Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-28 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: August 28, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 6:00 PM 7 8 Chair Chang called the meeting to order. She noted that Commissioner Summa was absent. 9 10 Administrative Associate Veronica Dao called roll, and there were six present. 11 12 Commissioner Templeton stated she was participating remotely because of just cause, and she 13 confirmed that she was in a room by herself. 14 15 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 16 17 There were no requests to speak. 18 19 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 20 21 There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions. 22 23 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 24 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 25 26 Long Range Planning Manager Coleman Frick declared that he was filling in for Amy French as 27 the liaison. He reviewed the upcoming PTC meeting schedule. There was one item on the 28 agenda for September 11, which was 70 Encina. There were three items for the September 25 29 agenda and three items for the October and November agendas. He displayed a slide showing 30 some of the upcoming City Council items pertaining to PTC review. The Dark Skies and Bird-Safe 31 Design Ordinance item may change from September to October. 32 33 Office of Transportation Parking Manager Nathan Baird announced that he was filling in for 34 Senior Engineer Raphael Rius. The parking item and the Palo Alto data review had been 35 postponed. He provided an update of Caltrain work that was happening on the Churchill 36 crossing near Alma. There was a temporary sidewalk closure with a pedestrian detour. It was 37 expected to be finished next week. 38 39 ACTION ITEMS 1 2 2. 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 voiced that these items would be addressed separately with 4(a) being addressed 8 first and then 4(b). There would not be an updated staff presentation. 9 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS 11 Shani Kleinhaus addressed dark skies and had provided a handout at the last meeting; however, 12 recommendations from the Sierra Club and Audubon had been added to review and include in 13 the motion. They requested that lights not be visible above 3 feet of a public right-of-way. She 14 spoke of lighting being a disturbance to natural ecosystems. She requested that dark skies be 15 moved forward but not the bird-safe design. 16 17 Coleman Frick commented that the presentation slides from the last meeting were available for 18 this meeting. 19 Commissioner Akin addressed Packet Page 22, Section 2 (c)(3) and asked if the ordinance would 20 be applied to replacement fixtures as part of ordinary maintenance as well as upgrades. He did 21 not know what event might cause an evaluation of the change, and he asked that it be clarified. 22 He referenced Packet Page 22 (e)(1)(d) and inquired how this would apply to rooftop lighting. 23 He was concerned about applications for well-lit activities on rooftops, and he believed that 24 should be more carefully considered. He liked the way (e)(3)(B) on Packet Page 23 was 25 expressed and stated that the appropriate illumination level could be discussed. He thought 26 using the lumen rating of the light source would be easier to enforce than a foot candle 27 measurement, and he queried why staff would use a foot candle measurement. He noted that 28 lumen criteria was used in the ordinance in a number of other places. Regarding Packet Page 24 29 (e)(4)(d)(iii), he questioned why it would apply to solar powered pathway lights only. He stated 30 that the luminosity limit could be all that mattered regardless of the power source. Concerning 31 Packet Page 25 (f)(3), he wanted to know if it would apply to EV charging stations. Related to 32 Packet Page 26 (g)(2), he asked why it was not an objective measure like the one in (e)(3)(B). 33 34 Senior Planner Kelly Cha answered that the initial intention of the ordinance was to apply it to 35 replacement fixtures and upgrades. Regarding rooftop lighting, uplighting was to be minimized 36 and was why shielded lighting was referenced. She noted that there were some exceptions 37 listed. Regarding lighting enforcement, she outlined why staff wanted to use a foot candle 38 measurement instead of lumen criteria. The PTC could make modifications to all the above. She 39 would have to return with an answer concerning solar powered pathway lights. Regarding 40 Packet Page 25 (f)(3), the title could be changed so it would apply to gasoline and EV charging 41 stations. As for Packet Page 26 (g)(2), they were trying to capture a wide variety of reasons, but 1 they could consider adding an objective measurement or that provision could be removed. 2 3 Chair Chang asked if the Lighting Ordinance on Packet Page 10 conflicted with other regulations 4 and if there were federal requirements. She requested staff’s reaction to ARB’s suggestion of 5 creating a light sensitive area designation similar to the bird-sensitive area designation 6 referenced on Packet Page 13. She requested definitions of lumens and foot candles. She 7 inquired why motion sensors would deactivate after 10 minutes instead of 5. 8 9 Kelly Cha explained that there was not a conflict with other regulations with regard to the 10 Lighting Ordinance, but the PTC could make modifications. Police and Fire might prefer brighter 11 temperature. Regarding the ordinance on Packet Page 10, she did not believe there were 12 federal requirements, but she could follow up regarding that. Staff thought ARB’s suggestion to 13 create a light sensitive area designation similar to the bird sensitive area designation was a 14 good idea, and staff considered it, but there was not a threshold they could follow, so there had 15 been a decision to forgo that, but staff could reconsider, although it could be difficult because 16 they did not have the needed data. She voiced her understanding of lumens versus foot 17 candles. She explained why motion sensors would deactivate after 10 instead of 5 minutes. 