Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-09 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: October 9, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 Chair Chang called to order the October 9, 2024, meeting of the Planning and Transportation 7 Commission at 6:00 PM. 8 Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao conducted the roll call and announced there was a 9 quorum. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 Chair Chang invited members of the public to share their comments with the Commission on 13 items not on the Agenda. 14 Liz Gardner spoke about the noise and air pollution in the area of Mayfield Place, with truck 15 deliveries, leaf blowers, and high-powered washers most days of the week. She felt the quality 16 of life was diminished because of all the noise. 17 Aram James provided his opinion's of the previous night's City Council debate. He spoke about 18 the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and questioned the positions of the candidates on this 19 issue. He felt the Council should be willing to discuss it on the record. 20 21 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 22 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there were no agenda changes. 23 24 City Official Reports 25 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 26 Jennifer Armer provided updates on items scheduled for upcoming meetings. On October 30 is 27 the Ordinance on Dark Skies and Lighting and Bird-Friendly Design and then a discussion of a 28 potential study to discuss the feasibility of Shared Micromobility Program. There are two 29 tentative special meetings because of the conflicts with the holidays. Upcoming Council dates 30 include a discussion of all commission work plans on October 21 and the Stream Corridor 1 Ordinance in November depending on the results of this evening's discussion. 2 Senior Engineer Rafael Rius, Office of Transportation, updated that the southbound portion of 3 the El Camino Real paving project was complete. The northbound was partially complete and 4 anticipated to be fully completed by this November or December. There was an issue with the 5 temporary no parking signs being either removed. Caltrans is working to replace those, and the 6 Police Department will enforce the parking. He also noted there was no Rail Committee meeting 7 for October and the next meeting would be November 19. 8 9 Action Items 10 2. Recommend City Council Adopt a Draft Ordinance Updating the Palo Alto Municipal 11 Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection). Environmental 12 Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for 13 Protection of the Environment). 14 Chair Chang noted that Vice-Chair Reckdahl had arrived. 15 Kevin Gardiner, Consultant, Good City Company, explained that Staff's recommendations was for 16 the PTC to recommend the City Council adopt a draft ordinance updating Palo Alto Municipal 17 Code Section 18.40.140, the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. He reviewed the related 18 timeline and community engagement, with plans for this to go to City Council once the PTC makes 19 its recommendation. This has been a Council priority for three years and goes back to the 2017 20 Comprehensive Plan, including Policy N3.3, which calls for creek protections from future 21 structures and improving the habitat connectivity corridors. He described the types of creeks in 22 Palo Alto. Community engagement and neighborhood association outreach demonstrated mixed 23 support for the increased setback, with concerns for balancing private property development 24 potential with riparian improvements. Because of debate on whether the Streamside Review 25 Area in the current ordinance was a setback, this was changed in the draft ordinance to 26 Streamside Setback, an area where there are no structures but other uses are allowed. The Slope 27 Stability Protection Area remains in the draft ordinance, and a Riparian Buffer, focused on 28 preservation of native riparian vegetation, has been included. 29 He further explained that for the rural open space areas west of Foothill Expressway, the existing 30 ordinance has a Streamside Review Area of 50 feet and the Slope Stability Protection Area of 20 31 feet or 2:1 from the toe of the bank. The proposed ordinance follows the Comp Plan direction 32 with a 150-foot setback and the Riparian Buffer of 30 feet. With culverted underground streams, 33 no setback or Riparian Buffer is proposed. In the urbanized areas east of Foothill Expressway and 34 west of Highway 101, the existing ordinance has a 50-foot Streamside Review Area and the 20-35 foot or 2:1 Slope Stability Protection Area. The proposed setback is 40 feet for natural streams 36 and channelized streams, with a 20-foot Riparian Buffer for the natural streams, which coincides 37 with the Slope Stability Protection Area. The draft ordinance applies to developments in all areas 38 except for R-1, R-2, and RMD districts, where it only applies to developments that require 1 Discretionary Review or that propose to encroach further into the Streamside Setback than the 2 existing condition. He discussed the exemptions, some carried over from the existing ordinance, 3 which include property separated from a stream by a public street, earthwork and landscaping 4 to allow stream bank stability, interior construction or alterations, utility service lateral 5 replacements, some retaining walls, and small storage buildings that would not require a Building 6 Permit. It also exempts building improvements not encroaching further into the Stream Review 7 Area, including rebuilding the same building footprint, and also expansion of existing 8 development along channelized streams in urbanized areas with the provision that expansions 9 still need to comply with the underlying zoning and setbacks. 