Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-14 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: August 14, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 5:30 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 5:31 PM 7 8 Chair Chang called the special meeting to order. 9 10 Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum. 11 12 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 13 14 Veronica Dao stated she had no speaker cards and no hands were raised. 15 16 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 17 18 Chief Planning Official Amy French announced there were no changes beyond what was 19 published on Monday. The retail item would be addressed first and the other two items second, 20 third, and fourth. 21 22 Chair Chang added that the dark skies and bird-friendly design items were formerly one item 23 but had been split into two items and they would be taken in the aforementioned order. 24 25 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 26 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 27 28 Amy French mentioned that the next meeting would be August 28. There would be an Office of 29 Transportation item, and Nathan Baird would be the acting PTC liaison as she, herself, would 30 not be present. There would be a different PTC liaison for the following two meetings. A new 31 person would be coming in September. The Stream Corridor Ordinance would come back the 32 end September. The HIP and 70 Encina meetings would be on September 11. There were a 33 number of items for October and November listed on the slide she displayed. She noted that 34 only Pet Salon was noted in the code as an allowed use, which would be in the retail item. 35 36 Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Raphael Rius commented that on August 28 Nathan 37 Baird would bring an update for the Palo Alto LINK Program. On August 19, Caltrans would 38 begin the El Camino Real pavement project. Parking along El Camino would be impacted 39 starting September 3. It was estimated to be completed the fall of 2025. 40 1 Commissioner Hechtman had noticed that the incident reports did not indicate the significance 2 of injuries and the data was necessary. If the data could not be added, he wanted to know how 3 that information would be tracked. 4 5 Rafael Rius would request that information be provided in future reports. 6 7 Amy French shared a slide with targeted Council dates for items the PTC had reviewed. 8 9 ACTION ITEMS 10 11 2. Recommendation to the City Council Retail Committee to Prioritize Certain 12 Municipal Code Amendments Related to Retail and Retail Like Land Uses, Retail 13 Preservation Ordinance, Changes to Office Limits, Parking Regulations and Related 14 Development Standards and Application Processes 15 16 Planning and Development Services Director Jonathan Lait remarked that the Council Ad Hoc 17 recommended that specific immediate, near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies be 18 identified to implement the economic developed strategy. In listening to the Ad Hoc meeting, 19 he felt the City needed to go further than what was being done. He had asked the consultant to 20 prioritize the recommendations into near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies and to be 21 specific on the needed changes to the regulatory framework, policies, and procedures to 22 address the guiding principal in the Streetsense report, so more specificity had been added and 23 ranked 14 recommendations, which was now being presented to the PTC. The goal was for the 24 Commission to identify which of the 14 items should be advanced and the ones that should not 25 be. He understood that there were policy recommendations that diverged with the current 26 policy understanding and interests as expressed in the policies and maybe they were right for 27 reassessment and maybe not. After the PTC identified the concept and with the PTC's 28 recommendation, staff would go to the Retail Ad Hoc Committee in September and get their 29 recommendation to City Council. He do not know if that would be an action or consent calendar 30 item. 31 32 Chair Chang asked if the consultant had made new recommendations or if they had organized 33 the content of the body of work that had already been done. 34 35 Johnthan Lait answered that there may be new specificity in some of the recommendations to 36 articulate what was meant by the general statement. 37 38 Discussion ensued as to the process for addressing this item, and it was decided that the 39 consultant would present and then the process would be decided. 40 41 Michael Baker International Dan Wery expressed that not much was new but it had been 42 repackaged and reformatted. He furnished slides and noted that their recommendations had 43 been put in an order of expediency and priority and more clarity and detail had been provided 44 wherever possible and the slides would contain some rationale notes. He provided a summary 1 of the near-term (within six months) recommendations with the rationale, which included 2 amending parking regulations 18.52.030 (labeled number 1 on the slide), relaxing the formula 3 retail restrictions (2), repealing the retail preservation ordinance (RPO) (3), amending parking 4 regulations by extending AB 2097 provisions (4), the creation of a comparative zoning use table 5 (5), revising 18.30 combining districts to allow practical waivers and adjustment (6), allowing 6 non-retail uses on ground floor with limitations, part 1 (7), and allowing non-retail uses on 7 ground floor with limitations, part 2 (8). The mid-term (within 18 months) items included 8 repealing or amending the office conversation and construction limitations (9), amending 9 18.16.059 office use restrictions (10), amending parking regulations by reducing minimum 10 parking requirements and base standards on demand (11), and amending parking regulations to 11 implement the AB 2097 exemption of minimum parking requirements within one-half mile of 12 transit (12). The mid-term to long-term (within 18 months and up to 3 years) items included 13 amending standards for specified retail uses (13), amending parking regulations (14), and 14 conducting a comprehensive zoning ordinance update (15). He noted that he had more slides 15 that included additional rationale, which he thought had been distributed to the Committee 16 earlier. 17 18 Commissioner Hechtman queried, regarding Recommendation 4, if Council had discussed AB 19 2097 at their last meeting and if there was additional information that should be considered, 20 which could inform this discussion. 21 22 Jonathan Lait replied that Council did not discuss AB 2097. He thought it would return to 23 Council in September or October. 24 25 Chair Chang wondered why Recommendation 14 was included in this as she did not connect it 26 being related to retail. 27 28 Dan Wery responded that it did not connect with retail, but toward the end of the study, they 29 had been asked to look at the impacts and implications of AB 2097. The extent of the relevance 30 was probably that it was residential-friendly and would hopefully allow more uses and 31 flexibility, which could lead to more residential infill and possibly redevelopment with the 32 areas, which could provide additional customers for retail. 33 34 Jonathan Lait added that it could have some practical use if a mixed-use project were proposed. 35 36 Vice Chair Reckdahl noted that the Staff Report listed special use examples, but he found them 37 to all be acceptable uses per zoning. 38 39 Amy French produced a slide and noted that all the uses listed were special uses except for the 40 Pet Salon. 41 42 Chair Chang commented that there was a definition in Title 18 that covered a retail-like use, 43 which she outlined. The RPO specifically referred to allowing retail-like uses. While it did not 44 prescriptively identify all the items on the FUN list, it did not prohibit them either. She 1 remembered that the Retail Ad Hoc had specifically asked what would be disallowed by the 2 code and they had had a difficult time coming up with anything except for one or two 3 examples, which she thought was a café combined with a [inaudible 49:29]. 4 5 Amy French voiced that [The Bank Coffee Shop 49:33] required CUP for financial services, etc. It 6 would be hard to obtain a Use and Occupancy permit for many of the ones listed. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton declared that she rejoined the meeting at 6:05, and for just-cause 9 reasons, she confirmed that she was by herself in the room. 10 11 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated that a bank could be opened in a Retail with a CUP and a coffee shop 12 could be opened in a Retail, so two uses that were approved were being combined. He queried 13 if the FUN list indicated that this bank-coffee-shop idea could be implemented without a CUP. If 14 one wanted to open a dentist office in a location where it was allowed and they wished to open 15 a candy shop with it, he questioned if that would that be allowed currently. He asked if in a 16 retail location one could have a candy shop and a dental office. 