Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-09 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: July 9, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 PM 7 Chair Akin called to order the regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 for July 9, 2025. 9 Sam Tavera conducted the roll call. Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 10 Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 11 were present. 12 Oral Communications 13 None 14 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 15 None 16 City Official Reports 17 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 18 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer introduced Sam Tavera from the City Clerk’s Department, 19 who will be supporting the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) as well as other 20 boards for the next few months. Commissioners can reach out to Sam Tavera for any questions, 21 issues, or support that in the past would have been sought from Veronica Dao. 22 The agenda for the July 30 PTC meeting included a review of the draft Stream Protection 23 Ordinance and a request for hearing on a conditional use permit at 400 Mitchell Lane. The 24 agenda had not yet been set for August 13. Jennifer Armer reminded commissioners that the 25 City required completion of anti-harassment training by July 30. On June 2, the City Council 26 approved Safe Streets for All. On June 9, the Council approved an urgency ordinance in 27 accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 1123. City Council was on summer break from June 20 through 28 August 3, 2025. 29 Ria Lo, Chief Transportation Official, introduced herself and provided an update on the El 30 Camino Real project. Paving had been completed and the striping was 95 percent complete. 31 Caltrans will complete the Qwick Kurb (vertical delineator between bicycles and vehicles) by 32 July 18. Most of the “no parking” signage had been installed with the remainder expected to be 33 completed by the end of August, and enforcement can begin afterward. Electrical signal 1 detection will be done by December. 2 Vice-Chair Chang had not driven through the area recently but had observed a lot of problems 3 last month at the intersection of Page Mill and El Camino and wondered what the cause was or 4 if it was related to Caltrans work. Ria Lo offered to find out. 5 Commissioner Ji asked staff to elaborate on the urgency ordinance in accordance with SB 1123. 6 Jennifer Armer mentioned that the staff report to Council contained additional background. SB 7 1123 went into effect on July 1, 2025, and was similar to SB 9 but allowed for a subdivision up 8 to 10 lots as a ministerial process if certain criteria were met. Local governments had an 9 opportunity to set a process and had choices in some regulation. Council provided direction on 10 whether those new lots were allowed to have accessory dwelling units on them as a temporary 11 urgency ordinance. Staff will bring this item to the PTC for a recommendation on a permanent 12 ordinance to implement as part of the code. 13 Commissioner Hechtman inquired about the status of the bike lanes on El Camino through 14 Mountain View and Menlo Park. Ria Lo noted that Mountain View had delineators, so in that 15 sense Mountain View was further along than Palo Alto but she thought the electrical signal 16 detection was on the same schedule. 17 Study Session 18 2. Study Session on Conceptual Site Layouts and Circulation for the Cubberley Master 19 Plan at 4000 Middlefield Road. CEQA Status: The Master Plan will undergo CEQA 20 review. 21 Amanda Deml, Assistant Director of Community Services, addressed the Commission. 22 Attachment A contained a comprehensive background summary of actions to date. The 23 Cubberley site was 35 acres; the City owned 8 acres and leased much of the remaining 27 acres 24 from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). In October 2024, PAUSD and the City Council 25 approved a Memorandum of Understanding outlining future conditions including a land 26 purchase of 7 additional acres by the City, contingent on a successful bond measure by voters in 27 November of 2026. In December of 2024, the City initiated a new Master Planning process to 28 build upon the 2019 Master Plan. Concordia was contracted to lead the Master Planning 29 process, as they also did in 2019. The City contracted with FM3 to lead polling efforts and the 30 Lew Edwards Group to lead the ballot strategy. The Council established an ad hoc committee to 31 review and advise staff on efforts related to polling and development of a ballot measure, 32 including financial and revenue forecasting, master planning, and community outreach. 33 The third and final community meeting will be held on September 17. Community Meeting #1 34 was held on March 19, where over 120 attendees shared their input on the vision and 35 programming. Flexibility, inclusivity, sustainability, and affordability were the key themes 36 voiced by the community. The community’s top priorities were to have multipurpose spaces, 37 wellness access, greenspace, and community gathering areas. At Community Meeting #2 on 38 June 12, over 130 attendees reviewed 3 concept designs and provided feedback on layout, 39 access, and site experience. The full summary report for Community Meeting #2 will be 1 published soon. The preliminary findings showed a strong preference for partially underground 2 parking, concerns about an aboveground parking structure, general preference for new 3 construction, some support for partial renovation if it resulted in significant cost savings, 4 emphasis on separating bike and pedestrian paths for safety, appreciation of the direct bike 5 connection from Nelson to Middlefield, strong support for public gathering spaces that 6 encourage community interaction, as well as appreciation of large, flexible open spaces. The 7 community scored Concept 1 Diagonal the highest across the 6 evaluation categories, and 8 Concept 3 Linear was a close second. 9 Elizabeth Chen, Concordia Architect and Project Manager, presented 3 concept designs 10 (diagonal, grid, and linear). The existing site had 250,000 SF of outdoor space, 184,000 SF of 11 indoor space, and 121,000 SF of parking. All 3 proposed concept designs had 335,000 SF of 12 outdoor space, 280,000 SF of indoor space, and 210,000 SF of parking. Each concept design had 13 options for new construction, renovation, and structured parking (a 4-story parking garage). 14 New construction involved demolition of existing buildings. On the concept designs, white 15 buildings indicated new construction. The recreation and wellness center would contain 4 16 hardcourts and associated spaces. Cubberley’s current uses such as classrooms, a theater, 17 parking, multiuse space, and flexible rental space (with the exception of the courts) could be 18 accommodate within 70-foot-wide bays in various configurations. The sand-colored buildings in 19 the concept designs denoted the option to partially renovate the pavilion, theater, and Building 20 I. Renovation involved gutting the 3 concrete-frame buildings to the structural elements, new 21 utilities and MEP systems, as well as updating to codes for seismic, accessibility, and 22 sustainability. The option for partially underground parking was shown on the concept design 23 with a dotted line. The 4-story structured parking was denoted with a dark gray block. A flat-24 floored parking garage was proposed, which provided the ability to turn the parking garage into 25 program use either all at once or floor by floor, depending on parking demand. 26 Elizabeth Chen displayed Concept 1, the diagonal scheme, which received the most cumulative 27 positive responses during the community meeting. Concept 1 provided a connection of the bike 28 route from Nelson Drive diagonally through the campus to the bike and pedestrian route along 29 Middlefield. The proposed building layout created larger open space along Middlefield, 3 large 30 greenspaces, and a Middlefield promenade. The community liked the openness and scale of the 31 open spaces between the buildings. The Concept 1 options for new construction, renovation, 32 and structured parking were shown. 33 All 3 concept designs proposed similar vehicular access on the left and right side of the site. The 34 existing Greendell School remained in all proposed schemes. The gym building would contain 2 35 basketball courts on the first floor and 2 basketball courts on the second floor. The protected 36 trees on campus were shown on the slide but more trees and landscaping were expected. The 3 37 concept designs were in compliance with the setbacks on all sides, height limitations, and 38 buffering. The closest corner of the building was on the right side about 45 feet away from the 39 setback, which was more than the zoning ordinance required. The proposed 4-story 40 aboveground parking structure met setback and height requirements per the zoning ordinance. 41 Elizabeth Chen displayed Concept 2, the grid scheme, which proposed a network of 1 orthogonally crossing bike and pedestrian promenades, and connected the bike and pedestrian 2 routes from Nelson to Middlefield. Concept 2 had 4 medium greenspaces and the building 3 layout included an enclosed courtyard. Concept 2 options for new construction, renovation, 4 and structured parking were shown. 