10 He described the two-tiered exception process. Minor Exceptions are for unique situations, 11 particularly where the Streamside Setback takes up a fairly significant portion of a site or where 12 there are existing conditions. It is provided for low-density residential developments in the R-1, 13 R-2, and RMD districts and would, under certain conditions, allow a 15-foot encroachment into 14 the required Streamside Setback. In some instances, it would allow an average of existing 15 setbacks from the adjoining properties, and it allows some horizontal and vertical extensions. 16 The Major Exception process is a variation of what might in other circumstances be a variance, 17 meant for extraordinarily unusual circumstances where the application of the requirements 18 would inhibit the development of a site to the extent that owners would not be able to have the 19 same enjoyment as their neighbors. It is a higher bar and requires Director approval and three 20 findings: there are no reasonable alternatives, the encroachment as proposed would not 21 significantly harm the streamside environment, and giving the exception would not negatively 22 impact nearby properties. This is focused on ensuring that all of the development capacity of a 23 property is not taken by these regulations. 24 Commissioner Akin observed that in both math and construction, slope is generally expressed as 25 rise over run and questioned why the ordinance expresses it the other way, also noting the 26 diagram on packet page 22 showed a slope of 2 but was labeled as ½. 27 Senior Planner Kelly Cha clarified that was a mistake and was supposed to be flipped. 28 Commissioner Hechtman wanted clarification on the culverted/underground creeks where the 29 ordinance did not apply, noting that these were closed but not concrete channels. In most 30 instances in the draft ordinance, it says fences shall be pursuant to Section 16.24 of the 31 ordinance. He asked the general rules for fences under that section. The map on packet page 31 32 area shows where the natural creek setback applies and appears to show only the west end of 33 town, giving him the impression that the area where natural creek setback applies does not affect 34 the urbanized part of Palo Alto. He felt that should be fixed if it was not the intention. The map 35 on page 30 does not show where the natural creek setbacks apply. He believed excellent mapping 36 would be required for this ordinance because people will need consistent mapping to know 37 whether this ordinance applies to them. 38 39 Kevin Gardiner agreed the underground creeks were closed, explaining the purpose was that with 1 a creek underground in either a box culvert or a pipe, there was not the ability to have the right 2 pairing of vegetation and the other matters of concern to the ordinance. If it is underground, it 3 is more or less exempt from the requirements. 4 Jennifer Armer added there are also channelized or engineered streams, in addition to natural 5 and underground. 6 Kelly Cha believed 6- or 7-foot fences required a permit and there were different requirements 7 in terms of materials and design but would get more details. 8 Kevin Gardiner added that there was a lot of discussion of fences in the study session that Staff 9 took into consideration. He noted that with the exception of the wildlife fences west of Foothill 10 Expressway, fences are not covered in the ordinance, just referring back to that code section. 11 Vice-Chair Reckdahl stated that east of 101, only a couple of properties apply. He described a 12 110-foot parcel along Adobe Creek and asked, with the 150-foot setback, if it would be a Minor 13 or a Major Exception. He asked what the landowner would need to do if they wanted to remodel 14 and whether there were fees associated. He clarified that between Foothill and 101, if someone 15 has an existing fence, they can keep it as is but if they want to build an addition and move closer 16 to the creek, they cannot go closer than 40 feet. 17 Kevin Gardiner expected that example would be a Major Exception. He explained a remodel 18 would not necessarily require an exception, such as interior remodels, those not expanding 19 farther toward the creek, or even tearing down and rebuilding within the same footprint. 20 Regarding fences, he described that when putting in a new fence, it can be within the setback 21 but not within the 20-foot Slope Stability Protection Area. An existing fence does not have to be 22 removed. 23 Commissioner Lu asked for elaboration on Exemption 8, expansion of existing development along 24 channelized streams in urbanized areas. He clarified that the discussion of removed trees on page 25 25 is separate from the Tree Ordinance. 26 Kevin Gardiner explained that a lot of the homes along the channelized creeks have side yards 27 along the creek as opposed to the back yard. If somebody had a very large side yard and wanted 28 to do a home addition, they could expand toward the creek provided they are not going past the 29 zoning setback for that side yard. For a new house, the intention is to have it set back 40 feet, 30 but an existing house being expanded within the allowed zoning envelope would still be allowed. 31 He confirmed the trees were separate from the Tree Ordinance because this is a precious creek 32 habitat and the intention is to keep the integrity of that vegetation. 33 Chair Chang clarified that the ordinance does not apply to R-1, R-2, and RMD districts unless there 34 is Discretionary Review or additional encroachment. She questioned what types of issues would 35 require Discretionary Review. She asked how many parcels would be affected by this. On page 36 23, diagrams A, B, and C, she felt the labeling was not clear that B was allowed and C is not. It 37 was noted that C was crossed out. She questioned what was involved for the homeowner in 1 getting the Minor Exception. 