Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-12 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: June 12, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 5:59 PM 7 Chair Chang called the June 12, 2024, meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission 8 to order. 9 Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao conducted the roll call and declared there was a quorum. 10 Vice Chair Reckdahl was absent. 11 12 Oral Communications 13 There were no requests to speak. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 Item #2: 660 University was pulled off agenda at the request of the applicant. 17 18 City Official Reports 19 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 20 Chief Planning Official Amy French presented upcoming Planning and Transportation Commission 21 meeting target dates and topics, including bringing back an item that was continued for further 22 discussion at the May 29 meeting. She also discussed Council dates, with several Planning and 23 Transportation items upcoming. She believed the NVCAP item had been pushed back to August. 24 Senior Transportation Engineer Rafael Rius explained the NVCAP item might get pushed to 25 August because the Rail Grade Separation discussion with the Council was not completed and 26 was moved to June 18. He noted the Council approved to move the Quarry Road extension to 27 the ballot for November's election. The parking guidance system construction is anticipated to 1 start in July and end around February 2025. 2 3 Action Items 4 2. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN‐00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of a Planned 5 Community (PC) Project Amending an Existing PC (PC‐5116) to Allow Additions to an 6 Existing 121 Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would 7 Include 16 Assisted Living Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: 8 PC‐5116 (Planned Community). 9 Planner Emily Kallas presented the proposed addition to an existing PC at 4075 El Camino Way, 10 Palo Alto Commons, which proposed construction of 16 additional assisted living units to an 11 existing 121‐unit assisted living and memory care facility. No change to the overall building height 12 or setbacks was proposed; however, the proposed additions were primarily in existing step‐backs 13 on the upper floors, most facing a single‐family neighborhood. The assisted living use was not 14 clearly defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code but was not considered dwelling units for RHNA 15 purposes. She gave an overview of the PC review process and presented site plans from February 16 and as currently proposed. The plan has been modified with a larger addition on the ground floor 17 and a decrease in the number of units from 18 to 16. The key considerations from the prior PTC 18 hearing included the daylight plane, parking conditions, the noise study, and questions about 19 public benefits. The current plan shows both the 45‐degree and 3:6 daylight plane. Staff believed 20 the 45‐degree daylight plane was the appropriate one to use. She showed the areas where the 21 existing building encroaches on the 3:6 daylight plane with no protrusion into the 45‐degree 22 daylight plane. A parking study was prepared by Hexagon, showing available parking on site. A 23 lot of the parking is behind a gate, and Staff is working with the applicant to make sure it is 24 available to visitors and staff. A TDM will be prepared to ensure access and implement measures 25 in the original PC, such as transit passes for staff. 26 Emily Kallas continued that a noise analysis was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, which found 27 that the addition would not noticeably increase ambient noise and that the operational noise fit 28 within the limitations of the municipal code. The applicant prepared a letter identifying the public 29 benefits as care and housing for seniors who are unable to live on their own, aesthetic 30 improvements to the existing improvements, and improvements to the refuse management on 31 site. She summarized the neighbor comments provided to the PTC, including disagreement with 32 use of the 45‐degree daylight plane and concerns about increased shade in the neighbors' yards, 33 parking, and noise. The recommended motion was for the PTC to provide additional comments 34 and feedback and recommend the project move forward to the Architectural Review Board. 35 Steve Sandholtz, WellQuest Living, explained the applicant has tried to be responsive to feedback 36 from the Commission and neighbors. Meaningful modifications have been made to the original 37 plans, including eliminating two units that had originally been proposed and shrinking some of 38 the units on the third floor to move them back out of the daylight plane. Residents, staff, and 39 family members have been advised of parking policies. There are 17 spaces before the gate, and 1 there is now a sign at the entrance advising visitors to call the front desk for gate access. He 2 believed the building was adequately parked for the current and proposed use. 3 Chair Chang then asked for disclosures. She noted that she went to check out the parking 4 situation and saw a very small sign in the main driveway. The parking was full, and when she 5 called the number to access the gate, she was told to park at Goodwill and that the downstairs 6 parking was for family only. Commissioner Summa also disclosed that she had observed the 7 parking at another time and that it was full and the gate was not open. There were no other 8 notable disclosures. 