5 Elizabeth Chen showed Concept 3, the linear scheme, which featured 3 large greenspaces and a 6 large, open, central space. Options of new construction, renovation, and structured parking for 7 Concept 3 were shown. 8 Amanda Deml outlined the next steps in the Master Planning process. Feedback received 9 tonight from the PTC along with the input gathered at the June 12 community meeting and 10 June 24 PRC meeting will be analyzed. Staff and Concordia will present the concept designs to 11 the ARB on July 17. At the third and final community meeting on September 17, Concordia will 12 present 1 refined concept plan for public input. The final presentation to the City Council in 13 December will include the proposed Master Plan, cost estimates, and phasing scenarios. 14 Because the area was prone to flooding, Commissioner Templeton expressed her concern 15 about sea level with the partially underground multi-story parking along Middlefield and 16 wanted to make sure the proposed designs were feasible and flood risk had been taken into 17 consideration. 18 Elizabeth Chen clarified that the underground parking was 1 level. The 4-story aboveground 19 parking structure was a separate option. There was some pushback against fully underground 20 parking but feedback had been received that partially underground parking was feasible and 21 alleviated waterproofing concerns, which would be verified with a geotechnical report or 22 something similar. 23 Steven Bingler, founder and CEO of Concordia, explained the 1-story parking was half 24 underground and half aboveground, was less expensive than fully underground parking, 25 aboveground it had open walls so the air could circulate and thus eliminated a dark, dank 26 environment. The space above the parking could be occupied and the parking roof could either 27 be covered with earth or public amenities. Considering the value of land per square foot in Palo 28 Alto, there was a lot of benefit in using every square foot of the property for public use. Steven 29 Bingler said stormwater management was high on Concordia’s list. 30 Vice-Chair Chang wondered what the large promenades in Concept 2 and 3 could be used for 31 and wanted examples of how other communities used promenades. Vice-Chair Chang inquired 32 if the 70-foot-wide building could accommodate the existing theater. Vice-Chair Chang asked 33 what the thought process was for the big triangular space fronting Middlefield in Concept 1. 34 Steven Bingler said the promenade was like a pedestrian mall. The Diagonal concept proposed a 35 100-foot clearance between buildings. Within the 100-foot clearance, there was a sidewalk 36 adjacent to each building on either side in addition to a bicycle and pedestrian path running 37 diagonally through the site. The greenspace in the middle could be used for a children’s 38 playground. Courtyards could accommodate an amphitheater, children’s playground, or large 1 groves of trees for an urban forest. The idea was to create a variety of public open spaces. 2 What the community liked most about the concepts was the geometry of the diagonal scheme 3 and the broader promenade depicted in the linear scheme. Concordia will create a hybrid 4 scheme with diagonal geometry and a wide promenade for linear public open space. The 70-5 foot-wide building was wide enough to accommodate the existing theater and have a corridor 6 in the middle with double-loaded spaces or it could be a large gathering space. Flexibility was 7 emphasized in the design for the spaces to accommodate various uses over the 50 or 100-year 8 lifespan of this project. The Master Planning phase was to develop a concept that provided 9 flexibility for the most variety of uses taking place in those spaces. In Concept 1, the big 10 triangular space that fronted Middlefield was a grand entrance into the project. In Concordia’s 11 meeting with their transportation consultant, it was mentioned that pedestrian, bicycle, and 12 transit could take place in that location. 13 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if there was a gross estimate of the project cost and if it was 14 possible to use private funding for all or part of this project through philanthropic activities. 15 Commissioner Hechtman asked if review of this project would be streamlined as a result of 16 Governor Newsom recently signing into State law some new exemptions and limitations on 17 CEQA review. 18 Kristen O’Kane, Director of Community Services, said that staff was exploring funding 19 opportunities to help with the cost of this project. The nonprofit Friends of the Palo Alto 20 Recreation and Wellness Center was interested in raising funds to build a recreation and 21 wellness center including a gym and other wellness spaces. Concordia had a California cost 22 estimator but staff was also working with internal City Departments to obtain cost estimates for 23 new construction, renovation, and the likely necessary upgrade of the utility infrastructure 24 system. Kristen O’Kane anticipated having further information in the early fall. 25 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang said the new CEQA exemptions and limitations were 26 primarily for residential projects with a few narrow exemptions for commercial projects but he 27 did not believe this project would fall within any of the exceptions. 28 Commissioner Peterson thought that one of the nice things about this project was its location in 29 a working class, blue-collar area of Palo Alto. A large affordable housing complex was near the 30 site. Commissioner Peterson questioned the walkability of this site and how it tied into adjacent 31 sites because the grand corridor down the middle of the site did not tie into foot traffic. 32 Commissioner Peterson wanted to see a map showing public transit and regional affordable 33 housing in relation to Cubberley. 34 Steven Bingler did not have a drawing available that depicted foot traffic to adjacent sites and 35 public transit. The new plan incorporated the linkages from the previous planning process in 36 addition to extending a pedestrian link to the shopping center at the north end of the site. This 37 morning, Concordia had its first meeting with their transportation consultant, Fehr & Peers. 38 Commissioner Ji asked if there was a difference between the Master Plan and a construction 1 plan for the buildings. Commissioner Ji questioned if it was the expectation that the drawings 2 provided in the packet were the general building locations or were significant changes expected 3 for the engineering implementation. Commissioner Ji concurred with feedback from members 4 of the public who attended both community meetings and felt it was difficult to comment on 5 which building shape and layout design was beneficial before knowing the building usage. 6 Thinking about the purpose of the building and how much space was needed for each of the 7 activities would help inform Commissioner Ji’s decision to support this project. Commissioner Ji 8 noted each concept included the mobility hub as part of the greenspace and he wondered how 9 big the mobility hub was and if activity could take place in the greenspace. Commissioner Ji 10 inquired about the width of the grand promenade middle space in Concept 3, Packet Page 35, 11 so he could visualize what could fit in it because it looked too narrow for a playground. 12 Commissioner Ji wanted to know how the total amount of square footage of buildings and 13 greenspace was decided. 14 Kristen O’Kane remarked that the Master Plan will consist of a concept plan to show the 15 buildings and outdoor space on the site and what might go in those buildings. After the Master 16 Plan is complete and funding obtained, then there will be construction drawings and 17 engineering drawings. The goal was to follow the Master Plan as closely as possible, especially if 18 voters are asked to approve a ballot measure to fund a concept plan they helped create. 