2 Kelly Cha explained the Discretionary Review issues were listed in the existing ordinance and 3 included individual reviews for second-story addition or modifications and anything that requires 4 a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has added issues that encroach further into Streamside Setback, 5 which applies to some projects that may not require Discretionary Review, for instance some 6 additions on the first story. She stated there was not top-of-bank information available but Staff 7 had center line information. Applying the proposed buffers and setback distance, it came out to 8 about 900 total of 920 properties within the City of Palo Alto. 9 Long Range Planning Manager Coleman Frick described the Minor Exception as a ministerial 10 approval if a property falls into one of the criteria. He stated this was intended to be easy for 11 homeowners or Staff to review and understand what can be approved. It is not intended to 12 require paperwork or evidence and could be wrapped into a Building Permit process, for 13 example. 14 Jennifer Armer added the wording states, "If more than 40 percent of the parcel is covered by 15 this Stream Setback and if this would not result in the removal of existing riparian vegetation," 16 and felt it was clear. 17 Chair Chang asked if the ordinance addresses lighting or bird safety. She clarified that this current 18 ordinance does not preclude any flood protection measures. She recalled discussing during the 19 study session the need to resolve how the existence of a stream is determined and asked what 20 happens if two maps show different things. 21 Kelly Cha explained the lighting discussion is coming up on October 30, with a lighting standard 22 included. 23 Kevin Gardiner explained that Staff is relying on GIS maps for streams but an actual land survey 24 of the property would be more precise. 25 Kelly Cha added that most of the discrepancies were in Foothills where most of the natural creeks 26 are located. The majority of that land is in the Open Space Zoning District, which requires a Site 27 Design Review with environmental assessment. The creek location would be based on that study 28 by a qualified biologist or other professional. 29 Chair Chang felt that on packet page 25, numbers iii versus iv were confusing. It says, "Only native 30 riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of banks of a stream or within the Riparian 31 Buffer," but the item says, "Installation of new ornamental landscaping shall be allowed, provided 32 plantings are not invasive species." She questioned if that was meant to address the space 33 between the Riparian Buffer and where the Streamside Setback ends. On packet page 27, number 34 4Ai states, "Minor deviations shall be granted under all of the following conditions." She asked if 35 it was all conditions or any of the conditions. 36 Kevin Gardiner confirmed that within the 20-foot Riparian Buffer is just to be the riparian 1 vegetation, and then within the remainder of the setback, ornamental is allowed, provided it's 2 not invasive and would not threaten that riparian corridor. 3 Kelly Cha responded that if somebody is asking for a minor exception, the property or the project 4 would have to meet both conditions. 5 Vice-Chair Reckdahl questioned whether the exception for properties separated from the stream 6 by a public streets included service roads, for example a 15-foot wide public trail that is used as 7 a service road and is between the creek and some properties. 8 Staff was unsure and would follow up on this. 9 Commissioner Akin asked if special provisions for properties on Edgewood for flood control are 10 compatible with the proposed ordinance. 11 Kelly Cha was unsure but felt it made sense to apply that provision here as it was established for 12 flood protection. 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS 14 Shani Kleinhaus of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance stated she had a PhD in ecology and 15 experience with creek master plans and creek restoration and planning. She understood that 16 people have rights on their properties but felt there were other things to consider. She discussed 17 a study done by the Water Board that estimated the effective buffer distance for sediment and 18 nutrient, not even including wildlife movement, was between 50 and 100 feet, not less than 33 19 under any circumstance. The current setback is 20 and the plan suggestions going to 30. In the 20 Hillside, this conflicts with the need to remove all vegetation because of fires, so 60 is required 21 to protect both structures and the riparian corridor. She felt Exemption Number 8 went against 22 improving the streams in the urbanized areas and suggested only exempting housing and not 23 other projects. She noted that allowing a property to use the average of neighboring properties 24 would nullify the whole thing. She was also concerned about sheds close to creeks because that 25 is where people store toxic and flammable things that end up in the creek and into the Bay in the 26 event of a flood. She urged against allowing storage sheds. 27 Jeffrey Shore, resident of Edgewood Drive, provided a handout to show the situation on 28 Edgewood related to the proposed ordinance. He gave background that the parcel across the 29 creek from his home was flooded in 1998 and later developed as an apartment complex, which 30 created diversion to his side of the creek. To mitigate the flood risk, a flood wall was put up, 31 allowing a 10-foot variance for that fence, which is exempted in the ordinance. He also presented 32 information regarding the easements and setbacks, suggesting that the Streamside Setback and 33 Riparian Buffer be determined by the new easement lines. He also recommended putting 34 examples into the regulations. 35 Liz Gardner explained she has worked at the Sacramento River Preservation Trust for seven years 1 and felt it was sad that the discussion was about encroachment of the watershed on private 2 property. She discussed that the area of West California Avenue is a paved-over creek with very 3 little natural habitat left but is still a habitat for coyote and golden eagles. She worried about 4 what would happen to this area as capped-over creeks are not included in the ordinance and 5 hoped to include this to try to restore some of the natural habitat and wildlife. She wanted to 6 pay attention to the subterranean creeks of the watershed. 