Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-24 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: September 24, 2025 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 7 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. 8 9 The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. 10 11 PUBLIC COMMENT 12 13 1. Christine N. read correspondence submitted by her next-door neighbor concerning 14 proposals for a new pedestrian and bike route. Safe biking and sustainability was supported 15 but not demolishing homes without demonstrating necessity. Other options included using 16 existing rights of way, rerouting through underutilized land or reallocating roadway space. 17 The speaker’s home was one that may be taken by public domain. It was requested that the 18 proposal be revisited and that Council members visit the neighborhood, which may not 19 have been a safe bike route. 20 21 2. Ward T. addressed the proposals for a new pedestrian and bike route, which he opined 22 could happen without taking homes. Items A, G and H of the consultant’s report were viable 23 options. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman asked if the plans discussed in the public comments would be 26 presented to the PTC. 27 28 Chief Transportation Official Ria Lo stated the South Palo Alto Connectivity Project would be 29 presented to the PTC in November. 30 31 Chair Akin added that it had been reviewed when Commissioner Hechtman was out. 32 33 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 34 35 There were no agenda changes. 36 37 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 38 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 39 40 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer expressed that on October 8 the PTC would address the 1 proposed project at 660 University Avenue and consider a Zoning Code amendment request. 2 There was a potential for 3 items on October 29 – a presentation by SamTrans regarding the 3 Grand Boulevard Project, a Palo Alto LINK update and the return of the retail revitalization. 4 Council had approved the Conditional Use Permit for 400 Mitchell Lane. There would be a 5 prescreening for 414 California Avenue by Council on September 15 [sic]. On September 29, 6 Council was scheduled for a couple consent calendar items relevant to the PTC’s work but 7 liaison attendance would not be needed. On October 6, Council was scheduled to have a first 8 look at the San Antonio Road Area Plan. 9 10 Ria Lo noted, regarding the Quarry Road Extension, that an MOU with Stanford would go to 11 Council on September 29. A community meeting was scheduled for September 30 for the 12 Churchill/Seale, Meadow and Charleston Grade Separation Project. There was a plan to present 13 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in November. There were currently many safety activities 14 occurring – bike rodeos, etc. The City opened the Traffic Garden at Ventura Community Center 15 and Nara Cammack would receive a proclamation from Council at a future meeting. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that the Churchill-Alma intersection had been backed up 18 recently when there was train on the tracks and folks were making illegal turns, which was 19 dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians. Safety recommendations may have needed 20 investigation. 21 22 Commissioner Ji had a similar experience at the Meadow intersection. The signal being on the 23 El Camino side of the train tracks may have presented a problem in triggering the signal, which 24 should be examined. There was concern that some LTS4 intersections were on the SRTS. It was 25 exceptionally busy on El Camino Way onto El Camino since the addition of the Keys School. The 26 no right turn on red was appreciated. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton supported Commissioner Ji’s comments. Safety improvements should 29 be addressed and needs shared with Senator Becker’s office. 30 STUDY SESSION 31 32 2. Review of the Final Conceptual Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent 33 Park Traffic Calming Project – Bulbout on Southwood and East Crescent Drive. CEQA 34 Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. 35 36 Ria Lo spoke of the goals and foundational concepts of Palo Alto’s Traffic Calming Program and 37 provided a history of the project. Staff would move to the engineering design, which had been 38 refined after some supplementary community engagement and more refinement could be 39 done. Council had approved proceeding to the next steps, so no action was required, although 40 there was leeway to refine design details. The pilot locations were at the Southwood and 41 Crescent intersection and at Center, Southwood and Hamilton. The design would successfully 42 incorporate a number of proven countermeasures, including narrower crossing distances, 43 corner radii, squaring intersections and roundabouts. There was a reduction in vehicle volumes 1 and a small reduction in speeds. A supermajority from the community supported the 2 permanent improvements. The concept design for the permanent installation was detailed. Not 3 all were in favor of the improvements but staff was trying to balance different issues. Staff 4 recommended moving forward to the engineering design. Further delays to the project would 5 increase construction costs and diminish returns in terms of the potential refinement of the 6 design details and there would be opportunity costs. Next steps would include preparing 100-7 percent engineering drawings to incorporate the design refinements referred to, initiating a 8 construction phase for permanent installation and returning to Council for review of the 9 construction contract. Staff was confident that the traffic calming work would balance the 10 needs of different users, improve safety and reduce cut-through traffic and speed. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton inquired what was meant by pilot and neighborhood support, how 13 many were involved in providing neighborhood feedback and if those who provided responses 14 had been filtered. 15 16 Ria Lo answered that pilot meant the use of interim materials and trying the treatments. As for 17 filtering, the Traffic Calming Program had guidance on who to incorporate. Ria Lo would return 18 with an answer regarding neighborhood support. 19 20 Commissioner James queried how the needed result could be reached with the minimum 21 amount of bulbout. 22 23 Ria Lo replied the size of the bulbout could be re-examined. In response to Commissioner 24 Templeton’s question, the N was 114. 