19 Steven Bingler said the Master Plan showed the general layout of the buildings. Then, an 20 architect will be brought on board to design the buildings. The new design process starts with 21 schematic design of the buildings, design development, construction documents, and then 22 construction will take place. The Master Plan dealt with the urban design issues and the 23 construction plan is addressed in a separate phase. Feedback obtained as part of the 24 community engagement process on preferences for architectural style and building materials 25 will be passed on to the architect. Steven Bingler assured the Commission that all uses currently 26 programmed can fit into the configurations they have outlined and will be addressed in the 27 next phase. The promenade was 70 feet wide in the diagonal scheme and 200 feet wide in the 28 linear scheme. Based on public feedback, Concordia will modify the promenade to about 100 29 feet wide. 30 Elizabeth Chen mentioned that Community Meeting 1 was more focused on programming and 31 used the 2019 Master Planning process as a guide. There was a list of programs, uses, and 32 activities that included all the current Cubberley uses and some expanded uses such as more 33 gyms. That programming document will be part of the Master Plan document. Elizabeth Chen 34 said that precedents for mobility hubs varied in scale but many included outdoor event space 35 using bollards to control traffic. Elizabeth Chen could not provide a response on the sizes of the 36 2 proposed mobility hubs because they will be addressed as part of the design process in the 37 next phase. For example, the large mobility hub could support an outdoor event space or a 38 food truck gathering while the other mobility hub could be more minimal. The programming 39 documents were based on a lot of the work done in 2019, which was where Elizabeth Chen 40 thought the square footage was chosen based on programmatic need, community feedback, 41 and stakeholder feedback for the recreation and wellness center, theater, and tenants’ 1 feedback about their space needs. The square footage had a little flexibility as the scheme 2 progressed and cost estimates were developed. 3 Commissioner James found it troubling that the polygons were abstract and arbitrary. 4 Commissioner James opined it was constraining to have an architect come in to finish the 5 design after the geometry was set and wondered if the architect was limited in the scope of 6 what they could do or could the architect offer a new concept for consideration. Commissioner 7 James did not have enough information for his comfort level. 8 Steven Bingler explained the reason for a master plan was to provide a high level. They were 9 architects. In this phase, Concordia was addressing the urban planning issues and narrowing 10 down the concept plan. The next phase will deal with architectural issues. Between 95 and 100 11 percent of the buildings shown on the scheme were functionally rectangular buildings and 12 therefore had no functional constraints. The community liked the bicycle circulation in the 13 diagonal scheme because when riding a bicycle it was a lot more convenient to have an even 14 flow rather than stopping and taking 90-degree turns. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and 15 the community’s preference for 2 large open spaces rather than many smaller open spaces 16 were urban design decisions. Architectural decisions made on building design included the 17 appearance of the buildings and the building materials. It was not unusual for a collaboration of 18 one team making the larger urban planning decisions and another team to then make the 19 architectural decisions. In his experience, Steven Bingler had done both, developing master 20 plans and receiving them. Layout decisions were vetted with the community and hundreds of 21 people found the proposed diagonal scheme more appealing than the orthogonal schemes. 22 Chair Akin calculated the diagonal concept to have about 10 percent less outdoor space than 23 the other concepts and was concerned that the square footage in the non-rectilinear layout of 24 buildings caused the building footprints to be used less efficiently than in the rectilinear 25 concepts. Chair Akin sought clarity on whether the bike paths will be physically separated from 26 the pedestrian lanes. 27 Elizabeth Chen thought each outdoor space was labeled with an approximate acreage but the 28 square footages were approximately the same in all 3 concepts because the footprints were 29 approximately the same. 30 Steven Bingler confirmed each of the 3 schemes had identical total square footage of buildings 31 and open space. As an architect, Steven Bingler did not know of a correlation between the 32 shape and use of the square footage. Whether it was on a diagonal or orthogonal grid, Steven 33 Bingler believed that creative architects could use either space efficiently. Steven Bingler said 34 they had not gotten down to the level of detail on whether the bike paths would be separated 35 from the pedestrian paths. On the promenade, the primary circulation from Nelson to 36 Middlefield, the plan was to have the bicycle path completely separate from the pedestrian 37 path. In Steven Bingler’s discussion with the City, he was made aware of the need to provide 38 access for fire trucks and service vehicles, so the bicycle circulation paths would likely be 39 extremely generous. 40 Public Comments: 1 1. Sonya Bradski has lived next door to Cubberley for 29 years and was involved in all 3 2 meetings in 2019. Sonya Bradski wanted Cubberley to provide similar programming and 3 event space in south Palo Alto as Lucie Stern provided to north Palo Alto. Most of the 4 offerings in the Enjoy! catalog were in north Palo Alto. It was difficult for people in south 5 Palo Alto to commute to north Palo Alto. When it rained, Sonya Bradski appreciated 6 being under the covered walkways at the current Cubberley facility but she did not see 7 covered walkways in the proposed concepts. As a bicyclist, Sonya Bradski did not like 8 bike pathways with 90-degree angles because the decreased visibility increased the risk 9 of accidents. 10 2. Rene Baez, representative of the NorCal Carpenters Union, wanted to ensure that this 11 project brought lasting value and pride to our community not only in the final product 12 but also because it was built responsibly with good jobs and opportunity for the people 13 who live here. Whether it was a renovation or new construction, the NorCal Carpenters 14 Union urged that this project be awarded to a responsible general contractor who was 15 committed to hiring local, who utilized registered apprenticeships, and provided 16 healthcare and fair wages to their workers. When we hire local, we reinvest back into 17 our neighborhoods. Apprenticeships give young people a path to solid, debt-free 18 careers. The entire community and local economy benefitted when workers were 19 treated fairly. 20 3. Elizabeth Alexis is a neighbor and volunteered at an organization at Cubberley. Elizabeth 21 Alexis was excited about this project but was concerned about transportation just now 22 being brought into the process. As a cyclist, Elizabeth Alexis was against the grand 23 promenade entrance in the middle of the project on Middlefield. Bicyclists and 24 pedestrians will want to get into the project and off Middlefield because it is a very busy 25 and unpleasant street, so the entrance should be on the corners. For a bicyclist going 26 south it could work if you are coming on Middlefield (which most people try to avoid) 27 but if you are going the other direction you land in a space going the wrong direction. 28 Elizabeth Alexis thought Nelson to Middlefield should connect to Montrose, which was 29 the main entrance used by bicyclists coming from the east side. Elizabeth Alexis believed 30 it was an appropriate and excellent place to have density with a couple stories up front 31 on Middlefield to provide more civic presence. On Charleston, 4-story housing was being 32 built across from single-story housing on a smaller corridor. Elizabeth Alexis noted the 33 protected trees were mostly stunted redwoods, so she suggested replacing them with 34 better, more appropriate trees. Elizabeth Alexis felt it was a waste to have greenspace 35 on Middlefield because it was not a pleasant place. Elizabeth Alexis was not a fan of 36 buildings that do not have right angles; she lived in one as a college student and it 37 created some challenges. Elizabeth Alexis suggested leaving space as a land bank for 38 future buildings. Surface parking or greenspace should be located in a space that would 39 facilitate future construction. Elizabeth Alexis urged caution about making conclusions 40 based on community meetings because it is difficult for people to understand the scale 41 of the buildings and how they will function, therefore the preferences were based more 1 on vibes. 2 4. Gary Bradski concurred with providing covered space for protection from the rain and 3 sun, maybe underneath solar panels. Gary Bradski agreed with allowing space for future 4 construction. Gary Bradski had lived in the Middle East where buildings were built with 5 the ability to add another story, so that may be a consideration. Gary Bradski wanted a 6 machine shop/maker space where he could use a laser cutter but he did not see it on 7 the current use list. Gary Bradski was a fan of the diagonal concept because of the looks 8 or vibe whereas the other concepts seemed like corporate headquarters. 9 5. Stacey Ashlund was a former Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioner and a long-10 time participant in the DanceVisions dance studio that has been at Cubberley for over 11 30 years. Stacey Ashlund participated in the community meetings and tenant meetings. 12 Stacey Ashlund strongly encouraged keeping performing arts and the long-term 13 nonprofit tenants such as the dance studios at Cubberley that were multigenerational, 14 good for mental and physical health, and provided a sense of community. 