7 Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, hoped to 8 remove Section D, Exemption 6, for storage buildings no greater than 120 square feet, as these 9 buildings often contain hazardous, toxic, and flammable materials and are vulnerable to fires and 10 flooding. He thought allowing the average of existing setbacks of adjoining properties threatened 11 to negate the purpose of the ordinance and also recommended removing this. He recommended 12 removing Section 1C, Subsection 2, which allows for loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical 13 storage areas, stationary noise-producing equipment to be located 50 feet from the top of bank 14 and even closer than 50 feet where setback requirements make compliance "impractical." He felt 15 Section 3, Slope Stability Protection Area, Subsection B, should be removed and contradicted the 16 Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Policy N-3.2, to prevent the further channelization and 17 degradation of Palo Alto's creeks. 18 Linnea Wickstrom, resident of Monroe Drive in Palo Alto on the channelized Adobe Creek, 19 mentioned that a 40-foot setback would impact her ability to build an ADU. She urged a lesser 20 setback than 40 feet as that takes up a very large percentage of a narrow lot. 21 Winter Dellenbach was concerned about Matadero Creek, which runs through Barron Park. She 22 stated the creek was under threat from the development at Creekside Inn and other 23 neighborhood redevelopment. She worried about runoff into the creek and felt protection of its 24 riparian corridor and banks was vital. She described that muskrats had recently returned to 25 Matadero Creek after having been gone from Palo Alto and the Bay Area. She explained this area 26 supports all kinds of species and needed to be protected. She was concerned about fences being 27 very close to creek banks and about the proposed underground garage at Creekside Inn. She 28 questioned who makes the findings to support a Major Exception and believed there should be 29 a high bar of proof for these exceptions. 30 Chair Chang noted that concluded public comments and returned the discussion to the 31 Commission for comments. 32 Commissioner Hechtman disclosed that his firm was involved in Valley Water's acquisitions of 33 property on Edgewood, though he himself was not involved. He did not believe the Commission 34 would be able to move this ordinance to Council tonight as there would be many revisions and 35 clarifications. He suggested there should be a more robust public period of community meetings 36 so people can understand how this will affect the future use of their parcels. He wanted to ensure 37 that streamside lighting did not fall through the cracks and that there would be a section for that 38 in the lighting ordinance. 39 Commissioner Akin spoke about the ratcheting effect that using the average of adjacent 1 properties can have on a property. He suggested two compromises between averaging and using 2 a large fixed setback. Allowing the use of the average setback plus a fixed amount, for example 3 the average plus 10 feet, would over time ratchet the setback away from the creek. A faster 4 solution with the same end was the Zeno's paradox approach, to go halfway between the average 5 and the fixed setback. He discussed fences in the Riparian Buffer, noting they do not keep animals 6 or humans in or out, do not block sound or light, and do not mark the property line. He 7 questioned if those fences had any useful function and why they were allowed at all. 8 Commissioner Summa thought there were enough last-minute notifications from public who 9 were concerned in the urbanized part of Palo Alto, especially near channelized creeks, that a 40-10 foot was not going to be workable. Alternatively, she thought there were too many exceptions 11 and reductions proposed in the open space areas. In addition to the Riparian Buffer, which 12 requires riparian-appropriate plantings, elsewhere the code requires a 30-foot vacant-of-13 vegetation area for defense against fire, so altogether that is a 60-foot area. She felt that needed 14 to be clarified. She thought Major Exceptions should be a variance so the public can weigh in on 15 them. She disagreed with using the average setback of neighboring properties and agreed that 16 more public outreach was needed. 17 Commissioner Templeton asked Staff what cities were researched to base the proposed 18 ordinance on. 19 Kevin Gardiner responded that about a dozen different cities were used, including San Jose, Santa 20 Clara County, San Carlos, and Fremont. 21 Commissioner Templeton agreed that this was not close to being ready and suggested looking at 22 cities close to Palo Alto's size and geography for inspiration. She did not want to miss out on 23 things already learned in neighboring areas. 24 Vice-Chair Reckdahl stated this ordinance was both too little and too much. He felt a lot of Ms. 25 Kleinhaus's suggestions could be incorporated into the west of Foothill to make that more strict. 26 However, in the urban areas, especially against the channelized creeks, he felt it should be more 27 forgiving with less restrictions on the landowners. He was unsure about the urban areas in natural 28 creeks and did not have enough information to decide whether the proposals there were 29 appropriate. He asked if there would be fees associated with a Major Exception and what type of 30 time delay would be involved. 31 Jennifer Armer did not believe there were any fees proposed. 32 Kelly Cha explained it would be folded into the permits that are already required. She could not 33 say what the additional time would be. 34 Vice-Chair Reckdahl stated the criteria looked reasonable but also seemed vague, potentially 35 arbitrarily decided one way or another. He was unsure if the exception process added flexibility 36 or uncertainty. 