9 Commissioner Akin stated the plan set sheet A1.1 showed 18 additions with 2 marked as offices. 10 He wanted clarification that the offices were present on the previous version of the plans. He 11 asked if there was an estimate of how much offsite parking is currently being used by Palo Alto 12 Commons staff and visitors. He questioned if an alternative to parking on El Camino had been 13 considered as those spaces are expected to go away. 14 Steve Sandholtz responded that the two offices were on the previous plans but had not been 15 called out. He did not have information on how much offsite parking was being used but stated 16 the study found they were able to meet the parking needs on site, even at peak hours. The intent 17 was to continue to support the staff busing plan and make sure parking was available in the 18 building and on site. 19 Commissioner Hechtman asked about the duration of residencies at the Palo Alto Commons. He 20 asked Staff to confirm that this comes back to the PTC after the ARB and there will be a TDM to 21 review at that point. 22 Steve Sandholtz responded that the average length of stay is probably in the two‐to‐three‐year 23 range. 24 Emily Kallas explained that the TDM Plan would be available before the ARB made their 25 recommendation and therefore before it returns to PTC for recommendation. The TDM would 26 include any additional measures necessary to address the parking conditions. 27 Chair Chang asked to see on the plans where the two units were removed. She questioned how 28 many parking spaces there are and how many are required by the PC ordinance. She asked the 29 date the parking notice was sent to residents in relation to the parking study. She wanted 30 clarification on who can use the parking behind the gate. 31 Emily Kallas presented plan set 2.3A showing three proposed new units. She also explained that 32 the 55 parking spaces in Hexagon's report was correct. The 57 noted in the staff report reflected 33 that the zoning code allows ADA spaces to count as 2 spaces. One space per 2.5 beds was required 34 for Palo Alto Commons. With 121 existing units plus 16 proposed, 55 spaces were required. 35 Steve Sandholtz added that when the addition was reduced to get out of the daylight plane, two 1 units became single units. He stated the parking notice was sent within two weeks of the last 2 meeting with the PTC, so the Hexagon study was done after that remediation. He clarified that 3 Chair Chang should have been able to access the parking behind the gate as it is supposed to be 4 opened for visitors. 5 Chair Chang asked how many private caregivers there are and whether they are able to access 6 the parking behind the gate. She noted the letter mentioned valet or shuttle parking and asked 7 about that. She questioned what development fees or in‐lieu fees would be charged for this 8 project. 9 Steve Sandholtz responded there are three to five private caregivers per day on average, and 10 they are allowed to use the parking behind the gate. He explained the valet or shuttle parking 11 was only for special events. With valet, parking can be stacked in the garage to get additional cars 12 on site. 13 Emily Kallas stated the fees would be looked at prior to returning to PTC for a recommendation. 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS 15 Kevin Ji, speaking on behalf of Celine Wang, Carly Davenport, Nishanti Sulinamakki, and John Paul 16 Napaq, addressed various concerns. Regarding the daylight plane, he noted that this project does 17 not contribute to RHNA and should not be considered residential. As such, he felt the 3:6 was the 18 correct daylight plane angle. If it was assumed to be 60 percent residential, the most restrictive 19 daylight plane angle would be used, which was the R1 rear yard with a 16‐foot setback and 60‐20 degree angle. He stated he would like to see a breakdown of total vehicles, not just the visitors' 21 vehicles. His experience was that it was difficult to get parking behind the gate and also noted 22 the parking study was not done at peak hours. He wondered about the parking situation during 23 staff shift changes when it would probably be the worst. He cited the staff report, "Private 24 caregivers can only park at nearby public parking," and asked why private caretakers could not 25 park on site if there really was ample parking. He pointed out that the FAR values provided are 26 all higher than the limits provided by the CN or residential housing. Regarding the noise study, 27 he stated neighbors were concerned about HVAC in the summertime and felt the study should 28 be conducted at the peak time. He cited areas that he felt were in contradiction with the Land 29 Use Policy, including compatibility with the neighborhood structures and the preservation of 30 exposure to natural light for single‐family residences. He felt the cost at this establishment was 31 not affordable enough to reduce senior homelessness and noted the property encroaches on his 32 own home, impacting his wellbeing. 