17 18 Jonathan Lait thought it was a challenge when there were two uses that were not permissible in 19 the code, at least by right. A financial institution was generally not allowed in a GF or the R 20 combining district, but adding a café could create vibrancy, and they were suggesting it might 21 be allowable, but the current code would create a challenge for the financial institution to 22 locate on the ground floor. He provided other examples that could trip the recreation or similar 23 type of land use designation that might require a conditional use permit. There may be a 24 combination of uses that could work together and if they were all permitted, it would be fine. 25 This provision was to look at uses that may not be within the retail or retail-like use and to 26 marry them so there needed to be a regulatory process and clarity was needed as to what the 27 City wanted to encourage. If a medical office was allowed and one wanted to add a retail 28 component, one could do that. 29 30 Amy French replied that a dental office could not be combined with a candy shop in a retail 31 location. 32 33 Vice Chair Reckdahl queried if this indicated that a dental office and candy shop could go into 34 either location. 35 36 Jonathan Lait answered that they wanted to allow uses that had a synergy about them and 37 would contribute to people walking into the space. They want to shift the definition to be more 38 about what the City was trying to accomplish, which was more people walking and going into 39 different stores even if the totality of that space was not geared strictly toward retail. There 40 could be another component of using it for something else, which might make it attractive for a 41 landlord, etc., to inspire such engagement with the street face. 42 43 Chair Chang remembered discussing the desire to move toward foot traffic. She asked if there 1 was a recommendation that specifically addressed having more of a goals-based definition. 2 3 Jonathan Lait thought addressing a goals-based definition would be captured in an amended 4 definition of retail. 5 6 Chair Chang understood that not implementing the recommendations would not disallow them 7 but it would make it easier for some of the more unique and FUN uses to hopefully be 8 implemented. She thought it would be valuable to clarify which recommendation [the use 9 definition 57:11] would apply to. 10 11 Jonathan Lait added that questions like these were not easily answered and it may go through a 12 team of folks and weeks could transpire before allowing or not allowing the FUN use. The 13 current RPO standards may constrain some of it but not entirely. 14 15 Amy French clarified that the list was only sample uses and they had not imagined the next uses 16 that may come. 17 18 Dan Wery pointed out that Recommendation 7.1 addressed amending the definition of retail-19 like, the definition of 125.1, to include the additional phrase, which would open up the FUN 20 uses. 21 22 Commissioner Summa noted that most of the FUN uses had been allowed at times and that 23 retail-like medical was restricted in general but eye professionals were allowed to sell 24 cosmetics, which was retail. She thought there should be a generalized definition of retail that 25 would allow for something that was not [one of the things on the FUN list 29:25]. 26 27 PUBLIC COMMENTS 28 Winter D. did not agree with the FUN concept or encouraging more office space. She discussed 29 the types of shops in her Barron Park neighborhood providing good, practical services. She 30 stated that [The Market 1:03:11] would not be useful retail. She voiced that there needed to be 31 sensible retail protections that included Palo Alto. 32 33 Chair Chang suggested procedurally addressing this by going through the recommendations and 34 for Commission members to raise a hand if they would vote no or not support it, which would 35 indicate how many of the items needed to be discussed. It would not be a formal vote. She 36 began with Recommendation 1 on the list. 37 38 Commissioner Summa asked if this meant additional parking spots would not be required with 39 a change of use. 40 41 Jonathan Lait answered that it would facilitate the transition from one land use to another and 1 would treat it as the same parking standard. For example, a restaurant would not require more 2 parking than a shoe store. 3 4 Chair Chang saw no hands raised related to Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 13, and 15. By a show of 5 hands, the Commission wanted to discuss Recommendations 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. 6 7 Commissioner Summa wanted to discuss how number 12 would be implemented. 8 9 MOTION #1 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman moved to recommend the consultant's Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 13, 12 and 15 to Council. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 The motion was seconded by Chair Chang. 17 18 VOTE MOTION #1 19 20 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 21 22 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 23 24 Chair Chang proposed discussing modifications or new information presented in the 25 recommendations. She hoped to limit the discussion to the new component and then take a 26 vote on the item. She addressed Recommendation 3. 27 28 Commissioner Hechtman thought bold steps needed to be taken because he felt the retail 29 environment was in bad shape. He suggested stepping toward but not to deregulation and 30 rather than disallowing something, he recommended amendments be made if unintended 31 consequences should come to be rather than assuming up front that those consequences 32 would happen. He was comfortable with the near-term, mid-term, and long-term timing 33 breakdowns presented in the Staff Report. He thought the RPO had outlived its usefulness, but 34 he worried about the message that would be sent if it was repealed. He wanted to retain that 35 section of the code but rewrite it to be a policy statement of the importance of retail and then 36 direct people from there to the GF and R provisions elsewhere in the code as examples of 37 efforts to protect retail. 38 39 Commissioner Summa did not want to limit the success of retail areas to downtown and 40 California Avenue. She voiced that building more office would not help property owners who 41 had vacant office space, that relaxing regulations would not [solve processing problems at the 42 Development Center 1:21:18], and that this would not address the high price of rentals per 43 square foot in the community. She questioned whether getting rid of regulations would 1 exacerbate the retail flight from the community or help it. She did not think government moved 2 fast enough to respond quicky if retail started to hurt. She commented that there was a reason 3 for regulations and CUPs and sometimes that was to specifically regulate the number of types 4 of businesses. She would broadly like to redefine the description of retail and retail-like so it 5 would not prohibit great new ideas. 6 7 Chair Chang pointed out that the Staff Report said the PTC agreed that the RPO was not needed 8 beyond University and California Avenue, but she did not remember that being the case. She 9 was not sure if it may have been said that the RPO should have been kept exactly as it was 10 currently for University and California Avenue. She thought there was agreement that the RPO 11 could be tweaked at a minimum and that some were in favor of repealing it entirely. 12 13 MOTION #2 14 15 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved that the consultant's Recommendation 3 be recommended to 16 Council. 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 21 22 VOTE MOTION #2 23 24 Veronica Dao took a roll call vote. 25 26 MOTION FAILED 3-4 (Templeton, Lu, Hechtman) (Chang, Reckdahl, Summa, Akin no) 27 28 Commissioner Akin expressed that there were many relaxations and technical updates that 29 should be made, and the consultant had covered many. He understood that there was not an 30 obvious correlation of RPO and lack of retail vitality. The Ad Hoc had recommended minor 31 changes but overall retention of the RPO. 32 33 Chair Chang did not feel comfortable repealing the RPO without protecting some of the other 34 non-University, non-Cal Ave retail areas. She thought it could be made more flexible. She would 35 support a motion to modify it. 36 37 Commissioner Templeton asked why there had not been a vote to make changes. She was 38 interested in supporting it if everyone was on the same page. 39 40 Chair Chang replied that could be done. She understood this would be presented to the Council 41 Ad Hoc and that the Commission needed to provide more detailed information than had been 42 done at the last meeting. 43 1 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang declared that since the motion failed another motion was 2 needed that would pass. A recommendation needed to be made. 3 4 MOTION #3 5 6 Chair Chang moved to not repeal the RPO wholesale but to look at making modifications. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 11 12 Discussion ensued regarding the Ad Hoc Committee report being reviewed and attached to this. 13 14 Jonathan Lait remarked that he did not know about the Ad Hoc Report but if there was a 4-3 15 vote staff would probably make a recommendation to have a discussion with the Ad Hoc to 16 further explore. Motions without strong support would require more analysis, and it would 17 come back to the Commission to get into the details if there was Council support. 18 19 VOTE MOTION #3 20 21 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 22 23 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Summa, Akin, Chang, Reckdahl, Hechtman, Templeton) (Lu 24 abstained) 25 26 Chair Chang moved to Recommendation 4. 