25 26 Commissioner Hechtman questioned if the design approved by Council was the same the PTC 27 was presented with, if a concrete pad was a flat piece of concrete connecting the sidewalk and 28 terminating at the curb and how a mobility impaired person would enter a vehicle from a 29 concrete pad location. 30 31 Ria Lo responded that the modifications would be incorporated into the engineering design. 32 Additional modifications would include straightening the curb slightly where the platform was. 33 A slide picturing concrete pads was supplied. It was explained how a mobility impaired person 34 could enter a vehicle from a concrete pad location. The location of the pad was based on the 35 current ramp location, which perhaps could have been tweaked slightly. 36 37 Vice Chair Chang asked if AB413 would require updates to ramps if no additional work was to 38 be done and if the data on Slide 8 was the same data presented to the PTC on June 14, 2023. 39 40 Ria Lo explained that ramps would need to be updated. The data on Slide 8 was the same data 41 presented to the PTC on June 14, 2023, which was collected in the fall of 2022 and was the only 42 data demonstrating the success of the pilot. 43 44 Commissioner Peterson inquired where the table that broke down the number of morning and 1 evening vehicle trips could be found. 2 3 Ria Lo replied the table that broke down the number of morning and evening vehicle trips was 4 in the Fehr & Peers attachment to the 2023 report. 5 6 Jennifer Armer added that Packet Pages 9 and 10 provided links to the previous reports, 7 including the November 6, 2023, Council report online. Staff would try to locate it and furnish it 8 on the screen. 9 10 Commissioner Ji referenced Slide 10 and inquired which sections were impacted by the State 11 bill and what the current state would be if no work were done, if there could be a crosswalk 12 instead of a bulbout and if the ramp would need to be filled in if a ramp was put on the far side. 13 14 Ria Lo responded that going back to something that would somewhat resemble the original 15 would include eliminating the stop signs and the bulbout and the pad would become the curb 16 ramp, which would need to be made ADA compliant and then it would become the crosswalk, 17 so a 20-foot no-parking section would be needed for the approach. There would be no parking 18 in front of the intersection. A crosswalk might not achieve the project goals because of a wide 19 turning radius. The City did not provide ramps where pedestrian crossing was not 20 recommended. 21 22 Chair Akin questioned if there was a way to move forward without eliminating the ramp Mr. 23 Girand currently used. 24 25 Ria Lo understood the ramp used by Mr. Girand needed to be eliminated. 26 27 Chair Akin asked to be supplied with the regulatory basis for that so it could be applied to 28 future projects. Chair Akin asked if the ramps would need to be upgraded to meet ADA 29 requirements if the area was returned to its original configuration. 30 31 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang voiced there was not an obligation to immediately bring all 32 intersections up to current ADA standards but when doing capital work on an intersection, 33 everything needed to be brought to ADA standards. The temporary changes installed to this 34 intersection needed to be converted into a permanent configuration. If the area was returned 35 to its original configuration, ramps would need to be upgraded. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton inquired what was meant by pilot because it sounded like making any 38 alterations to the intersection required future changes, that it could not revert back to the 39 original state and that any work at all was an implied commitment that the intersection would 40 be up to code. 41 42 Ria Lo stated a pilot provided interim improvements to try a concept with minimal cost but 43 there needed to be ADA compliance. 44 1 Albert Yang added that a feature of ADA was that a noncompliant feature could not be retained 2 if trying something out. 3 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS 5 1. James G. learned of the berm project when the temporary structure was installed in 6 front of his house, which disrupted access to the home. Entering and exiting a vehicle was 7 now dangerous. A letter of objection had been submitted. The berm was subject to a 8 Crescent Park neighborhood vote but it did not appear to reflect the sentiments of those 9 most affected. It was requested that the berm be removed and replaced with 3 stop signs. 10 11 2. Laurie G. had received no notification of actions in the matter. It was voiced that efforts to 12 reach neighboring homeowners had been feeble. Laurie G. questioned who the 114 people 13 were using the intersection. Calming traffic could have first been addressed with crosswalks 14 and speed humps or making Crescent a one-way street. Some data had not been shared by 15 OT even under PRA requests. 16 17 3. Lisa L. received the Transportation Department’s staff memo one hour before the meeting. 18 Lisa L. questioned who the OT answered to if it was not the PTC or impacted neighbors. In 19 the past, the PTC requested that the bulbout be smaller, etc., and it seemed that the PTC 20 could not provide input now. The concrete pad would be problematic for some folks exiting 21 their vehicles. It was not understood how the installation of temporary measures triggered 22 ADA requirements. Making the ramp a concrete pad may eliminate it being considered a 23 crosswalk. A letter had been submitted detailing opposition to the process. Lisa L. had not 24 been asked to provide an opinion. 25 26 4. Daniel H. requested that East Cresent return its former condition as there had been no 27 issues. Support for Mr. Girand was voiced. Daniel H. had not been surveyed and requested 28 that the survey include those in reach of the intersections. 29 30 5. Nita G. urged rejecting the proposed permanent berm. The data did not seem to support it. 31 Pre-pilot data measured pre-COVID data and post-pilot data measured post-COVID data. It 32 was believed that the claims that the berm would reduce volume and speeds had been 33 misrepresented by the OT. Hundreds were solicited for input, not just the stakeholders in 34 the neighborhood. 35 36 Chair Akin noted when the project was last before the PTC (in April) it was classified as an 37 action item but the PTC continued it. It had been reclassified as a study session for this meeting, 38 so there would not be a formal motion or vote. However, there should be a poll so the PTC 39 could provide Council a clear statement of intent. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton queried if Council had taken an action between April and today 42 resulting in this not being an action item. This had been presented as a pilot and it was 43 concerning that it could not be undone. Things should be experimented with the 1 Transportation partners and if things could not be tested and noted that some things would not 2 work, then the PTC would feel things would have to be perfect before buying in, which was 3 counterproductive as a governing body. It appeared that a large number of people in the 4 neighborhood participated in the survey. Commissioner Templeton queried if it could be 5 determined how the response table looked with those personally affected by the construction. 6 7 Jennifer Armer understood that the previous PTC meeting should have been a study session. 8 9 Ria Lo stated 114 in the neighborhood were surveyed and the 78 percent who supported the 10 project was from the whole area. The 25 in the immediate neighborhood who responded to the 11 second question was the 74 percent who supported the project. 12 13 Commissioner Templeton questioned if those whose properties were personally affected could 14 be filtered out. 15 16 Ria Lo thought the 25 would be personally affected. 17 18 Albert Yang added there were 2 questions. There were 114 respondents for the first question 19 and 26 for the second and both responses were in the 75/25 range. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton asked if 26 of the 114 who lived in close proximity to the intersection 22 were affected by the construction. 23 Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia remarked the 2 surveys were for 2 locations. Between Southwood 24 and Crescent, residents within the immediate vicinity of the intersection were filtered out, 25 which resulted in 25 respondents and 74 percent were in favor of proceeding. The subset of the 26 first survey filtered out the ones who lived in the immediate vicinity, maybe 50 to 100 feet on 27 all sides, which were maybe 25 homes – 3 or 4 homes on the Southwood end and all on East 28 Crescent. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton commented that Mr. Girand was directly affected because his 31 property was adjacent to the construction and Mr. Girand had stated he had not been 32 surveyed. At the last meeting, staff was directed to return when there had been agreement 33 with Mr Girand. There seemed to be a revision but no agreement. Commissioner Templeton 34 asked why it returned to the PTC without that person being satisfied. It was sad and frustrating 35 that a resident was being affected by what had been termed a pilot and that it could not be 36 reversed. Commissioner Templeton spoke of the sunk-cost fallacy and this project having a 37 critical flaw of a homeowner being unable able to access his home. There seemed to be a 38 communication issue as it appeared the homeowner had not been advised of the project. 39 Commissioner Templeton questioned what could be done, without putting the City at risk, for 40 this resident whose ability to use his property was impeded. Mr. Girand needed safe access to 41 his home and the project needed to cooperate with him as a condition of approval. A slip lane 42 in front of the houses could also be a solution. An example of such was at Alma at Meadow in 43 front of the apartments. Commissioner Templeton asked what the consequence would be if it 1 were returned to previous. It was explained that the project could also be delayed for a decade. 2 3 Ria Lo replied that staff reached out to Mr. Girand and had a conversation but an agreement 4 was not reached. 5 Commissioner Peterson mentioned that delaying the project was a great idea. The 2022 dataset 6 indicated that traffic had increased. Northbound seemed to be the problem in the afternoon 7 and the bulbout was on the south side of the street. If a study were done today, it may find no 8 traffic congestion problem as thousands of Stanford employees had moved to Redwood City. 9 10 Commissioner Ji mentioned that staff said there were changes in the control related to speed 11 reductions. Commissioner Ji asked what the control was. 12 13 Ria Lo replied the control referred to speed being analyzed at 11 intersections, some related to 14 specific areas in the study area and some for University. No new data had been collected since 15 2022. 16 Vice Chair Chang expressed that oftentimes motions were made in study sessions. Vice Chair 17 Chang asked what the legal implications were of this erroneously coming to the PTC in April as 18 an action item and if a motion was not needed by the PTC because Council already approved it. 19 There was disappointment in how the project was handled overall. The circle the PTC approved 20 on June 14, 2023, had not moved forward because it had been bundled with the engineering 21 consultant contract, which was disappointing. The PTC was explicit that the bulbout needed 22 more work and it was not approved. Council may not have realized the PTC unanimously voted 23 that the bulbout needed more work. It appeared that a critical piece of information in the Staff 24 Report to Council was glossed over. Vice Chair Chang queried if there was a difference in the 25 bulbout the last time it was seen versus today. Over 2 years ago, the PTC requested that staff 26 determine if there were other options for the bulbout, in particular the size. 27 28 Albert Yang stated the Commission could not make a formal motion in a study session but a 29 straw poll could provide guidance. As for this erroneously coming to the PTC in April as an 30 action item, perhaps if it were continued as an action item, it would return on action. It was not 31 known if there was a difference in what staff was seeking at the previous hearing and what staff 32 was requesting now. Council action on the item did not require further action by the PTC but it 33 did not preclude staff from returning to the PTC to seek input. 34 35 Ria Lo replied that the difference in the bulbout was to ensure a straight curb so vehicles would 36 be 15 feet from the crosswalk. The current design reflected the PTC’s request to look at other 37 options for the bulbout. The overall size of the bulbout would shrink slightly by straightening 38 the curb. 39 40 Chair Chen was disappointed that more innovative approaches had not been tried. An option 41 might be removing the bulbout and keeping the stop signs. 