37 Commissioner Lu agreed with the need for more public outreach and that this was not ready for 1 Council right now. He thought removing the conflicts between the fire protection buffer and the 2 setbacks made sense. He felt the exemption about expansion of existing development along 3 channelized streams and urbanized areas gave more flexibility while still protecting the 4 environment but that it was vague and needed to be clarified. 5 Chair Chang thought this ordinance seemed doable but concurred with questions about the 6 impacts on properties between Foothill and 101. She believed there was agreement from the 7 Commission on the areas east of 101 and west of Foothill, which is also the highest impact area 8 to protect. This has already been delayed many years, and she wondered if something could be 9 salvaged to prevent more delay. 10 Commissioner Templeton asked if the organizations that submitted suggestions were consulted 11 in updating the ordinance. 12 Kevin Gardiner responded that those groups were included and the ordinance tried to include 13 the direction from discussions. However, there was not an updated ordinance to look at until 14 now and the discussion was broader and higher level. 15 Commissioner Hechtman spoke about the areas subject to the potential 150-foot setback. He 16 mentioned the 30-foot additional fire break setback required in high-fire areas, which would not 17 be behind the 150 but rather just behind the Riparian Buffer. He thought that seemed logical. He 18 stated at least 31 parcels are half acre or less. He explained that 150 x 150-foot square is barely 19 over a half acre, so for a half-acre square on a creek in the hills, the Streamside Setback would 20 cover all of the property. He felt those lots would not qualify for a Minor or Major Exception, 21 which he planned to explain later, and the properties would be unbuildable. He gave some 22 examples of the way this ordinance is currently written and questioned whether the ordinance 23 should apply in the event of a flood wall, which protects creeks from property impacts even when 24 buildings are within 150 feet of the creek. He felt there should be an exemption for properties 25 behind flood walls, including those on Edgewood. He thought the exemption for properties 26 separated from the creek by a public street should apply to those separated by service roads, 27 paved or unpaved. 28 Chair Chang believed there was consensus about more public comments for the urbanized area. 29 She asked if Staff could split the ordinance into two parts, to move one through more quickly and 30 have the other undergo more public comment. 31 Jennifer Armer did not recommend to break this into two parts. She explained the previous 32 outreach included over 5500 mailers. She requested as much specificity and direction as possible 33 on any changes there is a consensus on and suggested a poll vote. 34 Chair Chang felt the implications to those living along a creek were significant and not clear within 35 the postcards mailed out. 36 Commissioner Templeton agreed and felt there had not been enough time to incorporate any 1 feedback received. She suggested public sessions focused on each creek area, with enough notice 2 for the public to participate. 3 Commissioner Summa stated that people needed to see this version of the ordinance to react to 4 and this was the first opportunity for that. She thought the ideas of the Commission, the public, 5 and the organizations of Midpen, Sierra Club, and Bird Alliance should be incorporated. She 6 thought one thing missing from the discussion was the travel of contaminants through 7 groundwater in places where there is a wall. She felt maps showing the zones were needed to 8 overlay the different areas to see the impacts. 9 Jennifer Armer noted there were public comments in opposition and requested clarification on 10 those issues from the Commission. She observed there seemed to be support for the increased 11 protections in the areas west of Foothill and east of 101 and that there was an interest in 12 accommodating something with less impact on individual property owners in the urbanized area. 13 Commissioner Templeton left the meeting at this point. 14 Chair Chang suggested grouping comments into three areas: open space west of Foothill, 15 between Foothill and 101, and 101 into the Baylands. For the open space area west of Foothill, 16 she was not concerned that the 150-foot setback would preclude development because parcels 17 in the open space area needed discretionary approval anyway. She thought that an exception in 18 the open space area should require a variance because it needs to be a high bar. She thought the 19 majority of the comments from the Sierra Club and Bird Alliance related to the area west of 20 Foothill made sense. 21 Commissioner Summa agreed that the comments from Midpen, Sierra Club, and Bird Alliance 22 related to the 150-foot areas as well as Commissioner Hechtman's comments about the area east 23 of 101 should be taken into consideration. 24 Commissioner Lu felt that evaluating exceptions in the discretionary process could have a chilling 25 effect in that it would be extraordinarily risky to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on 26 something that by default is not allowed and would require a variance. He thought there was 27 room in the Major Exceptions to clarify explicitly how those exceptions would be handled in the 28 context of a general Open Space Review. He agreed there should be a high bar for building by 29 creeks west of the Foothills. 30 Commissioner Hechtman explained that he intended in his earlier remarks regarding a public 31 meeting to suggest that further public outreach should be conducted once the ordinance is at a 32 point PTC is comfortable recommending it to Council. 