27 28 Commissioner Summa did not support it because she did not think it was necessary, there were 29 issues with how ADA and EVSE handled accessible parking spots under this scenario, and the 30 calculation of the half mile had not been clearly established. If the law were to be repealed at 31 the State level, she did not think this should be extended where it did not have to be imposed. 32 33 Vice Chair Reckdahl asked if this could be repealed if 2097 should be repealed. 34 35 Jonathan Lait thought that would be done. Council's discussion in a couple months may 36 influence what happens here. This applied to only 16 parcels. 37 38 MOTION #4 39 40 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved that PTC recommend to Council accepting the consultant 41 Recommendation 4. 42 43 SECOND 1 2 Chair Chang seconded with an amendment that however Council implements 2097 with respect 3 to the rest of the [CDZ 1:38:11] zone, [it 1:38:12] be applied to the 16 parcels specifically with 4 the concerns to ADA and EVSE. 5 6 Vice Chair Reckdahl accepted the amendment. 7 8 Commissioner Hechtman supported the motion. 9 10 VOTE MOTION #4 11 12 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 13 14 MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Lu, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Summa, no) 15 16 Chair Chang moved to Recommendation 6. 17 18 Commissioner Lu wanted to confirm how this overlapped with another section of 18.30 19 regarding permitted uses on Cal Ave and beauty shops, etc., not being permitted. He inquired if 20 the flexibility would apply to the part of the Cal Ave with permitted uses as well. He noted that 21 the specific called-out uses not allowed on Cal Ave were not otherwise addressed in the 22 recommendations, and he thought [inaudible 1:41:17] could be cleaned up. Potentially Council 23 could consider it being a separate recommendation or it could be part of the long term clean-24 up as well. 25 26 Jonathan Lait responded that a use specifically prohibited on Cal Ave would not be allowed to 27 take advantage of the alternative use if the code did not allow it. 28 29 MOTION #5 30 31 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved that the PTC recommend to Council accepting the consultants 32 Recommendation 6. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 37 38 VOTE MOTION #5 39 40 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 41 42 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) 43 1 Chair Chang addressed Recommendation 7. 2 3 Commissioner Akin objected to context-dependent rules, new rules changing the behavior of 4 approval depending on nearby properties. This would be the opposite of adding predictability 5 and certainty to the process. 6 7 Commissioner Summa supported the first part, but she did not accept the second part. 8 9 MOTION #6 10 11 Chair Chang moved that the PTC recommend to Council establishing a more flexible definition 12 of retail-like that would be based on goals of maintaining vibrancy and not be prescriptive of 13 the actual specific uses. 14 15 Commissioner Lu agreed with not being prescriptive of uses but that there should be a partial 16 list just for clarity. 17 18 Vice Chair Reckdahl would not support it including the side streets at Ramona. 19 20 Chair Chang declared that she was not addressing a particular location but goal-based definition 21 of retail-like use. 22 23 Jonathan Lait thought the first part would have broad support. He spoke to the second part 24 being important concerning large RPO spaces discouraging new retailers. If the objection to 25 number 2 was listing granular specificity but if there was receptiveness to the concept of an 26 existing retail space having something that was not retail or retail-like, [staff 1:48:08] could 27 address the concerns of a Ramona side street and maybe there did not be a discussion about 28 tenancy, vacancy rates, etc., because it may not be relevant or necessary. 29 30 Chair Chang was supportive of an updated and improved retail-like definition. Where retail and 31 retail-like would be allowed, etc., was in the territory of the RPO. She noted that there was the 32 definition component and then where use would be allowed. She queried if the current code 33 dictating that it had to be 100% retail would allow mixed uses. 34 35 Jonathan Lait expressed that there were areas in the city where that would not be the standard. 36 This would address there being office space or non-retail-like use without impacting the goals 37 of the retail interest on the core [inaudible 1:50:07]. Mixed uses [would not be allowed 1:50:37] 38 on the ground floor, which was the zoning code. The RPO could mitigate most of the issues 39 citywide, but 7.1 would address areas with the R or GF overlay. 40 41 Chair Chang questioned how her motion could be changed to capture that. 42 43 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated there were two concepts. One was broadening the retail-like 1 definition period. 2 3 Chair Chang decided to keep her motion as it was. It did not preclude the ability to do what 4 Director Lait discussed. 5 6 SECOND 7 8 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 9 10 Commissioner Akin mentioned that the vibrancy definition was well covered by the consultant's 11 recommendation. He raised the possibility of moving just 7.1. 12 13 Chair Chang and Vice Chair Reckdahl accepted that amendment. 14 15 Chair Chang clarified that the motion would be to recommend to Council the consultant's 16 Recommendation 7.1. 17 18 VOTE MOTION #6 19 20 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 21 22 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton, Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu) 23 24 Chair Chang proceeded to Recommendation 7.2. 25 26 Commissioner Lu liked Director Lait's suggestion to not take Section 2 so literally. Details about 27 side streets could be parsed out once the details were hashed out. He agreed that the vacancy 28 threshold was problematic, but he explained that there was a lot of leeway in how it would be 29 defined. Given Director Lait's clarifications, he generally supported 7.2 as it was. 30 31 Commissioner Akin reiterated that the context-dependent constraints were problematic 32 because they could be [inaudible 1:55:39] and they varied over time. If certainty was to be 33 provided, those needed to be shied away from. He liked the other provisions Director Lait had 34 suggested. 35 36 Commissioner Summa did not consider this to be ready to be memorialized. The where or what 37 of having some deeper lots with some deviation from all retail being allowed had not been 38 clearly established based on the zoning and the prevailing lot size, etc. She would not support 39 it. 40 41 Commissioner Hechtman asked if Commissioner Akin's comments referenced the third bullet in 42 7.2. 43 1 Commissioner Akin answered that he did not want the third bullet to be included. He was not 2 clear on the fourth bullet. With street frontage within a 300-foot radius and things changing, he 3 questioned when the changes would take effect in the decision process. If a project had been 4 proposed but an entitlement had not yet been received and the condition on which the project 5 was based no longer held, he asked what the obligation would be. He wanted to avoid that type 6 of uncertainty. He would support the motion if it was the first two bullets of 7.2. 7 8 Vice Chair Reckdahl supported the first two bullets in theory. Care would have to be taken with 9 implementation. He would not support it being as prescriptive as it was. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman voiced that this was concept level only, not literal code language. As 12 for as concerns, like applying it to Ramona, that could be considered when the actual language 13 was addressed. He thought the first and second bullets did not have the contextual concerns 14 and would give direction to return with an ordinance. 15 16 Vice Chair Reckdahl asked that the motion reflect there be flexibility. 17 18 MOTION #7 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council the consultant 21 Recommendation 7.2, the first two bullets only, recognizing that upon drafting an ordinance it 22 needed to look more closely at the locational flexibility rights. 23 24 SECOND 25 26 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 27 28 VOTE MOTION #7 29 30 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 31 32 MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Templeton, Hechtman, Reckdahl, Chang, Akin, Lu) (Summa, no) 33 34 Chair Chang moved to recommendation 8. 35 36 Commissioner Summa thought this contained too many things. She found increasing the gym 37 size to be completely random and not important. There had been complaints about there being 38 too many gyms on California Avenue. She did not think it was a good idea. She disagreed with a 39 CUP being required for pet grooming. She noted that it was done for nail salons on Cal Ave 40 because there were too many of them. She thought learning centers and trade schools were 41 allowed on a second floor in the downtown zone. She commented that there had been many 42 discussions about medical offices with a retail component. Eyeglass stores allowed 43 ophthalmologists on site, but it was not extended for Town & Country. Retail-like medical had 1 been extended for side streets downtown. She thought it was too broad and mixing too many 2 things in one. She did not see the advantage and was not in favor of it. 3 4 Commissioner Lu questioned if this would override the restricted uses specifically on Cal Ave. 5 6 Jonathan Lait replied that the question was too general and conceptual to answer. 