Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-26 Planning and Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: June 26, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:02 pm 7 Chair Chang called the meeting to order. 8 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao took roll and declared there was a quorum. She 9 announced Commissioner Hechtman would be late. 10 Vice Chair Reckdahl was attending remotely and confirmed there was no one in the room with 11 him. 12 Oral Communications 13 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 14 15 Veronica Dao stated there were no requests to speak. 16 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 17 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 18 Chief Planning Official Amy French announced no changes. 19 City Official Reports 20 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 21 Amy French shared slides discussing the summer Planning and Transportation Commission 22 agenda, Office of Transportation update from the June 17 City Council meeting, and Council 23 August-September tentative dates for PDS items PTC will have reviewed. 24 Action Items 25 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 26 27 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICAL: 830 Los Trancos Road [23PLN-00346]: 28 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review 29 Application to Allow Construction of a new Two-Story 4,119 sf Multi-use Accessory 30 Structure Containing an Attached 1,831 sf Two-Car Garage with a Shop, and an 31 Attached 891 sf Art Studio. An Attached 891 sf Second Floor Accessory Dwelling Unit 32 is Not Subject to Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Zoning District: 33 OS (Open Space). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California 1 Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (Accessory Structures). For More 2 Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at 3 Kristina.Dobkevicius@Cityofpaloalto.org. 4 5 Amy French announced they had received a couple of questions from Planning and 6 Transportation Commissioners and endeavored to send those out that afternoon with some 7 staff responses. 8 Chair Chang asked if there were any disclosures. 9 Commissioners Lu, Akin, and Templeton had no disclosures. 10 Commissioner Summa disclosed she had visited the site and did not see anyone there. 11 Chair Chang disclosed she had made a site visit where she noticed that in addition to the 12 location where the new structure is proposed, which is very close to the residents on 820, there 13 is potentially another spot higher up the hill that might be well suited for a structure. 14 Commissioner Reckdahl disclosed he visited the site and observed the building is on the 15 backside of the house and does not really affect the neighbor’s view and does not pose a 16 privacy issue but he could see how the neighbors might feel it was intrusive. He originally 17 though the serpentine driveway was to change the elevation but it was purely because of the 18 easement issue and the gravel put out was to get around a legal issue, not an engineering issue. 19 Anything build on the long, skinny lot was going to be relatively close to another parcel making 20 it harder to build there. 21 Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius provided a slide presentation about the project including 22 the project location, project overview, site plan, floor plans, elevations, project compliance, 23 application objectives – PAMC section 18.30 (G) .060, key considerations, and recommendation. 24 Joel Baumgardner, project architect, went through a slide presentation with a project 25 description, location and open space criteria and comments previously raised from the 26 neighbors about the easement, noise, sidewalk, curb, gutter, refuse, geologic study and 27 drainage. 28 Amy French confirmed having sent a letter that had a different take than the staff report 29 regarding the easement and that Albert Yang, Attorney, was available to answer questions. 30 Chair Chang asked Mr. Yang to describe the difference in opinion from the staff report. 31 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang stated for the record that Commissioner Hechtman joined 32 the meeting during the staff presentation and asked if he had any disclosures and if he was 33 alone in the room. 34 Commissioner Hechtman declared he was appearing remotely with just cause. He was alone in 1 Napa and an address had been provided. He disclosed that he had a conversation earlier in the 2 week with Mr. Klingsporn, one of the attorneys for the neighbor. During that conservation, they 3 discussed the content of the two letters authored by his law partner, Mindie Romanowsky, 4 dealing with issues of privacy and easement access. 5 Albert Yang answered the Chair’s question remarking that the staff report stated that staff 6 disagreed with the neighbor comment letters on the issue of the easement. On further review, 7 it was determined that was overstating the staff position. Staff used the question of the 8 easement as a legal issue they were not able to resolve and so they think there is a substantial 9 question on whether or not the unit and this structure can be accessed over the easement but 10 they were not able to resolve it. He suggested either the PTC approve the project but take no 11 position on the issue of the easement leaving any risks arising from that open question to be 12 borne by the applicant or PTC not recommending the project taking the uncertainty around the 13 easement and access into account. 