33 There was further discussion on this. 34 Commissioner Hechtman addressed the area potentially subject to the 40-foot Streamside 35 Setback. He felt the setback should actually be 25 feet like other nearby cities, absent a reason 36 to be more stringent. With going to 25 feet in the urbanized area, a lot of his other concerns 1 would disappear because there is already a 20-foot Slope Stabilization Area and this would be 2 only another 5 feet past that. He noted that a single-family property in that zoning would 3 generally be exempt except for something with Development Review. Staff mentioned a second 4 story as needing Development Review, which means anyone building a two-story building along 5 a natural watercourse would have to go through the Major Exception process. The other trigger 6 that can take away the exemption is proposing to encroach further into the Streamside Setback 7 than the existing condition. He stated the diagrams seemed solely focused on the house and 8 questioned other things like a pool, patio or deck, gazebo, or ADU, typically built behind a house, 9 would be subject to the ordinance. He wanted more clarity on whether fences were allowed in 10 the Streamside Setback Area. He wanted to ensure that in the urbanized areas, there was no 11 circumstance where somebody could lose their backyard security fence and have to put in a non-12 security wildlife fence. He was curious how the potential ordinance would impact a 13 nonresidential development and what limitations a redevelopment would have by virtue of 14 location adjacent to a creek. 15 Chair Chang asked how this ordinance impacts ADUs. She questioned how Staff was envisioning 16 the 15-foot encroachment would work. 17 Jennifer Armer responded that ADUs are entirely governed by a different section of the code, so 18 this would not impact the construction of ADUs. 19 Kelly Cha explained the current version of the draft ordinance required a property owner to show 20 that the setback covers more than 40 percent of the lot. 21 Chair Chang stated that in terms of a straw poll on the 25 versus 40 feet, she liked the way Staff 22 has handled it right now and that it was not overly onerous while still preventing buildings from 23 continually going closer to the creek. She noted she would like the ordinance to address other 24 structures like pools, decks, gravel, tennis or basketball courts, paving. 25 Kevin Gardiner explained as the ordinance is written right now, it says no structures within the 26 150 feet or 40 feet. The definition of structures in the Municipal Code includes buildings, 27 swimming pools, and sports courts but not patios. If it was felt swimming pools and sports courts 28 should be allowed, Staff would want to use something other than that definition of structures. If 29 those are not to be allowed, saying structures are not allowed would cover pools and sports 30 courts as well. 31 Chair Chang suggested a sports court or patio with permeable ground that does not destroy 32 riparian vegetation should be allowed. 33 Commissioner Summa agreed with the Chair's comments. She was not worried about ADUs 34 because California State Law prevents anything that prohibits ADUs. This ordinance would 35 suggest putting an ADU somewhere else if you are near a creek but would ultimately not prevent 36 it. Looking at the area between 101 and Foothill, she wanted to adequately protect especially 37 natural streams and thought 40 feet was appropriate unless it was taking up a certain portion of 38 the lot. She did not want to diminish the setback and wanted to retain as much protection for 1 natural creeks as possible. 2 Commissioner Lu asked for explicit clarification on what exemptions or setbacks apply to ADUs. 3 He asked if there were any science-based measures for an appropriate buffer distance. 4 Jennifer Armer responded that none of them apply to ADUs as it is governed by a separate section 5 of code. 6 Shani Kleinhaus explained the appropriate distance depends. Looking at only sedimentation and 7 water quality, 33 feet is the minimum. However, there are other functions of a riparian setback. 8 The recommendations are usually 100 feet minimum, which is a compromise because studies 9 depend on when and where they were done, etc. 10 Jim Martin, Consultant, Environmental Collaborative, agreed there are no magic numbers to refer 11 to. Bigger is better around setbacks in protecting habitat functions. He noted the importance of 12 recognizing and protecting the woody riparian vegetation. The 100-foot setbacks are typically 13 beyond that woody riparian vegetation on the bank or the top of the bank, so 150 feet is a 14 reasonable protective standard. He explained that the Existing Conditions Report tried to capture 15 how many parcels were affected along the designated protected creeks and within a certain 16 distance of setback, and he had some GIS data that may be useful. 17 Commissioner Lu agreed it would be useful to have those samples and their context. 18 Chair Chang wanted to understand the difference between exempting properties across a public 19 street versus having 40 feet from a channelized stream. 20 Jim Martin thought the 40-foot channelized reach was in all likelihood related to flood prevention 21 and the need for possible future expansion of floodways. He agreed that a channelized condition 22 bordered by a maintenance road and cyclone fence was not going to have much habitat and the 23 separation of habitat was similar to what a paved public road would create. 24 Chair Chang suggested Staff look specifically at the 40 versus 25 setback for the naturalized 25 terrains versus the channelized. 26 Vice-Chair Reckdahl stated that issues like riparian vegetation and habitat, riparian corridors for 27 wildlife, erosion, and preventing flooding disappear when talking about channelized creeks and 28 felt it would be good to talk separately about channelized creeks and natural creeks to give some 29 insight on the issues being solved. 