7 8 Chair Chang it agreed that the threshold from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet specifically for these 3 9 types of businesses was strange and maybe overly specific, and she did not know the purpose 10 of it. She wondered if the rest of it might be solved with a more flexible definition for retail-like. 11 She was not sure if she would support it because she did not understand it. 12 13 Vice Chair Reckdahl did not see it doing any harm, so he would support it. 14 15 MOTION #8 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council consultant 18 recommendation 8. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 23 24 VOTE MOTION #8 25 26 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 27 28 MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Templeton, Reckdahl, Chang) (Summa, no) 29 30 Chair Chang addressed Recommendation 9. 31 32 Commissioner Hechtman supported relaxing the standards. 33 34 Commissioner Akin stated he was split on this. He mentioned that eliminating the taking 35 standard was justifiable and reasonable. He did not think the current office vacancies would 36 last, and he thought the primary goal should promote housing and resident-serving business, 37 not lock in spaces to office use. 38 39 Chair Chang remarked that when she had supported the existence of the office limits it was 40 related to jobs, housing, and balance. She did not support this because it could have a negative 41 effect on housing production. 42 43 [MOTION #9 2:09:09] 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman moved that PTC recommend to Council the consultant's second 3 option recommendation for number 9, which was to relax the annual office limits with 3 4 associated approaches enumerated on Packet Page 102. 5 6 SECOND 7 8 There was no second. 9 10 [MOTION #9 2:11:00] 11 12 Commissioner Rechecked moved that PTC recommend to Council not supporting consultant's 13 Recommendation 9. 14 15 SECOND 16 17 The motion was seconded by Chair Chang. 18 19 VOTE MOTION #9 20 21 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 22 23 MOTION PASSED 5-2 (Chang, Reckdahl, Akin, Lu, Summa) (Hechtman, Templeton no) 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman stated that what had been communicated was that the Commission 26 was okay leaving in place the unconstitutional taking standard and that putting ground floor 27 office behind retail frontage would inhibit housing. He thought rejecting the whole 28 recommendation could have been avoided by having spent a little more time and forwarding 29 the parts that were agreed upon. 30 31 Commissioner Templeton felt that there could have been more discussion. 32 33 Chair Chang moved to Recommendation 10. 34 35 Commissioner Hechtman supported amending this, not eliminating it. 36 37 Commissioner Summa voiced that her discomfort with this came from the CN zone, which there 38 had been an erosion of because it had not been properly required over the years. She added 39 that CS was a different zone. She worried that it would affect the CN zone, and she thought it 40 would be appropriate to remove the CN zone. She mentioned why the CN zone was supposed 41 to be special. 42 43 Commissioner Akin asked if it should apply to the CS district only and rather than saying 1 eliminate or amend, straightforwardly say amend. 2 3 Chair Chang responded that would address some of her concerns. She was not sure a lot of 4 time had been spent discussing CN versus CS districts, so she did not know where this should 5 apply. 6 7 Vice Chair Reckdahl commented that CN and CS were commercial districts and he wanted 8 resident-serving businesses rather than office space, so he would not support this. 9 10 Commissioner Lu was comfortable amending it. The details of how it would apply to CN and CS 11 could potentially be clarified later. He realized the importance of having neighborhood-serving 12 retail, but he thought having flexibility for office space could help. He would be in favor of 13 wording it as amend and with staff considering and clarifying how it would work in CN and CS. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman expressed that maximum office floor area would not be done away 16 with, but it was recognizing that one size would not necessarily fit every situation, so it could 17 mean smaller maximum office space on smaller parcels. 18 19 MOTION #10 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC recommend to Council the consultant's 22 Recommendation 10 to amend 18.16.050 to make the limitation on office use floor areas 23 proportionate to the size of the site or building to ensure an equitable impact, the details of 24 which would be worked out in the ordinance produced by staff. 25 26 SECOND 27 28 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 29 30 VOTE MOTION #10 31 32 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 33 34 MOTION FAILED 3-4 (Lu, Hechtman, Templeton) (Summa, Akin, Chang, Reckdahl, no) 35 36 Commissioner Akin voted no because he was not sure the proportionality was the right 37 criterion, so he did not want to pass that advice to Council, and he noted that a lot of problems 38 stemmed from creating too much office space and he wanted more resident-serving businesses 39 and housing. 40 41 Commissioner Summa voted no for basically the same reasons and because in places where 42 there was a lot of CN and CS there was combining of lots, which could create huge new office 43 space if it was proportional. She thought it was unfortunate to do it in general and that it was a 1 hardship for existing office space owners who had empty space. 2 3 Chair Chang voted no because more housing was needed, not office space, and allowing more 4 office space made the lot more valuable and could result in housing construction being difficult. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton noted that it appeared that the Ad Hoc Committee had some of 7 these conversations and the Commission did not have a chance to discuss or review it. She was 8 worried that as a result there were a lot of split votes and the Commission had not had a 9 chance to explore things. Concerning the split votes, she thought more discussion could be a 10 benefit. 11 12 Chair Chang clarified that the Ad Hoc did not specifically see any of the current 13 recommendations. There was not more to discuss because there was not any new data. The 14 data had been discussed, and more information was needed on some things. 15 16 Commissioner Templeton asked who was to provide the information. 17 18 Commissioner Akin responded that readouts from the Ad Hoc were provided to the 19 Commission as a whole. Perhaps it had been a mistake not to have done it in writing. They did 20 write a draft of recommendations, which was intended to go forward, but it had not because 21 the schedule for review and Council changed. He would forward it to Director Lait to decide 22 what the appropriate review process might be for PTC or the Council Ad Hoc. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton wanted to know if these objections were splitting the vote. She 25 mentioned that discussing it would be a worthwhile, although she recognized it could not be 26 done today. It was important for the PTC to inform Council of pros and cons. 27 28 Chair Chang remarked that when the group last saw the consultant's report, in some places 29 there had been disagreement with the information presented, more data was needed, or there 30 were errors in the data, and there was no new data, so there was nothing more to discuss. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton thought it was okay to let staff know of possible challenges with the 33 presentation due to not having additional data. She was frustrated with voting only and not 34 having a discussion. 35 36 Chair Chang replied that there had been discussion and it needed to be brought to the PTC 37 because there were limitations on the budget for the consultant and there was not enough 38 clear direction from the PTC after the last report, so there needed to be an attempt to provide 39 direction. Even split votes would inform Council, the Council Committee, and staff that it may 40 need to be explored more. 41 42 Vice Chair Reckdahl commented that there had been a problem with 18.16.050, which was not 1 included in the consultant's report. It related to a CN or CS vacant office being used for retail 2 and not allowing rights for office at such a spot again, and they wanted flexibility in that. 3 4 Jonathan Lait declared that the scenario described was permissible. He recalled that the 5 ordinance stated if it was retail it needed to stay retail. He understood that the ordinance 6 applied to the status of properties as of a certain date. 7 8 Chair Chang voice that the consultant indicated that problem needed to be addressed, that a 9 landlord might be disincentivized to put in retail. 10 11 The office/retail issue was tabled to addressed later. 12 13 MOTION #11 14 15 Chair Chang moved that consultant Recommendation 10 not be recommended to Council. 