33 John Balman, resident of Palo Alto Commons, noted he has not seen any issues with parking in a 34 year and a half of living there. He stated that by leaving their residences in Palo Alto and either 35 putting them up for rent or selling them, seniors allow new families to come to this area. This 36 spreads the density; rather than one individual living in a large house, they live at Palo Alto 37 Commons and make space for families. He noted that traffic on El Camino Way was bumper to 38 bumper during school drop‐off and pickup times for Keys School, which could affect availability 1 of spots. 2 Eleanor Lanuza, one of the Directors at The Avant and Palo Alto Commons, spoke about the 3 facility, which provides premier assisted living with different levels of care from independent 4 living to assisted living, to memory care. It is a month‐to‐month rental community, so residents 5 are not tied up in a lease. She stated there is no community on the Peninsula that can compare 6 to the high level of care and quality of life for residents. 7 Paul Ziots explained that his mother has been in this facility for four years and appreciated the 8 unmatched quality of care. He stated he had previously he visited two to three times a day and 9 never had a problem with parking during that time. He was grateful that Palo Alto Commons had 10 the skill to care for his mother and was very passionate about the importance of this particular 11 facility and felt it should be able to accommodate as many people as possible. 12 Thelma Ackley, resident of The Avant next door to Palo Alto Commons, noted this was one 13 community and a wonderful place to live. She praised the food, activities, and staff. She hoped 14 to remain there as it has been a marvelous experience. 15 Charles Mangee was grateful to the PTC for being willing stewards of the land in Palo Alto. He 16 spoke about the need for adequate housing in Palo Alto and local nurses and teachers having to 17 commute. He felt The Avant and Palo Alto Commons served an important need. 18 Patty Irish, resident of Channing House, described the services offered by Palo Alto Commons for 19 those who need assisted living and dementia care. She noted that when she was on the Channing 20 House Board, they visited the best dementia programs in the region, with the Commons being 21 the only local one. She described the challenge of all the skills necessary to operate a facility like 22 this, which is accomplished by Palo Alto Commons. She felt this was a tremendous asset and the 23 community should support it as a public benefit and add 16 units. 24 Aaditya Divekar, neighbor of Palo Alto Commons, noted that neighbors did not want the quality 25 of care at Palo Alto Commons to be diminished but wanted construction done in a way that did 26 not aggravate the neighborhood for 18 months. He wondered if there was a way to shorten this 27 time frame due to disturbance to residents working from home during the same hours as 28 construction work would be conducted. He suggested the additional units be moved to the non‐29 Wilkie Way side of the Palo Alto Commons to cut down on resident disturbance from 30 construction. He asked about privacy measures and clarification on the suggested trees. He had 31 concerns about neighbors being able to see into the rooms at Palo Alto Commons and vice versa. 32 He wanted to see noise and parking studies done at different times of the year. He thought senior 33 living should be increased in Palo Alto but not in an already saturated lot of 121. 34 Michael Ji, a Wilkie Way resident, strongly opposed the proposed expansion project. He 35 addressed the violation of the daylight plane regulation as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code. 36 He also noted the expansion aggravated the existing FAR excess and that increasing density will 37 increase the parking and traffic congestion. He felt the project failed to present clear public 1 benefit and instead posed a threat to the Wilkie residents' property values. 2 Mona He explained that the Wilkie residents do not object to senior housing and assisted living 3 but want the building ordinance to be followed. She described that the Commons is on a through 4 lot, not a corner lot; therefore, the rear yard lot line is abutting Wilkie Way. Palo Alto Commons 5 has a 10‐ and not a 20‐foot setback and has to adhere to the 3:6 slope. 6 Jenny Chen stated the reality is that people park on Wilkie Way from Palo Alto Commons. She 7 felt the amount of parking spaces were meaningless if they were not readily accessible. She 8 wanted a long‐term solution for the parking problem. 9 Jennie, resident of Wilkie Way, expressed opposition to the proposed expansion. She stated the 10 expansion violates the current daylight plane regulations and increases the FAR to 1.25:1. She 11 felt the expansion did not provide clear benefit to the public but threatened the neighbors' 12 daylight, space, privacy, and quality of life, lowering property values. 