18 19 Vice Chair Reckdahl questioned how bright typical gas service station lighting was. He queried 20 what other cities had for their dark skies. He asked why only service stations were addressed 21 and not car dealerships, etc., and what the lighting limits were for car dealerships. He asked if 22 this could apply to 24-hour businesses or businesses with certain hours. 23 24 Kelly Cha was not aware how bright typical gas service station lighting was, but she could follow 25 up with that information. They had looked the model ordinance, mainly Cupertino as a base 26 and then other cities to compare, and [the Palo Alto ordinance 35:23] was similar or the same, 27 which she could confirm, but 12.5 foot candle [made it difficult 35:31]. Car dealerships, etc., 28 would be included as part of the nonresidential. The Commission could discuss there being a 29 special purpose lighting section, and staff could return with additional information. She 30 discussed why gas stations typically had brighter lights. There were not limits for car 31 dealerships, but 3000 kelvin would be the limit, and the other lighting guidelines of shielding, 32 etc., would apply as well. As for this applying to 24-hour businesses or businesses with certain 33 hours, she could confirm whether gas stations had a close-of-business time as part of their 34 approval, but if not, it would be 10 PM, unless there was a specify in the ordinance. This section 35 applied to special purpose lighting, so unless it was listed in a particular section, they would be 36 expected to comply with the other requirements in the ordinance. If a curfew was needed, that 37 could be added. 38 39 Coleman Frick added that other sections of the code regulated business hours or as indicated in 40 a use permit, etc., so it would depend on what the outdoor use may be and the regulations 41 elsewhere in the code. He explained why service stations were called out specifically. 42 43 Commissioner Hechtman referenced Packet Page 22, Section 2 (e)(1)(A), and asked if replacing 1 a clear glass fixture would require replacement with something that was fully shielded and if a 2 porch light visible above three feet from the street would violate (e)(1)(D). 3 4 Kelly Cha responded that replacing a clear glass fixture would require it being replaced with 5 something fully shielded if the applicability did not change. 6 7 Coleman Frick responded that he understood the intent of (e)(1)(D) to be about light spilling off 8 beyond a certain threshold, not the visibility of the light source. He explained it was tricky to 9 answer the question because the height of the light was not known versus where it was being 10 viewed from. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman suggested that the language be clarified so it would not be confusing 13 and site specific. Regarding Packet Page 23, Section 2 (e)(3), he queried if Police and Fire 14 preferred 4000 kelvin, not 3000, and if (e)(4)(A) would require a porch light to be turned off at 15 10 PM. He addressed Packet Page 24 (e)(4)(D)(i) and queried if there was a State law requiring 16 the front door of a residence to be lit after 10 PM. He asked if Packet Page 25 (f)(5)(B) meant a 17 new house had to be built as far from a stream as possible so the lighting from the house would 18 be as far from the stream as possible. He referenced Packet Page 26 (h)(1) and asked if this 19 would apply to a home with street numbers not being on the façade. 20 21 Kelly Cha answered that Police and Fire preferred 4000 kelvin, but exceptions could be 22 established for private property security lighting. Section (e)(4)(A) would require a porch light 23 be turned off at 10 PM, and the curfew would apply to everything. She did not think there was 24 a State law requiring the front door of a residence to be lit after 10 PM, but she would confirm 25 that. She did not believe the language of (f)(5)(B) was as objective as it should be. There was a 26 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance update, which would be coming later than this particular 27 ordinance, so that section of the code could be referred to, which had more objective distance 28 or standards included. Regarding (h)(1), the PTC could discuss removing the words on a building 29 façade. 30 31 Commissioner Lu inquired if Palo Alto had any regulations on interior lights in unoccupied office 32 or other commercial buildings and if anything had been considered for this ordinance; if street 33 lights would be affected by (e)(1)(C) (Packet Page 22, Section 2); and how this would apply to 34 outdoor dining and why there was not a reference to the Parklet Ordinance. He discussed 35 outdoor dining, such as Backyard Brew, and felt consideration should be given to some 36 discretion for such. He queried how the code would be enforced if there should be a complaint 37 of noncompliance. 38 39 Kelly Cha responded that interior lights had not been not considered because these were 40 zoning codes and regulated only outdoor. This zoning ordinance did not have discretion over 41 street lights and related only to private properties. Other municipal code sections and titles 42 regulated street lighting, etc., for public properties. Parklets were referenced in the Zoning 43 Code. Usually outdoor dining located on the sidewalk would be a public right-of-way, which the 44 Zoning Code did not have discretion over, so they tried to avoid those references. Staff could 1 investigate rooftop properties, but to be consistent with the dark sky principles, staff would 2 have similar recommendations. 