42 1 Commissioner Hechtman took a moment to remember John Paul Hanna who passed away just 2 over a month ago. Bringing something into ADA compliance that would adversely affect a 3 disabled person was almost counterintuitive. It was believed that staff could investigate 4 relocating the pad to the left to retain Mr. Girand’s accessibility. It was highly unusual for a 5 Public Works project to focus on accommodating one property owner. Sliding the pad over a 6 couple steps should be a solution. If staff should come up with such a design, it should be 7 presented to Mr. Girand and his family as a solution. 8 9 Commissioner James asked if any of the aforementioned design suggestions might address the 10 concerns. 11 12 Ria Lo responded that staff could entertain some changes, such as moving the concrete pad. 13 There should be more community engagement if there were to be any dramatic changes. 14 15 Chair Akin mentioned that on April 9 it had been requested that OT watch Mr. Girand enter and 16 exit representative vehicles. It did not appear that that happened. It was hoped that could be 17 accomplished and that the outcome would result in relatively small changes that would fit into 18 the developed paradigm. Changing the size and shape of the concrete pad may be a solution 19 and a railing or support post might also be considered. A bulbout design may work with 20 changes of that kind. Chair Akin did not want to dissuade staff from also looking into other 21 options. 22 23 Commissioner Peterson noted that the northbound traffic was the challenge and suggested 24 there be bollards or a curb splitting the street, which would make left hands turns occur farther 25 down the street. A flat pan curb may be another solution, which would allow the concrete pad 26 to be at street level. 27 28 Chair Akin queried what message should be crafted for staff to take to Council. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton desired that process be a part of the recommendation. The potential 31 incongruities between what the PTC wanted to recommend to Council and what had been put 32 on the Consent Calendar was concerning. 33 34 Commissioner Ji questioned if speed humps being close to the intersection would result in a 35 reduction in speed. 36 37 Ria Lo replied speed humps being close to the intersection could result in a reduction in speed. 38 A raised crossing was another possibility. Although, those would be substantial changes. Not 39 having a bulbout would also be a substantial change. 40 41 Vice Chair Chang stated the PTC had not previously approved a bulbout. It was disappointing 42 that there was not a no-bulbout option. 43 44 Discussion ensued about taking straw polls on the aforementioned suggestions. The PTC 1 wanted to ensure understanding by staff and Council. The suggestions included relocating the 2 concrete pad, a smaller bulbout, a slip lane channelizing to the intersection, 3 stop signs, 3 removing the pilot, delaying the permanent installation, a flat pan curb and moving the 4 crosswalk section. The PTC supported investigating all the listed options as potential 5 alternatives or modifications to the proposal. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton addressed process and questioned how the PTC’s desires could be 8 better presented to Council going forward. 9 10 Jennifer Armer replied that at the Retreat staff committed to ensuring that the representation 11 in the Staff Report would clearly reflect the PTC’s recommendation and there had been 12 discussion about liaisons attending meetings or reviewing reports. Council chose to not move 13 forward with liaisons attending PTC or ARB meetings. 14 15 Commissioner Ji, as liaison, would review the packet. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton suggested the PTC write a letter to bring this to Council’s attention if 18 Commissioner Ji would not be reviewing the packet. 19 20 Commissioner Peterson thanked Mr. Girand for attending the meeting. 21 22 Commissioner Ji questioned what the next steps in the process would be. 23 24 Ria Lo wanted to get some advice on how to proceed from this point. 25 26 Commissioner Templeton voiced that the homeowner’s agreement to the happenings had not 27 been discussed. 28 29 Commissioner Peterson commented that communicating with the homeowner/landowner was 30 important and they should be in agreement. 31 32 Jennifer Armer clarified that the use of private land was not proposed. It was understood there 33 was concern about access and change to the existing property. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman expressed that private property owners did not get to veto Public 36 Works projects and it was not a prerequisite in moving forward with the project. Staff should 37 meet with the property owner and help him understand this could work. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton stated the homeowner was not vetoing a Public Works project. The 40 project was brought forth to help the neighbors in the community and it had not met any of its 41 goals and the data did not indicate the pilot should move forward. It was opined that it was put 42 in front of Council who approved it based on the presentation but without thoughtful 43 consideration. Commissioner Templeton questioned to what extent the City should listen when 44 a Public Works project would prevent access and use to one property. That feedback should be 1 presented to Council. At the last meeting, it was requested that staff work out a solution with 2 the homeowner and that had not happened, so it had not met the bar. 3 4 Commissioner Ji echoed Commissioner Templeton’s comments. Commissioner Ji had applied to 5 the PTC to provide a voice for the community. The OOT observing Mr. Girand entering and 6 exiting his vehicle could provide valuable insight. 7 8 Ria Lo responded staff requested that Mr. Girand demonstrate entering and exiting the vehicle. 9 10 Vice Chair Chang mentioned that the PTC’s direction was ignored and it should have been 11 reported. 12 13 [The Commission took a 10-minute break] 14 ACTION ITEMS 15 16 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: 17 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned 18 Community Ordinance (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit 19 Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions 20 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA 21 Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). 22 23 Commissioner Ji recused himself from the item as he had advocated for the project prior to 24 serving on the PTC. Albert Yang had informed Commissioner Ji that he could participate as a 25 member of the public. 26 27 Vice Chair Chang disclosed that she had visited the site. 28 29 Commissioner James disclosed that he had visited the site and with some neighbors and was 30 invited into a backyard. 