13 John Erving stated that his wife's father spent his last months at Palo Alto Commons, and he was 14 thankful for the care he received. He felt change was a challenge and the neighbors had 15 understandable fears about economic impacts. He explained the applicant was willing to plant 16 trees to mitigate visual impact and that other areas of Palo Alto require a sticker to allow parking 17 on the street. He felt this was a conservative proposal and hoped it would be approved. 18 Lilly Lee, Wilkie Way resident, spoke about the traffic before and after school that caused her 19 concern for her children's safety. She noted that even the good faith efforts of the applicant 20 regarding parking may not work. She stated her property value has gone down due to the 21 presence of Palo Alto Commons and expected it to reduce even more with the expansion. She 22 believed it was not affordable to live at Palo Alto Commons. 23 Haley Murphy stated that housing was in shortage, in particular independent living, assisted 24 living, and memory care units. This project asks to add 16 more units, and she encouraged the 25 Commission to approve the planned amendment. 26 Heather Davies expressed opposition of the proposed expansion, which she believed violated 27 zoning codes and would negatively impact the community. She felt the Commons lot did not 28 meet the requirement of a corner lot, which had implications for zoning regulations and 29 compliance. She stated the proposed addition of the two‐ and three‐story buildings would block 30 the skyline of the neighbors, create a sense of overcrowding, and reduce privacy. Wilkie Way is a 31 dedicated bike path, and she felt the narrowness of the street combined with the increased traffic 32 and parking overflow from Commons employees created significant safety hazards and 33 congestion. 34 Jayashree Divekar noted she can currently see into the rooms at Palo Alto Commons from her 35 backyard and the trees are not sufficient. Adding high trees would also block neighbors' sunlight. 36 She respected the need for senior living but felt it should not affect her property value. 37 Natacha believed Palo Alto Commons provided good service to the community but that the 1 parking and traffic was horrible. She stated people at the Commons have told her they park in 2 front of her house because they do not have enough space. She also noted that when visiting the 3 Commons, she recognized a lack of privacy between residents and neighbors. 4 The Commission took a 7‐minute break and returned at 8:10. 5 The applicant was allowed three minutes for rebuttal. 6 Steve Sandholtz explained the parking guidance for private caregivers, noting that most regular 7 private caregivers coming on a daily basis were treated as family and given clickers to the garage. 8 Other private caregivers that come occasionally to the property have been guided to park on the 9 street. He stated there was fairly consistent screening across the back property line with the 10 current trees but proposed to add additional trees. 11 Steve Reller, applicant, reiterated the need for this housing as the amount of residents over 85 is 12 increasing rapidly. He felt the applicant was doing everything they could to mitigate impacts to 13 residents. He noted there were a lot of businesses in the area with employees and customers, 14 residents parking on the street because they do not have garages, and ADUs, and it was unfair to 15 blame the whole parking situation on Palo Alto Commons. He hoped the Commission would 16 approve sending this to the ARB. 17 Commissioner Akin believed the public benefits of this project were significant and wanted it to 18 move forward. He also wanted to protect the neighbors to the extent the law permitted. He 19 thought the letter from the applicant's attorneys provided a convincing argument to treat this PC 20 as a residential use. The code is clear that this is a through lot and the boundary shared with the 21 Wilkie Way neighbors is a rear line. Taken together, he thought the 45‐degree daylight plane and 22 20‐foot rear setback were the appropriate criteria for the new construction. He stated it looked 23 like only three of the second‐floor units would need to be modified to meet these criteria. He 24 urged the applicant to look at the individual review guidelines and consider privacy screens and 25 privacy glazing for windows. He stated an assessment of how much offsite parking was being 26 used by Palo Alto Commons‐related traffic was needed. He felt the noise study was appropriate 27 and did not think there would be a noticeable change in noise as a result of this project. 28 Commissioner Templeton thought these changes would be beneficial to the community but did 29 not want them to be detrimental to the neighbors. She acknowledged the concessions made by 30 the applicant. She discussed her own experience working from home with the noise of 31 construction nearby and the reality that many homes in the area need to be rebuilt. She doubted 32 the applicant could compress the timeline but agreed it was something to think about. She felt it 33 was hard to balance the housing needs of the Commons with the financial, enjoyment, and 34 parking needs of the Wilkie residents but hoped that there would be continued compromise. 