3 4 Coleman Frick stated that noncompliance would be handled as a typical code enforcement 5 case, which he elaborated on. It did raise a question of Code Enforcement staff not being 6 available at the times a site visit would be needed, and a complainant’s photos may need to be 7 relied on to some degree. The penalties for property owners not addressing issues were 8 outlined in the code, which he did not have readily available, but he could return with that. 9 10 Planning Director Jonathan Lait stated that he would appreciate the PTC’s feedback on the 11 applicability of the ordinance relative to items that may not require a building permit. He was 12 concerned about enforcement activity if lights suddenly required shielding, and he stated that 13 kind of enforcement could not be done with the current Enforcement staff and was not 14 feasible. He thought it would be appropriate for the PTC to discuss new construction or 15 substantial remodels. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton questioned if code enforcement would be complaint driven and if 18 Section 2 (e)(4)(A) meant a light could be left on if one expected company after 10 PM. She 19 discussed a resident having a reason to keep a porch light on after 10 PM being a common use 20 case. 21 22 Kelly Cha answered that code enforcement would be complaint based. The intention of the 23 phrase after close of business or when people are no longer present was for nonresidential uses 24 mostly but, to provide clarity, the language could be modified or reference could be made to 25 residences and businesses separately. 26 27 Chair Chang stated that lights could be put on timers with motion sensors, which might solve 28 the problem of lights being on after 10 PM. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton stated that lighting at gas stations was not only functional but was for 31 safety, and she questioned if that would be affected by the lighting plan. 32 33 Kelly Cha responded that staff did not believe gas station lighting would impede safety, but they 34 would investigate to see if it needed to be modified. Staff was not proposing that gas stations 35 change existing lighting to comply with new standards unless the station was planning on 36 changing their lighting significantly. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton mentioned that she did not want new service stations to be unsafe. 39 She asked what this would mean for string and holiday string lighting. 40 41 Coleman Frick remarked that staff did not intend to propose anything that would cause a safety 42 concern. He believed there was a carve out for lighting related to City operations and safety, 43 and the PTC could also consider other exceptions on private property to ensure opportunities 44 to revisit possible issues. They would look into existing service station lighting compared to the 1 proposed regulations. 2 3 Kelly Cha stated that string lighting was not considered seasonal lighting and seasonal lighting 4 was exempted in the holiday season. Staff had initially considered string lighting being 5 acceptable if not visible from the public right-of-way, but there were concerns that it may not 6 have been objective. However, the PTC could consider such modifications. 7 8 Commissioner Akin supported the ordinance in general, but there were specifics that needed to 9 be addressed. He discussed instances where 4000 kelvin lighting may be needed for safety. He 10 felt that 3000 kelvin was a good compromise between impact and effectiveness, but choosing 11 another number would not change his mind about the ordinance. He commented that the 12 questions posed concerning service station lighting needed to be addressed and that 13 applicability to rooftop dining, etc., needed to be understood. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman liked the concept of the ordinance, but he had concerns when looking 16 at the details. He discussed the difference between lighting in the hills and dense communities, 17 and the primary purpose for lighting in dense communities being for safety. He was inclined to 18 allow 4000 kelvin lighting. He considered porch lighting to be for safety purposes, and he did 19 not agree with a 10 PM curfew, and he thought there should be an exception for single-family 20 homes. He voiced that the riparian provisions were not yet fully developed and that the lighting 21 concept should be discussed in the concept of the riparian ordinance. He thought there should 22 be reference to the streambed ordinance once adopted, so all the stream regulations would be 23 collected at one time and then the PTC could discuss how they all fit together. 24 25 Commissioner Lu explained that he was hesitant about the curfew for existing buildings due to 26 possibly having to do rewiring, and he thought it should be phased out or tied to a substantial 27 remodel. He addressed this applying only to zoning and not street lights or other public light 28 sources and asked if street lights were the majority of light on a block. 29 30 Kelly Cha replied that lights in public right-of-ways had to comply with other titles of the 31 municipal code and would not be regulated by this ordinance. 32 33 Coleman Frick added that an interesting example was string lighting in parklets in the public 34 right-of-way, which might be associated with a private business. 35 36 Commissioner Lu stated that a lot of his safety concerns had been addressed. He inquired if a 37 long-term path for shielding street lights was outside the scope of this conversation. He would 38 [send staff 1:21:36] his specific concerns offline. He wanted to make the ordinance work, but he 39 was not ready to recommend it to Council. He thought the ARB recommendation of light-40 sensitive areas should be considered. He felt this might be almost ready for west of Foothill or 41 east of 101, but not for Palo Alto as a whole because there were too many unanswered 42 questions. 43 44 Coleman Frick responded that street lights would be a separate policy discussion for Council. 1 2 Commissioner Templeton thought it would be good to try this in certain regions of the City and 3 then expand it. She discussed rewiring existing buildings being the cost of doing business and 4 safety not being comprisable and it needed to be discussed how to do that practically and how 5 to support such facilities. 