31 32 There were no other disclosures. 33 34 Senior Planner Emily Kallas provided an overview of the project. Council reviewed the project in 35 May and remanded it back to the PTC. After the PTC recommendation, it would return to 36 Council for a final decision. The revised site plan removed 3 third-story units for a total of 13 37 proposed units, which decreased the floor area by approximately 1,850 square feet and 38 increased the third-story setback for the new proposed units to 25’10” with one unit being 39 about 27 feet away and with one area facing the Avant. The existing green color scheme had 40 been reincorporated. A Transpiration Demand Management Plan and Parking Plan had been 41 prepared and incorporated into the conditions of approval. The provided parking would meet 42 minimal zoning requirements. The Parking Plan included dedicating spaces for visitors, staff and 43 residents. The below-grade garage had keycard access for employees. The applicant prepared a 1 revised daylight plan revision – Attachment G. 2 3 Emily Kallas stated there were 2 neighborhood petitions related to privacy toward the single-4 family neighborhood, reduced natural sunlight, the impacts of staff and visitor parking in the 5 neighborhood and potential for additions to the building lowering property value and quality of 6 life for the neighbors. There had been a discussion regarding the daylight plane calculations. It 7 was desired that there be no exceptions to the Zoning Code. There were concerns that 8 WellQuest was a for-profit company and that the original PC Ordinance conditions of approval 9 had not been enforced. The project was reviewed under CEQA and a categorical exemption 10 under Section 15301 for existing facilities had been prepared. Staff recommended the PTC 11 recommend approval of an ordinance amending PC-5116 to allow the proposed increase in 12 units and associated modifications to the develop plan and to recommend approval of the 13 Record of Land Use to Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. It was 14 recognized that the PTC had made the recommendation to approve only a portion of the units, 15 which could continue to be a recommendation moving forward. 16 17 Commissioner Peterson requested a better understanding of the CEQA exemption. 18 19 Emily Kallas discussed the project’s CEQA exemption. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman asked, regarding the third-floor units, if staff had used the plan that 22 had come forward since the Council meeting and if it was consistent with Council direction. 23 24 Jennifer Armer answered that Council would decide whether the plan was consistent with their 25 direction. Direction included removal of the third floor but the applicant tried to address those 26 concerns by having the units face a different way. 27 28 Emily Kallas added that Council had discussed project feasibility with the applicant during the 29 meeting. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman understood there was a possibility for third-floor units. 32 33 Emily Kallas responded Council’s vote was 4-3 with a lot of variation in opinion. 34 35 Chair Akin addressed Page 28 of the TDM plan and inquired what entity performed the data 36 verification. 37 38 Emily Kallas answered that TDMs were required to provide annual reports to the City, which 39 would go through the OOT. 40 41 Jennifer Armer believed the OOT was responsible for the physical process of doing the 42 verification but staff would look at the language and respond further if there was additional 43 information. 44 1 CEO at WellQuest Living Steve Sandholtz clarified that WellQuest did not own the community 2 but managed it. It was not economically feasible to limit the project to 7 units with no units 3 being built on the Wilkie Way side. The applicant proposed 13 units because it followed the 4 spirit of the recommendation to remove the most objectionable units. Changes were made to 5 the project to address some of the neighbors’ concerns, including privacy issues, window 6 orientation, planting trees and paint color. 7 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS 9 10 1. Lily L. speaking on behalf of 5 (Jetta C., Greyson A., Jen O., Austin T., Julie B.) furnished slides 11 and remarked that only the 7 interior units were supported, not the additional construction 12 due to violations in setback and daylight plane requirements and density massing. 13 Exceptions were not supported. It appeared that the property owner violated City 14 requirements for fire safety, access for those with disabilities and other codes. It was urged 15 that the PTC and Council set clear and consistent community-wide requirements and that 16 the PTC endorse the previous recommendation sent to Council. 17 18 2. Janis I. speaking on behalf of 5 (James T., Meagan C., Alex C., Tianxin Z., Anne M.) provided 19 slides and discussed Palo Alto Commons contributing to parking issues in the neighborhood 20 and the PC not being compliant with reporting. The Parking Study indicated that 3 21 underground parking spots were unusable due to obstruction by construction equipment. It 22 appeared that parking cones were blocking the ADA parking spot, that valet parking was 23 inconsistent and that the fire lane was sometimes blocked. It was recommended that 24 parking issues be resolved before continuing the project. 25 26 3. Jenny C. opposed the 13-unit Palo Alto Commons expansion project and echoed neighbors’ 27 concerns related to daylight plane, parking and current building code violations. 28 29 4. James C. believed the Commons were negotiating with bad faith and that there was no 30 visibility into their economics and parking overflow. It was requested that the PTC approve 31 the previously recommended 7 internal units without the 2 additional offices or 32 alternatively expanding on El Camino Way. 33 34 5. Michael J. requested the applicant be allowed 7 units, not the 13-unit plan and that the 35 applicant be held to the current code and past commitments. 36 37 6. Ellen H. was opposed to the project expansion in the rear due the reduction in light, air, 38 visibility, property values, etc. It was voiced there would be further study with an EIS or EIR. 39 There should be public benefits, such as low-income units for seniors and/or solar power to 40 the adjacent neighbors who were affected. 