35 Commissioner Summa stated that there is never parking on El Camino Way and that it would be 36 important to get construction logistics right so that the neighborhood still works. She also noted 37 the City will likely remove parking from El Camino in the future. She was surprised at the brevity 38 of the parking study and wanted more information on how shift changes affect parking and a 1 breakdown of parking behind the gate. She agreed with the recommendation to look into privacy 2 screens and glazing. She noted the letter from the applicant stated they would add both short‐3 term and long‐term bike parking, which was inconsistent with the zoning comparison on packet 4 page 113, which said the existing PC has no bicycle parking and there will be no change in what 5 is being proposed. She did not feel that this project should rely on development standards from 6 the past. 7 Commissioner Lu asked how the ordinance PC 5116 and the development standards that 8 reference complying with the standards in the PC Zone, Chapter 18.38, overlapped with the PC 9 referenced in the applicant's letter. He questioned the PC amendment process. 10 Emily Kallas explained that PC 5116 is the PC established when The Avant was built and primarily 11 regulates that building. When a PC is established, those development standards the plan 12 proposed with regard to setbacks, daylight plane, height, floor area, etc., become the 13 development standards for the code. What the code requires for the property is what the PC 14 allowed. The process for amending the PC is the same as a new PC with regard to the number of 15 meetings, and the new PC ordinance would be expected to reference both currently established 16 PCs. 17 Commissioner Hechtman asked what the daylight plane would be if Palo Alto Commons were an 18 apartment building. 19 Emily Kallas explained that per the 18.38 regulations, the daylight plane was based on the 20 adjacent use, not the proposed use. 21 Chief Assistant City Attorney Caio Arellano added that the appropriate daylight plane is based on 22 whether the use is residential or nonresidential. In this case, the adjacent property is residential, 23 so the 45‐degree plane would apply if the proposed use were an apartment building. 24 Commissioner Hechtman clarified that these units were not considered residential use for RHNA 25 purposes because they do not have kitchens, so if this were a new development, it would be 26 treated as nonresidential; however, because it is not new and the rules were different when it 27 was built, Staff recommended continuing the historic application as a residential use. 28 Caio Arellano thought that was correct. The PC chapter of the zoning code, 18.38.070, second 29 paragraph, states, "The development plan shall, as approved by the City Council, become part of 30 the zoning regulations applicable within the respected PC District." This development plan 31 approved in 1987 has drawings that depict a 10‐foot setback and a 45‐degree angle daylight plan, 32 so that is the conclusion of applying that development plan as adopted and approved in 1987 as 33 the zoning regulations applicable to this district. 34 Chair Chang believed the PC has never been in compliance with what it was supposed to do with 35 respect to parking. There was no documentation that the commuter plan was ever put in place. 36 She wanted clarification on who is eligible to park behind the gate. 37 Steve Sandholtz clarified that the policy was that family, residents, and employes could come 1 behind the gate. The daily private caregivers have family access, and occasional private caregivers 2 park on the street. Visitors can access the garage. 3 Chair Chang remained concerned about the impacts on the Wilkie residents. She felt the two 4 largest issues were the size and proximity of the large structure behind their residences and the 5 parking situation. In addition to the daylight plane issue, she thought there was a mass and bulk 6 issue. She believed there was an error in the past because it would normally be a 20‐foot rear 7 setback rather than 10 feet. She agreed that these were residences and should use the 45‐degree 8 daylight plane but a 20‐foot setback. The building already goes to 10 feet in the rear, but she 9 thought new construction should be stepped back to at least 20 feet. This would still have the 10 benefit of new housing but would treat the Wilkie neighbors in the same way as if there were an 11 apartment complex there. 12 Commissioner Templeton questioned if stepping back the upper floors would make a material 13 difference to the Wilkie residents. She was unsure that having the Commons tell their staff to 14 stop parking on the street would be more effective than it has in the past. She wondered if the 15 neighborhood could seek a parking program. 16 Commissioner Akin suggested giving direction to the ARB to identify the units or features of the 17 building that have the greatest visual impact to neighbors and find mitigations for those but 18 hoped to provide more concrete guidance. 19 Commissioner Hechtman recognized the efforts of the applicant to address neighbors' concerns. 