6 7 Chair Chang did not believe the ordinance needed much work because a lot of the concerns 8 raised could be addressed with respect to applicability and that it should be applied to major 9 remodels and new construction. She suggested that porch lights be allowed to be left on for 10 those without motion sensor capability. If this was applicable only to new construction and 11 major remodels, the concern of rewiring multi-family housing would be eliminated. In general, 12 she was in agreement with suggestions by the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon 13 Society, except she questioned 2700 versus 3000 kelvin. She wanted to understand the 14 equivalent of 0.1 foot candles in terms of lumens. She liked the suggestion of referring to the 15 streamside ordinance rather than writing something specific in this ordinance. She thought 16 motion sensor lights being on a five-minute timer should be acceptable. 17 18 Vice Chair Reckdahl did not think some of the details were quite [inaudible 1:31:33]. He 19 requested information on [time clock lighting 1:31:36]. If the ordinance was going to include 20 time clock lighting, he wanted to make sure it would be reasonable and easy for residents. He 21 asked if overnight office lighting would be addressed. He thought it could easily be addressed 22 with the timing requirement and that brightness should be addressed. He thought the hills and 23 the Baylands needed more protection than the flatlands and that there should eventually be 24 two categories. He was more willing to be restrictive in the Baylands and the Foothills than in 25 the rest of Palo Alto. He felt that enforcement should be based on lumens, not foot candles. He 26 preferred the requirement of 2700 lumens but with exceptions for 4000. 27 28 Kelly Cha answered that staff was not an expert on time clock lighting. From her personal 29 experience, it was easy to regulate timing for interior lights, which she assumed would be the 30 same for outdoor lighting. Office lighting [was not addressed but it 1:34:07] could be included. 31 The existing lighting section had a provision stating that light spillage from interior lighting 32 should be minimized. She thought several projects had gone through ARB review and that some 33 conditions related to interior lighting had been attached. 34 35 Coleman Frick added that staff could research time clock lighting. He thought it was more 36 standard for commercial lighting. He spoke of challenges with office lighting. They did not have 37 firm direction from Council to pursue office lighting as part of this policy. 38 39 Commissioner Lu wondered if there was consensus to limit applicability to new construction 40 and substantial remodels and/or limit applicability to the Foothills and Baylands. 41 42 Chair Chang liked the suggestion, and she was curious if the PTC could move forward on enough 43 of the issues to feel comfortable. 44 1 Commissioner Hechtman thought it would be good to break it into those two pieces and that it 2 was more important for the Foothills and Baylands. He did not know if those discussions would 3 allow for a motion. He thought reaching a decision on applicability and exceptions may produce 4 a level of comfort. He was mostly comfortable with limiting this to new construction and 5 substantial remodels, and he wanted a curfew exemption for residential entry doors, which 6 would include multifamily. He requested information concerning kelvins. 7 8 Chair Chang noted that Shani Kleinhaus was in chambers, who was an expert on kelvins, and 9 she suggested relying on her expertise. 10 11 Shani Kleinhaus explained that kelvins related to light color, not brightness. She spoke of energy 12 consumption and older technology needing 4000 kelvins and above, but with new technology, 13 2700 was accessible and humans did not perceive a difference in the lighting, but it was 14 different to some insects and birds. The Dark Sky Association recommended 2400 kelvins, but it 15 was difficult to get those fixtures at this time. 16 17 Commissioner Akin cautioned going too deeply into the kelvin discussion as there was a lot of 18 physics and psychology of color perception involved as well as the technology of the lamps. He 19 felt this decision should not be trivially made at this meeting. He discussed color temperature 20 of light versus color of light or perception of colors illuminated by the light. He discussed 21 optimizing for lowest impact on wildlife and plant life with 2700 kelvin and going all the way 22 down to no outdoor lights, so there needed to be a balance with the impact on the surrounding 23 world. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman understood that different kelvin measurements were barely 26 perceptible to humans. He did not question Shani Kleinhaus’ expertise. He supported 3000 27 kelvin. He thought the Police Department should explain to Council why 3000 would not be 28 appropriate. 29 30 Vice Chair Reckdahl stated that staff did not want to use a lower temperature light for the 31 water treatment plant. He questioned if the safety needs could have been achieved with a 32 brighter light with a lower temperature. He wanted to support 2700, but he was concerned that 33 there could be a safety issue. 34 35 Shani Kleinhaus replied that there was not an easy answer, as Commissioner Akin explained. 36 The difference in 2700 and 3000 kelvin was the amount of blue light, which was not perceived 37 by humans, although it impacted health. 38 39 Chair Chang asked that the kelvin issue be flagged for Council. She was happy to support 2700, 40 if there was a material impact for outdoor, in combination with limiting the applicability to 41 major remodels and new construction. She inquired if low voltage lighting was an exception 42 and if the curfew was intended to address that lighting. She thought low voltage pathway 43 lighting should be accepted without being on a timer. 44 1 Kelly Cha responded that low voltage lighting was an exception and was listed under the 2 shielding section. The curfew was not intended to address low voltage lighting, but it could be 3 added as an exception. 