41 42 7. Andie R. questioned who would address the Transportation Demand Management Plan 1 document encouraging employees to walk, ride bikes, etc. It was stated there would be 2 many other visitors to the property, such as outside services and medical personnel. It was 3 desired that the neighbors provide input into the TDM before finalizing it and that the PTC 4 recommend the 7 units to Council. 5 6 8. Shiqi H. expressed her support for the PTC’s decision made in December 2024. It was 7 indicated that the new proposed units would cause residents to lose most of their sunlight 8 and privacy, which may be illegal given that the 1987 commitment was documented. Code 9 violations and inadequate parking were spoken of. There should be monitoring of their 10 proposed solutions and punishment if in violation. 11 12 9. Daniel P. opposed the expansion as proposed and asked that only the 7 internal units be 13 approved. It was felt that the impacts on Wilkie Way had been overlooked. Noncompliance, 14 parking issues and noise issues were discussed. 15 16 10. James P. opposed the proposed offices and the 13-unit expansion of the Commons and 17 urged the PTC to approve the 7 internal units and if there should be expansion that it focus 18 on the El Camino Way side of the property. It was stated the proposal would violate current 19 daylight plane standards and lead to loss of privacy and property values and that the step-20 back area would be in violation of past assurances. 21 22 11. Nia P. did not support the proposed expansion and preferred that additional units be built 23 on the interior or front instead of in the back. Traffic and parking congestion, privacy and 24 diminishment of backyard utility were addressed. It was recommended that only 7 units be 25 approved. 26 27 12. Daniel H. was concerned about senior living and nursing homes being exploited by private 28 equity. It was suggested that the City address the neighbors’ concerns and that the 29 Commons provide high levels of care, i.e., specified nurse to tenant ratios, requirements to 30 justify pricing increases, living wage salaries for staff and a preference for Palo Altans. 31 32 13. Penny B. joined with speakers opposing the proposal for a 13-unit expansion. The increasing 33 unsafe traffic and parking problems along Wilkie Way behind the Commons were discussed. 34 It was opined that the Commons provide benefit only to the wealthy, not the public in 35 general. 36 37 14. Minami S. read a letter on behalf of an anonymous individual, which addressed parking 38 concerns. It was urged that visitor parking be expanded to meet the needs. 39 40 15. Niles E. requested that the expansion plan not be approved because the applicant had not 41 upheld the previous agreement and because of insufficient parking. 42 43 16. JP echoed comments made by neighbors and the over 100 residents who signed the 1 petition opposing the project due to noncompliance with the original agreement and 2 inadequate parking. It was requested that current zoning codes be applied and that only the 3 7 internal units be approved. 4 5 17. Peter read a statement on behalf of an anonymous neighbor related to daylight plane and 6 parking concerns. It was requested that the project follow current laws and relocate some 7 units to the front. 8 9 18. Kai P. did not consider the Commons to be the best organization to provide senior housing 10 due to parking issues and reduction in property values. It was urged that the PTC approve 11 the 7 interior units and the units on the front. 12 13 Steve Sandholtz voiced that 7 units was not feasible. The daylight plane rules were being 14 followed with no impact to sunlight. FJ Management did not own WellQuest Living or the 15 Commons. The applicant supported the reporting requirements, which were being discussed 16 with staff. It was suggested that parking on Wilkie Way be by permit only. Employees were 17 provided incentives for parking on site and for using alternative transportation means. Valet 18 parking was available during the day and it was explained how to utilize valet parking if an 19 attendant was not present. There was a permanent parking location for the bus at the Avant. 20 Construction had ended, so such vehicles were no longer using parking spaces. 21 22 Commissioner Hechtman queried what changes had been made to the 2 third-floor units facing 23 Wilkie and what the applicant intended to present to Council to encourage approval of the 2 24 third-floor units. 25 26 Irwin Partners Architects Daniel Bowman replied the 2 third-floor units had not changed from 27 the last presentation to the PTC. The units would not face Wilkie Way property line and 28 windows would face at a 45-degree angle. 29 30 Steve Sandholtz responded the 2 third-floor units would be 25 feet from the property line and 31 not directly fronting the Wilkie Way neighbors because of the angle of approach. 32 33 Chair Akin questioned if the applicant was willing to add to the TDM Plan that there would be 34 no staff parking on Wilkie Way, Maclane Street or 2nd Street. 35 36 Steve Sandholtz was willing to add to the TDM Plan that staff would not be allowed to park on 37 Wilkie Way, Maclane Street or 2nd Street. 38 39 Commissioner Peterson asked if the project was over 5,000 square feet and what the square 40 footage was for a CEQA exemption under existing facility. 41 42 Albert Yang answered that the CEQA exemption under existing facility was 10,000 square feet 43 in general. 44 1 Commissioner Peterson noted that the packet reflected the CEQA exemption under existing 2 facility was 5,000 square feet. 3 4 Jennifer Armer replied it could be up to 10,000 square feet. There were a couple categories 5 falling under the exception. 6 7 Albert Yang was not sure why the packet reflected 5,000 square feet. It allowed up to 10,000 8 square feet if in an area well served by utilities, which was written in the exemption. The area 9 was not environmentally sensitive. 10 11 Emily Kallas added that the 5,000 square feet in the packet referred to minor architectural 12 review in the zoning code. It was not referring to CEQA. 13 14 Vice Chair Chang commented that Council’s motion was not to approve 11 to 13 units but that 15 it be reviewed. Council had been concerned about the backyard neighbors. Vice Chair Chang 16 explained why she wondered what would actually be financially feasible. When visiting the 17 facility on one occasion, Vice Chair Chang had been directed to park at Goodwill because the 18 garage was not accessible. On another occasion, Vice Chair Chang was allowed to enter the 19 garage but there had been construction material and furniture stored in 14 parking spaces. It 20 was concerning that the management company violated the PC and that the issues were not 21 remedied after it had been requested. The issues might not be avoided with the TDM, which 22 needed to be addressed. The TDM addressed employee parking, not visitor parking or offsite 23 parking counts and Vice Chair Chang questioned how that would be monitored. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman inquired how the types of trees to be planted would be conditioned 26 to ensure that the adjacent neighbors’ concerns would be addressed. 27 Emily Kallas replied the condition of approval would be for the building permit plans to match 28 the planning plans, which would cover landscaping. It would be checked at the time of the 29 building permit and at final inspection. If a neighbor disagreed with the tree species, it needed 30 to be relayed to staff but Emily Kallas was not aware of any issues with the current landscape 31 plan. 32 33 Commissioner Hechtman noted that the project would move forward in some form. It was 34 encouraged that the Wilkie neighbors review the landscape plan and communicate any 35 objections to staff. The TDM was functioning as a parking management plan to some extent but 36 the revised TDM did not address the problems that had been voiced by residents. There should 37 be a valet requirement with the hours outlined. The 98 parking spaces should be sufficient, 38 although some spaces could not be parked in because the spaces were used as storage. The 39 spaces should be available to staff, residents, visitors and caregivers. If the spaces should not be 40 available, the applicant should secure offsite parking and an employee shuttle to offset the 41 missing on-site parking. It was desired that a motion include such as a condition of approval. 42 43 Emily Kallas noted that some of the parking details were in a document titled Parking Plan. 1 2 Chair Akin was concerned with the driveway tube counts referenced in the TDM because those 3 parking outside the site were not counted. There needed to be a process for the verification 4 entity to estimate the impact on offsite areas. The Annual Commute Survey had to be managed 5 carefully and there should be a plan to deal with uncertainties. 6 7 Vice Chair Chang noted that an old document related to parking stated caregivers could only 8 use public parking, which needed to be corrected in any parking plan. It did not appear that 9 much had changed since the project was last presented to the PTC. The plan had not changed 10 short of removing 3 third-floor units. Finding Number 3 could not be made because exposure to 11 natural light for single-family family residences was not being preserved, which the PC was 12 required to do. Vice Chair Chang supported the PTC’s recommendation made in December but 13 the TDM needed to be addressed. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson agreed with Vice Chair Chang. The project was lacking a CEQA process, 16 which could have better addressed landscaping, traffic, parking and daylighting. Ride share 17 vouchers or some such should be considered to reduce facility traffic. Construction should 18 occur on the El Camino side to keep the daylight triangle in place. Underground parking at the 19 front of the facility should be considered. It was unclear what the fire plan evacuation was. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman considered this to be a housing project, which was needed. There was 22 support for 11 units – the 7 units not facing Wilkie and the 4 second-floor units. The 2 third-23 floor units were not supported. The General Plan Policy to protect natural light was a good 24 general guide but very little could be built up if it was applied literally. The daylight plane was 25 applicable to this parcel. The 7 to 13 units would result in a nominal traffic increase. Regarding 26 CEQA and biology, this was considered an urban area. Commissioner Hechtman was trying to 27 address traffic through conditions of approval. The 2 third-floor units were not supported. If the 28 applicant should return to Council with the 2 third-floor units, the units should be pulled back 29 to meet the 3:6 daylight plane. 30 31 Commissioner James expressed the site was overbuilt and invasive to the backyards of Wilkie 32 Way residents. If the applicant wanted to expand into adjacent properties, there would be 33 support but building additional units on the Wilkie Way side would not be supported. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton voiced that the applicant had not addressed fire safety access being 36 blocked, not being able to park in handicapped spaces, etc. It had been a desire that the project 37 move forward but it was difficult because work needed to be done on issues affecting 38 neighbors. Boundaries were not being respected. There was no reporting or enforcement on 39 the City’s side. Senior housing needed to be expanded but not at the cost of the enjoyment of 40 residents’ property, sunlight, etc. Commissioner Templeton discussed a project that would 41 change the intersection of Meadow and the railroad, which would change the stretch from 42 Wilkie Way to Alma, which would be disruptive. Things had been added to zoning to ensure 43 expansions would not affect neighbors. Commissioner Templeton asked how the PTC should 44 address such if zoning regulations were not being enforced and asked if there was a mechanism 1 to enforce violations of current agreements. 2 3 Jennifer Armer replied that staff was working on improving enforcement. Enforcing violations 4 of current agreements could be done through code enforcement or other techniques, although 5 there was limited capacity. 6 7 Commissioner Templeton queried if the capacity issue was on the City’s side and if there had 8 been reports of violations that were not handled. 9 10 Jennifer Armer remarked there were no open code cases on this project. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton was surprised there were no open code complaints given the 13 community’s complaints and suggested that residents call Code Enforcement and file 14 complaints to get complaints documented. There needed to be data other than he said, she 15 said. 16 17 Vice Chair Chang observed that the neighbors had compromised by supporting 7 units. 18 19 Chair Akin could not make PC Finding Number 3 because the site development regulations 20 within the district were not compatible with the existing uses on adjoining sites. The current 21 code, not a code that existed 40 years ago, was used to determine if expansion projects were 22 compatible. Although the PTC could set development standards for the PC, it did not change 23 the basis for the analysis of the situation. The PTC could modify it after doing the analysis. 