well as proposed trail head amenities including trash and recycling receptacles and an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 4. Storm water collection into bioretension systems will include native planting and drainage swales leading into retention basins to filter storm-water. These systems will be located in landscaping areas in the vicinity of the western and eastern approaches. ADOBE CREEK TRAIL The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail involves designating a 14- to 16-foot wide by approximately 620 linear feet of the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road on the east side of Adobe Creek, between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a more direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West Bayshore Road for pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. The trail will utilize the existing SCVWD maintenance road along Adobe Creek (maintaining the existing aggregate base surfacing) and will include installation of safety railing along the top of bank of Adobe Creek (subject to acceptance by the SCVWD). The project will include trail heads at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Trail heads will consist of simple concrete connections to the adjoining streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and street signage. Resurfacing of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail will not be included in this project. However, potential trail resurfacing as part of a future project, will be environmentally cleared as part of this project. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES The proposed project would comply with the following Site and Design objectives as described below. OBJECTIVE (A): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in south Palo Alto. The improved connectivity and access would support regional bicycle commuting and encourage greater recreational activity and use of the Baylands and trail system. During the times the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz undercrossing is closed due to flooding, access across U.S. 101 to/from southern Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve/Bay Trail does not meet community needs because it requires significant out-of-direction travel south to the San Antonio Road overpass, which primarily serves motorized vehicles and lacks sufficient facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Access across U.S. 101 is also available to the north on the Oregon Expressway Overpass, but that facility is 1.3 miles away and does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. OJECTIVE (B): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The Project provides improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to the area including improved connectivity to existing residential and business communities. OBJECTIVE (C): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The Project has been scoped and designed to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment including location of the proposed structure to minimize impacts to existing vegetation, and habitats, avoidance of pile driving to minimize construction noise and structure type selection that use of prefabricated elements that are manufactured off-site minimizing potential environmental impacts. OBJECTIVE (D): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 4826 § 121, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978): The following Comprehensive Plan programs, goals and policies relate to the project: Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, biking, public transit use. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in south Palo Alto. The improved connectivity and access would support regional bicycle commuting and encourage greater recreational activity and use of the Baylands and trail system. During the times the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz undercrossing is closed due to flooding, access across U.S. 101 to/from southern Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve/Bay Trail does not meet community needs because it requires significant out-of-direction travel south to the San Antonio Road overpass, which primarily serves motorized vehicles and lacks sufficient facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Access across U.S. 101 is also available to the north on the Oregon Expressway Overpass, but that facility is 1.3 miles away and does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. See response to Policy T-1 above. Goal T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi- model transit stations. See response to Policy T-1 above. Policy T-17: Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. See response to Goal T-1 above. Additionally, an approximately 620-foot-long Adobe Creek Reach Trail would be constructed along the east side of Adobe Creek between Highway 101 and East Meadow Drive in order to connect the new bridge overpass to the surrounding bicycle and pedestrian network on the west side of Highway 101. Program T-19: Encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities linking trips to parks, schools, retail, centers, and civic facilities, which enables and encourages residents and visitors to bicycle or walk for discretionary trips. See response to Policy T-1 above. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The Project will improve existing bicycle and pedestrian service along W. Bayshore Road by providing a through bicycle lane where previous bicycle service was forced to either share with pedestrians via the existing sidewalk or to share with adjacent vehicular traffic. Policy T-26: Completed development of the Bay trail and Ridge Trail in Palo Alto The Project connects to the existing San Francisco Bay Trail. Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvements. The project proposes an ADA-accessible bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing over Highway 101 to replace an existing underpass that closes during the rainy season. Existing alternative routes during underpass closure (the Oregon Expressway Overpass, 1.3 miles away) does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Policy C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The Project has considered proposed future projects within the Project limits and has provide flexibility to accommodate these future facilities such as future utilities and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Express Lanes along Highway 101. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101. The Project includes architectural enhancements and the City has retained an artist to help strengthen the aesthetic impact of the structure along the Highway 101 gateway to the City. Program L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. The Project includes architectural enhancements and the City has retained an artist to help strengthen the aesthetic impact of the structure along the Highway 101 gateway to the City. Views and vistas to Adobe Creek and the Palo Alto Baylands have been maintained and promoted as applicable Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. The Project minimizes impacts to and promotes views and vistas into the Adobe Creek corridor and the Palo Alto Baylands. OBJECTIVE (E): If the project is located in the Open Space (OS) zone district your letter should also address the 10 Open Space Development Criteria, adopted by the City Council on October 20, 1986. A copy of the development criteria can be obtained at the Planning Division counter. The project would comply with the following 12 open space criteria included in City Municipal Code 18.28.070 as described under each criterion: (1) The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The Project has been developed to minimize visual impacts to and promotes views and vistas into the Adobe Creek corridor and the Palo Alto Baylands. (2) Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. The Project structure profile has been kept to a minimum to minimize visual impacts and to keep the top of the structure below the adjacent tree line. The Project is not located near a hilltop. (3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring property. The Project structure profile has been kept to a minimum to minimize visual impacts. Landscaping has been coordinated with the adjacent property owner (Google) to provide screening and separation from the trail facilities. (4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The Project has been developed to form fit into the existing site constraints including Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Road corridors, Adobe Creek and Barron Creek corridors, the Google campus at (3600 West Bayshore Road), the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Palo Alto Baylands. (5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The Project has been developed to conform to and be compatible with the existing uses of the site. The Project would conform to the existing site constraints (including Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Road corridors, Adobe Creek and Barron Creek corridors, the Google campus (3600 West Bayshore Road), the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Palo Alto Baylands). Replacement vegetation will be similar to the existing native vegetation on-site. (6) Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The Project has coordinated closely with the City Urban Forester regarding necessary tree removal and proposed replacement species and locations. (7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The Project has minimized earthwork where possible including the use of deep foundations to support structures to minimize foundation size and associated earthwork. (8) To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. The Project has limited impervious surfaces to the footprint of the new trail and the reconstruction of the existing Google parking lot (no addition or loss of parking spacing). (9) Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. There are no buildings proposed as part of the Project. (10) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The Project has coordinated closely with the City Urban Forester regarding necessary tree removal and proposed replacement species and locations. (11) Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The Project has incorporated lighting fixtures that limit light pollution and light spillage into adjacent facilities and includes cutoff and shields to prevent direct viewing of light sources from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. (12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) There are no access roads proposed as part of the Project. Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. Click on “Development Proposals” 3. Click on “Development Projects” under Commercial and Mixed Use Developments. 4. Click on “3600 West Bayshore” to view the project plans Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8099) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/13/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Transportation and Land Use & Community Design Elements (3rd of 3 meetings) Title: PUBLIC HEARING Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, with a Focus on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): Prior to the September 13, 2017 meeting, review the attached list of all PTC comments to date on the Transportation and Land Use Elements of the June 30, 2017 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update (See Attachment A). Each Commissioner is asked to identify a total of ten comments that have the greatest significance and are the highest priorities for inclusion in the PTC’s report to the City Council. Please bring your list to the PTC meeting on September 13. At the September 13 meeting, review the comments that received two or more PTC Commissioner votes and narrow the list to the ten highest priority PTC changes/comments to recommend for transmittal to the City Council. Recommend the entire consolidated list of PTC comments to date on the Transportation and Land Use Elements for inclusion in the PTC report to the City Council on the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Review the Land Use Section of the Implementation Plan Table and recommend changes to this Table. Report Summary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 At the September 13 meeting, Commissioners will be asked to identify their ten highest priority changes/comments on the Transportation and Land Use Elements that should be discussed further by the PTC and then transmitted to the City Council. The Commission will also be asked to transmit the longer lists with all the PTC comments on the Land Use and Transportation Elements, so the Council has a complete record of all the PTC comments (Attachment A). The Commission is also being asked to complete its review of the Land Use Element by reviewing the Land Use Section of the Implementation Plan Table and recommending changes to this Table. This meeting will complete the Commission’s substantive review of the Transportation and Land Use Elements. There is a final hearing scheduled for September 27 when the Commission will make its recommendation to the Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Background & Discussion This is the fifth PTC public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. At the beginning of July, the PTC was sent a bound copy of the June 30, 2017 draft of the Comp Plan, which is being used throughout the PTC’s review. The PTC is focusing its review on the Transportation and Land Use Elements. At the July 12 PTC meeting, the PTC received a staff report that included an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update legal requirements and an overview of key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This is a link to that report. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58650. At the July 12th meeting, the schedule shown below was agreed to by the Commission. Table 1. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule (Revised 8.10.17) Month/Date Topic June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period July July 12 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation July 26 7/26 PTC Hearing Transportation ( 1 of 3): Review the Transportation Element August Aug. 9 8/ 9 PTC Hearing Transportation (2 of 3): Receive PTC comments on Transportation Goals T-1 to T-8 and continue discussion to 8/30/17 Land Use: (1 of 3) Review Goals L-1 to L-4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Month/Date Topic Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing Transportation (3 of 3): Continued review of Transportation Element Land Use (2 of 3): Review PTC comments on Goals L-1 to L-4 and Review of Land Use Goals L-5 to L-10 August 30 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission September Sept. 13 9/13 PTC Hearing Develop the highest priority PTC recommendations to the City Council for comments/changes to the Comp Plan Update. Recommend that the entire list of PTC comments to date on the Transportation and Land Use Elements be transmitted to the City Council Review the Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table Sept. 27 9/27 PTC Hearing Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the Final EIR Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period Source: Planning & Community Environment, August 31, 2017 At the July 26, August 9 and August 30 meetings, the PTC reviewed and commented on the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The staff and consultants created a comment list for each Element by combining comments that were similar, organizing them by Land Use and Transportation goal numbers and noting where the staff and consultants believe there was consensus among PTC members. At the August 30 PTC meeting, the Commission determined that its report to the City Council would have more impact and be more persuasive if the Commissioners worked together to identify their collective priorities. The Commission voted to create a process to identify ten high priority PTC changes/comments. The process involved individual Commissioners emailing any additional comments on both the Land Use and Transportation Elements to the staff by Tuesday, September 5th, so that all of the Commissioners’ comments could be sent out with this staff report. The staff took all the comments received on September 5 and combined them with all the previous comments to create Attachment A. The comments received in writing on September 5 are shown in Italics so they can be identified easily. They are also attached City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 (Attachment B) All of these comments are organized by Element and goal number. The draft excerpt minutes from the August 30 meeting are Attachment C. As an aside, at the August 30 meeting, a Commissioner commented that software development had been added to the definition of the Regional/Community Commercial Land Use Designation. That designation applies to the Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown and the Commissioner commented that allowing software and other office uses in retail areas like Town & Country displaces the services that cater to daily needs. This addition of on software development to the uses in the Regional/Community Commercial Land Use Designation was meant to apply to Downtown only and a correction will be included in an errata list that the Staff and consultants have been compiling during the Commission’s review of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The errata list consists of corrections to errors in the Comp Plan document (i.e., identifying wording that was put in the wrong place), and will be forwarded to the City Council when it considers adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update.1 Preparation for the September 13 meeting Each Commissioner is being asked to review Attachment A, the consolidated list of all Commission comments to date on both the Land Use and Transportation Elements, and identify 10 comments/changes that the Commissioner finds have the greatest significance and are the highest priorities for inclusion in the Commission’s report to the City Council. A total of 10 comments on both the Transportation and Land Use Elements are requested. An additional copy of Attachment A is provided separate from the bound staff report packet which you can mark up and submit to staff. Please bring your list to the PTC meeting on September 13. What to Expect at the September 13 PTC Meeting At the September 13 meeting, staff will collect the lists the Commissioners bring to the meeting and identify all comments that received votes from two or more Commissioners. Staff will do this tallying while the PTC is hearing the first agenda item, before the PTC starts consideration of the Comp Plan item. Staff will make copies of that list for the Commission and members of the public at the meeting. When the PTC takes up the Comp Plan Update item, the plan is for PTC members to discuss the comments that received two or more votes and narrow the list to the 10 highest priority PTC comments/recommendations for changes to the Comp Plan Update. The Commission may not reach consensus on all 10 of the highest priority comments/changes, and multiple motions will likely be necessary to identify the level of support for ideas that are discussed. It is also conceivable that the Commission may ultimately identify fewer or more than ten priorities. Regardless of the outcome, the complete list with all the PTC comments and the minutes from 1 Because staff will include this correction in the errata list, there is no need to identify it as one of the PTC’s priorities. The City Council’s direction on this issue was contained in a motion from May 1, 2017. See pg. 18 of the action minutes at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57863. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 all the PTC meetings on the Comp Plan Update will be transmitted to the Council along with the PTC’s final list of priorities. Staff is also inviting the Commission’s review and comment on the Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table. This meeting will complete the Commission’s substantive review of the Transportation and Land Use Elements. There is a final PTC hearing scheduled for September 27 when the Commission will make its recommendation to the Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A Placeholder (TXT) Attachment A: Land Use & Transportation Elements Consolidated PTC Comments (DOCX) Attachment B Placeholder (TXT) Attachment B: Additional PTC Comments on Transportation & Land Use Elements (PDF) Attachment C: August 30, 2017 Item 4 Draft Excerpt Minutes (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Transportation and Land Use & Community Elements Consolidated PTC input – Meetings on July 26, August 9, and August 30, 2017 + written comments (italicized text) received by September 5, 2017 PTC Comment Consensus Transportation Element Overall/General There is some redundancy in the draft Element. For example, first/last mile policies are good but are located in too many places. The draft Element places too much emphasis on the future and not enough weight to solving neighborhood congestion and parking problems of today, including construction issues. Some policies seem like they would work better at the regional scale, not being implemented unilaterally at a local scale. Palo Alto relies on effective regional transportation. Align projects with regional transportation investments and track what we can do as connectivity improves. Differing viewpoints on the role of technology: Some PTC members expressed that Palo Alto is the technology center of the world and we can come up with solutions to these problems. Other members felt the draft Element relies too much on aspirational future technology that may never exist. The Element should not assume that future Caltrain capacity after electrification will solve our problems. Don’t build the Plan around specific technologies. The ultimate consequences of new or emerging trends such as transportation network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber) or autonomous vehicles may be positive or negative and cannot be predicted. Consensus The transit element needs to align its SOV goals with regional transit capabilities. It also needs real tracking data on road capacity and vehicle ownership so we get parking and traffic requirements right. (If a road is currently filled to capacity should our response to additional growth be “No mitigation is possible?” or “No growth is possible?”) Transportation Element Narrative and Maps Geng Road improvement is too specific for the Comp Plan. Re-state more broadly as and improvement or a policy to reduce traffic on East Bayshore.” Consensus Support for Caltrain grade separation. Consensus Add a policy to support BART under El Camino. List a possible bike route along Sterling Canal as potential infrastructure improvements. Consider relocating Downtown transit center. Existing location could be better location for housing and retail. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Sustainable Transportation The PTC had a number of comments on new policies and programs 2 requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and supporting the Transportation Management Association (TMA). Program T1.2.2: Add language to further protect and expand the TMA. To the second bullet, add “…such as TMA” Program T1.2.2: Add reference to stable, sustained funding for the TMA, but don’t be proscriptive or limit the City’s options for funding. Consensus PTC members had different views on the offering incentives for TDM achievements. Some suggested lowering parking requirements for projects with successful TDM programs; other felt that permanent parking reductions are not appropriate for uncertain future trip reductions. Program T1.2.2: One PTC member expressed discomfort with the specific percent reductions in single-occupant vehicle trips as infeasible. Program T1.2.3: Revise to state that the PTC should evaluate the TMA annually. Programs under Policy T-1.4 regarding electric vehicles: Add “e-bikes or related electrical modes of transport.” Policy T-1.13: PTC members expressed different views on how aggressively the draft Element should encourage transportation network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber), also called ridesharing companies in the Comp Plan, as part of first/last mile solutions. o Some PTC members suggested that the City should collaborate with these private companies, including exploring ways to offer discounted rates for pick-ups and drop-offs in Downtown. o Others expressed concern that ridesharing companies increase congestion and reduce transit use. Structure the Palo Alto shuttle service so it does not compete with VTA service, e.g. along El Camino or Middlefield. Add specific goals for ridership and frequency for the Palo Alto shuttle program, similar to the specific quantitative goals for SOV trip reduction. Require companies located in Palo Alto to create a joint TMA for all companies or open buses to other companies. Have a policy to open routes along creeks to pedestrians and bikers, if routes are safe, in addition to other possible routes. Explore opening bus stops for private operators to use for a fee. Add a policy to require all bike routes to be aligned with sidewalks. (Not in the middle of the street.) As the number of electric vehicles increases, GHG emissions from long commutes will be less of a concern. Transportation Element Goal T-2: Traffic Delay and Congestion Goal T-2: Unclear. What is the message? Consider clarifying. Policy T-2.3 and Program T2.3.1: PTC members expressed differences of opinion on using both LOS and VMT metrics. o Some said that both are important because they measure different aspects of traffic conditions. LOS measures quality of life and local user experience. VMT measures regional impacts. o The CAC and Council expressed support for retaining both LOS and VMT. 3 o Others said the Plan should not contradict CEQA changes that eliminate LOS and should include a sunset provision for LOS as a metric. o If LOS is continued, consider referencing only seconds of delay or increases in delay, not letter grades. o If LOS is continued, be more explicit about possible unintended consequences on pedestrians and cyclists. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Streets No comments Transportation Element Goal T-4: Neighborhood Impacts Different viewpoints on Policy T-4.2: o Some PTC members felt that the language about prioritizing traffic calming over congestion could be problematic because it gives more weight to safety over congestion management, and these needs should be balanced. o Others felt that the idea of safe neighborhood streets should be retained. Policy T4.1: Policy should recognize that residential arterials, along with local and collector streets, are also school commute corridors. Policy should state that safety on residential arterials is also important. Consensus Transportation Element Goal T-5: Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking PTC members expressed different viewpoints on parking requirements: Some suggested that the City require projects to be fully self-parked, while others were concerned that this creates underutilized parking. Although each project should be self-parked on-site, shared parking is acceptable. Parking construction could potentially be funded by public or private investment, not borne only by the owner, and/or funds could be recouped by renting parking spaces for revenue. Add a statement of principles about parking (may be separate from policies and programs). o Recognize the costs to parking. o Eliminate incentives for providing more parking than is necessary. o Where possible, have shared parking resources to minimize unused parking inventory. Encourage technology that helps people find and/or share parking. Add a Program to put together a community group to examine innovations in parking technology. Allow non-traditional concrete parking structures to enable future flexibility in repurposing the land. Allow mechanical parking. Unbundled parking should be allowed; allow or require project owners/tenants to pay separately for parking. Instead of paying to construct parking spots, allow applicants to o Put money instead in in-lieu fees that could build central shared 4 parking by zone, with some parking on site; and/or o Provide transit passes, free bikes, etc for residents/tenants. Transportation Element Goal T-6: Road Safety Policy T-6.6: Policy and related programs discuss education for bicyclists. Language should be updated to reflect that pedestrian safety is also included. Consensus Transportation Element Goal T-7: Transit-Dependent Community No comments Transportation Element Goal T-8: Regional Collaboration and Coordination Goals T-1 and T-8 seem redundant. Tighten up policies under Goal T-8 to reduce redundancy. Under Goal T-8 – consider policies supporting exploration of re-starting rail service across Dumbarton Bridge. Recognize 280 and 101 as transit links. Have a stop at 280 and Page Mill Road where passengers can move from bus to shuttle. Embarcadero/Oregon should be reviewed. Work together with adjacent cities. Support for reinstating or investigating future Dumbarton Rail service. Consider adding a policy statement about a potential future High Speed Rail station and/or other aspects of High Speed Rail. Consensus Transportation Element Implementation Plan table There are a lot of Programs. Staff should review for redundancy and remove any already covered elsewhere. Fewer programs are more likely to be accomplished. Land Use Element Overall/General Goals L-1 through L-4 are unclear and are not easy for a layperson to interpret. Look at anything that is prohibitive and consider if it is too restrictive. Consider hiring an area plan specialist for the Fry’s site or other area plans. Include stronger emphasis on taking on responsibility for dramatically increasing housing supply in Palo Alto. Both BMR housing and “housing that is affordable,” including housing for the middle class. The Element should place more emphasis on creating neighborhoods, not just building housing units. Consensus 5 We need to expand our stock of family-oriented housing. Where do we have spaces to accommodate this use? How do we ensure new neighborhoods receive full investment in schools, parks, adjacent commercial districts and other services we traditionally offer to neighborhoods. Our current neighborhoods are built out, and don’t provide substantial spaces for new family-oriented development. Need commercial centers within walking distance of neighborhoods for local- serving goods and services that can’t pay the same rents as office uses, e.g. vacuum cleaner repair, music lessons. Goals L-3 and L-4 are important. In order to achieve these goals, may have ripple effects into Goals L-1 and L-2. The goals sound reasonable, but it’s hard to tell if the policies and programs will result in a desirable urban form and adequate space for smaller retail and service uses that residents need. Goals, policies, and programs throughout should be clear and actionable, and the City should be able to track progress toward achievement. Consensus Need consistent goals that don’t conflict among elements. We want diversification of housing and need to take action to get it. The City should do more to ensure that affordable housing goes to people from lower income brackets. During the CAC process, many participants felt that first priorities for housing should be for most needy – subsidized housing and those with disabilities. Broadening the definition to “housing that is affordable” to the middle class would not help the most needy households. Element should do more to balance need for infill with protection of community character. There should be a policy about street design. Define the street as the space between building facades. This creates public space. Buildings on opposite sides of the street should relate to each other. Review the document and identify those policies that mean nothing or would trigger unnecessary expenditure. The themes on pages I-2 to I-4 are great but are not consistent with the Land Use Element. The Introduction to the Comp Plan describes a different city than the land use element. The introduction describes a walkable suburb oriented around residential neighborhoods. Land Use describes a mini-city-office-park and is largely silent on neighborhoods and neighborhood services. Either the introduction is wrong or the land use element is wrong. How do we reconcile the different views? 6 Land Use Element Narrative and Maps Strike “software development” from the Regional/Community Commercial definition. The addition of “software development” as an allowed use does not make sense because this designation is applied to diverse areas including Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and Town & Country Village. Allowing software and other office uses in retail areas like Town & Country displaces the “diverse range of services that cater to daily needs” referenced in Policy L-2.2 and is inconsistent with Policies L-4.10 through L-4.12 regarding preserving Town & Country Village as a vibrant retail center. Add a policy to address concerns that housing ownership is shifting to absentee owners and real estate investment corporations. Map changes: Recapture Employment District designations on Map L-6 from previous maps. Designate University Avenue and parts of California Avenue as Research/Office Park to reflect existing uses and provide a distinction from small local retail uses. Consider a Service Commercial designation on University Avenue north of Alma, and Park Blvd. The distinction between commercial districts and employment districts is a fundamental linchpin of the previous comp plan that largely seems lost in the draft. We need to test the draft commercial district definition to ensure it still provides space in the commercial districts for the sort of walkable services the neighborhoods expect. These include not just retail, but also services like doctors, dentists, veterinarians, accountants, lawyers, therapists, auto repair… Also spaces for not-for-profits, maker spaces, performance spaces, clubs, dance and music schools, gymnastics and other uses catering to the entire age range including families, kids, and seniors. We need to test that retail includes spaces where lower margin and more specialized retail businesses can operate. OR we need to look at some new definitions for mixed use districts so we don’t undermine commercial districts. We also need to discuss whether the land use map contains proper spaces for neighborhood services. Land Use Element Goal L-1: Growth Management Revise Goal L-1 to mention demographic diversity, prioritizing neighborhoods, and BMR housing. Add policies and program with stronger commitments to specific action. 7 Comments on Goal L-1: Concerns Why not put vision statement this section by the goal (instead of on page 1) so we know what we are committed to accomplish? Goal does not call for diversity in demographic groups. Neighborhoods are not prioritized as the most important. Passive wording and relegation to project level does not suggest COMMITMENT to future action. Suggestions for change: 1. Goal L-1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 Some PTC members felt that the Citywide growth cap on office/R&D development and annual limit on office/R&D development (enacted as a separate ordinance) were appropriate growth management tools. Others expressed that the consensus at the 2015 Our Palo Alto Summit was that a Citywide growth cap is not the right tool, and policies should manage the impacts of office/R&D growth (such as traffic) rather than setting a cap on square footage. Several PTC members requested clarification or rewording of Policy L-1.10 and objected to “high quality” development as too ambiguous to provide clear direction. Stanford Research Park is a major contributor to SOV trips and congestion and should not be exempt from growth caps. Growth management must include not only capping jobs but also building more housing. The office/R&D annual limit should be below 50,000 sf, possibly as low as zero. Some PTC members expressed a desire to maintain the Downtown office cap rather than eliminating it; others felt the best way to manage development Downtown is through an area plan. Add more language about “quality of life” and neighborhood preservation. Some PTC members expressed support for Coordinated Area Plans for Downtown, California Avenue, and the Fry’s site. Strengthen Policy L-1.3 about infill development to indicate not just that infill should be compatible but that “infill development should be preferred or promoted.” 8 Recommendations for strengthening Program L1.3.1 regarding removing barriers to infill development of affordable housing: o 1) delete “remove barriers as appropriate” so that the program is more strongly worded. o 2) “work with neighbors” is too passive; split the two sentences into two programs, one about removing barriers and the second about identifying sites. o Revise to not just identify but to eliminate barriers to affordable housing. o We need a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. Suggest we make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy – perhaps having a quantifiable goal for ten years in the future. Turn Policy L-1.4 regarding the land use definitions into a more affirmative statement of the City’s objective to “use land use definitions in this plan to guide land use decision-making.” Add something to Policy L-1.8 regarding participation in regional strategies about protecting Palo Alto interests. In Policy L-1.9 and Program L1.9.1 regarding the Citywide office/R&D cap, clarify the criteria and intent of re-evaluating the cap amount as square footage approaches the cap. Land Use Element Goal L-2: A Sustainable Community In general, language regarding hosing should be stronger. Important to go beyond BMR. Do what we can to make cost and rent affordable. Some PTC members would support identifying specific locations where heights above the 50-foot height limit (which is a separate ordinance, not in the Comp Plan) could be exceeded, particularly to enable construction of housing that is affordable and/or BMR units. However, others were not comfortable exceeding the 50-foot height limit, even for affordable or subsidized housing. Policy L-2.3, Policy L-2.6, and Program L2.4.5 are all similar – review and revise if needed to make them independent and clear. Strengthen Policy L-2.4 from “use” a variety of strategies to “Proactively stimulate housing with a variety of strategies…” or similar wording. In Program L2.4.1 – eliminate housing sites along San Antonio Road – wants to learn more about intention. Recent approval of 5-story hotel on ECR next to International Market store. Eliminating housing doesn’t help us scale up across the street from the hotel. Either ARB should stop approval or we should allow San Antonio Road other side to be tall housing. 9 Revise Program L2.4.2 regarding housing on Stanford lands to specify that “vibrant” retail should be retained. Retail is changing and preserving retail square footage at the Stanford Shopping Center may become less of a community priority over the life of this Plan than is providing additional housing. Several PTC members had comments on Program L2.4.4 regarding conversion of non-residential development potential FAR to residential FAR: Revise Program L2.4.4 so it does not prohibit housing as a potential future use at Town & Country Village. This may become a feasible or desired use over the life of the Plan. Revise Program L2.4.4 to be more proactive. Set a specific goal of convert FAR in order to allow construction of up to a certain number of units. Remove Program L2.4.4. Commerce is important to the community. L2.4.5 – strengthen mix of retail and residential uses. “zoning changes that give priority to a mix.” Prohibiting office is too restrictive. Eliminate or soften. L-2.4.6, TDRs – define the areas within the town where we can spur growth on receiver sites and identify sending sites where we want density to stay low. New program – similar to TDRs – allow property owners to trade daylight for cash or other privileges. System in Great Britain, works well. Strengthen Policy L-2.5 and Policy L-2.7 regarding housing for middle to lower income by clarifying what “support” means. Delete “as feasible” from Policy L- 2.5. Revise the wording of Policy L-2.13 to explicitly connect additional infill housing with reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gases (GHG), and thereby part of the City’s response to climate change and sea level rise. Preserving retail – lip service only – L-2.9: Not a single program to support policy. Wants a program to be flexible to respond to trends away from brick and mortar. Restaurant imbalance will continue to grow. Look at what other cities are doing to actually have retail. Otherwise market will dictate and we will lose retail space. Add a policy or program to restrict consolidation of lots under single ownership. Add a new policy regarding development east of 101 to reduce heights in this area to 35 feet. Taller heights are not compatible with recreational/office character. 