20 He believed this building was residential, regardless of RHNA, so the 45‐degree daylight plane 21 applied. He felt the suggestion of pulling the design back to the 20 feet was appropriate to 22 forward to the ARB, as well as the suggestion of window treatments. He thought there was clear 23 public benefit to providing senior housing. He acknowledged that change is hard but recognized 24 that people can build within the envelopes the City allows in the code. He stated the parking 25 study concluded that parking was adequate and intended to hold the applicant to that as they 26 have not said it is wrong. A strong TDM is needed. He explained that TDMs have a series of 27 graduated steps and suggested a later step in this TDM should be to remove or relocate the gate. 28 If parking is satisfied through the earlier steps, that will not need to be considered. 29 Commissioner Summa felt this facility was tricky because some people live the rest of their lives 30 there and others go for rehab and do not live there. It is different than an apartment or regular 31 senior facility because it provides services as part of the rent. She asked how many staff worked 32 on site at a given time. 33 Emily Kallas responded there was a maximum of 54 staff at any given time, with 2 additional as 34 a result of this project. 35 Commissioner Summa questioned how it was possible to accommodate visitors, private 36 caregivers, and the maximum number of employees if there are only 55 parking spots. 37 Steve Sandholtz answered that a significant number of employees do not drive to work. Twenty‐1 two commute by car, with the additional two workers required with the expansion. 2 Commissioner Lu thought this should be treated as residential as common sense dictates this is 3 where people live. He felt it made sense to get a comprehensive parking study that covered peak 4 traffic times as PTC and Council will need that data, especially regarding a potential residential 5 parking permit system. He agreed with letting the ARB consider details about setbacks, window 6 treatments, and plantings. 7 Chair Chang thanked the applicant for adding signs regarding parking but believed the sign was 8 not large enough. She hoped to see a robust study showing parking compliance in the future. 9 Regarding whether stepping back the new construction to 20 feet would make a difference, she 10 stated the difference could be seen in the drawings, 2 stories 10 feet from neighbors versus 2 11 stories 20 feet away. Stepping it back would make several units smaller but not remove them. 12 She proposed that the motion include having the ARB consider this. 13 Commissioner Templeton questioned whether the PC Zone required the 20‐foot setback on new 14 construction. 15 Emily Kallas noted that in the same way the daylight plane is adopted into the development 16 standards of the PC by 18.38.070, the setback is as well. For the existing PC, there is a 10‐foot 17 setback for that property line, but the Planning Commission can make recommendations. 18 Caio Arellano explained that the applicable development standards are what was approved by 19 the Council in its original PC, and as the applicant is applying to amend the PC, the Commission 20 has the ability to modify the zoning standards based on a greater setback for residential rear 21 yards. 22 Amy French added that in her experience, the PC can modify the zoning code, including the 23 special requirements for PCs. 24 MOTION 25 Commissioner Akin moved the staff recommendation with a list of topics for the ARB to 26 consider, including the feasibility and visual benefit to the neighbors of increasing the setback 27 of newly constructed units to 20 feet to match the PC special requirements in the code, and 28 privacy mitigations as per the individual review model, particularly window glazing and 29 screening. 30 At Commissioner Templeton's suggestion, Commissioner Akin included in the motion to 31 consider the use of soundproofing windows. 32 At Commissioner Lu's suggestion, Commissioner Akin included in the motion to consider 33 landscaping for privacy purposes. 34 SECOND 35 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 1 Commissioner Summa supported the motion, emphasizing the necessity for a good TDM 2 program. 3 Commissioner Hechtman supported the motion but would have preferred not including the 4 soundproofing. The noise study was performed, and there were residents there at the time. The 5 new construction is going to be farther from the neighbors, so the sound will be somewhat 6 diminished. 7 Amy French added that Staff would figure out a better word than "soundproofing." 8 VOTE 9 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call, which carried 6‐0. 10 MOTION PASSED 6-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Templeton; Reckdahl absent) 11 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Akin, seconded by Chair Chang. Motion Passed 6‐12 0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Templeton; Reckdahl absent). 13 14 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 15 Commissioner Hechtman mentioned that the Renzel Pond paths are becoming significantly 16 overgrown and will soon become impassible without pushing brush aside, which is difficult on a 17 bicycle. He felt this also raised a safety risk with lack of visibility if somebody were to lurk in the 18 brush and not be seen from the path. 19 20 ADJOURNMENT 21 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 9:42 PM. 22