30 Commissioner Hechtman walked through the ordinance to point out his concerns. On packet 31 page 22, the 2:1 ratio needed to be looked at and he suggested adding a definition of flood wall. 32 On packet page 23, he felt Exemption 8 could be clearer on whether it was for only expansion of 33 existing or also included tearing down and rebuilding. He suggested adding an exemption for 34 parcels behind a flood wall. On page 24, the footnote under Table 1 seemed to combine stream 35 with and without defined bank and he felt clarification was needed. Page 27, subpart A had a 36 similar issue. On page 24, Streamside Review Elements was broken down into three pieces, 1 Streamside Setback Requirements, Riparian Buffer, and Slope Stability Protection Area. He 2 suggested clarification on that. Pages 25 and 26 use the phrase riparian corridor, which is not a 3 defined term. Paragraph 3i is repeated in the Riparian Buffer section and can be removed here. 4 The written correspondence suggested the light reflectance value of 83 was a very bright light, 5 and he wanted that looked at, also asking if this applies outside of the Streamside Setback where 6 there should be no effect on buildings or if it is intended in cases of exceptions into the 7 Streamside Setback. A written comment recommended holding the line at 150 for grading, and 8 he pointed out that to build a house 150 feet from the top of bank needed earth movement a 9 little closer to the creek than the foundation. 10 He noted subparagraph B, top of page 27, requires an exemption for any structure or use within 11 the Slope Stability Protection Area. He questioned if replacing a fence required an exemption. He 12 thought there were problems with the Minor Exceptions process. First, the Streamside Setback 13 covers more than 40 percent of the parcel. He explained that would typically only apply if a parcel 14 was less than 100 feet deep because otherwise the 40-foot setback would cover less than 40 15 percent. Second, the deviation would not result in the removal of any riparian vegetation. One 16 plant is riparian vegetation, so if a wildflower blows over the fence, this cannot be used. He 17 agreed with setting a low bar for minor things but wanted to ensure the bar actually works for 18 most of the creekside parcels. On the Major Exceptions, three findings were needed. First, there 19 is no reasonable alternative that avoids or reduces the encroachment into the setback area. He 20 gave an example that when rebuilding on a property that was 100 percent within the 150-foot 21 setback, someone could advocate that the building footprint be reduced from 80 to 70 to 60 feet 22 and so on to further reduce the encroachment. The second item was a reduced setback will not 23 significantly reduce or adversely impact the streamside environment. The only way to establish 24 this is with a biologist report, which can be very expensive for a someone trying to build a house. 25 Third, it will not be detrimental or injurious to properties that are adjacent, upstream, 26 downstream, or on the opposite bank. He felt this was an invitation for a neighborhood fight. 27 Jennifer Armer asked for a poll on the 25-foot setback in urbanized areas and/or channelized 28 streams. 29 Vice-Chair Reckdahl's impression was that a channelized creek would not have the same riparian 30 impacts as a natural creek. He was interested to hear from the biologists. 31 Jim Martin thought it was important to confirm Valley Water's intention with the guidance that 32 formed the basis of the City's original ordinance before the directive to do away with a setback 33 within channelized reaches of the urban area. There may be other factors in addition to biological 34 resources, but he stated that, in his opinion, there was not a strong basis for a setback impinging 35 on the use of private property when there was a channelized condition with maintenance roads 36 on either side, a security cyclone fence, and then the property beyond that, not that it meant the 37 freshwater vegetation within the channel was not important also. 38 Shani Kleinhaus explained that the urbanized/channelized concrete channels have less value but 39 have vegetation inside. Valley Water does not allow planting vegetation 15 feet from their 40 channels, so that leaves a very narrow place where a tree could still be planted for some shade 1 over the creek, which birds and butterflies will also use, even though there is a concrete channel. 2 Vice-Chair Reckdahl was inclined to reduce the setback to 25 feet on channelized creeks and 3 needed more information to be convinced about the natural creeks. 4 Commissioner Akin felt 25 feet was sufficient for the hardened channelized creeks in the urban 5 area and 40 feet was a good idea for the natural creeks even in the urbanized areas. 6 Commissioner Summa noted that since property owners can use an exception to get the 25 feet, 7 she considered that reasonable for the hard channelized creeks, and she thought 40 was 8 appropriate for natural creeks. 9 Commissioner Lu agreed with 25 feet in the context of channelized creeks and 40 feet for 10 naturalized creeks. He felt anything above 33 feet was reasonable. 11 Chair Chang noted there was unanimity from the Commission on an exemption for flood walls 12 and including a definition of flood wall. 13 Kelly Cha felt Staff had enough feedback regarding community engagement, reduced setback, 14 and exemption on flood wall properties. She noted Staff could provide more information on 15 fences in the next meeting to get more clarity. She asked if PTC agreed on increasing the riparian 16 area west of Foothill and east of 101 to 60 feet as some of the comment letters suggested. 17 Commissioner Akin stated the need for the 30-foot Riparian Buffer and the 30-foot fire break was 18 well established but asked Staff to be careful about simply defining the Riparian Buffer as 60 feet 19 because so many other constraints apply to that region. 20 Coleman Frick asked for direction or opinions on whether there should also be an exemption for 21 existing fences within the Streamside Setback or Riparian Buffer. 