10 Land Use Element Goal L-3: Distinct Neighborhoods Program L3.2.1 is redundant with Policy L-3.2 regarding preserving residential uses from conversion. Regarding Policy L-3.5 about avoiding the negative impacts of basements: consider counting basements as FAR to deter basements. Land Use Element Goal L-4: Commercial Centers & Hotels Goal L-4 is awkwardly phrased. “Pedestrian-scaled centers” may not make sense to the lay reader. L4.1.2 is all about retail. Similar to L-2.9 – redundant? Or move? Program L4.4.1 to explore increasing hotel FAR should be deleted, especially in the absence of any analysis of need. Policy L-4.6 re supporting bike use and bike racks – add a program that requires regular servicing and surveying the need for racks. Some go unused while others are overflowing. Need consistent evaluation and adjustment. Remove reference to “the Fry’s site” in Program L4.8.1and elsewhere. The tenant is likely to change over the life of this Comp Plan. Support for Program L4.6.1 to prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown, which is a huge undertaking. Revise the Program to add that the Coordinated Area Plan should consider converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian-only zone. Policy L-4.7: It is unclear that there is any need to add retail FAR at Stanford Shopping Center; retail in general is declining, and this policy does not represent a public interest. Revise Policy L-4.7 to add “Promote shuttle, bicycle, and pedestrian use” to access the Center; realistically, pedestrian access through large parking lots is challenging and unpleasant. Policy L-4.10 is similar to L2.4.4; both may not be necessary. Policy L-4.16 should be clear that housing could be an allowed use in Midtown Shopping Center or other neighborhood centers as part of mixed use development. Maintain the attractiveness of all shopping centers; Add a policy for Charleston similar to Policy L-4.16 about Midtown. Differentiate between California Avenue and other districts. Consider a policy or program that would identify a district in Palo Alto for craftspeople to rent space and sell their goods and/or to create small kiosks where people can sell goods. L4.11 and 4.12 are both about urban greening and other physical improvements to Town & Country and should be combined. Revise Policy L-4.13 regarding the El Camino Real to allow heights of up to 50’ 11 consistent with the along with rest of the City, and add “invest in transportation infrastructure” to the policy. Add policies and programs to allow different types and sizes of vendors, including allowing small vendors to sell on streets and in alleys, in order to support competition and innovation. Add a policy that commercial centers have viable spaces for community services like music schools or therapists that can’t find space and are getting priced out. Land Use Element Goal L-5: Employment Districts Several PTC members had comments on Policy L-5.1: Add “Provide project TDM policies and mixed uses to reduce trips” Policy L-5.1: Separate into two concepts, one about facilitating alternative transportation/ reducing auto trips and the other about adding a mix of uses. Policy L-5.1: Clarify the baseline for the “reduced number of auto trips.” The language in Policy L-5.2 to “remove grass turf” in employment districts is overly detailed and prescriptive for the Comp Plan. Add language to allow uses besides research and development in Stanford Research Park, such as housing and schools in future. Add a policy to allow only small business companies of 500 employees or fewer within employment districts outside of Stanford Research Park. Add a policy increase allowable office sizes along El Camino Real, which is suitable for transportation. Attach the East Meadow Circle Concept Plan since it is mentioned and make sure that it has housing possibilities Land Use Element Goal L-6: Design of Buildings and Public Space Wording in Goal L-6 about “coherent development patterns” is a little fuzzy. Support for Policy L-6.1 to promote development that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.1 about compatibility, and L-6.2 about the Zoning Ordinance and design review, seem redundant. Consider combining. Policy L-6.3: Bird protection should not be a policy. Too specific/narrowly focused for the Comp Plan. Policy L-6.4: Revise to “In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, encourage the design of new development to maintain and support that is compatible with the existing character.” Policy L-6.5 regarding views of the foothills seems like it would be rarely enforced and only used to prevent development. Revise Policy L-6.5 to “Guide development to respect preserve views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets…” Revise Policy L-6.7: “Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of 12 different densities…” to remove the words “ where possible”. Policy L-6.10 regarding high-quality signage should allow for flexibility on signage along El Camino Real. Add a policy to establish a build-to line to define public spaces. Add a policy or program to allow trading of daylight rights. Land Use Element Goal L-7: Historic Resources Turn Policy L-7.6 regarding awards programs for historic preservation into a program under Policy L-7.1. Policy L-7.13 about allowing transfer of development rights from designated buildings of historic significance should apply not only in Downtown but wherever there are historic buildings. Land Use Element Goal L-8: Parks and Gathering Places Goal L-8 currently does not include any programs. Policies L-8.2 (about comfortable seating areas), L-8.3 (about small retail uses and cafes), and L-8.6 (about seeking new sites) could be Programs. Consider consolidating Policies L-8.2, L-8.4, and 8.5 that all deal with places for public art and cultural/civic events. Policy L-8.7 regarding collaboration with religious institutions is overly broad. Expand to address collaboration “for the benefit of the community.” Land Use Element Goal L-9: Public Streets and Spaces Add a program to support Policy L-9.2 about development that creatively integrates parking. The statement in Policy L-9.9 to “involve the urban forester” in development review is unnecessary. City will definitely do this. Policy 9.9 to involve the urban forester could be a program. Policy L-9.11 regarding public infrastructure could be split into 3 different policies. Is Program L-9.12.2 regarding wireless co-location needed in the Comp Plan? Add a policy to maintain the City’s inventory of California oaks. Add policy or program to define the street space. Land Use Element Goal L-10: Palo Alto Airport Add a policy statement that the Palo Alto Airport should not be a drain on City resources. Comments on Other Components Starting with the very first words in this draft Comp Plan (I-1)I find it incredible in a unifying “Vision Statement” for the next couple of decades that it states in the first two sentences that we all disagree! Of course we do on specific policies, but hopefully not on our vision. On I-5 it then says, speaking about 13 each element’s vision, “. . . the idea of a vision for PA – a shared dream of PA in the future.” I suggest we drop the first two sentences of this verbiage on I-1 and start with “ We aspire to create a safe and beautiful City for ourselves . . . . ” In other realms a plan like this would discuss revenue models to pay for our vision. We know that companies are willing to pay higher rents to locate in Palo Alto (which benefits landlords), but we haven’t worked out how to monetize this for the community. Can the comp plan recommend the development of new revenue such as a payroll tax, a business license tax, or a 3rd party asset management tax? 1 From:Gitelman, Hillary Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 8:12 AM To:Waldfogel, Asher; Lait, Jonathan Cc:Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Joanna Jansen (jjansen@placeworks.com) Subject:RE: Comp Plan Discussion Items Thank you. Hillary Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Asher Waldfogel [mailto:asher@waldfogel.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 7:51 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Comp Plan Discussion Items 1.The Introduction to the Comp Plan describes a different city than the land use element. The introduction describes a walkable suburb oriented around residential neighborhoods. Land Use describes a mini‐city‐office‐ park and is largely silent on neighborhoods and neighborhood services. Either the introduction is wrong or the land use element is wrong. How do we reconcile the different views? 2.The distinction between commercial districts and employment districts is a fundamental linchpin of the previous comp plan that largely seems lost in the draft. We need to test the draft commercial district definition to ensure it still provides space in the commercial districts for the sort of walkable services the neighborhoods expect. These include not just retail, but also services like doctors, dentists, veterinarians, accountants, lawyers, therapists, auto repair… Also spaces for not‐for‐profits, maker spaces, performance spaces, clubs, dance and music schools, gymnastics and other uses catering to the entire age range including families, kids, and seniors. We need to test that retail includes spaces where lower margin and more specialized retail businesses can operate. OR we need to look at some new definitions for mixed use districts so we don’t undermine commercial districts. We also need to discuss whether the land use map contains proper spaces for neighborhood services. 3.We need to expand our stock of family‐oriented housing. Where do we have spaces to accommodate this use? How do we ensure new neighborhoods receive full investment in schools, parks, adjacent commercial districts and other services we traditionally offer to neighborhoods. Our current neighborhoods are built out, and don’t provide substantial spaces for new family‐oriented development. 4.In other realms a plan like this would discuss revenue models to pay for our vision. We know that companies are willing to pay higher rents to locate in Palo Alto (which benefits landlords), but we haven’t worked out how to monetize this for the community. Can the comp plan recommend the development of new revenue such as a payroll tax, a business license tax, or a 3rd party asset management tax? 5.The transit element needs to align its SOV goals with regional transit capabilities. It also needs real tracking data on road capacity and vehicle ownership so we get parking and traffic requirements right. (If a road is currently filled to capacity should our response to additional growth be “No mitigation is possible?” or “No growth is possible?”) 1 Lee, Elena From:Ed Lauing <elauing@equitysearchpartners.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:40 PM To:Lee, Elena Subject:PTC "Additional Comments" Attachments:Additional Comment for Comp Plan 9 5 17.docx Elena, Per our process I am sending you two additional comments as defined in Hilllary’s message. I am also recapping the example I used in the context of making a motion to move to this process. Strictly speaking this may not be an “additional comment”. But I am submitting it now as such instead of a hypothetical example. Additional Comments. 1. Starting with the very first words in this draft Comp Plan (I‐1)I find it incredible in a unifying “Vision Statement” for the next couple of decades that it states in the first two sentences that we all disagree! Of course we do on specific policies, but hopefully not on our vision. On I‐5 it then says, speaking about each element’s vision, “. . . the idea of a vision for PA – a shared dream of PA in the future.” I suggest we drop the first two sentences of this verbiage on I‐1 and start with “ We aspire to create a safe and beautiful City for ourselves . . . . ” 2. We need a strong commitment to creating BMR housing inventory for purchase and rental. It is too tentative appearing at a program level. Suggest we make Program L1.3.1 into a separate policy – perhaps having a quantifiable goal for ten years in the future. . 3. See attached WORD doc. Ed Lauing Managing Partner Equity Search Partners 650‐279‐0212 (M) 650‐319‐8606 (O) elauing@equitysearchpartners.com www.equitysearchpartners.com L‐1 Concerns: +Why not put vision statement this section by the goal (instead of on page 1) so we know what we are committed to accomplish? + Goal does not call for diversity in demographic groups. + Neighborhoods are not prioritized as the most important. + Passive wording and relegation to project level does not suggest COMMITMENT to future action. Suggestions for change: 1. Goal L‐1 should read “A compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant neighborhoods – and existing compatibly with shopping and services, workplaces, public facilities, parks and open space.” 2. Policies: Swap L1.1 and L1.2 for emphasis on neighborhoods – substituting “prioritize” for “strengthen” in current 1.2 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 1 Chair Alcheck: And I’d like to immediately pivot to Item Number 4. 1 2 Elaine Costello, Management Partners: Ok there it goes. Members of the Commission, my name is Elaine 3 Costello, I have been working with the City on the Comp Plan update. This is your… if we could have the 4 schedule? This is your fourth meeting on the Comp Plan and what we're focused on tonight and it's actually 5 what you've been making good progress. You've gone through the Transportation Element policies at the 6 meeting on July 26th and then you looked at them again and made a few more changes to that on August 9th 7 and asked that you put off taking any action on them until tonight so you had a chance to take a look at the 8 minutes. And what we're asking for in terms of action is not like an [unintelligible] just sort of are they… are 9 they correct? Do they kind of capture the Commission's discussion? Because we did sort of consolidate 10 some comments, we organized them by goal, we tried to identify some areas of consensus. You gave us 11 feedback at the last meeting of where we might have found consensus where there was not consensus. You 12 may want to identify some areas where there are. So you aren't saying that you approve this or you 13 recommend it. It's just is it ok? That's all we're asking for tonight so that we can sort of put this together 14 as a package. 15 16 You also at the 9th meeting did a discussion of the first four goals of the Land Use Element which are the most 17 controversial and probably the most impactful goals in the Comp Plan update. So we have put together your 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 2 comments. You did not find a lot of consensus. The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) didn't find a lot of 1 consensus. This is a very controversial area, but we did identify a couple of areas of consensus. So but 2 we're not what we're saying tonight is continue on the Land Use Element, just give us some feedback tonight 3 on those first four. Like are we in the… did we get something in there that's wrong or missed something? 4 We're really only looking for like completeness and is it an accurate sort of summary of your discussion. 5 6 And then we're asking that you continue and finish up on Land Use tonight by looking at goals L-5 though 7 L-10. You have we’re going to move this forward. You're going to get the Environmental Impact Report 8 (EIR). In fact I think you've gotten the EIR, the final EIR. And you have the meeting on the 13th where you 9 will have if we can get through these last six goals of Land Use tonight you will have completed your 10 discussion of the two elements that you wanted to focus on. And so on the 13th we’d be looking at the 11 implementation table and talking about more about how you want to really present this to the Council so that 12 we can wrap this up on the 27th and also hear about the final EIR so that's the schedule going forward. 13 14 I'm going to just briefly highlight the major what we tried to do in the staff reports was not repeat every single 15 policy in all of the goals, but really talk about what were the most controversial or the biggest updates in each 16 of the goals. So I'm going to go through those fairly quickly here. For Goal 5 which is employment districts 17 there was really… which has been a very important goal for the for the City fostering compact employment 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 3 districts that reduce auto trips and also exploring a diverse mix of uses at Stanford Research Park (SRP) 1 including residential, retail, and hotel. 2 3 These are some of the updates; these are some of the changes from the existing Comp Plan. Under urban 4 design promoting compatibility and avoiding abrupt changes in scale and density was an important part of the 5 update. Historic resources one of the major updates was protecting historic resources that have not been 6 evaluated for inclusion in state or federal historic resources inventories and make sure that there aren't major 7 exteriors alterations or demolitions of those kinds of resources and adding that into the Comp Plan and also 8 considering revising the (TDR) ordinance so development transferred from historic buildings Downtown could 9 only be used for residential development. 10 11 In Goal L-8 which is about civic uses and parks and gathering places it’s supporting community and cultural 12 facilities to enrich public life more, there’s more discussion in this Land Use plan about things informal small 13 places like gathering places than there was in the older Comp Plan. [There’s] a lot of discussion about 14 creating, facilitating creation of new park land to serve neighborhoods. In Goal 9 it's about public streets 15 and spaces and again it's that outdoor gathering spaces, looking at streets as more than just something for 16 cars, looking at them as kind of a place for the pedestrian, the community gathering, and also recognizing this 17 was a big theme in the Comp Plan the benefits of street trees and fostering a healthy tree canopy. 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 4 1 And finally Goal L-10 about the airport which really focuses on the current level of the airport while 2 minimizing environmental impacts associated with airport operations including noise and protecting and 3 enhancing the Baylands. So that's kind of a quick overview of the major changes in the last six goals in the 4 Land Use Element. That completes this presentation. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you very much. I am going to invite Commissioners to light up my board if they are 7 ready to comment on these issues. And I would boldly suggest that the more effort we make to identify 8 areas of consensus this evening the greater the likelihood we will reduce the amount of effort we'll have to 9 make at the conclusion of this process to figure out how we will communicate our comments. That's 10 difficult, I know. We just heard that there wasn't a lot of consensus in our last discussion on L-1 through 5 11 and you can or L-1 through 4, excuse me, and you can see that because the word consensus doesn't appear 12 once in our… oh, twice, excuse me. Sorry, I missed that page. Twice in our table and so if you had it… so 13 there's two goals tonight. Make sure that the that your comments about L-1 through 4 were captured 14 correctly and if there are items in that table that you remember not raising last time, but that you believe 15 reflect your views give some indication to staff. I think that would be very helpful. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 5 I want to… did we did not discuss this, but I would like to invite Commissioner Rosenblum to sort of kick things 1 off because you weren't at our last meeting. And where we discussed L-1 through 4 and I was going to 2 suggest that if you wanted to discuss L-1 through 4 and L-5 through… and the remaining number of Land Use 3 sections I was going to suggest maybe you kick us off because you haven't really had a chance to comment on 4 those at all. Are you comfortable with that or? Ok. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Chair? 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yes. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: [Unintelligible] I have a I think that's fine because he didn't have the opportunity last 11 time, but I have a more general process question for that will impact the rest of the evening so (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t you go? 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: After he, after he gives his comments. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 6 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. So we’ll go Commissioner Rosenblum and then I'll look to you. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 4 5 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so actually I'm not going to revisit I went through the table and my 6 understanding right now this is just a list of things that we found worth discussing and then a note if everyone 7 on the dais was in agreement on a resolution on this area or the importance of the statement. And so I'd say 8 that this is a superset of things that I am interested in. It captures everything I'm interested in. There I 9 might have voted one way or another on these individual items, but I think at this point we're past that in the 10 process and so I would I’d prefer to move on. I don't have any additions to this list and I don't think that 11 comments on the list will be valuable at this stage. I can write a letter around each one of these in the 12 interest of time just to document my feelings rather than do it in stream of consciousness form right now. 13 14 Moving on though to what we were asked to look at for this meeting as the second part. So I think our goal I 15 think we started from Goal 4.6 to 4.8 so not just L-5, but I think that our instructions were to start from L-4.6. 16 Is that right? 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 7 1 Chair Alcheck: I was going to say [unintelligible-several people speak at once] 2 3 Ms. Costello: Feel free because you weren’t here, but we actually did talk about Goal 4 last time. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: And just so you know everybody’s welcome to discuss L-1 through 4 also if their [unintelligible] 6 so it’s sort of open. 7 8 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, yeah. So I did start with L-4.6 which is [unintelligible] with commercial 9 centers. I feel like L-4.6.1 the coordinated area plan for Downtown is giant and I had a question about this 10 first. Have we had a call for a coordinated area plan in previous Comp Plans to say that this is a program that 11 we're going to undertake? Because that as a process is a Program L-4.6.1 says prepare a coordinated area 12 plan for Downtown, previous Program L-22 now 60. 13 14 Ms. Costello: I think that was in the previous Comp Plan actually, but I'm not entirely sure. We'd have to 15 look that up. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 8 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah and so my… I'm pretty sure it was in the previous Comp Plan which is why it 2 makes that previous reference. It's a very specific thing and the previous Comp Plan has been with us now 3 for a long time and so this program I would highlight to the extent that we're putting our asterisk next to 4 things that we're strongly in support of. I'm strongly in support that our Downtown needs a coordinated 5 area plan. I’m disappointed that this was in the previous plan and just it's never happened. So I hope at 6 the end this Comp Plan process staff is going to prepare a list of prioritized items say so next we're actually 7 going to implement some of these things. I'm this program is towards the top of my list. I would like 8 specific language inserted to consider a pedestrianized plan for at least a section of University Ave. It 9 already makes reference to use public art, trees, bicycle racks, other amenities to create an environment that 10 is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists and so in keeping with that language I would ask to insert a clause to 11 consider a pedestrianization plan. 12 13 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Can we just clarify what you mean by pedestrianization? 