15 Vice-Chair Chang found it difficult to provide good feedback without knowing the scale of the 16 space. In the future, it was helpful if the concepts used a 100-foot scale or other unit of 17 measurement with a legend showing the bike path and pedestrian path. Vice-Chair Chang saw a 18 video online stating an outdoor space could include a swimming pool, so she queried if a pool 19 was on the list of uses and would the request for a bond measure and master plan specify the 20 proposal for a pool. On the right side of the concepts, a yellow line denoted a pedestrian path 21 running in front of Piazza’s where there is a fence at Piazza’s parking lot but Vice-Chair Chang 22 felt that the front of the grocery store was a dangerous corridor to avoid because of the many 23 cars circulating in the parking lot. On the question posed to the Commission about being a good 24 neighbor, Vice-Chair Chang asked if Charleston Center and Piazza’s were consulted on this 25 project. Vice-Chair Chang thought the underground parking solution was better aesthetically 26 and was a good use of space. Cubberley was a very large site, so there was potentially a long 27 walking distance if the parking was on a surface lot in the corner. Vice-Chair Chang liked the 28 idea of an underground parking lot stretching across the whole site, providing the added 29 benefit for people who were mobility challenged to park closer to their destination. 30 Kristen O’Kane said they originally used the term greenspace but were now calling it outdoor 31 space where programming or outdoor recreational facilities such as a pool can be located. The 32 uses for each space have not been determined yet but uses will be specified for the bond 33 measure. 34 Amanda Deml mentioned that the Charleston Center businesses including Piazza’s and the 35 property owner were consulted, have been kept updated throughout this process, and were 36 recently sent updated concept plans to review and provide feedback on. The fence had a small 37 gate opening to a walkway. The idea was to drive foot traffic and make it a positive relationship, 38 so the plan was to make the walkway better, safer, and more of a throughway. 39 Elizabeth Chen clarified that the yellow line on the concepts was not to be taken as a literal 1 path. The intention was to have an access point and the yellow line was the trajectory 2 connecting the 2 sites. Steven Bingler said the next iteration will include a higher level of detail. 3 Vice-Chair Chang gravitated toward the larger spaces because of the vibes. Vice-Chair Chang 4 found it difficult to understand the scale. Vice-Chair Chang compared Lucie Stern’s offerings to 5 what was available in south Palo Alto. Lucie Stern’s courtyard was a nice outdoor space and 6 could be used in a semiprivate setting. It is hard to hold certain events at the same time in 7 separate areas of a large open space, for example a career fair and a band. Semiprivate smaller 8 outdoor spaces are conducive to uses such as weddings, outdoor receptions, or parties; 9 therefore, Vice-Chair Chang liked the smaller outdoor space available in Concept 2. Vice-Chair 10 Chang did not know what the wide, long promenade outdoor space could be used for other 11 than a farmers market, tabling for college campuses, or tables to sit, so she did not think it was 12 the best use of outdoor space because of its limited flexibility. 13 On the question to the Commission about being a good neighbor, Vice-Chair Chang was not 14 sure the massing needed to be limited on Middlefield and, if done well, the buildings could be 15 made to feel welcoming. Circulation was not good on Middlefield. Additional planning was 16 required if the grand entrance was located in the middle where there was currently no 17 crosswalk, so coming in at the corners might make more sense. In all the concepts, the athletic 18 fields were shown next to the recreation center/gym. The distances look long on Google Maps 19 and on the concept diagrams, so Vice-Chair Chang wondered how long it takes to walk from 20 Point A to Point B. Parents like to drop their kids off as close as possible to the athletic field for 21 soccer or other youth activities, and people carry a lot of sporting equipment. For circulation, 22 particularly with the athletics facilities, it might be important to have a mobility hub or drop-off 23 area but parents need a line of sight to see where their child is going to ensure they arrive at 24 their destination. 25 Commissioner Peterson’s daughter was in dance school for many years and he observed the 26 walkway through the fence to the shopping center next door got a lot of use particularly at 27 lunch because the grocery store had awesome food to go. People access the Cubberley site 28 from the corners where there are crosswalks, not from the center of Middlefield. We want to 29 maximize public transportation but the full pathway to Caltrain cannot be solved. 30 Commissioner Peterson shared his screen to display a map of what he believed was perhaps 31 the most complicated, terrifying walking path in Palo Alto from the Caltrain Station to the 32 Cubberley Center by crossing Alma and continuing through a commercial parking lot. Ferne had 33 a walkway going into the school site. To walk to the Cubberley school site from San Antonio, 34 you have to go around to Middlefield or to the back of the school. When Commissioner 35 Peterson mentors architectural teams at the University, he advises them to draw their lines out 36 from a 3-mile circle around a site and asks them about the pathway and how they will bring 37 their material into the site from the freeway. It was not specified if the proposed buildings were 38 timber construction, steel, or concrete. Commissioner Peterson asked what material was 39 envisioned for this site, if massing had any effect on the material selection, and if some 40 configurations favored one material over another. Commissioner Peterson quoted Vitruvius, 1 form follows function, and make sure you build with something nearby. 2 Steven Bingler said Concordia was not involved in the materials selection at this stage of master 3 planning. Materials will be selected in the architectural phase. Concordia was developing a 4 massing that could be built in any material. 5 Jennifer Armer anticipated bringing a discussion on the early stages of the San Antonio Road 6 Area Plan to the PTC in September. 7 Commissioner Hechtman recalled this project started in 1991 when he was a new lawyer to 8 Palo Alto but he will be retired by the time the first shovel goes in the ground because the 9 effort had stopped, restarted, and then stopped by COVID. Commissioner Hechtman was happy 10 that this project was restarting and he urged staff to keep the pressure on to move it forward. 11 Commissioner Hechtman thought the master plan for Cubberley will be a transformative space 12 for Palo Alto because it is our community center, it will be enormous, it dwarfs Lucie Stern, will 13 be a focal point for everyone, and there is no membership required (unlike the JCC). This plan 14 needed a big budget and will be presented as a bond to our taxpayers. This community has 15 individuals with extraordinary wealth and many of them have displayed philanthropy. 16 Commissioner Hechtman believed this community project could attract donations of $10 17 million, $20 million, or $30 million and maybe naming rights on buildings, which would relieve 18 the taxpayers of some of the cost associated with the bond measure. Commissioner Hechtman 19 encouraged staff to put some thought on philanthropy as there might be an interest of some 20 people in the community or companies to participate in the funding for this project. 21 Commissioner Templeton wanted to keep the entranceway from this property to the adjacent 22 shopping center as it was a favorite of the kids who participate in activities close to the area. 23 Activities that provide movement were important to the community at every age level. 24 Commissioner Templeton agreed with the public commenter about keeping the dance space. 