14 Commissioner Akin queried which other sites on the property Mr. Baumgardner had 15 considered. 16 Joel Baumgardner described other possible locations that had been considered but none 17 seemed to fit the design criteria guidelines for Open Space. 18 Vice Chair Reckdahl questioned if they had looked at scooting the house up the driveway a bit 19 making it a little further away from the neighbors, if they discussed any of the other potential 20 sites to the neighbors and if the neighbors had a preferred site. 21 Joel Baumgardner remarked that was actually one of the first spots they looked at but that it 22 would be too steep. He had not discussed the other potential spots with the neighbors and had 23 no knowledge if they had a preferred site. 24 Commissioner Templeton asked Mr. Yang to clarify the criteria for denying the project based on 25 the unresolved access issue. 26 Albert Yang replied that he was not suggesting that PTC do anything with that, just that it could 27 consider the uncertainty as one if its deliberations. He stated it could fit into 1830G060A, 28 ensuring that construction and operation of the use would be orderly. 29 Chair Chang added that could be found on packet page 17. 30 Commissioner Templeton questioned Mr. Baumgardner about the glazing being obscured or 31 opaque. 32 Joel Baumgardner explained it would be translucent like frosted glass or shower glass that is 33 not visible but lets light in. 34 PUBLIC COMMENTS 35 Greg Klingsporn, Attorney at Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure and Flegel in Menlo Park representing 1 the owner of the 820 Los Trancos property, discussed the objection from the neighbor. He 2 argued that the applicant did not communicate with the neighbor about the project and that 3 the City had already received the application. He indicated that he had submitted a letter 4 providing two separate reasons to not recommend the project which included the Open Space 5 criteria not being met and the easement and access issue. 6 Joel Baumgardner rebutted that he did not know the legal easement law issues involved. 7 Albert Bower discussed the legal challenges he and his husband were facing over the addition 8 of an ADU. He expressed his desire to follow Open Space rules in Palo Alto and to work with the 9 City to find a compromise. They have changed the plans multiple times to be in compliance. He 10 stated they wish to maintain good relations with their neighbor and follow the proper process 11 through the City. 12 Commissioner Templeton shared her thoughts on the next steps. If they did not have access to 13 the site and the site is controversial enough to instill law suit-level conversations, it might be 14 something that has to be done first. She did not think the City would resolve the issue because 15 they could not override the court’s process. She liked how the design has been approached. She 16 hoped they would be able to provide enough feedback about the design but cautioned them 17 about setting expectations because they would not be able to resolve the legal issues at hand. 18 Commissioner Hechtman discussed the importance in keeping a neighborly tone while resolving 19 a dispute. He believed it was the Commission’s responsibility to endeavor to pass forward a 20 recommendation that would not put the neighbors at war. He asked Mr. Yang if he was correct 21 in understanding that the Commission was not taking a position and that if there were to be a 22 legal remedy, it could affect an approval we grant. He questioned Mr. Baumgardner if he had a 23 helpful aerial of the topography that he could use to point out the other sites that were 24 considered. 25 Albert Yang confirmed Commissioner Hechtman’s statement to be correct. 26 Joel Baumgardner provided slides with arial views of the topography and pointed out the 27 proposed location and other sites that had been considered. He discussed why the other sites 28 were not suitable for the project and how the proposed location had been chosen. 29 Commissioner Lu asked Mr. Yang to clarify what the precedent or standard practice would be 30 for a ministerially-approvable ADU and if the City would go through the list of criteria in that 31 case. 32 Albert Yang answered no and explained the Open Space criteria and the site and design findings 33 did not apply to a ministerial project. He noted the site and design findings were mandatory in 34 1830G060. The Open Space criteria needed to be considered which is where the Commission 35 would be able to weigh certain criteria against others and use their judgement in determining 36 how important each one is relative to the specific situation. 37 Commissioner Lu asked if he was correct that the project is ministerially good and the staff 1 process would proceed with ministerial approval, assuming staff does not take any legal 2 position and that a ministerial approval would still generally say that the ADU portion at least 3 would be acceptable under the City’s kind of standard practice and any other legal disputes 4 would happen downstream. 5 Albert Yang thought that was correct adding that the issue likely would not have been flagged 6 in an ADU-only ministerial review because the neighbor would not have received notice so 7 there would have been no comments. 