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. So there's already language in Policy L-4.6 that gives some guidance 16 around what the Comp Plan is looking to see from University Ave. and then as a sub point a coordinated area 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 9 plan and so it specifically calls out public art, trees, bicycle racks, amenities. And I'm saying as part of this 1 laundry list of things that you’re asking the group of people to take on I'm asking for a study of a 2 pedestrianized zone as part of our Downtown coordinated area plan. 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: [Unintelligible – off mike] 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: A street segment into a pedestrianized zone as part of their study. Next is Policy 7 L-4.7. I had a question on this; what is the rationale for adding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to retail at Stanford 8 Shopping Center and what public interests do we think this serves? 9 10 Ms. Costello: This was a Council change to add the FAR. It's a new program and they want to… it came out of 11 as I recall an interest in just creating flexibility for additional retail at Stanford Shopping Center. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Just to go on the record this seems like an odd item for our Comprehensive 14 Plan so again our Comprehensive Plan [unintelligible] that really key items for Palo Alto and increasing FAR of 15 retail at Stanford Shopping when you know retail in general like throughout the region is in peril. The 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 10 problem is not having more space. So it just seems like an odd item to add. I just don't see how it's in the 1 public interest of Palo Alto necessarily to increase FAR at Stanford Shopping specifically for retail. I would 2 understand other things though so was there a discussion at the CAC to explore housing opportunities at 3 Stanford Shopping Center and Town & Country Village which is in the section? And would that be added if 4 there was any consensus would that have been added to this section? 5 6 Ms. Costello: I'm sorry. There is language about housing at Stanford Shopping Center being looked at. I’d 7 have to quickly look up which policy number it is and there was specific language about not having housing at 8 Town & Country are both in this element. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 11 12 Woman [No name given]: Did, would you like the policy number, Elaine? 13 14 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, please. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 11 Woman: If you look at Program L-2.4.2. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 3 4 Woman: That talks about allowing housing on the El Camino Real frontage of both the SRP and at Stanford 5 Shopping Center. 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, ok so it’s covered in a different section. Under L-4.7 I would add promote 8 shuttle use. Currently you are stating promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new 9 development at the center to occur through infill. I think that pedestrian use to Stanford Shopping Center is 10 actually quite difficult. It's surrounded by a giant parking lot and I live about as close as you can, it's not a 11 very… it's not encouraging of pedestrian and I don’t even know how they would do that, but they certainly can 12 increase frequency of shuttle. They can make this a much more accessible place for people that don't want 13 to drive a car, but it is it has been built really with the car in mind. And I think that the halfway point is to 14 increase their investment shuttle, but there's no mention of shuttle here. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 12 Next Policy L-4.13 I think it's El Camino Real. So given the (interrupted) good? Ok. So two things, given 1 that El Camino Real has been densifying there's been some major housing developments that have gone in 2 since the last plan and a number of housing sites were identified in the Housing Element along El Camino. 3 Then I think this needs to get tied to a Transportation goal and so I'm not sure again whether I'm not cross 4 referencing the right goal that has this already included. So is there a goal to improve shuttle connectivity to 5 Caltrain commercial centers from the El Camino Real commercial corridors? It’s not included in this and so 6 I'm asking if that's already included elsewhere because if it's not I think that needs to be included in this 7 section around the El Camino Real commercial corridors. 8 9 Ms. Costello: It what there are a number of policies on shuttles that do… would be interpreted as that and 10 there is really good bus service along the El Camino Real, but let us take a look at that. I don't think it's 11 specifically mentioned as El Camino to Caltrain is not in there already. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I'll give… I often think it's useful just to speak directly about what I'm concerned 14 about and then see if the policies address this sort of thing. So there was a big discussion here on Monday 15 night around a proposed low income housing development and their objections to that level of density for this 16 housing development that not only is it too tall and therefore out of compliance and out of neighborhood 17 character their concerns about the transportation infrastructure support a building of that density. I believe 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 13 that El Camino may be a great place for denser developments particular of housing and so if there is a 1 community concern around transportation linkages then we should invest in transportation along El Camino 2 Real. I would also put here and I don't know if that belongs here that El Camino Real we should also look at 3 changing the height restrictions. So if the restriction on for that site El Camino Real is 35 feet it seems like a 4 good candidate to go along with the rest of the City or they go along with city denser commercial centers of 5 50 feet. So that would translate into a clause saying consider increasing height limit in El Camino Real 6 commercial centers to 50 feet. And I would like to invest in transportation infrastructure for those, but if it's 7 covered somewhere else then I understand that. But if it's not I would like that to be included. 8 9 Alright, so now and Chair cut me off if this is a crazy process for me just to go point by point because it could 10 be… So let me know if this is what you had in mind. Ok, with that then we’re at the Goal L-5. So this is 11 foster compact employment districts developed in a way that facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel, 12 provide mixed-use. So two things, one I've put on on several occasions that at for example the Our Palo A 13 Summit that there was a lot of interest in emphasizing offsets and Transportation Demand Management 14 (TDM) plans for building projects so I would like to see as part of this policy that we have language around the 15 preferred method for reducing auto trips. Here we specifically say mixed-use. I would also like to say 16 emphasis on project TDM policies to reduce reliance on auto trips. 17 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 14 I also have a question about this section. Should this be connected to the TMA in any way? So this is 1 talking about an employment district. It talks about reducing auto trips through mixed-use, but doesn't talk 2 at all about our nascent Transportation Management Association (TMA) and kind of citywide TDM planning. 3 And I'm wondering if that's intentional or if it's because we talk about the TMA elsewhere that it just doesn't 4 apply here. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think we deal with that TMA subject really up at the beginning of the Transportation 7 Element. I think it's in T-1. So it's dealt with there in a couple different policies and programs. So we 8 didn't feel like we needed to repeat it here. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I would note then that given that this is such a lightweight section for such a 11 weighty topic that since there is language here to say how we’re reducing the number of auto trips and it only 12 talks about mixed-use to me that's almost the weakest, It's one of the weaker things that we're doing versus 13 what the TMA could be. So if we are going to put in language around how we're going to address reliance on 14 auto than I would lead with our stronger things and that therefore like the future generation that reads this 15 when they try to compare the policy goal versus what is being developed would say, oh yeah, the Council 16 when they approved this really intended for TDM measures to be a primary tool in reducing auto reliance. 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 15 1 From here on in I'm pretty fast. I have fewer things. So Goal L-6 will design buildings, etcetera. I have a 2 question on Policy L-6.5, guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public 3 streets and developed portions of the City. Is this goal ever enforced? And I had a question about this 4 when I was applying to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) because I read this in the previous plan 5 and I just don't really understand it. So if I look up and down University Ave. which is looking straight to the 6 foothills, it’s one of our wider streets, you can't see the foothills from any point. And I went on Google Earth 7 to confirm, click, click, click all the way down to Alma to the train station and then finally on the train platform 8 I can see the foothills. So I have a question, is this ever used or…? Because my concern is that we have a 9 clause here that is just used to block things, but we don't really intend to honor this in any way. So has this 10 ever come up at Council where they say oh, this is a violation of our Comp Plan Policy L-6.5 where a view of 11 the foothills would be impaired based on this? 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: Well this policy seems to apply to views from public streets. So the only thing it would really 14 discourage would be like pedestrian overpasses and things that would block a view up an important view 15 corridor along a street or that's the way I read this. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, so I read it, it says guide development to respect views of the foothills and East 1 Bay hills from public streets. So it’s specifically that if something were to block your view of the hills from a 2 public street that that would be disallowed I would think. That that would be the intention of this? I’m just 3 not sure if this ever comes up and again if it's within our Comp Plan I (interrupted) 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. I know. You're making a good point that we could clarify what the reading that I just 6 articulated that it's really meant to be talking about the view shed up a street. 7 8 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Not from a street across private property to the hills. It's a view shed up a public street, but 11 we can take your point. Thank you. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. So those are all my comments and most of them are around L-4.6 to 4.8 and 14 then L-5, but thank you and that's my list. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I have only one light. I encourage Commissioners to raise lights if they want to speak and I 1 have Commissioner Lauing teed off. Go ahead. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thank you. So we've had I think it was four/five meetings now and one or two 4 more and my concern is I've gone through these things and one meeting I had to miss because of travel is 5 where we are is I don't think getting us to the goal line that we kind of signed up for. And because our 6 assignment from Council is to do a high level review of the draft and to advise on any specific policy changes 7 that we thought should be added or in some cases they even said if we missed something kind of let us know. 8 But the last few meetings have been a process just like Eric did down the line and tally them up. And so the 9 outcomes that we've had so far first of all we're all coming up to speed on the learning curve of the new draft 10 Comp Plan definitely check that box and quite valid, but the other one is we already talked about it a couple 11 times tonight is that we kind of come up with a very detailed list of comments that doesn't seem like there's 12 any sort of transportation vehicle to stay with our theme to get all these random comments from five to seven 13 Commissioners who are at a meeting into a new draft or in a malleable way that Council can take incremental 14 action on them. 15 16 I mean your assignment is not to incorporate all of our assignments and give them a new draft, your 17 assignment is to come back and give them the draft with whatever report we choose to give or none as the 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 18 law states. So now that we're through all this and then we have this issue of what's consensus or not and to 1 quote Commissioner Gardias from the last meeting there we can't know if there's any consensus and it looks 2 like there probably isn't which is as you just said which could be fine, but until we sit down and actually have 3 an interactive discussion on a specific policy or debate on it that it should be changed in such and such a way 4 then we aren't going to be able to have consensus on anything. 5 6 And then the third thing is that one of the things that we have not done of course is read any sort of prior 7 version or a list of stuff that has been edited out. So we're missing other data unless people just have 8 knowledge of it and want to put it back in. So I'm just concerned that our whole overall assignment here 9 which is to give this high level review actually hasn’t even started and we're already kind of running out of 10 time. I don't feel like the deliverable needs to be a list of comments from five to seven Commissioners or 11 that the deliverable should be a list of consensus items as determined by counting who probably commented 12 on it and you guys are doing the best you can do to weed out all those comments. 13 14 So I would suggest that we change the process in the time that we have left and instead of go up and down 15 like this now that we have finished all of the Land Use Elements as of tonight and the Transportation Elements 16 that we actually put a process in place to get some policy review done. And in our limited time I think 17 there's some constraints on that, but the structure that I would suggest as a process because we are at the 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 19 end of the first kind of review of all those which is in that sense good timing is that each of us kind of identify a 1 few selected areas that you'd like to have us all debate for maybe selective change and then if that's a 2 hundred items we're going to have to talk about which ones we think from that big list have to go down to a 3 manageable number whatever that is, 20 or something and then we pick those up and we debate them. 4 And then at the end of that we take a vote because then that's very clear whatever the vote is and if they're 5 and it doesn't matter what the vote is because at least those if it's 10 or 15 are going to get visibility from 6 Council on the things that we deemed as being pretty important items to surface to their level and actionable 7 for their own debate as opposed to trying to just take all these comments and get them in some format. 8 9 I mean the timing of your comments Eric was terrific because you made a number of very constructive 10 comments and you were essentially suggesting changes in this draft to 5 to 10 I didn't count them, but 5 to 10 11 different policies. It's going to go nowhere besides the comments because there's no way to incorporate 12 that. There's no transportation vehicle to get that into a new draft. Council isn't going to sit down for 13 another six months and try to process this stuff. So that's where I'm suggesting is we come up with things 14 that we think are important, figure out a way with the limited time that's left to focus on a few critical ones 15 that we want to debate, and then give them our full view. So if that means more meetings let's take a look 16 at that. If it means trying to reconstruct ad hocks, I don't have any perspective on that, but I just feel like it 17 would be best to try to come up with something that would be actionable or policy oriented from us for them 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 20 to debate. I’ll pause there. I did I have a suggested example of L-1 just to point out, but it would be 1 something like what you just said for such and such a L-1 [for or 4] what if we just did this kind of shift of 2 priorities and what I'm saying in that regard is that it doesn't have to for every page or policy take months. It 3 can't. So I'll pause there. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Thank you actually for this comment. I would like to hear from other Commissioners on that. 6 Does, do you, does staff want to respond to any of this or do you want to hear from other Commissioners 7 first? 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Well I think we're just available to help you any way we can. I think if you wanted us to for 10 example take the areas where we have identified consensus and try and turn that into a series of 11 recommendations that you could review and refine we and then add to we'd be happy to do that, but you 12 should tell us how we can assist you. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Let me do this, I would like to hear what other Commissioners think about I see all my lights up 15 now about that comment, but before we do that I guess just so that at least I can understand what you are 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 21 seeing what is your perspective on the value we've created so far? What do you think we have generated so 1 far that could be communicated? I mean do you think that… how do you see this process ending? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: Well I'll defer to Elaine in a second, but I guess from my perspective this is as Commissioner 4 Lauing indicated it's a first step. I mean you've all articulated ideas that you have regarding the draft in front 5 of you. I think it's telling that there are only eight areas where we've identified consensus so far and some 6 additional effort by the Commission working together to identify some more areas and to develop real 7 recommendation language around the eight areas where you that you've already identified that would be 8 time well spent and we do have the time. We have three more meetings before the end of September. 9 Oh, two more meetings before the end of September and I think not a lot of other items on those agendas if 10 I'm not mistaken. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I didn't… I think I have Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel I don’t Commissioners 13 Summa and Commissioner Rosenblum, so why don’t we go in that order? 14 15 Commissioner Summa: So I appreciate the comments of Commissioner Lauing. Did I do something wrong? 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 22 Chair Alcheck: No, you didn't. I maybe I wasn’t clear. I had Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel first 1 then Commissioner Summa then (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Summa: Oh, I didn’t hear you. Sorry. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: That’s ok and then Commissioner Rosenblum. So it’s just you’re going to be next. Just one 6 second. Go ahead, please. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: It's ok, it wasn't the first time and it won’t be the last. So I think I'd like to echo and 9 reinforce what Commissioner Lauing is saying and I think I have a suggestion on something we might consider 10 because we've gone through a long, let’s just call it a laundry list of items, but what we haven't really 11 discussed is how to prioritize goals in the plan. I mean I think that as I've spent time, more time looking at 12 the plan and listening to the discussion what I've observed is that there are a lot of goals here, but there's no 13 prioritization between the goals. And I think that is a root cause of some disquiet that some of us feel. 14 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 23 I mean just to give a couple of examples on prioritization I mean I think that we should prioritize strong 1 neighborhoods with family services as a very important Palo Alto value. That I think that that's I think it's 2 captured in Goal L3, but we never say that this is a goal that takes precedence over other goals in the plan. 3 Something that we really haven't said clearly is in order to do that we need to ensure that commercial districts 4 have economically viable spaces for a full spectrum of neighborhood services. I mean we’ve recently seen a 5 series of issues about community services girls’ music schools that can't find spaces in the traditional 6 commercial districts because they've been priced out by other uses. So I think we somehow need to capture 7 that our commercial districts need to have spaces that can support a full spectrum of uses whether it's that or 8 whether it's therapists or ground for retail is a great start, but it's certainly not a complete list of services. 9 10 I mean another distinction that we really have lost I was comparing our current plan to the new proposed plan 11 and we've actually lost the definitions of employment districts versus commercial districts in the Land Use. 12 The old plan or I should say… I keep saying old plan, but I mean the current plan actually captures 13 employment districts on the map, on the L-5 map. The L-6 map in this proposed plan doesn't show 14 employment districts versus commercial districts. We've lost those definitions. It's somewhat captured in 15 the Transportation Elements, but in the transportation maps, but the L-5, the L-6 land use map has lost this 16 nomenclature completely. And so we've sort of lost this sense that I mean we had a strong definition that 17 the employment districts were the Research Park, Bayshore, San Antonio, and the medical center and that's 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 24 not shown on the current L-6 land use map. And so I think that's a really important distinction. And I can 1 go on with examples with examples of this, but I think that we need to set some priorities about what our 2 vision of the City is and whether this is properly capturing that 2030 vision. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Are you going to respond to Commissioner Lauing? Ok, please do. Go ahead. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: Ok, so I just wanted to thank Commissioner Lauing for bringing this up and to be 7 honest I don't think there's any value in giving a short list it's actually six consensus items of Land Use to I 8 don't think it's rich enough information to share with the Council. I think the Council might be more 9 interested in minority and majority positions. That being said I do think minority positions should be 10 represented of course as well. And I would say that I was giving this a go the process, but actually when we 11 voted just to look at Transportation and Land Use I fully anticipated and I believe Commissioner Lauing did 12 that we would have full meetings that were just going to go through these two vital elements so that we could 13 go down the line and really discuss it amongst ourselves. And I and what we've had are really packed 14 agenda with fully packed agendas with very little time to do that. So for me it was a little bit frustrating. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 25 So and that being said I and it's funny because I worked with this. I was on the subcommittee, but parts of it 1 are not very recognizable to me especially the inclusion in the definitions… let me find it. Of regional 2 commercial centers including… wait let me find it. Including basically software as an allowable use which 3 and it calls out Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and Town & Country. Downtown is it's is CD zoned. 4 The shopping center and Town & Country are CC zoned. I don't know when that language came in as an 5 allowable use in those areas and I think it will further aggravate the problem that Commissioner [Note 6 Vice-Chair] Waldfogel brings up, but we're not having we're not being able to provide rich retail and service to 7 residents as we would like them to do walkable or bikeable or short car trip because those kinds of tenants 8 are basically being priced out by large global companies or large software companies. So I would like to see, 9 I would like to have a discussion on some of these larger issues and I'm sorry that I don't feel particularly 10 positive about the consensus list. It just doesn't seem to give rich enough information to Council. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I have Commissioner Rosenblum and then Commissioner Monk, Commissioner Gardias. 13 14 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I don't think this is a great process, but I also don't think that any other process 15 would result in a lot of happiness to be blunt. I think that there each one of these issues we specifically tried 16 to pare down to issues where the CAC itself often had difficult resolutions to reach and I think among us we 17 clearly all come from different points of view, different backgrounds and that's why so few items achieve 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 26 consensus. So if I'm sitting on Council what would be valuable to me having known that I'm at the end of a 1 multi-year process with a citizen’s stakeholder group that's already drafted a large document and what I want 2 is the PTC I think to go through and see if there are any notable omissions, mistakes or things that I need to 3 highlight. Now I’m going to get a laundry list and a laundry list may not be that user friendly; however, I can 4 go down and say yeah agree with this, yeah that's a good point I should check the transcript on that one to 5 see what they were talking about. They may or may not agree with many things on the list, but what they 6 know is that a group of well-meaning citizens that spend a lot of time in planning meetings went through the 7 final document and came up with everything we could come up with that seemed to be important and of 8 which only a few did we all agree on. And so I think that will be the final thing that they’ll get. 9 10 I don't think they ever would have an expectation that we would either rewrite or come up with new sections 11 or a new paradigm or what do we does the PTC think the City should look like. I think that was entrusted to 12 the CAC to give their best work as a citizen stakeholder group. And so even though I don't find this process 13 particularly satisfying I do think that they'll at the end get what was probably the intention of having us at the 14 very end which is as a quality check at the end. Was there something that was a glaring omission? Is there 15 something that we really want to emphasize? So yeah, that was at least the spirit that I went through all the 16 items to try to find things, huh? What would this mean? Did they leave something out? Is there cross 17 reference that… is this captured somewhere else? And so to me I took my job as being that, it's the last step 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 27 before it goes out the door. Is there anything I want the people who finally put the stamp on it to pay 1 attention to? 2 3 So my personal I think in all processes making a change a process midstream is always hugely… it's disruptive. 4 It's hard to get going again and like do something else. And so I think you only do it when something is like 5 clearly failing and then you need to have the flexibility to jump. I would say this is producing a result that is 6 quite useful for Council and I’m not convinced that a different approach would have a better result. And so I 7 would say complete the task. We’re part way down and I would push the end knowing that what they'll get 8 is a list that is not super user friendly, but will be the comprehensive list of things that we thought should be 9 highlighted for concern. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Monk, Commissioner Gardias. 12 13 Commissioner Monk: Welcome back Commissioner Rosenblum. We've missed you, at least I have. I do 14 appreciate what both Commissioner Lauing stated earlier and I think ultimately it is a convoluted process and I 15 think we did the best that we could have done so far. If there's something more tangible to redirect at this 16 juncture I'm certainly open to it, but for now I would just echo what Commissioner Rosenblum has assessed as 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 28 to what we've ultimately produced so far which is a list that highlights our concerns. Moving on from there 1 or if I can on the Goals L-5 through L-10 are we going to be going over our individual comments on those 2 tonight? Should I do that now? 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Why don't we, why don’t just hold for one second. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: Ok in that regard I just want to also mention that listening to Commissioner 7 Rosenblum’s comments on this element I do agree with what he had asserted earlier. So if that would help 8 with providing consensus I just want to weigh in on that. Much of what he said I also did reference myself in 9 session and that's been captured in the prior transcript as well. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’m happy to come back if you want to make some comments on L-5 through 10 on the 12 assumption that Commissioner Gardias I want to turn to you if you have a response specifically to the topic 13 that Commissioner Lauing brought up and then once we're sort of done with this side discussion then we can 14 go back to making comments on L-5 through 10 if that's ok with you. And I’ll and whoever lights my board 15 up I will start on that after Commissioner Monk has her opportunity. Ok, so please Commissioner Gardias. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 29 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So my position has always been clear. I always have seen this 1 Commission as a center of excellence and many years that we spend here on this Commission and time [that 2 really] dictate I believe that we are at least at par or maybe even higher that CAC group and the comments 3 that I heard from my colleagues are very professional and I believe that material that we will provide to the 4 Council will be very valuable. What will what the Council will decide to do with this it's a different story, but 5 I think that we should continue and we should allow ourselves to polish this list of findings and maybe even as 6 Commissioner Summa suggested maybe even include some minority comments just out of the respect to 7 professionality of those comments. I think that all of those were very valuable. 8 9 A couple of other items so there is a Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel mentioned values and I totally 10 agree with him that probably there should be some alignment with some values that we should maybe put in 11 writing or recognize, but when he was talking about this it just stroke some note that came to my mind when 12 we were just talking about the transportation at the beginning. I came to the conclusion and I thought I had 13 this thought at the beginning that there is a wrong emphasis in number of areas and then alignment with 14 some higher values is important as well, but then we just we've neglected Transportation because there was a 15 comment at the beginning that this element is straightforward and that the biggest problem is with the Land 16 Use. I have totally opposite thinking. I believe that the problem is with the Transportation not with the 17 Land Use and yet we just went through the Transportation very quickly and I think that had the 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 30 Transportation the quality and throughput increased as it should have been throughout all these years then 1 many some maybe problems with the traffic and some other would not be a big issue. 2 3 This is a country of the mobility and yet within the Bay Area this mobility becomes very constricted and giving 4 the high tech industry that is very mobile it's high good quality of Transportation should be the key. I think 5 that maybe we are doing this and we are maybe neglecting Transportation Element because we may be 6 coming to the conclusion we could that we cannot move the needle which I don't disagree with such a 7 perception if that's truly the basis of neglecting this element. So I just wanted to make a comment that I 8 believe that Transportation should be reviewed by us with the same degree as we reviewed the Land Use. 9 10 And then also some other comment very briefly. There is number of the new policies that we never covered 11 them, but Eric just gave an example of one of those that he didn't understand the purpose. And I went 12 through many of the others especially new that were added by CAC group and they didn't make much of the 13 sense from the perspective of the of the town planning. And I totally respect some groups that want to have 14 their voice and for example there is a policy about the bird friendly design which of course a request of those 15 citizens should be respected in terms of the architecture that [unintelligible] protection should be of course 16 always addressed, but I don't believe that it should be a policy. And I don't believe also that there should be 17 policy on many other items that I believe that would constrict us from just allowing this town to grow 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 31 organically. So if there is an opportunity I would recommend also to review this document and then identify 1 those policies that mean nothing or would just trigger some expenditure on unnecessary items and it would 2 distract us from the important items like housing, retail or transportation. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I'm going to weigh in here. I'm a firm believer in the notion that perfect is 5 the enemy of good. And I want to and what I'm hearing right now is I have three I’ll say Commissioner 6 Lauing, Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel, and Commissioner Summa are a little unsatisfied with the 7 approach and they're and they see fit to potentially change direction and then I hear from Commissioner 8 Rosenblum and Monk and Gardias that they want to continue with this approach with the added caveat that 9 Commissioner Gardias would like to see us incorporate some minority view points in our conclusions. So I 10 will say this in response I agree that the process is an inherently unsatisfying process and the greatest 11 evidence that I can put forward to suggest that there is so little we can do to make it more satisfying is that 12 our very own Commissioner Summa who has had the equivalent of like what, two years of exposure to this 13 document doesn't even recognize it in some respects, right? And I don't mean to misquote you, but the 14 document does not reflect her overwhelming perspective and she's had so much time to work with it. And 15 my point there is that it is inevitably a document of conflict. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 32 I think during our pre-Commission meeting we acknowledged that the first page… what does it say on the first 1 page? What was that we had a comment on at our pre-Commission meeting how… can someone remind me 2 just so I don't paraphrase it wrong? 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. The vision statement really talks about how we don't have one perspective we have 5 many perspectives on what (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Right. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Palo Alto is. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: It's a con… it’s a, this is a document that needs to come together at the City Council level that 12 incorporates a lot of conflicting perspectives. While Commissioner Rosenblum was talking about this 13 laundry list I thought to myself about the sort of global laundry list I keep in my house of things I still need to 14 do that grows every week. And while its sort of length is daunting the relevance of the sort of items is isn’t 15 diminished. And one of the questions I really had was if a City Council Member came upon the laundry list is 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 33 there a way and this might be beyond our technological means, but is there a way for them to get to the 1 relevant discussion? So if they go through the laundry list and they find an item [that particular] relevant 2 and they want to hear what we were talking about at that given time I wonder if they'll be able to get to it 3 easily. I don't know. I don't need an answer right now, but I would support that we continue this process 4 of creating our list or laundry list however unsatisfying it is. 5 6 And I would even suggest further that at the conclusion of this discussion that we just had I don't know that 7 we need to determine consensus. I think that the City Council Members will approach this from their 8 perspectives and I think when they look at our laundry list of comments they will find strength for some of 9 their own perspectives in things they see in the laundry list and they may go to the comments and discussions 10 that we had related to those items in their effort to make their case at the Council level for how they want 11 staff to edit the document. But I can't predict what they're going to do, but I do think that there would there 12 will be value in… Look, particularly in an item let me give you an example alright? We have an item in our 13 table that says and I’ll use this as just an example so that the office and Research and Development (R&D) 14 actual limit should be below 50,000 square feet possibly as low as 0. That is a comment that was made it 15 doesn't have consensus. I know that we don't all feel that way and I'm sure that Council has a different 16 opinion; each member may have a different opinion on that topic. 17 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 34 So what relevance does that have? Well maybe it doesn't to some of the Council Members and maybe it 1 does to others. And maybe if they can hear our discussion it may affect their final decision. So if for 2 example there's a way for them to maybe they'll use find, the find function in the .pdf application when 3 they're looking at the minutes, I don't know, to sort of see all the times we've talked about the office cap and 4 then try to see what Commissioners are saying about it. I don't know. It's a lot of work for them to get 5 through our discussion and it's unsatisfying that we can't produce such an efficient result or maybe that the 6 technology doesn't support a super-efficient result. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: Can I ask a question? 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, so but I would suggest that I'm happy to let Commissioners light up the board and keep 11 talking about it, but I also want to encourage any Commissioners that would like to make comments on the 12 Land Use Element to do so. We have an opportunity right now to make some more comments and to add to 13 the laundry list and we can continue the discussion about how to put this in a conclusion as well, but I don't 14 want anybody to sort of forego that opportunity tonight if they have comments. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: I agree we should do both. Can I just clarify some of the? 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 35 1 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. Why don't we this Commissioner Lauing and then I see Commissioner Monk’s light who 2 also has comments for tonight. So I encourage you to do both and then anybody else would like to talk can 3 light up their board. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, if taking Commissioner Rosenblum’s comment that we should complete the task 6 well the task to date has been as Director Gitelman said to go through this the first time and give all of our 7 comments. So if we're going to complete the task then we're basically done tonight because we've done 8 that, but I don't think there's anything actionable in a list of random comments with or without consensus. 9 And frankly out of respect for the time for City Council Members for them to kind of dig all through that I just 10 don't think that's realistic. And I also feel that I don't feel that… let’s see, I don't remember the word you 11 used Commissioner Rosenblum, but that it would be unfriendly or something. I think that there would be 12 some changes to policies that would be 7-0. I actually do. Some of this stuff is just sort of positioning. 13 14 I mean the example that I had is that in L-1 I just had concerns that the goal doesn't call actually for diversity 15 in demographic groups in the City which we are calling for in other areas so there's no question, that’s not a 16 debate. It just doesn't say it. It doesn't say that neighborhoods are prioritized as most important. It's a 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 36 neighborhood city. I don't think that's going to be totally radical. I don't know if seven people are going to 1 agree with that, but and then we talk about doing Below Market Rate (BMR) in a real proactive way including 2 Monday night in right here, but we're not saying that in the level of commitment to BMR this quantifying it 3 and saying we're going to get behind this, we're going to get it done and it's already happening. So it's just in 4 this case I picked L-1 just because it was L-1 and looked at it and just my own concerns I think are almost 5 obvious perhaps with the exception of something of identifying, sorry, prioritizing neighborhoods which I 6 guess to quote you is a value, a Palo Alto value. 7 8 So I just don't think that we have anything to send across besides this list and that that's not enough content 9 relative to our assignment because I don't think we've gone through here and debated anything to even see if 10 they have missed something. We say hey, you really should put this in because they've asked for that. So I 11 also think the we cannot go through this plan. We cannot spend six months on this. We can't come up 12 with everything. The item that you just raised Chair Alcheck I don't think my personal opinion is we 13 shouldn’t even address that, but there might be 10, 5 items that we think that are worthy of debate over the 14 next couple of meetings that we want to talk about, have a debate, and decide and we don't even have to 15 vote on them if you don't want to, but at least we could have a serious debate on a few items so that there's 16 something of content that we can send across. 17 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 37 Chair Alcheck: Do you care to respond Commissioner Rosenblum? 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, just briefly I’m also cognizant of the time. Just on a personal note I do 4:00 3 a.m. rowing practice after these and so I always get a little bit worried, but the… I think we need divide this 4 process hopefully into two parts, so part one is what we're doing. I do think we should complete this task 5 and the task as you've mentioned if we do our job we could maybe be done with the first round of this 6 tonight. Now whether or not a laundry list is useful for Council this is a multi-hundred page document that 7 they're wrestling with that will then be condensed to 10 pages of items that the seven of us thought should be 8 looked at. And some of them are in mutual conflict with each other, but if I’m a Council Member I now have 9 a cheat sheet to everything that we thought should either be emphasized, eliminated, changed, etcetera. 