4 5 Commissioner Akin asked staff what they had captured from the conversation and what they 6 would investigate for the version they intended to take to Council. 7 8 Kelly Cha stated it would be helpful to know if the PTC recommended a modification in the 9 applicability section. Clarification was needed for the lighting standards listed on Packet Page 10 22, Section 2 (e)(1)(D). Staff would follow up on the concerns related to rooftop lighting for 11 outdoor dining. It would be helpful to have direction related to the curfew exception for 12 entrance door lighting so they could follow up. Staff would follow up on the outdoor solar-13 powered pathway lights and whether it should expand to other sources. Correction would be 14 made to the title of the gasoline service station lighting to include EV charging stations. Staff 15 would follow up on the current lighting level for gas stations to compare with the proposed 16 standards. As for lighting near streams, there would be reference to the section staff was 17 updating. Regarding the subjective language in the prohibited lighting section, staff could 18 remove the provision or devise another objective standard. 19 20 Chair Chang added regarding illuminated street numbers on a building façade that on a building 21 façade should be eliminated. She suggesting tying gasoline service lighting and outdoor uses to 22 their CUP. 23 24 Jonathan Lait appreciated the interest in advancing this ordinance, but he thought more vetting 25 was required and that staff should consider the comments received being reflected in the 26 ordinance. Based on the conversation, he would move toward applicability of substantial 27 remodels and new construction being the area where this would be enforced. He had heard 28 comments related to there being priority in the Foothills and Baylands and less so for the flats, 29 although public comments indicated that the flats were important as well, and he requested 30 direction as to that type of applicability. 31 32 Chair Chang hoped staff could return to the PTC rapidly with the refinements. She stated that 33 the PTC agreed that applicability should be limited to new construction and major remodels, so 34 staff had that direction. Staff would look at curfew, which was outside of applicability. She 35 questioned whether there should be a citywide ordinance or if there should be areas of 36 emphasis. 37 38 Commissioner Akin discussed why he wanted this to be applied citywide. Now that applicability 39 had been limited to remodels and new construction, if issues were encountered with new 40 projects, the ordinance could be modified. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman did not think the Foothills and Baylands needed to be split from the 43 flats since it would be returning to the PTC and would not yet be recommended to Council. 44 1 Commissioner Lu supported continuing with a citywide ordinance with the applicability 2 standards. 3 4 Vice Chair Reckdahl liked the concept of a curfew but he worried about the burden on residents 5 with [time clock lighting 2:07:03]. He thought a motion sensor with a timer (staying on for two 6 minutes) for overnight lighting might be a better solution. He thought it was more feasible to 7 limit the applicability of the curfew. 8 9 Chair Chang agreed with limiting the applicability of the curfew. She stated that staff would 10 investigate [time clock lighting 2:08:12] more. 11 12 Coleman Frick asked for clarification on how the curfew would relate to new and existing 13 buildings. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman thought the applicability of the curfew would apply to new or 16 substantially remodeled buildings, not existing ones. 17 18 Chair Chang thought a curfew would be a burden to residents and that it would be difficult to 19 enact and enforce without existing lighting technology. 20 21 Kelly Cha asked if staff found that technology was not readily available and easy to implement if 22 the first sentence under lighting control [Section 2 (e)(4)(A) 2:10:25] should be removed. 23 24 Chair Chang thought it was the reverse of what Kelly Cha stated. She did not believe the 25 technology was readily available, and she believed it would be a burden to a resident. She 26 wanted to strike that sentence unless it was found that it would be easy for a resident to enact 27 a curfew. 28 29 Nathan Baird stated that was sufficient direction to bring it back for consideration. 30 31 Commissioner Lu thought there should be a phase-in period for single-family and multi-family 32 homes, some way of defining director discretion or extended timelines. 33 34 Commissioner Hechtman noted that the curfew would not apply to existing buildings unless 35 there was a substantial remodel. 36 37 Chair Chang thought Commissioner Lu was bringing up a blanket point, which was if there was 38 anything in the ordinance that should be applied universally to everybody, then there should be 39 a time frame or guideline as to grace periods and when something must be enacted. 40 41 Coleman Frick asked for staff direction concerning outdoor lighting for safety purposes for 42 private commercial businesses, such as parking lots. 43 44 Commissioner Lu suspected that existing public parking lots would be covered by the same 1 applicability standards. He wanted wide and sweeping light to be limited. He hoped similar 2 standards that tied to the Permanent Parklet Program would be applied to outdoor businesses 3 and those with substantial patios. 4 5 Chair Chang suggested that lighting of core businesses taking place outdoors be governed by 6 their CUP. 7 8 Coleman Frick stated that staff would discuss the issues raised and bring something back to the 9 PTC. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman wanted Safety personnel to speak to the PTC about their concerns 12 with lighting being less than 4000 kelvin. 