25 Provide parents the ability to easily drop off kids, have the choice to go shopping, and then pick 26 them up but that use case was not represented in the concept designs. In the next iteration, 27 Commissioner Templeton hoped to see activities located more toward the parking and waiting 28 spaces. People in south Palo Alto were grateful for the Rinconada pool but it was very 29 frustrating when it filled up. Schools have pools for meets but not for recreational use. 30 Commissioner Templeton liked the idea of a pool at Cubberley. If a pool was proposed, it 31 should be represented in the designs because it speaks volumes by not including it on the 32 concept plans. Commissioner Templeton spent a lot of time at the Stanford Oval with her kids 33 when they were little where they could spread out a picnic blanket and play Frisbee, so she 34 appreciated the inclusion of greenspace in the design. Space for a lawn, forest, pool, tennis 35 court, pickleball, or other uses were not part of this design, so Commissioner Templeton 36 cautioned that it was hard to satisfy people at the polls and people will expect different 37 outcomes when you are ambiguous about the uses. 38 Commissioner Templeton would like Cubberley to be a beautiful place to hang out, have a 39 party, a special space to have a photoshoot with friends or family, something that would help 40 enhance our enjoyment of our community other than the use of the buildings. Commissioner 1 Templeton wanted alcoves, small outdoor meeting areas, places to sit, relax, and enjoy the 2 beauty. Commissioner Templeton was enamored with the romance of a grand entrance but 3 echoed some of the feedback heard tonight about the placement and thought it was more 4 practical to welcome people where they are coming in and enhancing safety. Commissioner 5 Templeton did not want people walking on Middlefield because it was a very busy road and 6 commuters were often in a hurry. Commissioner Templeton suggested having a safe pedestrian 7 path through a beautiful Cubberley space to get from the Charleston side toward the San 8 Antonio side. 9 Commissioner Ji echoed the comments about this being a transformative space and was excited 10 about the work being done at Cubberley. Commissioner Ji noted Packet Page 19 described the 11 open greenspace as outdoor programs, a playground, amphitheater, or pool/water area. In 12 Commissioner Ji’s opinion, having a diamond-shaped building or a square-shaped building was 13 not the right question to ask the public. The public should be asked what activities they want to 14 do here, and then trust professional architects in a later phase to make sure the community’s 15 needs were met. It was hard to comment on designs if, for example, the theater cannot fit in a 16 diagonally shaped building. In north Palo Alto, Rinconada had a playground, pool, and library, 17 while Lucie Stern offered other services such as a theater. Cubberley was 1 block from Mitchell 18 Park, so it was interesting to think about both use cases. Mitchell Park had a lot of open field, so 19 Commissioner Ji did not know if more open field was the correct usage for Cubberley but it was 20 an important consideration. Commissioner Ji echoed the comments about the Enjoy! catalog 21 and having Cubberley provide offerings in the south side similar to Lucie Stern. Commissioner Ji 22 is a bicyclist and used the side entrances. Commissioner Ji lived on the Alma side and comes in 23 through the back when he comes via car. Commissioner Ji would consider adding more 24 transportation options on the Montrose side. 25 Commissioner James had a problem with having to choose a design based on geometry and the 26 pedestrian and bike paths, which then locked in the layout of the buildings and closed a lot of 27 options for the architect in the next phase. Commissioner James thought the design was 28 abstract and geometrically arbitrary. Commissioner James felt like he was not provided with a 29 convincing case and a design rationale for the proposed geometry. Commissioner James 30 wanted labeling of the spaces and buildings. Commissioner James did not know what will be 31 put in the buildings, why 70-foot-wide buildings were being stacked like shipping containers, 32 and how the layout was decided. Commissioner James was very excited about this space that 33 supported individual and collective creativity and was an amazing piece of underdeveloped land 34 but he was not given enough information to buy into it. Rinconada library was designed in the 35 midcentury by Edward Durell Stone and Commissioner James opined it set the standard 36 because it was aesthetically gorgeous, functioned beautifully, and enhanced the environment. 37 Chair Akin emphasized that a 4-story parking structure next to Greendell probably would not 38 work. The expected expansion of housing along San Antonio will result in more traffic on 39 Middlefield. Chair Akin was willing to accept more height and density along Middlefield if it 40 helped to support the below-grade parking, provided a flood buffer, and a buffer between 1 Middlefield and the rest of the Cubberley development. 2 Chair Akin thought the diagonal concept did the best job of using the buildings to buffer the 3 remainder of the development from Middlefield. A rectilinear path going at a right angle from 4 Middlefield all the way through the depth of the project provided a line of sight and sound into 5 the back of the project; the diagonal concept did a better job of breaking up that path. The 6 diagonal layout did a better job of preventing the creation of desire paths from one spot to 7 another. The 2 concepts that were more rectilinear would result in people walking the shortest 8 distance by diagonally cutting through the outdoor space, which was also encouraged by the 9 size of the project and the entrance points, so Chair Akin encouraged that be kept in mind in 10 the final design. Chair Akin was not fond of the small courtyard in Concept 2 because it made it 11 harder to repurpose the land. Within the lifetime of this project, there was the possibility that 12 buildings needed to be added or expanded, which was more difficult if the outdoor space was 13 partitioned into too many small units. In Concept 3, Chair Akin emphasized the grand 14 promenade was difficult to use and represented a large commitment of total available space. It 15 was unsafe to have people walking alongside electric bikes and created a huge incentive for 16 people to generate more walking paths whereas it was a worthwhile design feature if paths can 17 be safely used for walking and biking. 18 Commissioner Hechtman provided the following feedback as requested from the PTC on Packet 19 Page 14. Regarding arrival and parking, Commissioner Hechtman’s wife had spent a lot of time 20 at Cubberley and her first reaction when seeing the plans with a 4-story parking garage on one 21 side of the property was that there were people with mobility issues, parents with small 22 children, elderly, and disabled, so to have them cross the entire campus was a lot to ask; 23 partially underground parking spread across the property was much better and addressed that 24 issue. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the bicycle path through Cubberley out to 25 Nelson meant bicyclists had to dodge pedestrians who cross the path to get to their 26 destination. Commissioner Hechtman opined it might be better to take the through bikers out 27 of the middle of the campus and put the bike circulation around the outside but if that had 28 been studied and found to not work well, the reason should be voiced to the PTC. 29 Regarding building scale and physical space organization, Commissioner Hechtman focused on 30 how the greenspace will best be used as a community space. Commissioner Hechtman liked the 31 linear concept. The grand promenade was an inviting space for people to gather and it 32 reminded him of the Stanford Oval and the National Mall in Washington D.C. Referring to the 33 design on Packet Page 35, Commissioner Hechtman thought the orange represented sidewalks 34 on the outside and the black dashes inside were separate bike and pedestrian paths, so if he 35 understood it correctly, the whole thing was 200 feet wideand the open area of grass in 36 between the bike and pedestrian paths was 40 feet wide, which was not big enough. 37 Commissioner Hechtman thought a great design would include a central meeting place in 38 combination with a front promenade along Middlefield. Lucie Stern’s glass pumpkin sale and 39 other arts and crafts events were visible while driving down Embarcadero and Commissioner 40 Hechtman envisioned a front promenade along Middlefield serving that kind of function with 41 the booths extending down the grand promenade. The middle opening with the grand 1 promenade and the big greenspaces on the side could accommodate political gatherings if you 2 take the bikes out of the middle. The No Kings rally overwhelmed Rinconada, so a big space was 3 needed as a place for our citizenry to continue to stay vocal. One of the reasons Commissioner 4 Hechtman did not like the diagonal was because all the bike traffic was funneled in between 5 the 2 big spaces. 6 Regarding balance of building and greenspace, if more buildings needed to be built in the 7 future, Commissioner Hechtman wanted to create a hardline to limit to not reducing the 8 amount of greenspace below the amount that was currently at Cubberley. Regarding possibly 9 adding more height on the buildings along Middlefield, Commissioner Hechtman pointed out 10 that this Commission had shown great sensitivity to scale across from single-family residents 11 and this design reflected that thought. Middlefield was a wide road, particularly if the big grass 12 promenade was kept, so there was enough of a buffer to have a 2-story building well under 35 13 feet. Regarding the question of being a good neighbor, Commissioner Hechtman answered yes 14 because the only sensitivity was the northwest corner with single family homes but there was a 15 wide distance to the nearest building in the linear approach and there was a lot of greenspace. 16 Commissioner Peterson shared his screen to display the walkway between Mitchell Park and 17 Cubberley, about a 10-minute walk. Starting on San Antonio Road, there was a walkway 18 diagonally on the corner of Fern that goes into Cubberley, avoid the gas station by walking 19 through the neighborhood and come around the fields in the back. The north-south approach 20 going from San Antonio to Mitchell Park through Cubberley was about a 15-minute walk. 21 Commissioner Peterson did not see the existing walking corridor in the plan. Commissioner 22 Peterson agreed that locating the parking garage on one side was an issue, one reason being 23 that people sit in their car while they wait for their kids to come out of dance class. 