10 And I agree with the Chair; they come to this with their own views and when they look and see ah, yes I agree 11 with this or this I disagree with, I wonder who said that? They can go through the transcript and figure out 12 what the discussion was, what the reason was, and for God's sakes to even pick up a phone and call one of us. 13 Say why did you strongly object to this? I think that's useful. 14 15 Now if we do have several days left for this and we finish the first round I would be really happy for our Chair 16 and Vice-Chair for example to pound out a list of say five or six really critical items and have a format of like 17 Oxford Union where we just debate these and see if we can come out with a consensus that is more robust 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 38 that we can pass on. Say these were the four or five things we really thought were important so we spent 1 extra time in more of a free forum to come out with our recommendation, even if we can't come with 2 consensus here was the majority opinion, here was the minority opinion on these issues. I think that would 3 be a great use of time. I'm just always loath to kind of jettison something partway through even given that 4 the thing I do think that when they get our result they will appreciate condensing of hundreds of pages down 5 into a smaller list. And then I agree if we had even more time to give some measured opinions on the key 6 items that would be even better. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Monk. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: I agree that it's not really fair or reasonable to send this list in this format to Council and 11 then expect them to figure out where it was mentioned and who discussed what elements of it. And I'm not 12 really understanding why we're reticent to just do some homework and submit whether or not we 13 independently agree or disagree with these comments. Is there a reason why we can't just agree to go 14 home and I personally would like to say yes or no to these and put my initials and just have staff put that all 15 together or do it in a Google Doc, I don't know. I don’t know why there’s a (interrupted) 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 39 Chair Alcheck: Hold on, let me ask a quick question to staff. Is there… that's a really interesting idea. Is 1 there any issue if assuming we have let's say you provide us with the packet at the next meeting which 2 includes the full table. We couldn't respond prior to that meeting with our own views on each one of the 3 table items so that when we… I don't know if you'd have time to collate it. That's the only question I have. 4 Maybe if we did it in anticipation of the next meeting on the table that we have that could provide some 5 guidance because the number of items that have been added tonight is pretty minimal. 6 7 Albert Yang, Senior Deputy City Attorney: As long as your comments are all sent directly to staff and there's no 8 conversation among the Commissioners there is no Brown Act issue. It is more of a question of do we have 9 the staff resources to compile and present it… will it be at the next meeting or the one after that. 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: I'll just remind you that when we first started this exercise we were thinking of potentially 12 taking straw votes. I mean we could even really just do this in twenty minutes go down this whole list and 13 (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Which we could do at the next meeting. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 40 Commissioner Monk: If we do that I agree it could be done very quickly as long as there isn't commentary and 1 discussion and it's a just a way for you to capture who's supporting it. And if we agree to the format I think 2 that is something that we could consider just nailing out right here right now if people want to do that. 3 Absent that I would recommend that we each go home and do it, but then that does require additional 4 resources on your end to collate it. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: I mean we could happily do the collation if the City Attorney’s comfortable with us handling it 7 that way. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Yeah so I think I like these suggestions. I think at the very least in anticipation of our next 10 meeting Commissioners should go through the table and make a star next to the things that they feel like they 11 could stand behind. And if I think we can explore a way of reaching out and maybe we can get back in touch 12 with the Commission and figure out what would what kind of limitations there are, but at the very least if at 13 our next meeting after you get your packet which would include the table if you made a notation on each of 14 these boxes, you don't have to do it on each of them, only the ones that you find compelling to your own view 15 and then at the meeting we could do sort of a staff directed we could walk down each one and say… or you 16 could hand them in at the next meeting. That could also work. 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 41 1 So I like this idea. I think it's a good idea that prior to our next meeting people take some time to identify 2 areas where they have consensus especially and I'll tell you why. I really think that the idea of us having a 3 debate could be interesting. For example, if we go through this and we demonstrate 6-2, 6-1, 5-2, even 4-3 4 and then and what we realize is that there are there's four, there's ten topics where we're really close. It’s 5 like 4-3, 3-4, 4-3, 3-4 maybe we choose from that group the items we want to debate. There's no sense in 6 really debating items where we have 6-1 or 7-0 or zero interest. There's like there’s one person that wants 7 to stand behind it and then we don't have to really deal with it. So that it could help us both in our in 8 identifying the areas where we [unintelligible] debate would be beneficial. So I like this idea. I'm happy for 9 you guys to continue talking about it. I do not I want to just reiterate that if you have any comments on L-5 10 and on that you consider making them tonight as well. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: But we need closure on what the process is going forward and I think this should be a 13 decision of the seven of us. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Well, let me put it this way I would entertain if you'd like to make a Motion on changing the 16 program. 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 42 1 Commissioner Lauing: I would like. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: But outside of that Motion passing I would consider that the current plan to be in place. So if 4 you're interested in making a Motion right now to change the process of creating this table I’m happy, I can’t 5 stop you. 6 7 MOTION 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: So the pre… no, that’s right, you can’t. The preamble to my comments is that we are 10 completing the first round of the process tonight in the next couple of hours and we should not change that. 11 We should do exactly what we intended. We should go through here line by line, policy by policy, and give 12 our comments for just our own edification as fellow Commissioners. I don't have any optimism that the 13 document is going to get much attention or should at the Council level because it's not very actionable, but I 14 think we do need of a process going forward that's agreed upon. So I would like to move that we add to the 15 process that we've just completed a debate on selected issues that the Commission, not the Chair and the 16 Vice-Chair, but that the Commission comes up with and agrees to and the reason I had that well, I’ll I won’t let 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 43 me go back and just restate. That we have a additional process that Commissioners identify selected areas 1 that we want to have a debate on, parentheses not a straw poll, and then we can set up additional ground 2 rules around that and at the end of which we can choose to take a vote. And that that substantive debate 3 will lead to a substantive document compared to the current list. So I would look for a second on that. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: So I just want to clarify that I was getting to that when I was first bringing up this 6 concept and then as a first step it was going to be to have us all develop a method of showing consensus to 7 staff that they can capture and then from there identifying those top issues and/or as a part of that saying and 8 not only do I have consensus on this, but put an asterisk on this as one of my priority areas of discussion. So 9 could it be handled within that context? 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Not if it's in the context of sort of a straw vote. My vision was that all of us have areas 12 that we think are for some reason not quite stated even as it's intended, which was the example that I had or 13 areas that we think that we should have seven people debating it and that needs to go through a screening 14 process because we can't do 50 of them in the time allowed. So we have to come up with a few. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: Then I think I'd like to offer a Substitute Motion. 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 44 1 Commissioner Lauing: Why don’t we get debate on this Motion first? We got in trouble the last time with 2 Substitute Motions. 3 4 SECOND [putting here because it must have happened off mike] 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, hold on, hold on. I have a Motion on the floor with a second and I look to staff real quick 7 just to clarify because I was down this road last time and I want to make sure we get it cleaned up this time 8 especially since we had a member of the community who wanted to remind us of that chaos. If I have a 9 member of the Commission wishes to make Substitute Motion what's our protocol? 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Did we get a second on the (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Alcheck: I did actually. Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel seconded the Motion on the table, 14 on the floor. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 45 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: It's legal it’s just complicated. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: I know. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: I mean… 7 8 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So Albert will help me out if I get this wrong, but your rules provide that you 9 can there's a Motion on the floor, there can be a Substitute Motion that reverses the course of action and 10 when that Substitute Motion comes forward that's the Motion that takes precedence in the discussion. So if 11 there is a Substitute Motion a second for that reverses the direction of the main Motion that's the context in 12 which you can have a Substitute Motion. 13 14 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 46 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so let me just clarify. We have a Motion on the floor about our process. It was 1 seconded. It sounded like you were seeking a clarification or potentially amending that Motion related to 2 something (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Monk: Well perhaps Commissioner Lauing can just clarify or shorten the Motion. It was a 5 little bit stream of thought I felt. And then (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Can you read it back? 8 9 Commissioner Monk: I can consider if I want to offer a (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: [Jose] can you read it back? 12 13 Chair Alcheck: I don't know that they were taking notes. So I guess the question is is if we're going to make a 14 if we're going to if you're going to move to have a process I think the more specific you are about exactly what 15 you want would help us. And that goes for you and the seconder of the Motion. It would be helpful if we 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 47 had a specific idea of how you want us to proceed so that we can vote on it and either continue our process or 1 (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, well I did that, but it wasn't written down and I didn't write it down. But I have 4 a note in my computer here. So I'd like to see an additional process for each Commissioner to identify 5 selected areas that he or she feels that we should debate for a possible change. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Leave it there. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: And as you're just… This is would be excluding any straw poll process where we went through 12 and figured out where people stand is that what I’m (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: In my mind it does because (interrupted) 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 48 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: The idea is that the Commissioner would come up with things that they think should be 4 debated. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Would anybody like to… Yeah, I'm happy to let them speak to the Motion. I think 7 they've spoken to it, but they can speak to again and other people can speak to it, offer amendments, 8 whatever you guys would like. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: How do you propose making a list of things that we are to discuss more? 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, that's a process question. One option is to next meeting in the first hour come 13 up with the things that are best and if he comes up with 50 we have to get more selective. 14 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 49 Commissioner Rosenblum: But again if it's the next meeting what is the process in that hour for us to come 1 with a list? So Commissioner Monk had a process which was that we take the lists which were all the things 2 that we discussed and we each put our name next to things we're interested in and then those that have 3 enough interest becomes a starting point for example, you may or may not agree with that that's a process. 4 That would get us to a sub list of things that we can then discuss further. So my issue with your process 5 proposal is I don't understand the process, at least to start with. I don't know how we get that (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: I'm trying to make this inclusive not exclusive which is why I don't think that two 8 Commissioners should make up the list. I think seven should. So another easier way to do it is for 9 everyone to come with up to two ideas that they think should be debated. I don't think we should open this 10 up to the hundreds of pages and we should put all those on the board and try to winnow it down. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, let me just say something (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: I mean Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel mentioned three or four so he would 15 have to be two of those under that process. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 50 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. Let me just say something just so for the sake of clarity here. If all of us do this in a 1 vacuum and we come together and four of us have the same two, it's not likely, but possible then we're only… 2 one of the things that I’m that I think could be helpful is not just knowing the things that are very important to 3 you, but also knowing the things that are that you really think are off the mark. So like for example you may 4 Commissioner Gardias mentioned something about a bird sensitive development and he may want to write, 5 we may want to that may be on the table next week that there is this there was a Commissioner who made a 6 statement saying that they didn't want to they wanted to remove the bird sensitive development policy. It 7 would be helpful to know where everyone stands on some of these things and I know that a straw poll process 8 is lengthy and I would suggest a possible amendment to your Motion which would not only include a little bit 9 more specific about how you want us to come next meeting to make this decision whether it's bringing two 10 items or whether it's each of us writing our name next to the items and the ones that have the most names 11 become the items. 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: There's 5,000 items. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: There's not 5,000 items. 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 51 Commissioner Lauing: There’s 500 items. What (interrupted) 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I don’t I'm not (interrupted) 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Every Commissioner that’s been through this knows that there are some things that 5 they think are just not quite right. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Let me put it to you this way I wouldn't write my name next to 5,000 items. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: True, true. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: I think what I would do is if I was doing this my way I if I were to do this in accordance with 12 what we're talking about I’d probably write my name next to anywhere between 5 and 10 items on this list 13 that I think represent if I had to choose 5 or 10 things that I really want Commission, Council to take away 14 from this I could do that. So I don't suspect that that's going to result in some inordinate number of items; 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 52 however, it could be that each Commissioner have five different ones which would put us in a bind or there 1 could be overlap which is all I'm trying to figure out. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: On figuring out the process this is precisely the conversation we should be having. 4 This is excellent to figure out what's the best way to do it. So if you think that somebody should come in and 5 write down their top 5 to 10, but pick 2 that right now they'd like to talk about that that works too. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, ok. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: I know that this list has to be restricted because our time is restricted. I know that it 10 should be inclusive from all of us and that's what I'm trying to accomplish. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so are you comfortable with moving forward with this Motion of developing a list of items 13 to be discussed in greater specificity and potentially debate involving Commissioners coming to the next 14 meeting with their list of items of greatest significance? Without a limit, just what I mean without a number 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 53 limit. Not two, just come to the meeting with I'm trying to give some I'm trying to give I'm trying to make 1 your Motion actionable. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: So I think the at the Motion as it stands is fine. I'm happy to add a corollary that 4 people can come next time with as many as they want, but I would think that up to two would be kind of the 5 max. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so there's a Motion on the floor about do you have it written now this time? 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: I think the Motion is that the Commission undertake an additional process where each 10 Commissioner identifies areas that the Commission should debate. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: And if we want to add any process to that so that we're clear we can, but I think that 13 it's better to say they can bring any number of that they want. But we should end up with 14. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 54 1 Commissioner Lauing: At the end of the night at a max. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so I'm sorry what was that last comment? 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: If you want to add process to the memo I don't think it's necessary because if we have 6 an understanding it's ok, but we have to limit the number of things that we're going to debate just because of 7 the time constraints. So it doesn't quite matter how many people, how many ideas come in at the top of the 8 funnel, but at the end of the process it has to be a limited number. So if it’s 2 that’s 14. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok. So we have Motion on the floor to come to the next meeting with a list. I actually have 11 a light from Commissioner Gardias. I’ll turn to you and then if there's any other comments and then we can 12 put this to a vote. Commissioner Gardias. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah so I think that I just recognize that there is a need for us to formulate some 15 consensus and I think it's it would be proper for us to identify the main items that we would like to eventually 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 55 change in the Comprehensive Plan. And then it would this narrower selection would allow the Council to 1 take some action. How are we going to get to this list? It's irrelevant to me because I think that we should 2 just we can just do it this way or we can do it some other way. It's mechanics. It’s irrelevant. I believe 3 that whatever process will be proposed will just take us to the solution. I think that we should just identify 4 somehow those areas and then spend and then commit a debate to each [or one of] those topics. 5 6 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 7 8 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I’d like to make a Substitute Motion. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: And I do want to first in making the Substitute Motion I specifically want to 13 address the comments that were just made. This whole discussion which is now gone on for a while is about 14 process; therefore, I do think it's important to be specific if we're going to go through this about the process 15 we're employing to get the result that we think would be good. I'm not satisfied to say if we just all come in 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 56 with as many and we agree that we're just to try to be reasonable and come down to a small list that we’ll end 1 up with a result that we're satisfied with. And so as much as possible If we’re going to spend time doing this 2 I think we should be specific. 3 4 So I would propose my Substitute Motion is that we take a vote on the items in offline fashion as was 5 suggested by Commissioner Monk. Meaning we send in our list. I would propose that each of us gets 10 6 that we get to select and that those that get a plurality so more than two Commissioners are not plurality. 7 Those that get a multiple of Commissioners that are all interested in one become the debate. That we then 8 try to get it down as professor or as Commissioner Lauing mentioned to list, a final list that goes to Council 9 that we have deep debate on of no more than 10, but we start with a list each of us gets 10 chits that we 10 submit. Any item that got more than one person that was interested gets debated and we winnow it down 11 to a group of 10. That's my that's so that's my Substitute Motion as that is the process (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Why don’t you just make that an amendment to my Motion because you're right, 14 you're changing the process not the Motion; that would be a nice friendly way to go. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, if that's how it works. I don't know the I didn't (interrupted) 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 57 1 Commissioner Lauing: You're changing the process from what I suggested and I just suggested it because of 2 comments here. I'm perfectly happy to accept what you said in terms of the process. 3 4 Commissioner Monk: I tried to do that earlier and it wasn't accepted. So that's why I guess (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: I [unintelligible] I just understood what he said. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: Yeah. He’s more articulate than me. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Look, the goal here I think his goal is to be as specific as possible. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I’m agreeing. So I'm saying we don't need a Substitute he can just amend mine 13 on the process. 14 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 58 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, if you're satisfied that I'm just fearful that we show up with all of our ideas and 1 we'd end up again with this giant debate (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, so was I. So I was I. So it’s very compatible. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Ok… 6 7 SUBSTITUTE MOTION NOW FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: So there’s now an amendment. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: May I ask really quickly a question? Would you be comfortable with the staff organizing our 12 communication to them in order of greatest hits or chips, whatever you’re calling it? So then an item that 13 received for example six Commissioners thing that would be at the top of the list and then we could proceed 14 with our debate (interrupted) 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 59 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Starting at the top and if [unintelligible] 4 5 Commissioner Rosenblum: And it ends at two. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Yes. 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, are you comfortable with that? 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 14 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 60 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok. We have a Motion on the floor. It's been sec… actually I should ask does the second of 2 the Motion accept the amendment? 3 4 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I’m just a little bit confused because this is giving staff agency to choose the items and I 5 think the original Motion really gave the Commission agency to prioritize the items. So I just want some 6 clarification on how this will work. I'd like to make sure that (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Alcheck: My [unintelligible] 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Because I understood that they were just processing. 11 12 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, well but the problem is that I think we're starting with a more open ended 13 discussion and so if somebody wants to bring in say a question about prioritization of goals which is not 14 something that's on a previous list that may not, it may not clear this hurdle. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 61 Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to add that to the amendment. It has to include things that are not 1 just already detailed there. Meaning a new policy that we think is left out. 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: So that was part of tonight’s task so if you remember there were two things you're 4 supposed to do: go through the list to date and add things if it wasn't represented and then complete it with 5 5 through 10. And so that should already be by definition by the end of tonight those things should all of been 6 on already. So if you saw something that wasn't there tonight was your chance add it. 7 8 Commissioner Lauing: But we're not getting any revised draft of the Comp Plan. All these content, all these 9 comments just go on to a list. They don't go into another draft that we're going to read. So we don't even 10 have a reference point to go back on that. So I don't think that's even possible right now. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I… 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, hold on. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 62 Commissioner Rosenblum: Chair I'll let you manage this. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I’m going to just [unintelligible] I think this is breaking down. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: No, it's not. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I do. I think it's breaking down and it's convoluted. I have a maker of a Motion that's 7 accepting a Friendly Amendment and I have a seconder of a Motion who is not satisfied with it. So I'm going 8 to turn back to the maker of this amendment and ask you if you intend to make this a Substitute Motion at 9 which point you would need a second and it would be on the floor and I would allow a com… I can allow 10 comments on it right if other, I have other Commissioner lights here. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Before I do that I just want to just clarify the amendment. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 63 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Because I think (interrupted) 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: It makes more sense. 4 5 Commissioner Rosenblum: Vice-Chair Waldfogel just had a question maybe about (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so let's see if we can address that. 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: About it [unintelligible] let me see if I can satisfy that question. So if the issue is 10 the agency of staff to then kind of take this process and prioritize instead of us prioritizing the intention was 11 that we were prioritizing and they were acting simply as compliance mechanism so that everything goes 12 through them and then they collate. It if there are items then that just weren't on the list period to 13 Commissioner Lauing’s point I think tonight you can add those. It doesn't matter if it was on the Comp Plan. 14 There are several items that are listed on the list right now that individuals sitting here at the dais had brought 15 up that just weren't on the Comp Plan that said I think this really needs to get included and those are already 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 64 there. So I think you have the freedom tonight to add any of those things and then we go back we would be 1 the ones who are spending our 10 chits. So the agency is with us. So I want to see if that satisfies 2 Vice-Chair. I don't see them having really any agency in this part of the process. 3 4 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I think as long as this process stays open into the introduction of items in the next 5 meeting I mean again my concern is that there are high level items that we really haven't discussed. We've 6 been looking at this at a detailed level. I think both you Commissioner Rosenblum and Commissioner 7 Alcheck or Chair Alcheck made a comment that troubles me which is that the City Council Members have 8 already made up their minds by and large and that troubles me that this process may not have much point if 9 they've already made up their minds. So I think what we're looking for is a tool to be somewhat more 10 persuasive. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: I do want to state for the record that I didn't say that City Council Members 13 already at their minds. I said they come to this with knowledge and a point of view. Just I think that's 14 important. They're not disregarding our work. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 65 Chair Alcheck: Ok just procedurally do I do we do you accept the amendment? You don't have to. This is 1 not this, this isn’t trial by fire. You can say no. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Well, yeah as long as anything is open we can (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: No, I'm going I'm counting your statements earlier that you accepted it as closed. I'm asking 6 the seconder of the Motion if he accepts the amendment. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Right now I do not because I don't believe that it's providing full agency to the 9 Commission. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm turning back to the individual who started with a Substitute Motion and then on the 12 advice of the maker of the Motion turned it into an Amendment. So would you like to? 13 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REVERTED TO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 66 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I’ll make this a Substitute Motion then. Do I (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Alcheck: I don't think you have to restate it. I think we understand it. 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Monk: I will second the Substitute Motion. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I have a second. Commissioner Summa I've seen your light. I’ve been wanting to come 10 to you. Would you like to make a comment? 11 12 Commissioner Summa: Not yet about the Substitute Motion except that I need it restated. I think it's really 13 hard at these Commission meetings to not have the Motion available for us to read because they're made in 14 very conversational way and we have to have a clear idea of what because little words can make a difference 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 67 so that's a frustration to me. And one thing about any Motion since we did not know we were going to make 1 this potential change tonight I did not come prepared to get anything that I've that is missing in the Comp Plan 2 in here so that opportunity I believe you said anything we say tonight I wasn't prepared to do that because I 3 didn't know what we're doing it. So that would have to stay open until the next staff report so I could think 4 about those things. Does that make sense? Because (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Hold on. Let me, can I ask a quick clarifying question? Commissioner Rosenblum your 7 Motion relates to the table that will be distributed to us in the next packet, correct? 8 9 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: So the assumption is that we will receive the next packet, let’s say we’ll receive it on a Thursday 12 and in between that Thursday how soon would you need our… how soon could you get this table to us in 13 theory? And then the follow up question is would there be enough time for a Commissioner, Suma for 14 example, to submit any additional issues into the table? So that if she emailed for example if she emailed 15 staff her list of additions that have not been included because she hasn't had a chance to make those 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 68 comments yet and we've exhausted time could things be included into the that we then get sent to us that we 1 then can resend to you in time for it to be properly communicated? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: I think if we got any new items from Commissioners by Tuesday of next week we could turn 4 around a new table with comments from this evening plus the new items for you to do your annotations. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I'm going to if anybody is uncomfortable with the timeline I would let me know, but I 7 would encourage anyone who feels like they have lots of comments left to make that should be included in a 8 table that would theoretically get reviewed by all of us to make those comments before Tuesday of next 9 week, which gives you about a week to email your comments. So my understanding of the Motion on the 10 floor is that we would review the table that would be included that would be sent out to us which would 11 include additional comments made before Tuesday of next week. 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: That's correct. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: And that Commissioners would highlight the 10 topics. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 69 1 Ms. Gitelman: Annotated table we’ll have to get it back almost immediately. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Almost immediately. I understand that. So that once we receive that table Commissioners 4 would have, your Motion is that Commissioners would have a choice of 10 items on the table to highlight and 5 that any item receiving more than two Commissioners table and that that table would be distributed to us and 6 we would be able to see in what areas were of greatest importance to the seven of us at which point that 7 would be open for debate or more conversation on the specifics of the importance of that type. Ok, it’s a 8 little convoluted. I feel sorry for the person who has to put that in writing. Does anybody else want to 9 address it? I have Commissioner Lauing’s light. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Just like to have clarification from Commissioner Rosenblum. How is that Substitute 12 Motion different than the one that (interrupted) 13 14 Chair Alcheck: I’m going to answer the question. The reason why it's different is because the Maker of 15 [unintelligible] 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 70 1 Commissioner Lauing: [Unintelligible] 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Because it’s procedural. The seconder of the Motion didn't accept the amendment and he 4 had to for it to be amended. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: I understand that. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: So (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Totally understand that. Now I'm asking what I’m voting on because I'm asking if 11 there was differences in what the Motion you just made. 12 13 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 71 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so the Motion I made outlines the initial procedure to come up with the list 1 whereas yours was just open ended that we would come to the next meeting with our ideas and we would 2 just hash it out. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, great. 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: And I'm worried that there's just no way for to move from that to a meaningful 7 discussion. So I wanted to first get down to the list that we care about so that we can hit the ground running 8 so to speak. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Great, thanks for that clarification. And the first part of the Motion is the same in 11 terms of the intent there. Ok, thanks for the clarification. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Anybody that would like to make a comment before I make this vote light me up. 14 Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 72 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So I can support this Motion because it provides time after the end of this meeting to 1 provide comments. The pre, the original Motion, the original Substitute Motion deadlined the list creation 2 at the end of this meeting which I don't think anybody was prepared to do and I hope that that's nine minutes 3 from now, but it may or may not be. And so I can support it in this version. 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I'm sorry, Chair Alcheck, can I just clarify the timing? We’re talking about mechanics here and 6 (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Alcheck: I understand. Yeah, please do. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: And because the next meeting is two weeks from tonight we have a limited amount of time. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Yes. 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: I think Tues… and there's a long weekend in there. The new ideas we would then collate the 15 list. I think realistically we would not be able to get the list, get your feedback on the list. We can get the 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 73 list out to you and hopefully get the feedback back from you within a couple days, but we won't be able to put 1 that then out in a packet to you on that Thursday. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: I didn't think you would. I was hoping you would show up to the meeting with that table. 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: So we’ll end up having to bring, we’re end up having to just bring it to the meeting. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: I think it would really be helpful if you had a slide actually that you could put up on the screen 12 that just showed it doesn't have to actually say which Commissioners were behind which, it just has to show 13 which numbers in the order of greatest. 14 15 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 74 Ms. Gitelman: In the order the number of votes. That’s right. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. I think that would be helpful and then I think I mean I do think that the intent here is 3 sort of uniform and then we can spend more time on those topics that have greater significance to everybody. 4 Do you want to do it before the vote? You can ask a question. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: It's a question for staff and specifically legal staff. Is it legal for us to knowingly plan 7 on a process where the public will not be informed before at places about this kind of thing? I mean that 8 happens by accident sometimes, but are we supposed to plan that to happen that way legally? 9 10 Mr. Yang: So my understanding of the process that’s being discussed is that the staff report will be published 11 with the table that Commissioners will then incorporating additional comments that staff may receive that 12 Commissioners will then provide their 10 preferences and staff will the following week bring the compilation 13 of that at places. 14 15 Commissioner Summa: So it'll just be the contest winners that won't be publicly known. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 75 1 Mr. Yang: I mean I think it would probably because that was relevant communication we’d probably bring that 2 as well in some way. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Is there a concern that [unintelligible] your list of 10 would theoretically be public? 5 6 Commissioner Summa: No. I was concerned that we were devising a timeline process that wouldn't 7 knowingly doing that that wouldn't allow for the packet to have the information for the public. That was my 8 concern. I mean we sometimes have at places things, but it's not very desirable because the public doesn't 9 get to see it before the meeting and they don't know how they might have been able to participate. That 10 was my concern. 11 12 VOTE 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Are we comfortable with proceeding on the Substitute Motion vote? Anybody else? 15 Ok, I don't see any lights alright so at this time I'm going to take a vote on the Substitute Motion. All those in 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 76 support of the Motion please raise your hand and say aye. Ok, I have five in support. All those opposed. 1 One opposed, Commissioner Summa opposing. And all those abstaining? Commissioner Gardias 2 abstaining. Ok, alright. Thank you for that. 3 4 It was a little complicated, but we have a process now. That process was selected by the Commission. I'm 5 going to just reiterate it so that we understand what we're doing. Anybody that would like to add comments 6 that they can add tonight or that they feel like wouldn’t take too long to add tonight I encourage you to email 7 those to staff by Tuesday of next week. Those areas of interest would be added to the table that will be 8 redistributed to us either in our packet or ahead of the packet, but it will be the same table that's included in 9 the packet. And Commissioners should then respond with a list in email to staff individually, not to the 10 Commission, of the 10 items that they feel represent the 10 items they want to discuss most. Staff will then 11 collate those choices and we will have a list in front of us at the meeting that will indicate where the greatest 12 number of Commissioners had interest in those topics and we can then discuss them. Of course the list that 13 you will produce will not include any items that didn't receive more than two Commissioners interest. 