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 20 21 VOTE MOTION #11 22 23 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 24 25 MOTION PASSED 5-2 (Akin, Chang, Summa, Reckdahl, Templeton) (Hechtman, Lu, no) 26 27 Chair Chang addressed Recommendation 11. 28 29 Commissioner Akin objected based on the history that there had been a severe parking 30 shortage not long ago, particularly downtown. He thought it was premature to reduce the 31 standards and that it would be okay to consider a study with the awareness that return to 32 office and increased housing downtown would likely increase parking demands. 33 34 Commissioner Summa agreed. She added that removing parking on El Camino increased 35 parking in neighborhoods. She did not support this at this time. She stated it directly contracted 36 what had been told to those neighborhoods. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton liked the idea of amending or frequently updating and maybe figuring 39 out a formula over time, but there had been a lot of recent adjustments and the impacts would 40 not be known for about a year. She wanted to be flexible and reevaluate on a regular basis. She 41 stated that point one was phrased in a way that was presumptuous, and she wondered if that 42 area could be modified and then it be determined how to proceed. 43 1 Commissioner Lu agreed that there was flexibility in bullet 2 in that an appropriate amount of 2 parking may be found, phased, and timed correctly. He thought reducing parking minimums 3 was a good idea, and he generally expected the number to go down, but he was also fine with a 4 slightly softer version of bullet point 1. 5 6 MOTION #12 7 8 Commissioner Lu moved to amend parking regulations on the basis of parking-use surveys to 9 reset standards to appropriate levels based on actual need and demand. He restated the 10 motion as effectively moving Recommendation 11 without bullet point 1. 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Hechtman seconded the motion. 15 16 Commissioner Akin asked for clarification between the motion and forwarding the consultant's 17 recommendation without subitem number 1. 18 19 Commissioner Lu responded there was no difference. 20 21 Commissioner Templeton was looking for those who spoke up against 11 [inaudible 2:36:21] 22 removing point 1 [inaudible 2:36:23] requirements. She inquired if that would bring those 23 commissioners onboard. 24 25 Dan Wery expressed that these items were intended to be more direction and consideration for 26 future development. He thought parking requirements were going down in general. It was not 27 an absolute that the parking requirements had to be reduced. He requested that the 28 recommendation and the rational be considered. The recommendation did not have to be 29 done. It was to give direction to Council and staff. 30 31 Commissioner Summa answered Commissioner Templeton's question, and she noted that it 32 would not help her comfortable level with this nor did the statement that parking requirements 33 were going down because she did not believe parking demands were going down at the same 34 time. Motor Vehicle may convince her. 35 36 Commissioner Templeton added that the City had goals to reduce motor vehicle dependence, 37 so she thought there was synergy between this item and some of those goals. She wondered if 38 Commissioner Summa would be interested in phrasing it with a contingency, such as if 39 supported by ADA, etc. 40 41 Commissioner Summa replied that it would not make a difference. She thought it was 1 unnecessary to bundle voluntary city parking option reduction where so much was being 2 mandated. 3 4 Vice Chair Reckdahl noted that standards should be based on demand, but the way it was 5 written had a spin of reducing underutilized parking, and he did not want the recommendation 6 to be misinterpreted. He would support it if the recommendation was the last two bullets 7 under the rationale and justification. Standards needed to be based on actual demand. He 8 understood what was written as "standards do not need and should not accommodate all 9 potential demand" to mean that parking would not be based on worst case. 10 11 Commissioner Akin remarked that once the mandatory reduction of minimum parking 12 requirements was gone, it was common sense to conduct parking use surveys, which should be 13 done with exquisite care. He stated that standards being based on actual demand had never 14 been the case. Standards may need to be based on predicted demand. He explained why he did 15 not agree with the statement that standards did not need or should not accommodate all 16 potential demand. He thought consideration should be given to the other uses. He found it 17 supportable as stated but that the devil would be in the details. 18 19 VOTE MOTION #12 20 21 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 22 23 MOTION PASSED 5-1-1 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Lu, Hechtman, Akin) (Summa, no) (Chang 24 abstained) 25 26 Chair Chang stated that parking use surveys should be conducted as a basis to reset standards, 27 but she was not sure it needed to be done soon and she had little faith that it would be done 28 with the care and precision needed. 29 30 Commissioner Summa voted no because it shifted the burden of inadequate parking onto 31 residents and small business owners. There were state pressures. Surveys could result in a 32 higher demand, which had not been considered. 33 34 Chair Chang addressed Recommendation 12. 35 36 Commissioner Summa stated that she had previously spoken to her issues with AB 2097. If 37 State law was to be codified into the code, she wanted to take advantage of the flexibility built 38 into the law regarding exempting certain areas and that it not apply to ADA and EVSE parking. 39 40 Jonathan Lait stated that the Commission had taken a position on this, and he believed it 41 reflected the Commission's prior motion. 42 43 Chair Chang stated that prior Commission action would be referred to. She advanced to 1 Recommendation 14. She suggested skipping this entirely because it was not related to retail. 2 3 Commissioner Summa seconded the non-motion suggestion. 4 5 Albert Yang stated it would be best to have a motion. 6 7 MOTION #13 8 9 Chair Chang moved to not take a position on this at this time because it was unrelated to the 10 current agendized item. 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Summa seconded the motion. 15 16 VOTE MOTION #13 17 18 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 19 20 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Templeton, Reckdahl, Chang) 21 22 Chair Chang declared that the Commission would take a seven-minute break, and she 23 apologized to the waiting public. 24 25 [The Commission took a seven-minute break] 26 27 STUDY SESSION 28 29 3. Study Session to Discuss Updates to the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (Palo 30 Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140). 31 32 Senior Planner Kelly Cha introduced Good City Company Kevin Gardiner. 33 34 Good City Company Contract Planner Kevin Gardiner announced that he had been working with 35 staff on the Stream Protection Ordinance update. The purpose of the session was to get 36 direction as the ordinance was crafted and updates made to answer some of the policy 37 decisions the team had produced. Staff would use the feedback to develop a draft ordinance 38 for PTC recommendations. Discussion topics included stream conditions, plans and policies, 39 features of the existing ordinance, and comparative analysis of other municipalities. He 40 provided a history of the project, which included stakeholder outreach, a community 41 information session, and an existing conditions report. They hoped to return to the PTC the end 42 of September with an ordinance and then go to Council. For purposes of the ordinance update, 43 they were using the term creek and stream interchangeably. The Comprehensive Plan used the 1 term creek, and the ordinance used the term stream. He provided slides with an overview of 2 different stream conditions and the pertinence to the work ahead. The update of the ordinance 3 had been a Council priority for the last three years, and the direction came from the 2017 4 Comprehensive Plan, and the Staff Report outlined the different plans, goals, policies, and 5 programs. A big part of this going back to the original ordinance was direction from the Valley 6 Water Resources Protection Collaborative guidelines and standards, which would be called the 7 Collaborative's guidelines in the presentation. He discussed the current ordinance having a 8 slope stability area and a streamside review area. He defined streamside review area. They had 9 looked at other jurisdictions' standards around the Bay Area, and he furnished a slide listing 10 best practices and the comparative analysis. He provided a slide with discussion questions, 11 which included applicability, exemptions, setback distances, stream conditions, and deviation 12 processes. He supplied slides with the staff recommendations and different alternatives, which 13 he outlined and included applicability/types of development, exemptions, setback distances, 14 stream conditions and riparian vegetation, and the deviation process. 15 16 Chair Chang remined the public that the PTC had a policy of not taking new speakers five 17 minutes after the staff presentation, and she requested that all who wanted to speak raise their 18 hand or turn in their speaker card. She announced that Commissioner Templeton had to leave, 19 but there was a quorum with six commissioners. 