13 14 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang declared a motion was needed to continue to a date 15 uncertain. 16 17 Commissioner Templeton wanted the lighting to be a balance between safety and not harming 18 wildlife. 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman supported 2700 or 3000 kelvin. He wanted the lowest light providing 21 safety for humans in the vicinity. 22 23 Vice Chair Reckdahl supported 2700 kelvin unless there were safety issues, and if there were 24 safety issues, he wanted to know if there were time durations short enough to minimize the 25 effect of the higher temperature. 26 27 Chair Chang, Commissioner Akin, and Commissioner Lu agreed with Vice Chair Reckdahl. 28 29 MOTION ITEM 2a – DARK SKIES 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman moved to continue Item 2(a) to a date uncertain to allow staff time to 32 investigate and revise the draft ordinance and bring it back to the PTC with an invitation with 33 Safety personnel to speak about their views on the kelvin issue. 34 35 SECOND 36 37 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 38 39 VOTE MOTION 40 41 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 42 43 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton) (Summa absent) 1 2 [The Commission took a seven-minute break] 3 4 Chair Chang declared that Item 2b would be addressed. 5 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS 7 8 There were no requests to speak. 9 10 Commissioner Akin asked how the 24-square-foot limit for transparent fenestration had been 11 arrived at and why an accordion fold wall had been illustrated in one of the presentation slides. 12 He inquired if there was a concern that there would be a path for birds to fly through with the 13 doors being open. 14 15 Kelly Cha discussed what had been considered when arriving at the 24-square-foot limit for 16 transparent fenestration. She shared the slide illustrating an accordion fold door to provide an 17 example, and the door was considered to be under 24 feet. There was a concern of birds flying 18 through with the doors being open. There was a provision to prevent those kind of incidents. 19 20 Commissioner Hechtman questioned if stakeholder engagement had included the development 21 community. 22 23 Kelly Cha answered that there had not been specific meetings with the development 24 community but there had been two study sessions with the ARB, which had been widely 25 advertised. Staff reached out to about five architects in the local community to get information 26 related to strategies and their experience with bird-safe glass and design, and they had received 27 a response from two, which included information related to cost and suppliers. 28 29 Commissioner Lu asked what the cost of a window or a larger project might be. 30 31 Kelly Cha replied that it was difficult to find cost information because it was not readily 32 available. The nationwide American Bird Conservancy report from 2011 indicated a 2 to 10 33 percent additional cost. Staff spoke with the local expert, and she indicated that recent data 34 suggested it was a maximum of about a 1½ percent increase and would not go above maybe 2 35 percent. 36 37 Commissioner Lu noted that 2 percent could be significant for an affordable housing project. 38 The ordinance covered permanent etchings or other treatments, and he asked if consideration 39 had been given to non-permanent treatments, such as less expensive bird-safe decals that 40 could be applied. 41 42 Kelly Cha responded that bird-safe decals had been discussed by the ARB. However, there was a 1 concern that it could be easily removed. The applicability had been changed from the ARB 2 version and included that it would apply to only new construction and substantial remodel 3 within the bird-sensitive area. All single-family homes and other buildings would have to [apply 4 2:42:45] their windows larger than 24 square feet, but most homes did not have windows that 5 large, so it sort of mitigated those requirements. 6 7 Coleman Frick added that alternate means, including decals, had been considered but was not 8 included because it was removable, but the PTC could consider it in their recommendation. 9 10 Commissioner Templeton stated that birds were damaged when bird-safe glazing was not done, 11 so she thought there was a justifiable reason for including it in the ordinance. She thought 12 someone had recommended against this, and she asked what the objections were. 13 14 Chair Chang stated that a public commenter indicated that the Dark Skies Ordinance was closer 15 to being done than the Bird-Safe Ordinance. It was not that they did not support the ordinance. 16 She asked the local expert, Shani Kleinhaus, to discuss data she had related to cost. 17 18 Shani Kleinhaus answered that for homes there were only custom glass providers. Retrofitting 19 glass could be very costly. For mixed use and offices, there were many solutions for design and 20 retrofitted glass. Companies did not like to disclose cost. Retrofitted glass for the Intuit building 21 a few years ago had cost $200K, which had an external envelope cost of $20M. 22 23 Chair Chang referenced Packet Page 17 and asked if the words since the 300-foot buffer should 24 be stricken from the sentence and if the threat factor 15 materials and glass were readily 25 available. She referenced Packet Page 43 and the model ordinance vii1 and the American Bird 26 Conservancy [inaudible 2:55:23] suggesting a threat factor rating of 30. Regarding Packet Page 27 19 Attachment C, she did not see a model ordinance from Santa Clara Audubon Society in the 28 packet. 