14 15 Ok? Does anybody have any question about that process? I will also entertain any comments about any 16 part of the Land Use Element that you'd like to make now which could be included in that table as well. I 17 don't have any lights. Commissioner Summa and then Commissioner Lauing. 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 77 1 SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED (5-1-1, Commissioner Summa opposed, Commissioner Gardias abstained) 2 3 Commissioner Summa: Ok, just briefly why I couldn't support that Motion (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: You know what, let me recognize you now to have an opportunity to speak to why you didn't 6 [unintelligible] the Motion. I apologize. 7 8 Commissioner Summa: It's ok. I didn't think I thought the procedure would have worked fine the way it was 9 stated before and it wasn't significantly enough different. It wasn't reversing the direction to be a Substitute 10 Motion and I don't know how two rises to a majority and I think the process would have been better handled 11 the previous way. That being said do you want me to go through my comments on what we're supposed to 12 do tonight? 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Let me put it this way, we have a choice. We can either conclude this meeting now and any 15 comments that Commissioners would like to make on any part of the Land Use Element or the Transportation 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 78 Element they can send to staff and it will be included in the table and the onus will be on the members of this 1 Commission to review that table to determine if they would like to discuss any of the new items and maybe 2 actually your table could differentiate between items that were emailed to you so that we could all pay 3 special attention to that part of the list. So I can say oh, these are the items that I haven’t even seen yet or 4 we can do it a round right now. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: Is there a third option to spend some time on it and if it's not completed to continue it? 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Or you can yeah, we can I mean the option to email them is open period whether you get your 9 comments in now or you have extra comments later you can email staff. 10 11 Commissioner Monk: I think we're going to be emailing staff a lot with regards to our prior process. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don't we do this? Why don't I set a five minute timer on anybody who would like to 14 make comments on L-1 and the longest this could last would be 35 minutes and the shortest it could last 15 could be five minutes. So why don't we do that and (interrupted) 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 79 1 Commissioner Monk: L-5 through L-10? Is that what you mean? 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Any comments you'd like to make on the Land Use Element whether it's in L-5, L-10, L-1 4 through 5 or Transportation. Any comments you'd like to make I'll give each Commissioner five minutes to 5 make them and anything that doesn't fit into that five minute time frame you can email to staff before 6 Tuesday. Ok? I have on my list Commissioner Summa, Commissioner Lauing, Commissioner Gardias, 7 should I add your name? 8 9 Commissioner Monk: Yes, please. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Monk. So we're in for 20. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: Ok. So Packet Page L-24, regional community commercial definitions. Soft, I note 14 that software development has been added here which I find very curious for the Stanford Shopping Center, 15 Town & Country, and University. I mentioned earlier that they don't even have the same land use zoning 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 80 designation. Town & Country Village and Stanford Shopping Center are CC and they also have rather strict 1 restrictions in the code with which with regards to other types of development. In the Downtown is CD. 2 I'm not sure why we would be adding software development when there have been public conversations 3 already about whether software companies and there are some pretty big ones are an allowed use in 4 Downtown. 5 6 I'm just confused by it and I think it has a devastating effect on policies later on in the such as Policy L-2.2 7 which states enhance connections between commercial centers and mixed-use centers and surrounding 8 residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and 9 services that cater to the daily needs of residents. I feel that in addition to housing issues the second most 10 important issue have, we have is a diminishment of those services and retail needs that fulfill our daily needs 11 of residents are having a hard time competing with all the software companies. So that is and there are 12 other policies that it is inconsistent with. So I would recommend that software development be struck from 13 that definition on Page L-24. Let's see, also Goal 5 so most of my, there are many other places in here that 14 would support that notion. And with regards to Town & Country Village itself L-4.10, L-4.11, and L-4.12 15 Town & Country Village is an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of wider vision region 16 does not would not be consistent with allowing software companies. 17 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 81 I also think Goal L-5 which is pretty skimpy I believe Commissioner Rosenblum mentioned this with regards to 1 employment districts there's not a lot here. And I think we need a lot more about a lot stronger language 2 about exploring about updating a pretty antiquated version of allowing only R&D in the Research Park and 3 actually that's really more from R&D to global corporations and software companies. I think there could be a 4 better use of some portion at least of the Research Park for housing and for future school needs, perhaps 5 even some of this could be a requirement of the Stanford expansion plans. 6 7 And as to 7, 8, 9, and 10 I think they're pretty well fleshed out. But so my main interest was in having a 8 updated futuristic vision for the Research Park since it's the… and reevaluating whether we want another 9 million square feet of software companies rather than desperately needed housing and probably in the future 10 new school sites and preserving our commercial and regional centers by restricting software companies, 11 especially software companies of any size. Thanks. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to turn to Commissioner Lauing next. 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Oh, ok. I was going to stay with the agenda 5 through 10, but I'll comment on L-1 16 because that was my example originally for this process. What concerned me about that was that it doesn't 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 82 emphasize it doesn't prioritize neighborhoods. It leaves out the obvious which is we want diverse 1 neighborhoods for housing and that's major to us. It just doesn't quite say that and we're not giving it 2 enough commitment to future actions. So in terms of the goal just slight wording changes I think gets us 3 where we need to be which is that we should have a compact and resilient city prioritizing diverse and vibrant 4 neighborhoods with existing compatibility with shopping and services, workplace, public facilities, parks and 5 open space. To do that I'd flop Policy 1.2 and 1.1 and call the new 1.1 [He said one two and one one. 6 Based on context I guessed he meant 1.2 and 1.1] strengthen and prioritize Palo Alto’s very residential 7 neighborhoods. And I would also take Program L-1.3.1 and make that a policy. Let's have it as a policy that 8 we really want BMR and let's not just identify, but eliminate barriers to affordable market rate housing. 9 Shifting over to five, got to get over there. 10 11 Commissioner Monk: What was that last one that you were referring to? 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: I'm sorry. 14 15 Commissioner Monk: What was the last policy you were referring to? 16 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 83 Commissioner Lauing: L-1.3.1 work with neighbors and associations to identify barriers on infill. Five I just 1 didn’t understand what the baseline was for quote reduce the number of auto trips. So that’s just sort of 2 how are we going to calculate that under 5.1? I thought the SRP language was terrific. Exactly what the 3 message is we need to be sending there. On L-6 it seemed like coherent development patterns is a little 4 fuzzy, but I think we sort of know what's going on there. And yes, emphasizing compatibility with the 5 surrounding development in the public spaces even though it's not entirely happening now we need to 6 emphasize that so it happens in the future. Page L-40 Policy 6.7 I get concerned were all this hedging comes 7 in into the language. So where possible avoid abrupt changes in scale and density. I mean if it's a policy 8 let’s list it as a policy and if there has to be an exception then someday there has to be an exception, but I'd 9 rather have it listed without all those dependent clauses in there. 10 11 And I agree that most of the rest of it is well done. I thought that there were a couple things like on Page 12 L-47 L-9.9 involved the Urban Forester. I don't think we're not going to involve the Urban Forester so that's 13 a bit of what I call an apple pie thing. We're definitely going to do that. I’m not sure it has to take up 14 space. And that is it. Thank you. Who's next? 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok, with a minute and thirty six remaining. That’s not, that doesn't roll over. That goes to 17 (interrupted) 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 84 1 Commissioner Lauing: I yield my time to… 2 3 Chair Alcheck: It goes to Gardias. Commissioner Gardias, please. You have five minutes. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So I'd like to reiterate the point that I made before I read the meeting 6 minutes and I thought that I can do it better about the retail policies. I believe that we should create a retail 7 structure within Palo Alto that would allow different types and sizes of vendors to sell to Palo Altans. And 8 there should be a program that would allow that would create the infrastructure for the vendors that want to 9 sell on Palo Alto streets in alleys for food trucks and would also create this program this way that newcomers 10 to either to Palo Alto or to California would be able to catch their opportunity by opening a retail business in 11 Palo Alto and grow if they succeed. This would allow us to create maybe competition and innovation and as 12 opposed to introducing restrictions on some businesses and that innovation would maybe create possibly I 13 hope would create some competition to the large corporations that have an advantage of the scale like 14 Amazon.com and hopefully would make this City more vibrant. So this is in regards to this retail programs so 15 pretty much I would like to just see the different layers and structures of retail throughout the main districts 16 of the town. 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 85 1 There are a couple of items about the employment districts. I believe that I would like to have a policy or 2 enhancement of [the rough] of one of those within this goal to limit employment, to limit the… let me take it, 3 take it back. To allow the companies to allow only small business companies which is per I think Internal 4 Revenue Service (IRS) definition which is which limits the company to 500 employees. That's the small 5 business. So I would like to see only those being allowed within the employment districts outside of 6 Stanford Research of course. And the purpose is to pretty much to define certain size of the companies and 7 limit to the larger ones. Also I would like to allow for along El Camino which are suitable for transportation 8 and also for employment districts to increase the office sizes. 9 10 Side item which is outside of this goal I would like to have a see the policy that would specifically discourage 11 money laundering of existing real property. And that is I believe that there is a growing number of the real 12 estate holdings by some private individuals or corporations not by the families as it used to be. At least 13 within my area the ownership of the housing of this family housing changes hands from individuals to some 14 overseas owners and some other investment corporations. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 86 In terms of the of Goal L-6 I would like to see a policy that would identify public spaces and defined build to 1 line for those spaces. I think that a build to line is an important instrument of planning and specifically public 2 spaces may enjoy greater quality if such built to line is defined. That's what at least when I was, when I 3 worked as a planner that’s what was a typical tool of this planning. I believe that I already talked about this, 4 but I think that we should also define the street space and there should be a policy or program for this. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok hold on. I’m going to go to the next Commissioner and I’m going to encourage you to send 7 the remaining of your comments in email, ok? 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: I have the last one if you don’t mind. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: I'll give you 30 seconds. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so the last one is that this there should be a policy that would allow to trade 14 daylight rights in some districts. Thank you. 15 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 87 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Ok, Commissioner Monk and then I have Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] 1 Waldfogel. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: Referring to Page L-38 Policy L-5.1 want to ask staff to consider whether these two 4 distinctive concepts should remain together or be pulled apart and if so can you please update the program 5 accordingly? On to the next page at L-5.2 again look at what's prescriptive. I mentioned that in the last 6 meeting and for example you could remove language such as remove grass turf. That just seems overly 7 prescriptive to have in the Comp Plan. Also if you could consider whether Policy L-6.1 is redundant to L-6.2. 8 Moving to Page L-40 Policy L-6.4 I would suggest language that's more amenable to interpretation. I would 9 replace in the second line encourage the design of new development to maintain and support I would change 10 that to design of new development that is compatible with the existing character. I like compatibility 11 language rather than maintain and support language. You look at the Apple store and I don't know where 12 that fits into our whole scheme Downtown so I just think being consistent makes sense. 13 14 Policy L-6.5 guide development to preserve views of the foothills makes more sense to me then what's 15 currently written. You have the word respect in there and I don't really know what that means. L-41, Page 16 L-41 ok so this is an important one, looking at Policy L-6.10 there should be I think an allowance for some 17 flexibility on the signage on El Camino. I think that's a distinguishing thoroughfare and should be looked at in 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 88 that regard. Moving on to the next page Policy L-7.6 this to me is more of a structural suggestion in that it 1 looks more like a program. I suggest actually turning this into a program and then moving it possibly as to 2 L-7.1.3. So that would be the third program listed under that first policy. That would be more of a 3 structural suggestion. 4 5 Next page Policy 7.13 I would consider this to be broadened more historically and not in the Downtown area 6 and to wherever there else there might be buildings of historical significance. L-44 which is the next page 7 looking at Goal L-8 there are no programs underneath this goal. As such I would consider moving policies 8 8.2, 8.3, and 8.6 as programs. Also looking at Policy 8.5 can you just evaluate whether or not that's a 9 combination of 8.2 and 8.4? Moving on to Policy 8.7 I find this to be quite overly broad and I'd like to 10 expand this to address the need for collaboration between the religious and private institutions and the 11 neighborhoods that surround them to promote the benefit of the community. That was an issue that came 12 up recently, just looking to codify that further. 13 14 Moving on to Policy L-9.2 I would consider adding a program there. Policy 9.9 also looks more like a 15 program. It's listed as a policy so consider moving that into a program. Moving on to Policy 9.11 I see 16 three distinct concepts there and I think that those should be possibly concerted as three different policies. 17 And that's on Page L-47. 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 89 1 I also had a general question about whether or not we have or need a wireless policy. I would be interested 2 in minimizing our footprint and looking at 9.12.2 if that would be supportive. Finally and I'll probably go over 3 by two seconds in regards to our airport policy I think we need to encourage practices that prevent it from 4 being a drain on City resources. I’d like staff to look at creating revenue in excess of costs. Done. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I have Commissioner [Note Vice-Chair] Waldfogel. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. I’d like to point out that there are a pretty big gaps between the major 9 themes of the Comprehensive Plan on I-2 to I-4 and the content of the Land Use Element. So I think we need 10 to spend I don’t want to spend time on it tonight, but I think the themes are great. But they're not 11 necessarily what's captured as we go through the rest of the plan. 12 13 I just want to get to a couple specific things and it really I want to focus on the L-6 map for a moment. I'd 14 like to see, I'd like to echo Commissioner Summa’s comments about the commercial districts distinction 15 between commercial and employment districts. And on the map I'd like us to recapture the employment 16 district designations around light industrial, research/office park, and I think it's major institution/special 17 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 90 facility are the three areas that are designated as employment district in previous and other maps. Sticking 1 with the map for a second maybe we should just throw in the towel and designate University possibly 2 Hamilton to Lytton, Alma to Bryant as a research/office as a research district. So grey that out on the map 3 rather than I don't know what this [purple-y] color is, but so that way we’d end up with a kind of bright line 4 distinction between what the employment district in Downtown is and the commercial district. 5 6 I also think we should contemplate some service commercial possibly north of University along the Alma 7 corridor. I mean we've been losing service. We should contemplate some service commercial on Park 8 Boulevard. We've lost a whole bunch of particularly auto related services along Park Boulevard recently and 9 I think that a service commercial designation in that area would be helpful. We don't have I think it's 10 Appendix X or Y which is the Meadow specific plan. I hope that that has some content about housing 11 possibilities similar to discussions we've had about the Research Park and housing possibilities in the Research 12 Park, but I don't have a copy of that so I don't know. 13 14 And oh, and then same thing on Cal Ave. I think we may just want to throw in the towel on Cal Ave. out to 15 probably Ash Street maybe Birch Street and also designate that as a research district. So again just 16 acknowledge that there are office uses happening in these and let's just draw a bright line between the 17 employment district parts of these areas and the commercial district parts of these areas. I mean that's 18 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 91 something that has really been that's really been lost in the land use and enforcement over the last decade. 1 I think we have a chance to revisit that. Thanks. That's it. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I know it wasn’t I have to do that in order to turn it off. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: May I just offer consensus on what Commissioner Lauing stated earlier in regards to 6 policy/Program L-1.3.1. I didn’t have a chance to offer that earlier. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Was that a question or is that? Alright I think consensus now is sort of irrelevant, but because 9 we're going to do this exercise now. But I have a light from Commissioner Gardias. If it's additional items I 10 would like to encourage you to… it's one item. Can you do it in under a minute? 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. Urban forest maintaining inventory of California Oaks. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Now you have 56 seconds. Ok, that’s it. Thank you. Again you all know the protocol so I'm 15 not going repeat it. So I'm going to conclude this. 16 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Excerpt Minutes August 30, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM 92 1 Commissioner Monk: In regards to approving the minutes? 2 3 Chair Alcheck: No, no. I'm not concluding the meeting. I’m concluding this item, this public hearing. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14