20 21 Commissioner Akin wanted to know if it had been estimated how many existing R1, R2, and 22 RMD properties violated each of the proposed regulations. 23 24 Kevin Gardiner replied that this was intended to apply to new construction, so most likely a lot 25 of existing uses would not comply with the regulations. For the most part, the recommendation 26 was to leave those alone unless there was to be expansion closer to the creek. Those numbers 27 may be in the Existing Conditions Report. The point was to not increase nonconformity, not 28 penalize people whose house had been built years ago. The deviation process might be used 29 only if there was a closer approach to the creek. 30 31 Chair Chang discussed major remodels and bird safety and dark skies ordinances and asked if 32 what was being proposed here related to new structures being closer to a stream. 33 34 Kevin Gardiner responded that was the staff recommendation. They were related and they 35 tried to coordinate the two ordinances. It seemed that the stream corridor protection was 36 focused on a building footprint and further encroaching the creek. That may not be aligned with 37 concerns related to bird safety or dark skies, but they would ensure they were not at cross-38 purposes with that ordinance as well. 39 40 Vice Chair Reckdahl queried why the current code exempted single stories but not second-story 41 additions and if Palo Alto had streamside R1s west of Foothill. He addressed Packet Page 14 42 addressing R1, R2, and RMD but not open space or RE. Regarding exemptions and a 150-foot 43 setback, he noted that there was a parcel along Adobe that had a width of only 150 feet. 44 1 Jonathan Lait would look at the code section and try to return with an answer concerning the 2 current code exempting single stories but not second-story additions. R1s west of Foothill was 3 used generically to refer to the RE zones and other sections, but he noted that could be wrong. 4 5 Kevin Gardiner answered that the zoning designations on Packet Page 14 were not accurate. It 6 was meant to capture single-family properties. The parcel along Adobe that had a width of only 7 150 feet would be a classic variance case and a case for deviation, which would follow the 8 variance process. 9 10 Amy French noted that the variance process would only include the Planning Commission if it 11 was requested for hearing. 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman referenced Packet Page 11 defining the streamside review and 14 questioned why public streets were differentiated from private streets. 15 16 Kelly Cha replied that she would have to look into public streets being differentiated from 17 private streets. 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman asked that be investigated and to think about broadening the street 20 definition unless there was a good reason to have it. 21 22 Chair Chang referenced Packet Page 18 and asked how requiring riparian vegetation may be 23 burdensome to property owners. She inquired if there was a list of riparian vegetation, if the 24 plants were readily available, if they were expensive, and if there was value to such vegetation. 25 She noted there were differences between where streams were mapped by the County versus 26 the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and she asked how the ordinance would address that. 27 28 Kevin Gardiner thought the burdensome riparian vegetation was in reference to the likelihood 29 of a stream being daylighted, which could create a setback for a condition that may never 30 happen. The availability and cost of riparian vegetation was a minor burden. It had habitat 31 value. 32 33 Biologist Jim Martin commented that something planted on top of a culverted area was no 34 longer considered riparian vegetation. It needed a direct connection to the waters. He spoke of 35 there being benefits of riparian or native vegetation for culverted and un-culverted reaches. He 36 spoke of removing existing culverts requiring a large footprint and the flood flow implications 37 and that a lot of factors had to be considered when restoring vegetation in the restored 38 channel. Encouraging daylighting of culverted reaches where feasible was great, and it should 39 be ensured that future development have an appropriate footprint to accomplish that, but it 40 was a large constraint to recognize future potential for restoring a channel that was currently 41 culverted. He noted that the Existing Conditions Report contained varying information 42 concerning mapping and the report listed a couple important examples. The point was to show 43 the discrepancies and the importance of verifying the location of streams. [Mapping 3:31:26] 44 was part of the verification process. It was not addressed in the existing ordinance, but they 1 would consider it as part of the language for the updated ordinance. 2 3 Commissioner Summa queried if there was data on the use of species for channelized creeks 4 and if channelized creeks were important and she asked the importance of a riparian area at 5 the top of a creek bed. 6 7 Jim Martin replied that channelized creeks were important. Their primary function was flood 8 control. Establishing woody riparian vegetation in those reaches was unrealistic without a more 9 exhaustive effort, including widening the channel, securing private property, and doing an 10 analysis. A lot of the channelized reaches had emergent vegetation, cattail, etc., that were 11 important, which was used for bird movement, etc. The importance of the banks, top of bank, 12 and beyond varied throughout the city. He noted that a lot of the channelized had flood control 13 maintenance roads, which limited what could be done. It was important to retain the condition 14 of areas with access on one side and the other side having natural, seminatural, or remnant 15 woody vegetation. 16 17 PUBLIC COMMENTS 18 19 Shani Kleinhaus, environmental advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, was glad to 20 see this moving forward. She spoke of Envision 2030 and there being materials with conflicts 21 and compromises. She suggested using the widest riparian corridors and setbacks possible. She 22 voiced that riparian vegetation was important but that even native plants should be considered 23 for the banks. 24 25 Winter Dellenbach spoke of the importance of Matadero Creek and protecting creeks and 26 requested all setbacks be as wide as possible. 27 28 Linda Ruthruff, a board member of the local chapter of the California Native Plant Society, 29 stated that the riparian corridors were the last refuge for many plants, animals, etc., and she 30 requested they be protected from encroachments, heavy metals, channelizing, etc., and that 31 there be strong regulations and that setbacks be as large as possible. She discouraged invasive 32 plant species along the concretized part of streams. She requested streams be protected from 33 light spillage. 34 35 Chair Chang suggested that the Commission address the five listed topics one by one. 36 37 Vice Chair Reckdahl asked what a setback precluded – for example, if a fence, shed, etc., would 38 be allowed. 39 40 Kevin Gardiner responded that wildlife fences would be allowed. As for sheds, etc., they wanted 41 to address that with the Commission, but generally it would probably be fairly consistent with 42 the current ordinance. He provided a list of some things that were not allowed in the 43 ordinance. They were anticipating true setbacks of 40 to 150 feet. There would need to be 1 provisions for permeable surfaces. 2 3 Chair Chang request that Slide 15 (applicability/types of developments) be shared. She was in 4 support of staff's recommendation. 5 6 Commissioner Summa thought property owners should protect creeks as much as reasonably 7 possible. She did not want to see many deviations or variances, although there had to be a 8 variance process for unusual situations. She wanted large setbacks for natural creeks and 9 sensitive areas and for the hills and open space areas to have the same setbacks. She had seen 10 a lot of wildlife using channelized creeks, and she did not want to alter them to risk flooding, 11 but she thought they should be considered moving forward. She questioned what the process 12 would be for a variance. 13 14 Kelly Cha answered that the variance process was usually at the director's level but if requested 15 to be heard at a public hearing, it would come to the PTC. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman explained that he was concerned about unintended consequences 18 and the practical effects of the ordinance. He thought it would be useful to understand the 19 impact on the ability to use property and asked that when this returned there be examples of 20 scenarios of how the draft ordinance would impact additions, fencing, etc. He discussed 21 riparian revegetation typically not being simple or inexpensive, and he stated that impacts to 22 property owners should be considered. 23 24 Jonathan Lait expressed that hearing comments would be helpful [inaudible 3:58:21] the 25 ordinance. 26 27 Commissioner Akin supported the staff recommendation for applicability. He did not see the 28 regulations being applied universally or strictly to multifamily and commercial development to 29 be viable. He stated that applying it with some exceptions would be the right approach. 