29 30 Kelly Cha confirmed that the words since the 300-foot buffer should be stricken from the 31 sentence on Packet Page 17. Regarding the availability of materials, the first two options were 32 for the majority of the buildings. [Inaudible 2:52:10] was technical, and they did not anticipate 33 some of the smaller developments or single-family homes using it. They wanted to provide 34 additional options for some innovative and architectural designs. Threat factor 15 was similar to 35 the fenestration ask, and those materials were similar to the staff recommendation on the 36 [inaudible 2:52:50] glasses. She explained that the threat factor was a calculation of all the 37 materials. She believed it was possible to purchase threat factor 15 glass. Staff had relied 38 heavily on the American Bird Conservancy website, and anyone could reference that database 39 to consider different materials. Concerning the model ordinance from Santa Clara Audubon 40 Society, it should have read American Bird Conservancy, which they received from the Audubon 41 Society. 42 43 Shani Kleinhaus detailed how the American Bird Conservancy determined the threat factor. 44 1 Vice Chair Reckdahl referenced Slide 14 in the presentation and asked what kind of threat 2 factor such a design would be. He noted that it could be achieved with a film, and he wanted 3 the pros and cons of that to be investigated. He addressed the 40 feet referenced on Slide 13 4 and asked if different cities had different height thresholds. He wanted to know if this number 5 was science-based. He asked why the map on Packet Page 46 was complicated. 6 7 Kelly Cha answered that according to staff research, Slide 14 represented a threat factor of 15, 8 but she would confirm that. Using a film was a concern because it could be removed. Different 9 cities had different height thresholds, and the PTC could consider 60 feet, which would align 10 with San Francisco and Cupertino. Staff had borrowed from CALGreen standards because they 11 had backed up the data with research. San Francisco had conducted some research, and the 12 map on Packet Page 46 was mainly based on that; however, the PTC could modify it. If there 13 were to be modifications, staff recommended still considering the Baylands and Foothills and 14 potentially giving staff direction on the flatland portion. 15 16 Coleman Frick added that a film could come off on its own and would require maintenance over 17 time. 18 19 Shani Kleinhaus voiced that film usually needed to be replaced every seven years. She did not 20 know if it should be used for homes (not businesses) and that perhaps there be a clause for 21 approval of such. She explained why she recommended a height threshold of 60 feet. 22 23 Chair Chang commented that the ordinance was missing definitions. She thought it was too 24 stringent in some places and too lax in others and that there was a big applicability question. 25 She discussed the materials being difficult for residents to acquire. She did not consider the 26 map on Packet Page 46 to be easy to understand, and she suggested that the applicability 27 definition be simplified. She was not sure that 101 should be the demarcation, particularly 28 considering the Housing Element. She voiced that there were several houses in Palo Alto with 29 24-square-foot windows. 30 31 Commissioner Hechtman generally supported the ordinance. He was concerned about 24-32 square-foot windows and that cost could be a constraint as it related to the Housing Element. 33 He wondered if there should be discussion about new or substantially built single-family homes 34 and the larger mixed-use projects that were expected. He discussed why the definition of bird-35 sensitive area being within 300 feet of a waterway or other open space of an acre or more was 36 too broad and lacked context, and he thought it needed further investigation. 37 38 Commissioner Akin seconded concerns he had heard about the definition of bird-sensitive area. 39 He wondered it was too complex to be usable in practice and if it accurately captured the areas 40 where protection was desired. He had been reassured that the GM area west of 101 was not a 41 bird-sensitive area and that most of the ROLM area was. He promoted providing bird protection 42 up to 60 feet. He was happy to see that the threat factor calculation applied to each elevation 43 rather than on the building as a whole. However, a measure of variability was missing, and the 44 easiest way to address that may be to say as a worst case there must nothing with a threat 1 factor greater than X and the weighted average must also be limited as proposed. 2 3 Commissioner Lu questioned how the façade was defined in the context of the 40 feet. He was 4 concerned about the complexity of the map, which he thought should be refined or that some 5 of the cases the PTC mentioned should be clarified and double-checked. He was concerned with 6 creating impediments for housing. He was comfortable giving flexibility for non-permanent film 7 installations for housing and for the housing part of any mixed-use development. He 8 understood that there was a carveout for store retail. 9 10 Kelly Cha explained how façade was defined in the context of the 40 feet. If a window was 10 11 percent of a façade, it may not require bird-safe treatment. If 20 percent of the façade was 12 windows, potentially bird-safe treatment would be needed for half of that. 13 14 Commissioner Templeton struggled with comments about this plan being bad for existing 15 Eichler homes. She was concerned about being dismissive of the need to protect birds if 16 building should occur closer to the wetlands and that maybe an alternate way of protecting 17 flight paths should be considered. She wanted building requirements to be more restrictive and 18 protective. 19 20 Chair Chang thought allowing decals for residences made sense, but she was not sure it made 21 sense for big commercial buildings. She understood that 24-square-foot windows would not be 22 allowed to use decals, and she did not think replacement materials were readily available to the 23 public. She thought the general consensus was that a lot of areas needed investigation and that 24 work needed to be done on key areas the PTC had highlighted. 25 26 Vice Chair Reckdahl felt there needed to be more outreach with contractors, the Audubon, 27 Sierra Club, and other stakeholders. 