24 Regarding arrival and parking, Commissioner Ji was not supportive of the large garage structure 25 on the side. On bike circulation, Commissioner Ji strongly agreed with Commissioner Hechtman 26 on the wraparound to prevent bicyclists from having to dodge people who walk through the 27 middle of Cubberley. Commissioner Ji imagined that folks going from the Nelson side through 28 the Montrose side would want to wrap around the outside. Commissioner Ji thought the 29 pedestrian circulation seemed fine. 30 Commissioner Ji addressed building scale, physical space organization, and greenspace 31 organization. Commissioner Ji felt it was very important to estimate the square footage for 32 various use cases and provide options for the buildings and outdoor spaces. For example, this 33 building is 2000 SF and it could be a dance studio and a yoga studio or a theater. If a pool was 34 proposed, Commissioner Ji suggested an outdoor/indoor combined usage to provide locker 35 rooms. Similarly, outdoor basketball could be located near the indoor basketball courts but 36 Commissioner Ji deferred to the Community Services Department’s expertise. Commissioner Ji 37 was sensitive to setbacks and daylight planes but did not mind more height in any of the areas. 38 Middlefield was a large road, so 2-story or possibly 3-story buildings more than 100 feet away 39 from single family housing was an appropriate usage in Commissioner Ji’s opinion, especially if 40 we made it interesting and a community center point on the front side of Middlefield. 1 Commissioner Ji thought Concept 3’s grand promenade was too narrow to be useful. 2 Commissioner Ji was indifferent about the front promenade, it could be useful, 70 feet was 3 sufficient for a walking path but he did not consider it as a primary use case for greenspace. 4 Commissioner Ji stated that being a good neighbor involved creative thinking about folks 5 getting to and from, which included managing congestion within Cubberley and on neighboring 6 sites. Commissioner Ji imagined that parents dropping off and picking up kids would create a lot 7 of traffic. Ensuring that access for transportation was easy such that neighbors and the 8 Charleston Center do not feel adverse transit impacts was top of mind for Commissioner Ji. 9 On being a good neighbor, Vice-Chair Chang wondered if Palo Alto coordinated or had visibility 10 into Mountain View’s plans. If Cubberley was done well and provided great offerings in the 11 Enjoy! catalog, it would be a huge draw for Mountain View. A lot of Mountain View’s new 12 housing will be near Cubberley. Therefore, the increased traffic from Mountain View needed to 13 be managed well. Today, Vice-Chair Chang visited the JCC and Moldaw and she questioned if 14 the same format could apply to Cubberley and PAUSD of having 2 organizations on a 15 multigenerational fused campus. Vice-Chair Chang did not know if PAUSD had plans for their 16 section of the Cubberley site. Vice-Chair Chang was in a working group for Midpeninsula’s new 17 park in Portola Valley. In partnership with the City of Portola Valley, some of the bike traffic was 18 being routed off Alpine Road onto a little Midpeninsula parcel to provide a friendlier bike path. 19 Because Middlefield was congested and will likely get more congested, a large section of 20 Middlefield could be made much safer for bikes if a nice bike path was brought into Cubberley 21 with additional greenspace (trees or something) on the frontage. A bike path through 22 Cubberley could help with connectivity, so Vice-Chair Chang wanted to know what the BPTP 23 folks thought about it. Vice-Chair Chang agreed with the comments made about not wanting 24 people on Middlefield. The bike lane on Middlefield was scary and people had to navigate the 25 cars coming out of Charleston Center’s driveways. 26 Vice-Chair Chang mentioned that part of being a good neighbor was making sure the parking 27 was well utilized to avoid creating problems for Charleston Center or the neighbors across the 28 street as well as the safety hazard of people parking across the street and crossing Middlefield. 29 Vice-Chair Chang noted that parking in Palo Alto was often not well utilized if people cannot see 30 it right away. PAMF in Mountain View and Whole Foods in Los Altos did a good job of utilizing 31 their underground parking, so Vice-Chair Chang advised looking into how they encouraged 32 people to use their underground parking. On Google Maps, Vice-Chair Chang saw parking next 33 to the currently planned athletic fields but she did not know if that parking would remain. Vice-34 Chair Chang wanted to ensure there was not a lot of congestion going in and out of the 35 Cubberley property. Driving on Middlefield was a challenge with traffic, which was exacerbated 36 when kids were going to and from schools. Vice-Chair Chang did not want a big event such as 37 an open house or chili cook-off that draws thousands of people to result in a standstill on 38 Middlefield. Vice-Chair Chang emphasized Commissioner Ji’s point of Mitchell Park’s sprawling 39 greenspace in close proximity to Cubberley. On the map, Vice-Chair Chang believed the 40 distance from Mitchell Park to Cubberley was similar to the distance from one end of the 41 Cubberley site to the other end. Therefore, Vice-Chair Chang thought Cubberley should provide 1 different offerings than Mitchell Park. 2 Commissioner Templeton believed only Stanford and Foothill had 50-meter-long pools in Palo 3 Alto, so a Cubberley pool that was 50 meters long x 25 yards wide would draw people. 4 Commissioner Templeton echoed the comments about increasing safety by bringing the bike 5 lane into Cubberley from Middlefield. Commissioner Templeton disagreed with the renovation 6 option because she did not think the 3 buildings were worth keeping. Amanda Deml stated a 7 gym was currently inside the pavilion and was used for soccer, basketball, and volleyball. 8 Commissioner Templeton would like Cubberley to have an inviting space and an attractive 9 structure. Commissioner Templeton attended a rally in Tracy at a park that had a big open 10 space and a gazebo with a band and speakers. Commissioner Templeton did not imagine any of 11 the 3 proposed renovated buildings would provide shade, an outdoor stage, and community 12 gatherings, so keeping those 3 buildings was not in the spirit of making an improvement to the 13 facility. The idea of having a focal point or gathering point was very attractive but 14 Commissioner Templeton did not see that well reflected on the concept designs. The concept 15 drawing was very rectangular. Commissioner Templeton suggested doing something fun. Seale 16 Park had wisteria growing up over a colonnade but it was back in the corner and not a focal 17 point. Commissioner Templeton suggested keeping the greenspace as an interior focal point for 18 people to gather or have community events at Cubberley. 19 Commissioner Templeton agreed with increasing the height along Middlefield as long as it did 20 not cast shadows or was ugly. The architects could work with the ARB. Commissioner 21 Templeton thought the neighbors would be appreciative of seeing something beautiful such as 22 an articulated facade, trees separating the bike lane from the street, climbing vines, or other 23 creative ways. Commissioner Templeton encouraged making it a beautiful place to drive past 24 and an attractive place that invited people in. Regarding arrival and parking, Commissioner 25 Templeton wanted Cubberley to have access and parking on the left and right sides, not just the 26 U-shaped drop-off/pick-up area. With regard to the balance of building and greenspace, 27 Commissioner Templeton heard the consultant say tonight that we have to use this space 28 maximally. Commissioner Templeton assumed there will not be another chance to design this 29 for at least 75 years, so we ought to be more aggressive in what we offer. Nonprofits and small 30 businesses need space to provide afterschool programs and movement instruction for all age 31 groups. Commissioner Templeton stated that being a good neighbor included considering the 32 needs of the elderly community at Middlefield and Charleston to enable them to access the 33 new Cubberley and enjoy services. 34 Commissioner James felt that the topics of additional height and providing more greenspace 35 deserved additional consideration. Commissioner James read some of the reporting from the 36 last community meeting and it seemed to him that a lot of people had a hard time making a 37 choice about the proposed buildings. Commissioner James pointed out that the concepts were 38 very similar in the way they imagined and envisioned this space. Commissioner James believed 39 it was too early to lock in on a concept because additional thought was needed on how the 40 square footage would be distributed on this beautiful piece of land and what the aesthetic 41 payoff was. Commissioner James wanted beautiful architectural and functional space. 