8 Commissioner Akin commented that his only issue with the project was the location and it 9 came down to whether or not the easement dispute could be resolved. If the easement issue 10 could not be resolved, he opined the only choice would be to find a site on the original lot. He 11 thought it would be worth looking at the other options more seriously to see if they could be 12 made to work. 13 Commissioner Summa emphasized the importance of not having views from the public open 14 space and avoiding projects that jet over the ridgeline. She suggested achieving an ADU and 15 accessory building without a two-story building, using glazing and screening to keep people 16 from looking out and having the ADU close to the house and the accessory structures below for 17 privacy. She was troubled by the second parallel driveway adding another man-made feature in 18 the Open Space. She agreed with Commissioner Akin’s comments that it rests on the easement. 19 She wished it had been figured out between the parties before it went before the Commission 20 but thought there were solutions available to serve everyone’s needs. She wanted to know why 21 the two-fixture requirement did not apply to the accessory structure in this case. She asked Mr. 22 Baumgardner if the glazing he spoke of was bird safe. She suggested looking at ways to have a 23 smaller structure near 1820's property line and putting the ADU closer to the main structure to 24 avoid disagreements. 25 Kristina Dobkevicius explained that the 2-fixture requirement only applied for the Municipal 26 Code Chapter 10, 18.10 and 18.12 of the code and not to Open Space. 27 Joel Baumgardner explained the glazing could be made to be bird safe. 28 Vice Chair Reckdahl thought this location had the smallest impact on the neighbors. He asked 29 Mr. Klingsporn if the neighbors have a preference of where they would want the structure 30 located. 31 Greg Klingsporn replied that he did not have the authority to discuss the neighbors’ preferences 32 and he thought the structure would be a problem no matter where it was located due to its 33 size. 34 Chair Chang aligned with Commissioner Akin that it seemed there might be ways to build closer 35 to the main house. She would like to see if there was a way the neighbors could cooperate and 36 find a way to go back to the originally-designed driveway. She thought it was paramount that 1 they find a neighborly solution. 2 Chair Templeton was hearing that the requirements provided to the architect was missing a 3 requirement that is support of the neighbor for access to the new parcel. She remarked if they 4 did not want to include that in the project then it was in danger of having to be restarted in a 5 different location. She suggested considering different options in order to come to an 6 agreement. 7 Commissioner Hechtman did not think privacy or compatibility could be equated with 8 invisibility. He thought they should be cautious about having public paths so close to the private 9 residence. He agreed with the staff’s view that the proposed location meets the criteria, where 10 to pick the building up and put it near the main residence would run afoul of a number of 11 requirements. He felt there were more possibilities. He was troubled that the neighbors had 12 not talked directly to each other about the issue. He suggested the neighbors have a chance to 13 do that and then come back to the Commission with solutions. 14 Commissioner Summa made a motion that they continue this to a date uncertain to give the 15 interested parties time to find some other solutions with the understanding that that does not 16 affect the ADU production. They appreciated that the architect agreed to add bird-safe design 17 into whatever structures were placed. 18 Commissioner Templeton seconded the motion. 19 Commissioner Hechtman expressed he would feel more comfortable with continuing this to 20 their August 14 hearing. The parties could request more time if needed at that time. 21 Amy French suggested asking the applicants and the architect if they had a specific date in 22 mind. 23 Chair Chang asked if the applicant had a date in mind. 24 Albert Bower wanted to go with what worked best for everyone else involved. He fully 25 embraced the good neighbor policy and liked the idea of getting together with the neighbor 26 and find a compromise. 27 Chair Chang announced that the applicant non-verbally indicated that he is okay with leaving it 28 to a date uncertain. She called for a vote on the motion. 29 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. The motion carried 7-0. 30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 32 33 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of 1 January 31, 2024 2 3 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the Planning & Transportation Commission Draft 4 Verbatim Minutes of January 31, 2024 as revised. 5 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 6 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. The motion carried 7-0. 7 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 8 Commissioner Hechtman brought up the April accident report and asked Ms. French if there 9 was any way to have the reports include a breakdown between all injuries and KSIs. 10 Amy French agreed to take that to the Office of Transportation. 11 ADJOURNMENT 12 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm 13 14