22 Chair Chang asked how Staff arrived at the current conclusion before giving opinions. 23 Kelly Cha explained the general concept was that the Riparian Buffer area would be the most 24 restrictive, allowing wildlife fences only, and the Streamside Setback would be a little more 25 lenient, applying 16.24, Citywide Fence Requirement, instead of more restrictions on the fences 26 there. 27 Chair Chang asked the Commission to provide comments on fences. 28 Commissioner Hechtman was comfortable with wildlife fencing limitations within the 150-foot 29 area, which would be subject to a Major Exception and Design Review. In the urbanized area, he 30 believed everybody on a creek already had a fence, a lot of them closer than 20 feet. He was 31 supportive of grandfathering those fences in and allowing them to be rebuilt to maintain their 32 safety and attractiveness. 33 Vice-Chair Reckdahl agreed with grandfathering those fences. 1 Chair Chang did not understand the wildlife implications but understood property owners' 2 security concerns. She encouraged Staff to come up with what they think is best. 3 Commissioner Akin could not see a justification for fencing within the Riparian Buffer in 4 properties west of Foothills and was not inclined to support that, though wildlife-friendly fencing 5 in the remaining Streamside Setback Area and possibly more substantial fencing in the 16.24 6 frame would be okay. In the urbanized areas, he agreed that fences probably have to be 7 grandfathered in for this to be acceptable. 8 Commissioner Summa was ambivalent on grandfathering versus improving streamside 9 protection and planned to decide when Staff brings this back after further analysis. 10 Commissioner Lu questioned if Exemption 7, building improvements that do not expand the 11 building footprint further into the Streamside Setback, would apply to fences. He felt it was 12 reasonable to allow residential fences by channelized streams in urbanized areas. 13 Jennifer Armer responded that building footprint generally does not include a fence. 14 Kelly Cha stated that language could be clarified. 15 Vice-Chair Reckdahl suggested that Staff get a biologist opinion about whether a large wall at 25 16 feet would have different effects on the creek than a smaller house at 25 feet. 17 Commissioner Summa added that hedging was an option to keep people out and provide privacy 18 but also let many species through. 19 Kelly Cha noted the Minor Exception only applies to low-density properties. With the comment 20 letter received from the Creekside property applicant, she questioned if PTC agrees that stay as 21 is or wanted to broaden to other zoning districts or types of developments. 22 Commissioner Hechtman was okay with the concept that the Minor Exception process was for 23 low-density residential because most other projects would go through some level of Design 24 Review. 25 Vice-Chair Reckdahl, Chair Chang, Commissioner Akin, and Commissioner Summa agreed. 26 Commissioner Lu asked if existing multifamily was also covered. 27 Kelly Cha explained the draft ordinance lists the zoning districts, not the type of residential 28 development, so it would apply to any multifamily development within those zoning districts as 29 written. 30 Coleman Frick added that Staff will look into the effects on different types of residential 1 developments per regulations in the Housing Element and will provide additional details at the 2 next revision. 3 MOTION 4 Commissioner Akin moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. 5 SECOND 6 Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 7 VOTE 8 A voice vote was conducted, which carried 6-0-1. 9 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 10 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Akin, seconded by Vice-Chair Reckdahl. Motion 11 passed 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 12 13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 14 3. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes of May 15 29, 2024 16 MOTION 17 Commissioner Summa motioned to approve the draft minutes of May 29, 2024, as revised. 18 SECOND 19 Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 20 VOTE 21 A voice vote was conducted, which carried 6-0-1. 22 MOTION PASSED 7-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 23 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Summa, seconded by Vice-Chair Reckdahl. Motion 24 passed 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 25 26 4. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary 1 Minutes of July 10, 2024 2 MOTION 3 Commissioner Summa motioned to approve the draft verbatim minutes and summary minutes 4 of July 10, 2024, as revised. 5 SECOND 6 Commissioner Lu seconded the motion. 7 VOTE 8 A voice vote was conducted, which carried 6-0-1. 9 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 10 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Summa, seconded by Commissioner Lu. Motion 11 passed 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 12 13 5. Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary Minutes of August 14 14, 2024 15 MOTION 16 Commissioner Summa motioned to approve the Planning and Transportation Commission draft 17 summary minutes of August 14, 2024, as revised. 18 SECOND 19 Vice-Chair Reckdahl seconded the motion. 20 VOTE 21 A voice vote was conducted, which carried 6-0-1. 22 MOTION PASSED 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 23 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Summa, seconded by Vice-Chair Reckdahl. Motion 24 passed 6-0-1 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Summa yes; Templeton absent) 25 26 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS 27 Commissioner Akin reminded the public and Commission about the Downtown Housing Plan 1 Open House in the Community Meeting Room the following night at 6 PM. He gave thoughts for 2 the millions of people going through Hurricane Milton, including his family members. 3 4 ADJOURNMENT 5 Chair Chang adjourned the meeting at 9:55 PM. 6