1 Commissioner James loved what Cubberley did and felt this was an amazing opportunity to 2 make Cubberley the best public amenity in Palo Alto. 3 Commissioner Peterson inquired if this project could include wayfinding signage. Commissioner 4 Peterson was not aware there were multiple ways of walking from the Caltrain Station to 5 Cubberley, demonstrating the need for signage. The San Antonio Caltrain Station did not have a 6 sign pointing out the way to Cubberley. Cubberley did not have a sign pointing to Mitchell Park. 7 Commissioner Templeton emphasized the importance of considering what our voters think. 8 Palo Alto has had library measures fail and air conditioning in public buildings failed. If this 9 project relied on votes, it was extremely important to share the vision of why we were asking 10 for this, what will be done with the buildings, what services will be offered, who we were 11 bringing together, and how we are transforming a person’s perspective on something. 12 Commissioner Templeton inquired if the PTC will see the new iteration before the revised 13 concept goes to Council. Kristen O’Kane replied it was a very aggressive schedule and they were 14 trying to fit a lot in but staff hoped they could bring the next concept iteration to the PTC. 15 Commissioner Templeton said the PTC needed to see the next iteration to make further 16 recommendations. If staff wanted the PTC to decide where the bike path goes, the PTC had to 17 know what is there to be able to determine whether that bike path will meet the needs of 18 people going to the buildings. The public shares their input with PTC commissioners, so 19 Commissioner Templeton felt that the PTC could help staff anticipate the public’s reaction, if 20 the concept will meet the community’s needs, and what the voters needed to understand in 21 order to support a bond for this project. 22 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments. The PTC had a lot of expertise 23 in handling people movement and reviewing building projects. Commissioner Ji wanted the 24 new iteration to come back to the PTC if possible. Commissioner Ji agreed with Commissioner 25 James’s comment about the 3 concepts not showing radical reimagining. A resident wrote a 26 piece in Palo Alto Online who described this as an illusion of choice. The square footage of the 27 buildings and open space were the same in the 3 proposed concepts; therefore, there was not 28 much to comment on except moving a building over by 100 feet, for example. Commissioner Ji 29 wanted to see the use cases and a consideration of whether people wanted more greenspace 30 or building space. This was discussed in 2019 but Commissioner Ji would have preferred to have 31 seen in the packet a description of the different use cases that people wanted and the amount 32 of square footage needed for those uses and how it tallied up to the amount of square footage 33 proposed. If voters will be asked to approve a bond measure, Commissioner Ji wanted to see 34 more options and have the opportunity to provide feedback as opposed to an illusion of choice. 35 No action taken. 36 The PTC took a break at 8:52 PM and resumed at 9:00 PM with all members present. 37 Action Items 38 3. Review and Submit the Planning and Transportation Commission 2025-26 Work Plan 1 to the City Council for Approval 2 Jennifer Armer displayed the work plan on the screen. The first page laid out the role of the PTC 3 and the work it did. The second page included some of the prior year’s accomplishments, 4 followed by the 8 projects/goals the PTC was expected to work on over the coming year. It was 5 not an exhaustive list. Last year’s project/goal in regard to the Safe Streets for All Plan was 6 removed because it was completed. A new project/goal was proposed for code updates. 7 Sometimes Council requests the PTC to do work on codes. For example, the wireless ordinance 8 was an item that had been requested for future work by the Architectural Review Board and 9 the PTC if it involved code changes. 10 Public Comment 11 None 12 Chair Akin asked if any tasks were anticipated related to the Stanford General Use Permit and 13 grade separation. Jennifer Armer did not anticipate any task related to the Stanford General 14 Use Permit during this fiscal year because the County will not proceed until they have received 15 an application from Stanford. Jennifer Armer was not aware of any tasks related to grade 16 separation but, regardless of whether it was not on the work plan, staff would bring it to the 17 PTC if it was ready for review. 18 Commissioner Hechtman noted the last bullet point of prior year’s accomplishments was work 19 done on quasi-judicial activities (3 vesting tentative maps, a PC, and 2 PHZ applications), so he 20 wondered why the work plan did not include those kinds of tasks. Project/Goal 6, Bicycle and 21 Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update, under Beneficial Impacts it stated “increase 22 connectivity across the city” but Commissioner Hechtman suggested it state “increase safe 23 connectivity across the city” because the focus was to make it safer and the beneficial impact 24 was enhanced safety. Commissioner Hechtman did not understand the statement under High 25 Priority in Project/Goal 5, “the public welcomes opportunities to engage with the PTC on this 26 topic.” Commissioner Hechtman thought it should be “the PTC welcomes opportunities to 27 engage with the public on this topic,” so he asked staff to consider rewording that sentence for 28 clarification. 29 Vice-Chair Chang recommended changing High Priority and Low Priority for Project/Goal 7 to 30 N/A instead of stating that some of the programs and policies are higher or lower priority. Vice-31 Chair Chang thought Project/Goal 7 should include streamside corridor changes and bird-32 friendly design changes in Title 18 in recognition that the Council asked the PTC to work on it in 33 the past and it needed to come back to the PTC. Vice-Chair Chang wondered if it should be 34 explicitly stated that this work plan was not a prioritized list or use an A/B/C/D list instead of a 35 numbered list. 36 Commissioner Peterson was aware that Mountain View had an agreement with the building 37 trades to accept some of Mountain View’s high school graduates into the union apprenticeship 38 program where they make $50,000 to start and $250,000/year in their fifth year, not including 39 overtime. Commissioner Peterson heard that the Mountain View Planning Commission was not 1 as strong as Palo Alto’s, therefore, that item went straight to Mountain View City Council. 2 Because Palo Alto’s PTC was influential, Commissioner Peterson thought this effort could start 3 with the PTC. Public commenters from the Carpenters Union urge us to use local labor. 4 Commissioner Peterson was interested in rolling out a process so that when the PTC approved 5 projects, graduates from Palo Alto high schools could end up on those projects and eventually 6 make high wages. Commissioner Peterson proposed that staff look into the feasibility of that 7 idea and come back with information. Jennifer Armer’s initial reaction was that it was beyond 8 the purview of the PTC and did not recommend it be included as part of the work plan. Jennifer 9 Armer pointed out that a program in the City’s adopted Housing Element was about 10 encouraging local hiring, connecting with local labor unions and apprenticeship programs 11 within the city, so there was interest in supporting that effort. 12 Commissioner Templeton asked if staff would consider scheduling a PTC study session to have 13 an in-depth discussion on union apprenticeships for local high school graduates. Jennifer Armer 14 reiterated it was beyond the normal scope of the PTC and was a level of staff work that needed 15 to be directed by Council to open up that topic. Commissioner Peterson stated that Planning 16 staff was the only City staff having knowledge of building. Jennifer Armer was not interested in 17 adding it to the work plan because she did not anticipate it being prioritized due to staff’s 18 workload. Since a program was included in the Housing Element, Commissioner Peterson asked 19 staff to update the PTC as it moved forward. Jennifer Armer explained that the implementation 20 program was about providing information on the website and encouraging applicants to 21 consider it but did not go beyond that. With regard to encouraging applicants, Commissioner 22 Peterson was concerned about the 3-year waitlist to be admitted to the building trades. 23 Commissioner Peterson works with Eastside where they encourage their students to apply but 24 essentially nobody was admitted without a one-on-one agreement. 25 Commissioner Ji wanted clarification on whether the project/goals were intended to be a 26 prioritized list. Jennifer Armer invited PTC discussion but her understanding was that it was not 27 supposed to be a prioritization; however, you can discern that certain efforts were given 28 priority when projects were listed individually whereas others were part of a group or category. 