30 31 Commissioner Lu thought there should be sensitivity to single family and the potential scope for 32 exception. He suggested looking first at the ultimate impact to a creek and then working 33 backwards from there. It made sense to give consistent/similar exceptions to multifamily and 34 commercial uses. He would support some exceptions, but he wanted to be more consistent 35 about multifamily and commercial and not carve out single family. 36 37 Vice Chair Reckdahl did not think this should be onerous on single-family houses. Regarding 38 Alternative A and the staff recommendation, he wanted to better understand the exceptions 39 and why they were chosen. He preferred some combination of either Alternative A or the staff 40 recommendation. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman noted that in Section 1 the staff recommendation was to include 43 residential except for a subcategory of single family but in Item 2 staff recommended 44 exempting certain R1, R2, and RMD. He voiced that the comments needed to be taken as a 1 whole even though they were being broken down into five discussions. He supported staff's 2 recommendation in 1 because there would be a discussion of the exemptions in 2. 3 4 Chair Chang proceeded to Slide 16 (exemptions). She supported the staff recommendation 5 because it made sense to have an exception for channelized and urban streams. 6 7 Commissioner Lu agreed with Chair Chang. He restated his point about some multifamily or 8 commercial being appropriate too. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman discussed San Francisquito Creek not being exempt in the staff 11 recommendation but being except in staff Alternative A. If not exempt, he was concerned 12 about property owners who might do a substantial house rebuild losing backyard footage or 13 not being allowed security fencing. He wanted to support the staff recommendation but he was 14 concerned about what would happen to those on the natural creeks not being part of the 15 exemption. 16 17 Commissioner Summa generally agreed with the staff recommendation. She asked if a property 18 line went to the middle of the waterway or if it ended on the bank. She noted that a creekbank 19 could change due to erosion. 20 21 Kelly Cha thought the current staff recommendation was to use the top of the bank and then 22 measure the setback. Natural creeks would most likely be part of a private property, but she 23 explained that it depended on the location of the creek. There was an easement for 24 channelized ones. 25 26 Jim Martin explained that property lines varied. 27 28 Vice Chair Reckdahl inquired about other jurisdictions that had done this and asked if folks had 29 replaced their security fences with wildlife fences or moved the security fence. He queried if [a 30 setback of 4:11:31] 20 feet was enough for bank stability. He questioned if there were reasons 31 other than the riparian corridor and bank stability to have setbacks in urban environments. 32 33 Kevin Gardiner clarified that the staff recommendation for the San Francisco Creek within the 34 urbanized areas was a 40-foot setback. The wildlife fences spoke to the hilly areas, but they 35 may not be appropriate for urban areas. In areas where there were wildlife fences, there may 36 also be security fences closer to houses. He thought it would be good to look at a few case 37 studies and the impacts of fencing with a 40-foot setback. The current standard was 20 feet and 38 they did not recommend anything less. He added that it was different for a concrete 39 channelized creek. As for setbacks in urban environments, the basis of the recommendation 40 was to focus on natural creeks, not the channelized ones. There was less gain to be had in the 41 channelized areas, so the recommendation was to exempt those. 42 43 Jim Martin expressed that the setback was to capture fencing, existing structures, and possible 1 future improvements not only to the top of bank but to where remnant woody riparian 2 vegetation existed. As part of the setback consideration, it would be important to review a site-3 specific application to understand where the top of bank was, the existing conditions, the 4 footprint of existing buildings and fencing, and where woody riparian vegetation was. They 5 would clarify information on fencing, existing conditions, habitat value, and securing private 6 property and find something reasonable and maybe a subitem in the setback standards 7 separate for a structure, proposed modification, or expansion of a building footprint. 8 9 Commissioner Akin supported the staff recommendation as it was the best of the approaches 10 described. He asked how many properties along San Francisquito would be affected by the new 11 regulations. When the ordinance returned to the PTC, he wanted to know which areas would 12 be most affected. 13 14 Chair Chang moved to Slide 17 (setback distances). 15 16 Chair Chang supported the staff recommendation. She voiced why it was important to treat the 17 areas west of Foothill and east of 101 differently. 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman did not have an issue with the 150-foot setback for properties west of 20 Foothill and east of 101, but in the remaining area of the city, he inquired why Palo Alto 21 streams required greater protection than other cities' streams. In that area, he preferred 22 Alternative A inside the corridor of 101 to Foothill to provide more flexibility. He questioned if 23 the setback of 40 feet from top of bank was 20 feet more than the already existing slope 24 stability protection area. 25 26 [Inaudible 4:19:37] slope stability protection area. 27 28 Chair Chang understood that what was currently built would be grandfathered in and that this 29 would address future development. 30 31 Vice Chair Reckdahl wanted to support the staff recommendation, but he wanted to determine 32 how onerous it would be. 33 34 Commissioner Lu was comfortable with larger setbacks along the Foothills and Baylands, 35 realizing that some properties may need some deviations. He was unsure about the basis for 40 36 feet. He did not understand Alternative A related to maintaining the 20-foot slope stability 37 protection area but allowing greater flexibility within the rest of the setback. He queried if that 38 meant there would be a 20-foot slope stability protection area and other TBD setbacks. 39 40 Kevin Gardiner replied that it was suggesting there would be a 20-foot slope stability protection 41 area and other TBD setbacks. For example, with Alternative A, nothing could go in the 20 feet, 42 but maybe a security fence would be allowed with the 40 feet. It provided a little flexibility in 43 the additional 20 feet between 20 and 40. 44 1 Commissioner Summa asked if Number 3 applied to setback distances for channelized and 2 natural creeks. She wondered if 40 feet was considered a reduction. She felt differently about 3 natural and channelized creeks. 4 5 Kevin Gardiner replied, regarding Number 3, that it was a bit of a mix and match. If both 6 recommendations were combined, he understood it to be 40 feet for the natural creeks and, 7 going back to the prior recommendation, channelized would not be included. 8 9 Chair Chang addressed Slide 18 (stream conditions). 10 11 Vice Chair Reckdahl was under the impression that the natural creeks were far more important 12 than the channelized creeks and that natural creeks should be concentrated on. 13 14 Commissioner Summa generally agreed with Vice Chair Reckdahl's comment. She did not see 15 the point of requiring riparian plantings above culverts. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman asked what staff intended by stating require riparian vegetation to be 18 maintained and if property owners would be required to maintain existing vegetation. He 19 referred to the recommendation on Number 2, the exemption, and asked if he were to tear 20 down a house on Edgewood and build a new one, if it would be exempt and if he wanted to 21 build in the old footprint or would he have to remove an existing fence to plant native plants 22 for the first 40 feet from top of bank. 23 24 Kevin Gardiner responded that existing riparian vegetation should continue to be maintained. If 25 tearing down a house and redeveloping the property, a survey would be done that would show 26 the location of existing riparian vegetation, so the expectation would be to maintain that in the 27 redevelopment and not remove any existing vegetation. It was not saying to plant more but to 28 not do further harm. 29 30 Commissioner Hechtman supported the staff recommendation. 31 32 Chair Chang addressed Slide 19 (deviation process). She hoped things could be similar to the 33 rest of the City's processes. The staff recommendation made sense to her. She did not want 34 there to be a lot of exceptions in the ordinance. 35 36 Vice Chair Reckdahl agreed with Chair Chang's comments. 37 38 Commissioner Hechtman liked the staff recommendation, but he was concerned about the 39 variance process. He did not want a property owner to not be able to build because of the 40 setback, and he voiced that there needed a workable solution for that. He provided an example 41 of a process that worked for San Jose, and he noted that the staff recommendation described 42 such as long as it did not include a variance. 