24 According to the Packet Supplement, all the proposed units on the Wilkie Way side violated the 25 plain language of Codes 18.38.150(e) and 18.12.040. The proposed project would not fit 26 daylight plane or setback requirements whether the property was assumed to be residential or 27 nonresidential. It was voiced why the applicant should consider purchasing and building on the 28 Goodwill site. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that purchasing property was an alternative. It was 31 important that the applicant do the things they had agreed to because it was required to make 32 the findings. Not doing those things undermined credibility. There was not a basis to believe 33 that the agreements entered into would be honored. The community was reluctant to enter 34 into another agreement. Making the requested recommendations required good faith. It was 35 suggested that the applicant work with staff and the community if the applicant was struggling 36 with the changes and that the applicant internally determine why there was noncompliance 37 with the TDM. 38 39 Commissioner Peterson stated this would have been a good CEQA case because CEQA now 40 included nonenvironmental – traffic and impacts on the community. Having all that information 41 in a full document would have been helpful. It was encouraged that staff offer a CEQA process 42 for future projects such as this. 43 44 Commissioner Hechtman pointed out that the 3 findings on Packet Page 29 were created to 1 approve a new PC development. It was decided 40 years ago that an assisted living facility was 2 compatible with the Wilkie Way neighbors and that site development regulations applicable 3 within the district were consistent with the Comp Plan and the existing and potential uses with 4 a building envelope that included setbacks and a daylight plane defining where building could 5 occur. The comments of the Chair and Vice Chair resonated with ARB Finding Number 1, that 6 the design was consistent with applicable provisions of the Comp Plan, Zoning Code, Area Plan 7 and relevant design guidelines. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton stated that Commissioner Hechtman’s comments were the essence 10 of her struggle. The problems being presented by the community were Council problems, not 11 PTC problems, so whatever was sent to Council needed to include that. The points were 12 compatibility, being a good neighbor, mitigations and enforcement, not meeting the findings. 13 14 MOTION 15 16 Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation with the following modifications: To allow 17 the addition of only 7 units (specifically 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11), not allow the 2 ground-floor 18 office spaces facing the Wilkie Way backyards; to require annual monitoring of conditions and 19 public benefits, specifically including section 3D of the original PC Ordinance 3775, which would 20 include an annual report of occupancy, vacancy status, number and age of occupants, number 21 of employees, residents and employees who would use parking spaces and a copy of a renewal 22 license for residential care facility; to strike the language in Section 3, Finding Number 2 that 23 referred to the old benefits from the original PC, so deleting the second and third benefits; that 24 staff must park onsite or on offsite paid parking and arrive by shuttle if spaces were not 25 available; and that there be a revised TDM that would include a Parking Plan as an appendix, 26 which might include specific mitigations, such as a valet with operating hours, and a plan to 27 provide 98 parking spaces at all times either onsite or paid parking offsite and with 28 consequences for noncompliance. 29 30 SECOND 31 32 Chair Akin seconded the motion provided that his earlier comments related to the TDM would 33 be forward to Council. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton liked what had been outlined but questioned what would happen in 36 the event of noncompliance. 37 38 Vice Chair Chang added that the revised TDM and Parking Plan would include consequences for 39 noncompliance. 40 41 Commissioner Templeton stated that could be sufficient to encourage compliance. Good faith 42 needed to be restored to the community. 43 1 Commissioner Peterson suggested adding a waiver for vouchers for rideshare or public 2 transportation. 3 4 Chair Akin believed a waiver for vouchers for rideshare or public transportation was in the TDM. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton asked why Vice Chair Chang removed the offices. 7 8 Vice Chair Chang responded that offices would not add to housing but would add to the burden 9 on the neighbors. 10 11 VOTE MOTION 12 13 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 14 15 MOTION PASSED 5-1-1 (Peterson, James, Templeton, Chang, Akin) (Hechtman no) (Ji 16 recused) 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman appreciated the maker of the motion adopting into the motion ideas 19 from a Commission Member who the maker of the motion knew would not support the motion. 20 The TDM additions made a better project. 21 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 22 23 There were no minutes to approve. 24 25 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 26 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 27 28 Commissioner Hechtman announced that last week he and the Chair had an informal meeting 29 with some Planning staff members to discuss the status of the Downtown Housing Plan and 30 informal feedback of staff’s approaches had been solicited. 31 32 Chair Akin added that the meeting was a good brainstorming session to cover some of the 33 issues related to the possible effects of SB 79. 34 35 Commissioner Templeton announced that ballots would be arriving in mailboxes around 36 October 6 and it was suggested that folks submit their ballots. 37 38 Commissioner Ji had done a walkthrough of the site as part of the San Antonio CAG, which was 39 scary as a pedestrian. Commissioner Ji encouraged folks to walk through San Antonio. The 40 Mountain View side of San Antonio Road was full of utility boxes, so it would be difficult to do 41 transportation even if there should be a special setback on that side. There was a potential plan 42 to close down the 101 southbound entrance by Costco on Rengstorff, which may include 1 making changes to the San Antonio side, which was only a northbound 101 entrance. Assistant 2 Transportation Director Sylvia Star-Lack had more information. 3 ADJOURNMENT 4 5 Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. 6