29 Chair Akin thought one of the important purposes of the work plan was to document for other 30 people what the PTC does and how our time gets allocated, including reviewing individual 31 development projects and other categories that Commissioner Hechtman mentioned in his 32 comments. Chair Akin suggested having separate goals in the work plan to document the 33 ongoing tasks because they do not fit perfectly into any of the other projects/goals in the work 34 plan draft. 35 To make sure there was consensus, Jennifer Armer asked that the PTC make a motion to 36 continue this item with the modifications desired. The work plan would be brought back to the 37 PTC at the July 30 meeting for formal recommendation to Council. 38 In the interest of furthering the communication to the public and the Council, Vice-Chair Chang 39 thought it might be valuable to rank the projects/goals based on where the PTC spends the bulk 40 of its time. The PTC was not likely to spend a tremendous amount of time on Retail Ordinance 1 updates this year but it was listed as Project/Goal 1. The PTC spent a lot of time on shuttles, 2 micromobility, and reviewing potential developments, so those should be included in the 3 projects/goals. Vice-Chair Chang received feedback from some Council Members who did not 4 seem to understand what the PTC had been seeing, so the work plan should be the 5 communication tool to document what the PTC does. Chair Akin added that the work plan was 6 also for new commissioners who needed to understand what the PTC does. 7 Commissioner Templeton wondered if it was up to the PTC to prioritize things because she 8 thought the priorities came from Council. Commissioner Templeton did not believe the work 9 plan needed to be granular to include all aspects of the PTC’s job. 10 Commissioner Hechtman noted the work plan document was dated 2024/2025, so the date 11 needed to be updated. Commissioner Hechtman preferred to not have staff make a lot of effort 12 to fill in the work plan template to add quasi-judicial and similar work as Project/Goal 9 or to 13 have staff bring the document back to the PTC, so he suggested adding the following sentences 14 at the end of the document: The numbering of the above projects/goals does not reflect any 15 priority among them. In addition to working on the above projects and goals, the PTC 16 anticipates it will work on a variety of other matters during the upcoming year, including 17 transportation issues and quasi-judicial discretionary projects as they are presented. 18 The PTC’s everyday duties were written into the City Charter, so Commissioner Templeton did 19 not support using the work plan as a way of communicating them. If Project/Goal 9 included 20 ongoing tasks, it would never be removed because it was ongoing, whereas Projects/Goals 1-8 21 could be removed, reprioritized, or changed. 22 Commissioner Ji read the work plan document before attending his first PTC meeting. 23 Commissioner Ji was relatively indifferent either way but had a slight preference toward adding 24 Project/Goal 9 and filling in the boxes in the work plan template by copying Project/Goal 5 on 25 Packet Page 45 where it said “ongoing” or “continued engagement from t public.” 26 Commissioner Templeton noted “about the Commission” was an excellent place to expand on 27 what the Commission does. Commissioner Templeton wanted her name corrected under 28 “Current Commissioners” and all other locations where it did not list the name she goes by. 29 Commissioner Templeton asked if any PTC members had referred to the work plan in the last 30 year and understood its use, and if Council needed to have a refresher on what the PTC does. 31 Vice-Chair Chang explained that the Chair delivered a slide presentation to Council about what 32 the PTC does, the PTC was supposed to report on its projects and goals, and the work plan was 33 a communication document to the Council and the public, which made it awkward if 90 percent 34 of what the PTC did was not listed as a project/goal. 35 Commissioner Templeton thought it would be helpful to add a project to gather statistics on 36 how much time the PTC spent on things that were not on the work plan, and the statistics could 37 be shown to Council when the work plan was presented. Vice-Chair Chang pointed out that all 38 the commissions follow a work plan template. Commissioner Templeton suggested the PTC 1 could give feedback to Council that this work plan template was not useful for us. Jennifer 2 Armer stated there were some revisions to the handbook that included other elements in the 3 overall work plan document but she did not see any revisions to the work plan formatting. 4 Commissioner Templeton inquired if Chair Akin wrote the work plan document or provided 5 feedback before it was included in the PTC’s packet. Chair Akin did not write the work plan 6 document, he saw it and discussed it at pre-meeting but did not have an opportunity to provide 7 feedback before it was included in the PTC’s packet. Commissioner Templeton stated that if the 8 Chair had to represent the work plan to the Council, perhaps the Chair should be involved in 9 the creation of the work plan and have the ability to provide feedback sooner and because that 10 did not occur, this had to be brought back to the PTC for additional discussion. 11 Jennifer Armer said that if the motion was specific enough, staff could either move forward 12 without coming back to the PTC or it could be handled as a very quick item at the next PTC 13 meeting if the Commission preferred to see the revised language in the work plan before 14 forwarding the recommendation to the Council. Chair Akin wanted to see the language. 15 Commissioner Templeton proposed having the Chair see the language instead of it coming back 16 to the full PTC. Jennifer Armer sought Albert Yang’s opinion. Albert Yang confirmed it was an 17 acceptable way for the Commission to act. 18 Motion 19 Chair Akin moved to continue this item until July 30 for the Planning and Transportation 20 Commission to address the issues discussed tonight by adding Project/Goal 9 patterned on 21 Project/Goal 5 as suggested by Commissioner Ji, and that the substance of the goal should be 22 ongoing quasi-judicial review of development projects and transportation projects. 23 Jennifer Armer mentioned the following proposed changes to the work plan as suggested by 24 commissioners: Add the word “safe” to the Beneficial Impacts of Project/Goal 6. Modify the 25 wording under the High Priority Section of Project/Goal 5. Change the High Priority and Low 26 Priority for Projects/Goals 7 and 8 to N/A. Add to Project/Goal 7 a specific mention of 27 streamside corridor and bird-friendly design work. Correct Commissioner Templeton’s name 28 and the work plan date. 29 Second 30 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion with the additional information augmented by 31 Jennifer Armer. 32 Jennifer Armer clarified for the record that Chair Akin accepted the suggestion to modify his 33 motion, so instead of continuance it would be recommending approval with final review by the 34 Chair to confirm final language. Chair Akin and Commissioner Hechtman verbally confirmed. 35 Commissioner Templeton made a point of clarification that the language that will be included 36 was what the PTC discussed. 37 Vote 38 Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 1 Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 2 voting yes. 3 Approval of Minutes 4 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary and Verbatim 5 Minutes of April 30, 2025 6 Motion 7 Commissioner Hechtman moved approval of the Planning & Transportation Commission Draft 8 Summary and Verbatim Minutes of April 30, 2025, as revised. 9 Second 10 Commissioner Ji seconded the motion. 11 Public Comment 12 None 13 Vote 14 Motion passed 7-0 by roll call vote with Chair Akin, Vice-Chair Chang, Commissioner Hechtman, 15 Commissioner James, Commissioner Ji, Commissioner Peterson, and Commissioner Templeton 16 voting yes. 17 Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and 18 Agendas 19 Chair Akin provided a report on the community workshop and advisory group meeting for the 20 Downtown Housing Plan. The community workshop presentation provided a good overview 21 whereas the assessment report was much more detailed. For anyone who was interested, 22 performing a Google search for Palo Alto Downtown Housing Plan will land you on the right 23 page. Currently, only a very little amount of housing development downtown was financially 24 feasible. The main problems were economic conditions, competition from offices for the space, 25 small site sizes, and parking. Chair Akin recommended skimming through Ken Hayes’ public 26 comment because his analysis touched on what might be done to improve the situation. More 27 information on the Downtown Housing Plan will be coming from staff and the consultants in 28 the next few months. 29 Commissioner Ji will be joining the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Their first meeting will be held 30 in August and Commissioner Ji will report back afterward. 31 Adjournment 32 9:41 PM 33