43 44 ACTION ITEMS 1 2 4. Recommend the City Council Adopt the Draft Ordinances Updating Palo Alto 3 Municipal Code (PAMC) (4a) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) 4 Section 18.40.250 (Lighting) and (4b) Adding a New Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly 5 Design). 6 7 Chair Chang suggested, given that the meeting was two hours behind schedule, that staff 8 present and that public comments be taken but then continue the item at the next meeting. 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to give the public the option of speaking tonight or speaking 11 at the next meeting before the discussion. 12 13 Jonathan Lait stated that the whole item could be continued to the next meeting. 14 15 Chair Chang did not wanted to continue the whole item because she wanted to allow the public 16 comment at this meeting. She stated that staff would first do the 4a presentation, then public 17 comment would be taken, then staff would present 4b, and then the public would comment. 18 She inquired if there was an option to also take public comment next week. 19 20 Jonathan Lait answered that it was at the Chair's discretion to again open public comment on 21 return of the item if there was to be a presentation and the public meeting was to be 22 continued. After the presentation and public comment, the public comment period would 23 presumably be closed and the matter would be continued for Commission deliberation, but he 24 thought the Chair reserved the right to open it up. 25 26 Albert Yang confirmed that it was up to the Chair to decide if there would be limited public 27 comment at a continued hearing for anyone not speaking at this meeting. 28 29 Chair Chang would plan to have limited public comment upon continuing the item. 30 31 Kelly Cha stated she would provide a brief presentation, and upon Commission deliberations, 32 she would bring it back to help facilitate the discussion. The item was a Council priority for 33 2024. The intent was to be as consistent as possible with dark-sky principles. The draft 34 ordinance, which was Attachment A of the report, would replace the existing section in the 35 code. She furnished slides and discussed lighting standards and provisions on city operations, 36 and ARB had provided some feedback, which she elaborated on. Staff recommended that PTC 37 forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the draft ordinance. The hearing with Council 38 was tentatively scheduled for September, but it may be delayed due to the PTC continuing the 39 item. 40 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS 42 43 Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, speaking on 1 behalf of Diane McCoy, Linda Ruthruff, Lyn Heideman, and Laura M, supplied slides and 2 discussed proposed recommended improvements for the Dark Sky Ordinance, which included 3 bifurcating the bird-safe process from the dark sky process. They recommended the Dark Sky 4 Ordinance be presented to Council for adoption with motions he had provided in a handout, 5 which he detailed. He addressed DarkSky International's State of the Science 2024 (ALAN 6 impacts on wildlife), and he added that quotes from the slide he presented were printed on the 7 handout. He discussed the science on lighting and safety being mixed. They recommended 8 there be a limit of 2700 kelvin, there be no light fixtures or light trespass within riparian 9 corridors, the maximum allowable light trespass be reduced to 0.1 foot candles, and for 10 provisions to cover existing nonconforming lighting. A sample of motion language related to 11 this was included in the handout. 12 13 Rani Fischer, a member of the Santa Clara County Audubon Society's Environmental 14 Commission, provided an example of a light ordinance not including buildings, and she 15 encouraged the PTC to include existing buildings in the ordinance. She also spoke of bright 16 lights not always deterring crime. 17 18 MOTION #14 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman moved that the PTC continue Action Item 4a to the August 28 21 meeting, allowing limited public testimony at that meeting. 22 23 SECOND 24 25 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 26 27 VOTE MOTION #14 28 29 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 30 31 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Summa, Reckdahl) (Templeton absent) 32 33 Kelly Cha announced that ARB Chair Kendra Rosenberg was online to help facilitate the 34 discussion, but she would be asked to attend the next meeting. She voiced that this item came 35 from the same Council priority as the Dark Sky Ordinance, but it was an implementation action 36 of [a 4:55:47] comprehensive plan policy encouraging bird-friendly design and asking for 37 developing guidelines. There was not an existing section on bird-friendly design standards, so a 38 new section was being introduced to the code. She noted that applicability and exemptions had 39 been main discussion items for the ARB. She supplied slides and discussed applicability, 40 exemptions, and requirements. Staff recommended that PTC recommend Council adopt the 41 new ordinance language, which would be delayed in going to Council in September due to the 42 PTC continuing the item. 43 PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 2 Dashiell Leeds from the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter displayed slides and spoke of bird-3 friendly design and hazardous features. He wanted the hazards to be identified to be able to 4 avoid them. 5 6 Shani Kleinhaus, speaking on behalf of Linda Ruthruff, Diane Mccoy, Julie Rose, and Lyn 7 Heideman, voiced that designing buildings to avoid hazards to birds was the best solution. She 8 suggested their recommendations be included in the Dark Sky Ordinance. They wanted the 9 Bird-Safe Ordinance to move forward and to address the Baylands, hillsides, natural creeks, and 10 how areas of the city would be included. She displayed slides and spoke of where the ordinance 11 should apply. They wrote some recommendations related to building elevations, green roofs, 12 and the ordinance applying city-wide for commercial and mixed-use areas. She indicated that 13 housing outside bird-safe areas needed more investigation as did reflective glass. They 14 requested that examples be expanded and more comprehensive. She stated that objective 15 standards could be flexible in some areas and prescriptive in others. She discussed bird-safety 16 treatment and UV not working. 17 18 Julianne Wang, a previous bird researcher and a policy advocate assistant at Santa Clara Valley 19 Audubon Society, shared a presentation titled Are Visual Cues Effective, which included glass 20 patterns that were effective in preventing bird strikes, and she spoke of locations of bird 21 collisions. 22 23 MOTION #15 24 25 Commissioner Summa moved to continue the item on August 28 with additional speakers at 26 the Chair's discretion. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Commissioner Akin seconded the motion. 31 32 VOTE MOTION #15 33 34 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 35 36 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Reckdahl, Summa, Lu, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Templeton absent) 37 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39 40 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of 41 January 31, 2024 42 43 MOTION #16 1 2 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approved the minutes as revised. 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commission Akin seconded the motion. 7 8 VOTE MOTION #16 9 10 Chair Chang conducted a voice vote. 11 12 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa) (Templeton absent) 13 14 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of 15 February 28, 2024 16 17 MOTION #17 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 20 21 SECOND 22 23 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 24 25 VOTE MOTION #17 26 27 Chair Chang conducted a voice vote. 28 29 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa) (Templeton absent) 30 31 7. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of May 32 8, 2024 33 34 MOTION #18 35 36 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 37 38 SECOND 39 40 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 41 42 VOTE MOTION #18 1 2 Chair Chang conducted a voice vote. 3 4 MOTION PASSED 5-0-1-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Reckdahl, Summa) (Lu abstained) 5 (Templeton absent) 6 7 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 8 9 Chair Chang announced that this was Amy French's last meeting with the PTC as she was 10 retiring after 27 years of service. She congratulated her on her retirement. The PTC thanked her 11 for her service. The Commission had a card and a gift for her, which would be presented to her 12 at another time because she was attending this meeting virtually. 13 14 Commissioner Summa thanked Amy French. 15 16 Commissioner Akin voiced that he was impressed with Amy French's knowledge, integrity, 17 patience, and sense of humor. He thanked her for her work and for making all the 18 commissioners better in their roles. 19 20 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated that he had enjoyed his interactions with Amy French, would miss 21 her, and appreciated her work. 22 23 Commissioner Lu thanked Amy French for her work and helping the Commission and the City. 24 He was grateful. 25 26 Amy French thanked the commissioners. 27 ADJOURNMENT 28 29 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 10:47 PM. 30