28 29 MOTION ITEM 2b – BIRD-SAFE DESIGN 30 31 Commissioner Akin moved that this item be continued to a date uncertain for staff to consider 32 the feedback that had been provided. 33 34 SECOND 35 36 Vice Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 37 38 Kelly Cha asked if it was okay for staff to consider the applicability of 24 feet or if the PTC 39 wanted additional information for modification. 40 41 Chair Chang stated that the PTC indicated that the applicability issues included there being a 42 bird-safe area issue with the map; the map being potentially too complex; residential versus 43 larger buildings; and if the 24-square-foot windows should be used. If the 24-square foot 1 windows should be used, it should be overlaid against bird-safe area and residential versus 2 commercial/mixed use. 3 4 Nathan Baird stated it would be helpful to get further direction on whether the PTC was 5 comfortable with the bird-sensitive area and if the details for the areas outside of the Baylands 6 and Foothills should be examined. He had heard comments that specific areas may need to be 7 tweaked and maybe the buffer should be different in different contexts. Understanding if there 8 was general consensus on having a bird-sensitive area or treating it based on the development 9 context outside of the Baylands and Foothills would help staff bring something back and 10 continue outreach. 11 12 Vice Chair Reckdahl wanted there to be discussion with the Sierra Club and Audubon. He 13 opined that without a good tree canopy birds would be drawn to creeks, so he did not think the 14 creeks in Palo Alto were much of a draw because Palo Alto had a good canopy. He did not feel it 15 made sense to isolate the little creek areas on the map and ignore the areas with good 16 canopies. 17 18 Chair Chang agreed. She wanted the map to be easier to understand so people could determine 19 if they were in a bird-safe area. She wanted the experts to determine if that was the right area. 20 She questioned San Francisco’s bird safety and green building code being right for Palo Alto. 21 She thought there had been unanimous agreement regarding west of Foothill and east of 101, 22 but she did know if 101 was the perfect dividing line. 23 24 Kelly Cha clarified, regarding the map, it was clear that Council wanted to include west of 25 Foothill and east of 101 depending on [inaudible 3:34:59] for the Baylands. There had been 26 questions concerning the flatland, and staff had suggested further discussing whether there 27 should be a bird-safe area for the flatland. Reducing the buffer to 60 feet had been an idea, and 28 they could bring such a map back for PTC consideration. She asked if the conversation related 29 to the canopy related to the buffer or the height of the building. 30 31 Chair Chang thought it was about the canopy and building height, which she elaborated on. 32 33 Coleman Frick could further investigate the bird-sensitive areas related to the buffers from the 34 parks and creeks outside the two larger consensus sensitive areas. He thought there were 35 limited mechanisms to doing more nuanced maps, but they would bring back something based 36 on the PTC’s discussion and the direction. They would talk to the stakeholders and experts. He 37 understood that there had been consensus on considering temporary decals for windows in 38 certain circumstances. 39 40 Kelly Cha added that consideration would also be given to the methodology for housing and the 41 housing portion of the mixed use, not for nonresidential. 42 43 VOTE MOTION 44 1 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 2 3 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Lu, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Summa absent) 4 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 7 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of 8 February 28, 2024 9 10 MOTION 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Akin. 17 18 VOTE MOTION 19 20 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 21 22 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Hechtman, Lu, Templeton, Reckdahl, Chang) (Summa absent) 23 24 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 25 Minutes of March 13, 2024 26 27 MOTION 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the minutes as revised. 30 31 SECOND 32 33 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Akin. 34 35 VOTE MOTION 36 37 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 38 39 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Chang, Reckdahl, Templeton, Hechtman, Akin, Lu) (Summa absent) 40 41 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 1 Minutes of March 27, 2024 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Vice Chair Reckdahl moved to approve the minutes. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lu. 10 11 VOTE MOTION 12 13 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 14 15 MOTION PASSED 5-0-1-1 (Akin, Chang, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton) (Hechtman abstained) 16 (Summa absent) 17 18 6. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 19 Minutes of April 10, 2024 20 21 MOTION (APRIL 10, 2024 SUMMARY MINUTES) 22 23 Commissioner Hechtman moved to approve the summary minutes as revised. 24 25 SECOND 26 27 The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Reckdahl. 28 29 VOTE MOTION 30 31 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 32 33 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Templeton, Reckdahl, Lu, Hechtman, Chang, Akin) (Summa absent) 34 35 MOTION (APRIL 10, 2024 VERBATIM MINUTES) 36 37 Commissioner Hechtman moved to not approve the verbatim minutes and to send them back 38 to the transcriptionist to edit and return for approval. 39 40 SECOND 41 1 The motion was seconded by Chair Chang. 2 3 VOTE MOTION 4 5 Veronica Dao conducted a roll call vote. 6 7 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton) (Summa absent) 8 9 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 10 11 There were no comments. 12 ADJOURNMENT 13 14 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 9:41 PM. 15